COM 0400.092 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

More commonly, courts often interpret authority as implied under these more general zoning enabling legislation.2 • Home rule. Hawaii's constitution empowered the counties with home rule, which allows the counties to adopt a wide range of legislation so long as the legislation is not specifically preempted by state legislation.3 If development approval is deferred, is there a temporary "taking" of private rights? An applicant may challenge the concurrency regulation as an economic taking where development is deferred pending the availability of public facilities needed to meet the level of service standards. Because the economic hardship is not permanent, the applicant could argue that it is a "temporary taking" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.4 Cases decided since that U.S. Supreme Court case indicate that a denial of all use for a reasonable, temporary period of time does not result in a taking based on the reasoning that the deprivation was "qualified by its defined duration."5 concurrency regulations address the taking issue in the following ways: 1) when applied only to rezonings, viable alternative uses of the property may proceed under existing zoning designations; 2) the level of timing restrictions are scaled to the extent the public facilities relate to public health and safety (e.g., parks are related more to general welfare rather than public health and safety and therefore the timing for concurrency is more lenient); 3) the regulations provide options for the applicant to mitigate the impact in exchange for development approval. Is concurrency just a means to extort greater than proportionate contributions from developers? Exactions must be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the proposed development; any excess is a taking where the applicant should be compensated.b concurrency regulations address this concern in the following ways: I) reimbursement programs by govetnment or subsequent applicants repay the applicant's advances for the costs in excess of the applicant's proportionate contribution; 2) other financing mechanisms such as improvement districts or applicant's proportionate repayment of county general obligation bonds for the public facility project are available; 3) distinguish voluntary contributions from the applicant which are not subject to constitutional challenge; 4) level of service standards distinguish deficiencies due to existing development from deficiencies caused by the proposed development. See for example, Golden v. Ptanning Board of Ramapo, 30 N.Y.2d 359, 285 N.E.2d 291, 334 N.Y.2d 138, appeal diss'd, 409 U.S. 1003 (1972), which found the requisite authority under the broad Standard Zoning Enabling Act. ' State of Hawaii Constitution, Article VIII, §2: "Each political subdivision shall have the power to frame and adopt a charter for its own self-government within such limits and under such procedures as may be provided by general law...." In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court decided for the first time that a regulation that fails the takings analysis is subject to h' Amendment's compensation requirement even if it is in effect for only a temporary period of time. s Woodbury Place Partners v. City of Woodbury, 492 N. W.2d 258 (Minn.App. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 2929 (1993) (city adopted a 2-year moratorium following an access improvement study along a highway interchange). ~ Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1 l4 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). ~ See for example, Leroy Land v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 939 F.2d 696 (9'" Cir. 1991). 3