PCAgenda_95Jun26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. City Council Findings. • 1. If the council does not state the reasons for its action on the record, there is a presumption that the council's action is arbitrary and unreasonable.59 2. If there are no findings by the council, this shifts the burden to the city to show that its action was reasonable.60 This means the added cost of a trial. 3. Findings that are adopted within a reasonable time are acceptable. For example, findings adopted at the next council meeting are appropriates' If it is a complex matter, additional time may be necessary. 4. The findings must be legally sufficient and factually supported.62 Not all of the findings must meet this test, as long as one does.ss 5. Neighborhood opposition alone is not a legally sufficient reason for denial of an application.64 Such opposition may be considered, however.ss Nltl. THE °TAKINGS" ISSUE. Landowners have increasingly challenged city land use regulations on the basis that the city's action constitutes a "taking" of their property. This is based on the constitutional prohibition against the government taking property without just compensation. In the land use context, this is called a "regulatory taking" because the government is not physically taking the property for its own use. A. Federal Cases. The United States Supreme Court has issued a number of opinions in recent years which have attempted to define when a "taking" occurs. The following summarizes some of the principles from these opinions: 1. The regulation must be reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate government purpose.ss 2. There must be an "essential nexus" f a connection or relationship) between the condition imposed by the government and the burden which the development would cause. If the application can be denied, then a condition can be imposed which serves the same public purpose as that which would support a denial of the applications' For 10