Agenda - 11-25-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• § 8.03[2] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-54 value is not enough to prove that a zoning regulation is confisca- • tory.14 Moreover, a zoning ordinance generally will not be held unconstitutional merely because it prohibits a landowner from using or developing his land in the most profitable manner.rs • } 14 See,eg.. Matter of Golden v.Planning Bd.of Town of Ramapo,30 NY2d 359, • 381. 334 NYS2d 138, 154, 285 NE2d 291, 304, (1972)app dism'd 409 US 1003 (1972)where the court stated: fi • "Every restriction on the use of property entails hardships for some individual owners.These difficulties are invariably the product of police regulation and the pecuniary profits of the individual must in the long run be subordinated to the needs of the community.** •The fact that the ordinance limits the use of,and may depreciate the value of.the property will not render it unconstitutional, however,unless it can be shown that the measure is either unreasonable in terms • . . of necessity or the diminution in value is such as to be tantamount to a confisca. a 2: Lion." • See also HMI,Ltd.v.Superior Court of Los,Angeles County, 15 Cal3d 508, 125 • Cal Rptr 365(1975),cart denied 96 S Ci 1495(1976). 13 See,a&,Guaclddes v.Borough of Englewood Cliffs,11 NJ Super 405,78 A2d 435(1951).A zoning amendment changed all multifamily dwelling districts within a borough to single family zones,with the exception of a small area at one end.No apartment houses or other multifamil y structures had ever been built in the bor- ough.The New Jersey court held that the amendment,as applied to a large tract of land upon which houses could be built only at high cost,did not constitute an • unconstitutional taking of property. • See also Arkansas City of Little Rock,v. Sun Bldg. and Devel. Co., 199 Ark 333, 134 . SW2d 582(1940). California Metro Realty v.County of Eldorado,222 Cal App2d 508,35 Cal Rptr 480(1963). Kentucky, Blancett v.Montgomery,398 SW2d 877, 10 ALR3d 1220(Icy 1966). • 43` Cf. Roark v.City of Caldwell,87 Idaho 557,394 P2d 641(1964),where the Idaho • Supreme Court ruled.that a city ordinance that restricted the height of structures • and limited the use of land adjacent to an airport to agricultural uses and single • family dwelling was unconstitutional.Declaring that there would be a loss in value to the affected property if the restrictions were enforced,the court found a taking of private proms` public blic use in the constitutional sense. Moreover,since no compensation had been provided for the taking of such property,the ordinance was • declared invalid. . :• As a general rule,where the zoning action goes beyond the mere diminution of market value and instead has the substantial effect of depriving the landowner of • any reasonable or beneficial use of his property,d,e.,there is a de facto prohibition of all uses of the property so as to amount to a complete diminution in value,there may be a taking of property in violation of constitutional guarantees.See.e.g., Fred • • • • P M xi • •