X hits on this document

119 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

32 / 52

No.

2006AP450

in Dur-Bar Realty stated that the Planned Residential District in Wappingers Falls did not appear "in any way unusual in

topography or location use proposals to case

so by

as

case

to justify the

subjection of

decision."

Dur-Bar

Realty,

all 394

N.Y.S.2d

at

916.

In

contrast,

the

court

in

Dur-Bar

Realty

concluded that the flood plain ordinance assessment of the character of the land in

was "a product of light of the public

health and safety interests in being and other hazards that would result

protected against from building in

flooding an area

unsuitable for intensive development."

¶46

State

ex

rel.

Nagawicka

Id. Island

Corp.

v.

City

of

our

conclusion 2d 23, 343

Wis.

the was

landowner only two

unreasonable.

117

In Nagawicka

Island,

because the

island

Delafield,

supports

that precluding any use is N.W.2d 816 (Ct. App. 1983). was prohibited from building acres and zoned A-1, which

prevented building

25.

The

court

on lots of less than three acres.

Id.

of

appeals

concluded

that

"when

at 24- zoning

classifications extent that it

restrict cannot

the enjoyment of property be used for any reasonable

to such

an

purpose,

a

taking without due process rely on our takings clause

occurs." Id. jurisprudence

at 27. today,

While we do not as the court of

appeals did in Nagawicka Island,

our

conclusion

that

providing

the no

rationale use is

employed supports

an

unreasonable

restriction. ¶47 In the case at hand, governing the B-2 District is

we conclude that the ordinance arbitrary and unreasonable, in

that it precludes any use as of right in the B-2 District and 30

Document info
Document views119
Page views119
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 07:16:23 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments