The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court. did not err in granting defendant-County’s motion for summary judgment in a Section 1983 action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff’s due process rights, as well as constructively took plaintiff’s property without adequate compensation when defendant rescinded commercial zoning designation on portion of plaintiff’s property pursuant to state appellate court ruling in lawsuit filed by plaintiff that had requested court to make permanent said commercial designation.
Bettendorf acquired property that was zoned agricultural-residential. Several years later, Bettendorf began operating a carpet sales company as well as an excavating company on the property. When he applied in 1984 to rezone a portion of his property to commercial so he could operate a truck terminal, the Zoning and Parks Committee approved his request. The request was approved on the condition, however, that Bettendorf only use the commercial re-zoning. In other words, the Committee did not want the commercial re-zoning to be transferred. His limited permit became a part of an ordinance which was later invalidated by the Court of Appeals. Bettendorf argued that the removal of the commercial zoning designation after the invalidation of the ordinance constitutes a taking for which he is entitled to relief. Additionally, Bettendorf argued that his substantive and procedural due process rights were violated by the state court proceedings and resulting decision which revoked the ordinance.
Here, the Court noted that in order to constitute a taking, an individual would have to be deprived of all or substantially all practical uses of his property. In this instance, Bettendorf retained full use of his property for agricultural and residential purposes. Moreover, the Court explained that the property was restored to its intended use at the time Bettendorf acquired it.
As to the due process claims, the Court determined that Bettendorf failed to make out a compensable claim primarily because the County’s decision to revoke the commercial designation was not arbitrary and did not shock the conscious. Importantly, the Court noted that the invalidation of the ordinance was at the order of a court. With regard to the procedural due process claims, Bettendorf availed himself of the remedies guaranteed by state law and therefore, was afforded adequate process. The fact that Bettendorf had an alternative administrative remedy in County Code to review zoning designation did not translate into finding that due process given to him in instant state-court review was inadequate where he was given a full opportunity to rebut the defendant’s claim that ordinance giving him conditional zoning designation was invalid in its entirety.
Bettendorf v. St Croix County, 631 F.3d 421 (C.A.7 1/20/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/6C1FFV7E.pdf
