Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-1158 Daniels v. The Area Plan Commission of Allen County (57819)

By: dmc-admin//September 16, 2002//

01-1158 Daniels v. The Area Plan Commission of Allen County (57819)

By: dmc-admin//September 16, 2002//

Listen to this article

“Here there is no determination that commercial development in and of itself would serve some overriding public purpose. In fact there is no limit as to the actual commercial or residential purposes that HNS may use the property. Under sec. 3-6-13-2 of the Allen County Zoning Ordinance land zoned C-2A may be used to provide ‘goods and services that meet day-to-day needs.’ However, owners of areas that are zoned C-2A may also use the property for most C-1A and C-1 uses such as ‘a service station, a tire store, a car wash, a laundromat, a tavern, a package liquor store, a massage salon, a bowling alley, a pool hall, billboards, and manufactured or mobile homes.’ See Daniels, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 351. As the Daniels point out, the impact on the community depends on the use to which the property is put, and without knowing the use, the Plan Commission could not reasonably find that the vacation of the covenant could benefit the community. The only common feature to all of the potential future commercial uses of the Lots would be to confer a private benefit on HNS either through their own development of the Lots or the sale of the property to a developer. The underlying purpose of a government taking that transfers a property interest to a private entity must be for a public benefit, and in this case any speculative public benefit would be incidental at best.

“Secondly, the Plan Commission did not find that any eventual commercial development would be an asset to the community, merely that it could be an asset to the community. This type of possible public use does not satisfy the Fifth Amendment requirements.

“The public use requirement would be rendered meaningless if it encompassed speculative future public benefits that could accrue only if a landowner chooses to use his property in a beneficial, but not mandated, manner.

“In sum, because the Plan Commission has not followed legislative determinations of what constitutes a valid public use, nor provided any facts that demonstrate that the covenant vacation is substantially related to a public interest, we conclude that the Plan Commission has violated the public use requirement of the Takings Clause by vacating the restrictive covenant for a private purpose.”

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lee, J., Manion, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests