Court Opinion

ID: 9592016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:09:39.622912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:13.714290
License: Public Domain

BEASLEY, Judge,
concurring with separate opinion.
I write separately only to point out that the costs of replacing the private shooting range (i.e. the denominator in the “material alteration” equation laid out by the majority) must include not only the land value at the time of the replacement but also the cost of replacing the use of the land. In concluding that Dr. Land’s changes to his shooting range did not constitute a material alteration under § 7.3.2 of the Village Land Use Ordinance, the trial court compared the cost of the improvements to only the value of the land area used for the range. The trial court, however, was unable to perform the calculation contemplated by the ordinance because it did not have at its disposal any numbers associated with the replacement cost of the land use.
The Village contended that Dr. Land’s firing range lost its grandfathered status when in November 2007 through March 2008 he spent approximately $15,000 on improvements thereto. As support for its determination, the Village argued that Dr. Land had spent $3,000 constructing the range — roughly $2,000 in 1991 when it was first erected and $1,000 to rotate the direction of fire and replace some railroad ties in 1999 — and that the $15,000 spent after the ordinance was adopted equaled 500% of the replacement cost. The $3,000 figure, however, represents the cost of the initial improvement as of 1999, not the replacement cost of the use “at the time of said alteration” between 2007 and 2008. Thus, not only did the Village ignore in its computation of replacement costs any value associated with the land but also failed to present any evidence of the replacement cost of the use at the relevant time under the ordinance. As such, I would qualify the majority’s conclusion — that the Village failed to meet its burden of showing material alteration because it ignored the land value — by emphasizing that the Village Land Use Ordinance also requires consideration of the land use and that the Village likewise neglected to present competent evidence of the cost of replacing said use at the time of the alteration at issue.