My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCAgenda_95Jun26
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
199x
>
1995
>
PCAgenda_95Jun26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2009 8:31:16 AM
Creation date
7/6/2009 4:15:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />example, if a subdivision meets all ordinance standards except one, <br />the council could deny the application or it could grant a variance. If <br />it approves the variance, it can impose conditions only related to that <br />variance, not to any other impacts from the development. <br />3. Even if there is a legitimate public purpose, if the regulation denies the <br />owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land, there is a <br />taking.68 This is called a "categorical taking." <br />4. An exception to a categorical taking exists when the regulation <br />prohibits something which would have been prohibited by the state's <br />property or nuisance laws.69 This is a very narrow exception which is <br />not likely to be used very extensively. <br />5. The government must prove the validity of its requirements for <br />dedicating land or easements. The government must prove a "rough <br />proportionality", that the "required dedication is related both in nature <br />and extent to the impact o.f the proposed development. "70 <br />6. The government must make an individualized determination that there <br />• is a rough proportionality in each case. This raises serious doubt <br />about whether cities may use a flat percentage fee or dollar amount <br />for park dedication fees." <br />7. If there has been a taking, the government must pay for the damages <br />incurred by the landowner during the time that the unconstitutional <br />regulation was in effect.72 <br />B. State Cases. <br />1. In deciding whether there has been a denial of all economically viable <br />use of the property, the court must look at the entire bundle of <br />property rights. Therefore, denial of development for atwo-year <br />period does not deny all economically viable use because the property <br />could be developed both before and after the moratorium.73 <br />2. Even if there is a substantial governmental purpose and there is still <br />some economically viable use of the property, there may be a <br />"taking." The court will look at (a) the economic impact of the <br />regulation, (b) the extent to which the regulation interferred with <br />investment-backed expectations, and (c) the character of the <br />regulation.74 <br />• <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.