For each case, here's a
the whole case, then a look at how the case applies to Cochise County
P&Z. These are SUMMARIES of complex cases; you should
the link to the whole cases and read them for yourself.
says that P&Z may
require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a
permit, where the right has little or no relationship to the
permit. The necessary connection required by the Fifth
is "rough proportionality;" precise equivalence isn't required, but
there must be an individualized determination that the right given up
is related in nature and extent to the permit obtained.
says that if P&Z
legitimately forbid a particular land use, then P&Z can
the use upon the owner's concession of some property rights, IF the
concession furthers the same governmental purpose that allows entirely
prohibiting the use.
says that P&Z
that deprives land of all economically beneficial use generally
constitutes "taking the land," and requires the county to pay just
compensation to the owner.
says that if the county
pay just compensation to a property owner, the compensation must start
from the time the property was taken.
says that a suit to
challenge a P&Z decision can be filed only if the decision is
final, but also that even if you took property after a P&Z
became final, you can still challenge if the decision was extreme and
says that not every
prevention of an owner's use of property constitutes a taking which
requires compensation; for instance, ordinary delays during processing
permits do not constitute such a taking.
you "go to
the mattresses" on any of these points, you must have an
attorney. And fine points will come up in
cases; for instance, if P&Z unreasonably refused to
permit for a long time, during which property sustained
damage, then a court might find P&Z's delay to be a
"taking of property" for which the county must compensate an
owner. If P&Z was unreasonable and frivolous during a
suit, the county might also have to pay the citizen's legal