COM 0042.062 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ash=ord & Wriston 12/17/2003 10:28 PAGE 014/014 Fax Server Under the third standard, proportionality, aresort development o)y say, three hundred units may well generate a need for beach access across the land so developed because of the population increase, but whether such an access world need to be public, as opposed to "residents only" is faz less certain Z. The Constltutlooal Standard Applied Following Nollan, many courts have smock down land development conditions for lack of nexus and/orproperLonality. Por ega*_+!pte, in Art picule(L Group v, Cl?ckattias Cotmty, 912 P.241227 (Ore. App. 1996), an Oregon peals court stnrck down a road dedication requirement fox a 19- lot subdivision even though the county had demonstrated that the county needed the road: "W e do not imply that a development cannot have impacts drat could warrant improvtmetrt conditions that are system wide is scope. Hawever...the detenninaiive factor must be the relationship between the impacts ojthe development and the approval ojthe conditions, and not the extent of the public's need jor road or other improvements that happen to exist at the rime the parNeular development is approved." {at 1236) In /~mncn Oil Co. v Villaee of SchaumburE, 661 N.E.2d 380 (I1L App. Ct. 1995), the court smock down a road widening dedication, holding that We taking of 20'/0 of Amoco's lend for roadway widening purposes on the basis of a .4% increase in traffic caused by the proposed riwvelnpmen; "dn~.a not 00!rS.~Mnd tvi+~ t~ slte3t IIn;innR ofrC~ttgl! propordonaL+ty." 661 N.E2d at 391. Vther examples: Schultz v. Cit~f Grants rase. 884 P.id 56v (vre.App. i 9v4j, saiking down a road dedication; ~i+ot>erty Grouo Inc v Plannin¢ & Zonin¢ Com'n of the Town of Tolland 628 A.2d 1277 {Conn. 1993) atn7cing down road widening dedication; Lexineton-Faverie Urban Count~Gov't v. Schneider. 849 S. W. Zd 557 txy. Ct. App. 1992), striking down bridge dedication requirement; Cobb v. Snohomish Countv, 829P.2d 169 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991), striking down a road improvement fee; Dellinger v. City of Charlotte, 44i S.fi.2d 626 (N.C. Ct. App. i994j striking down a road dedication requirement; Castle Homes tic Dey. v City of Brier. 882 P.2d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) striking down a pex-lol road impact fee. There are literally dozens of additional post-Nollan/Dolan cases striking down various impact fees and exactions for parks, schools, sowers, wator and housing where govemmcnt fails to meet the nexis and proportionality standards imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the foregoing analysis, which draws only upon toadlaccess cases, should be sufficient to demonstrate the inadequate basis of the Draft General Plan in exacting free access to the beach ,let alone parking, as a condition for coastal resort development approval. There is no connection or nexus between such a coasts] resort development and either public parking or beach access. Such a r~°.S.^.rt ,ixiPl~rnnPnf ,rove nni rin~r~ the It~ f^.r 9t:Ch r~lriYnap a~n„1 a..m:e$ ?~Cr°-.n~~~r, ~:~~n :f :t did, the requirement would sorely tack proportionality. The requirement is unconstitutional on its Face. 13