![]() The Board's denial of that request cannot possibly tell this court the extent to which Cobb County will allow the plaintiff to develop its land. Plaintiff has submitted one application to have its property rezoned. Landmark Land Development Company of Oklahoma v. A "final" decision requires not only rejection of a particular proposal for land development but also definite action by local authorities indicating, with some specificity, what level of development will be permitted on the property in question. It follows from the very nature of a takings claim that the government must have made a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property before a taking can occur. It is well established that a claim that a zoning regulation effects a taking of property is not ripe until "the government entity charged with implementing the regulation has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulation to the property at issue." Williamson, 473 U.S. Therefore, it has not stated a claim through § 1983 under the Just Compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment. Further, the court finds that the plaintiff has not sought compensation for its property through procedures made available by the state. Therefore, under the first prong of Williamson the plaintiff may not maintain an action for a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment or for a Due Process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court finds that the decision of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners with respect to the property at issue is not a final decision. Id.ĭefendants claim that plaintiff has not satisfied either of the Williamson criteria, and, therefore, its claim cannot be heard by this court at this time. First the decision of the Commission regulating the use of plaintiff's land must be a "final" decision and second, the plaintiff must have availed itself of state and local procedures for obtaining just compensation. The Supreme Court has established two prerequisites to a federal court's consideration of a takings claim resulting from a local zoning decision. Plaintiff also filed this § 1983 suit alleging that defendants' failure to rezone the Cobb County property amounted to a violation of the Takings clause of 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.ĭefendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that plaintiff's claims are not ripe for adjudication in this court. Calibre filed a suit in Cobb Superior Court challenging the validity of defendants' actions and of the existing zoning classifications under the Georgia Constitution. In January of 1989, plaintiff filed two lawsuits concerning the denial of its application for rezoning. Plaintiff's application was denied by the Board in December of 1988. On or about October 18, 1988, plaintiff submitted an application to the Board of Commissioners to rezone its property to "RM-12" for the purpose of building apartments thereon. The zoning ordinances of Cobb *1579 County classify the plaintiff's property "R-30" and "RM-8". Plaintiff, Calibre Spring Hill, ("Calibre"), a limited partnership authorized to do business in Georgia, is the owner of approximately 19.4 acres of real property in Cobb County. Plaintiff has named Cobb County and the individual members of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners in their official capacities as defendants. § 1983 for the permanent taking of its property. The Cobb County Board of Commissioners denied plaintiff's application for rezoning, and plaintiff brought this suit alleging violations of its federal constitutional rights and seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. ![]() This case arises out of plaintiff's (Calibre Spring Hill's) attempt to have real property it owns in Cobb County, Georgia rezoned. This case is before the court on Plaintiff's motion to strike certain defenses from defendants' answer and on defendants' motion to dismiss. Robert Frederick Webb, Haynie Webb & Litchfield, Marietta, Ga., for defendants. Degnan, George Conley Ingram, Nancy Glenn, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff. CALIBRE SPRING HILL, LTD., (a Georgia Limited Partnership) Plaintiff,ĬOBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, Phil Secrest, in his official capacity of Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Emmett Burton, Thea Powell, Harriet Smith, and Harvey Paschal, each in their official capacity as members of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners, Defendants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |