Opinion ID: 1247763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Extent to Which The Change Will Detrimentally Affect Nearby Property

Text: Landau argues that the City offered no evidence that the rezoning would be detrimental to nearby property. Landau misidentifies the burden of proof in land use litigation. It is Landau who carries the burden of proving the unreasonableness of the City's action. The City was not required to produce such evidence. Landau contends that the commercial development he proposes would be beneficial to the residential property to the west as it would provide a buffer between the residential and light industrial areas. His motivation in planning this area was to protect the subdivision he was developing to the west. Annabeth Surbaugh spoke before the City Council, representing the Association for the Future Development of College Boulevard. She stated that the group opposed commercial development west of Antioch and that the reasons for the opposition had been stated previously. It appears that these reasons were not made clear to Landau at the time of the City Council decision; however, he learned of those reasons prior to his appeal to the district court. At the May 5, 1986, City Council meeting, the Council considered the Fishman application, a rezoning request for the northwest corner of 127th Street and Antioch. Surbaugh also appeared at this meeting and stated the following reasons for the Association's position: (1) any commercial west of Antioch sets a precedent for commercial along 127th Street. (2) It does not meet with the spirit of the Master Plan (the Master Plan shows 127th Street to be residential). (3) Two schools are proposed near 127th and Switzer and the committee would like to keep the school and commercial traffic as separate as possible as well as protect walkers. (4) The residents and the committee believe that commercialization at 127th Street would cause the property values to decline. These objections appear to be the previously stated objections that Surbaugh referred to at the June 16 meeting. The Fishman and Landau applications were perceived by the City Council as presenting essentially identical issues. Both applications were denied.