Laserfiche WebLink
31] r <br /> AUGUST TERM, 1972. <br /> 21 i . _, <br /> Just v. Marinette Count I '. <br /> County,b6 Wis.2d 7. <br /> were prevented from improving k <br /> dential or commercial g such property for resi- -1 ; <br /> cases may purposes. While some of these <br /> y be distinguished on their facts, it is doubtful <br /> whether these differences go to the basic rationale which <br /> permeates the decision that an owner has a right to use <br /> his property in an <br /> fit. In Dooley V.any way and for any purpose he sees t <br /> 151 Conn. 304,ley 197 Atl. 2d `� Zoning Comm. (1964), <br /> tion on land located in a flood the di district prevented re rated ` s <br /> its being plain prevented <br /> g used for residential or business 4 <br /> thus the restriction destroyed the economic pvalue to the and <br /> owner. <br /> The court recognized the land was needed for <br /> a public purpose as it was part of the area in which the M <br /> tidal stream overflowed when ' x' s <br /> existed, but the property abnormally high tides - 3 <br /> and therefore could not be used or marina or the ocean L, <br /> Purposes. In Morris County boathouse I <br /> Tarsi y Land Improvement Co. a <br /> Parsippany-Troy Hills Township (1963), 9, <br /> 193 Atl. 2d 232, p (1..63), 40 N. J. 539, r`� ,. <br /> a flood basin zoning <br /> volved which required the controversial ordinance <br /> and cto be re- �x <br /> tained in its natural state. , <br /> of a 1,500-acre swamp The plaintiff owned 66 acres �' <br /> and acted as p which was part of a river �r <br /> a natural detention basin for flood waters <br /> in times of very heavy rainfall. There was an extraneous <br /> issue that the freezing � � <br /> stopgap until such time as the government would b as e <br /> property under a flood-control buy the , <br /> court took the view the zoning project. However, the § <br /> g had an effect of treservv <br /> in • any as an open space P as a wa 1"r.f <br /> an on er-t etention basin ' ' ., <br /> Y e governor• x <br /> o com , e pu• lc wou d be benefited, <br /> e e ama e o a owner. <br /> In tate v. �.. <br /> Johnson (Me. 1970 t <br /> Wetlands Act restricted the alteration 6and tuse o 711, the <br /> i <br /> wetlands without P e n <br /> permission. The act was a conservation <br /> measure enacted under the y <br /> ecology of areas bordering Police power to protect the <br /> g the coastal waters. The plain- ' 'P <br /> dE M <br /> 8 Tsic, I <br /> 1 <br /> 1 t 4:45 <br /> i- <br /> � ? <br /> S A� - <br /> ■ <br />