Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellant purchased a parcel of land in downtown Dallas. Its purchase, however, was after the city landmark commission instituted proceedings to consider whether the property should be designated a historic district. Under the Dallas City Code, initiation of the procedure to consider historic designation of the property imposed a moratorium prohibiting the city’s acceptance of all applications for permits to alter or demolish any structure on the property. The moratorium was in effect when appellant submitted its first application for a demolition permit on Sept. 13, 1999. At that time, the city code listed several events that would end the moratorium, including a provision that ends the moratorium on the180th day after the filing date of a written request for hardship relief that has not been granted. On Sept. 28, 1999, the appellant filed a written request for hardship relief from the moratorium. The appellant’s hardship request was not granted. After the denial, but before the 180-day period expired, the city adopted a new ordinance, Ordinance No. 24163, amending its historic regulations to delete the 180-day provision and adding new standards governing applications for demolition permits for properties with pending historic designations or within historic overlay districts. On April 4, 2000, more than 180 days after the date the appellant filed its hardship request, the appellant demanded a demolition permit relying on its application submitted previously in September. The appellees refused, asserting the appellant’s application was incomplete under the newly enacted regulations. On Dec. 13, 2000, the city council passed another ordinance, Ordinance No. 24469, designating 1.13 acres of the appellant’s property, containing a 1907 high school building and a 25 foot no-build zone around the high school, as Historic Overlay District No. 101. The appellant sued the appellees for a writ of mandamus ordering the building official to issue a demolition permit and for damages from the city’s alleged regulatory taking and due process violations. The appellant then moved for partial summary judgment asserting that, under Chapter 245 of the Texas Government Code, its right to demolish all buildings on the property after the 180-day waiting period vested as a matter of law when it submitted its Sept. 13, 1999 application for a demolition permit. The appellees filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment arguing that Chapter 245 did not apply. The trial court denied appellant’s motion and granted the appellees’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment concluding both of the newly enacted ordinances were exempted from the provisions of chapter 245. After a trial before the court on appellant’s due process and regulatory taking claims, the trial court rendered its final take-nothing judgment in favor of appellees. HOLDING:Affirmed. The event that invokes the protections of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 245 is the filing of an application for a permit. The appellant does not challenge the validity of the moratorium that was in place on Sept. 13, 1999, when it attempted to file its application. According to the city code provisions in effect at that time, the city could not accept any applications for demolition permits for appellant’s property. Thus, appellant’s Sept. 13 application was not accepted and therefore not filed as required by Chapter 245. A review of the permit application contained in the summary judgment evidence confirms the application dated Sept. 13 has no “filed” stamp. The application reflects that it was “On hold for Hist.” The Sept. 13 application did not invoke the provisions of Chapter 245, the court concludes. The appellant argues that even if its Sept. 13 application did not trigger the application of Chapter 245, its request for hardship relief filed on Sept. 28, 1999, before the city enacted the two new ordinances, was a permit as defined by Chapter 245 and, thus, entitled it to consideration under the regulations in effect at the time its request for hardship relief was filed. The filing of a request for hardship relief is not a permit to which Chapter 245 applies. The appellant asserts the process by which the city established a historic designation on appellant’s property denied it substantive due process under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. The trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact support the determination that the imposition and duration of the moratorium in question was reasonable and did not violate appellant’s due process rights. The appellant argues it was denied due process because the city unlawfully delegated legislative authority to the landmark commission. The trial court made findings of fact that appellant did not provide any evidence that it gave the Texas Attorney General a reasonable opportunity to enter an appearance and be heard. The appellant did not challenge these findings in its brief. The appellant asserts the trial court erred in concluding the city’s regulations and denial of a demolition permit did not constitute a taking of property in violation of the Texas Constitution. The trial court’s findings that the value of appellant’s property was not entirely destroyed and that there was no significant economic impact or interference with appellant’s reasonable investment backed expectations by the regulations at issue was supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence. The court concludes the trial court did not err in concluding that the city regulations and denial of a demolition permit constituted a regulatory taking of appellant’s property. OPINION:Morris, J.; Morris, Francis and Mazzant, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.