Case No. 2010-1196 Richard Clifton v. Village of Blanchester

 

Date

09-06-2011

Duration

00:37:12

Download

Download File : 360p
 
 
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
Width : px Height : px
Code :
 Facebook Embed : To embed this video into your Facebook page, copy and paste the above URL into Facebook's 'Link' box in its 'Share' options.
Please Note : End points and dimensions are not recognized by Facebook.
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
URL :
 
Can Owner of Property Outside City Sue for Loss of Value Based on Rezoning of Adjacent Property?

Nonresidents Claim City’s Action Was ‘Partial Taking’ of Their Property

Richard Clifton v. Village of Blanchester, Case no. 2010-1196
12th District Court of Appeals (Butler County)

NOTE: The two cases captioned above will be argued separately at the Court’s Sept. 6. Oral argument session. They are summarized together here because both raise the same legal issue, and the parties in both cases advance very similar arguments.

ISSUE: When a city or other political subdivision grants an application for zoning or rezoning of property located within its geographic boundaries, do the owners of adjacent properties that are located outside of the political subdivision have legal standing to pursue a lawsuit against the subdivision based on a claim that the zoning has significantly reduced the value of their property, and therefore constitutes a partial regulatory “taking” of that property for which the owners are entitled to compensation?
 
 
TimeTitle
00:00:58Gregory J. Demos for Richard Clifton
00:20:36Lawrence E. Barbiere for the Village of Blanchester
00:36:04Summation: Gregory J. Demos for Richard Clifton