Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin of a conditional use permit, but whether the congregation could engage in the uses permitted by the settlement withom first obtaining a permit. In a residential zone, congregational worship was considered a con- ditional use under the city ordinance and required a permit. Before allowing such a use, the city was required to comply with the ordi- nance's procedural formalities, including issuing the factual findings to support permitting the use. Because the city did not satisfy those for- malities when it entered into the settlement, the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. Finally, the city had argued that it was allowed to bypass the zoning requirements in the settlement because a court could approve such a set- tlement if "such a remedy [was] necessary to rectify a violation of feder- allaw." Here, however, there was no finding that a federal violation had occurred, so the lower court should not have approved the settlement. Given the error of the lower court, the decision was reversed. See also: Keith v. Volpe, 118 F.3d 1386 (9th Ci,'. 1997). Taking-Landowner claims village responsible for trespass on his property to install sewer system that rendered his land unusable Village claims case not ripe for federal review Citation: Peters v. Village of Clifton, 2007 WL 2377385 (7th Cir. 2007) The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. ILLINOIS (08/22/07)-Peters owned a parcel of agricultural land that was just outside the limits of the Village of Clifton. The village did not have "home rule," meaI1ing it could not regulate zoning or other mat- ters commonly governed at the local level. There was a public sewage line that ran under the property owned by Peters' neighbor. Peters claimed that his neighbors trespassed orito his land, dug up some old, non-functionirlg sewer tile, and installed new, larger tile at the direction of the v-illage. The newly~installed tile was connected to the village's existing sewage tile "at or about the property line" of his land and that owned by pis neighbor. Peters argued that the village made these improvements in an attempt to make the land that was within the village boundaries suitable for development. Peters sued the village and his neighbor in district court. alleging an unauthorized taking of his property in violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Peters claimed that the installation of the new tile destroyed trees and destabilized his land and rendered several acres of his land unsuitable for farming due to drainage of untreated sewage. 4 50