10/03/1994 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

August 1994 Keeping Up Page 13 Park Dedication Is Still Legal! We have had a number of phone "legitimate state interest" (genuine City to find a factual basis for its calls expressing concern over the public requirement)for which the City dedication requirement. implications of a recent Supreme Court wants the property and the required , Can we still get parkland?Yes.This decision involving a public easement for dedications.The Court agreed that case is similar to the 1987 case,Nolan a pedestrian pathway. In this s cific prevention of flooding in the floodplain v. California Coastal Commission and instance the Supreme Court determined and reduction of traffic congestion by merely refines the law. the city did not provide a justifiable providing a pathway were legitimate What must we do?In the future, if reason for acquiring the property. government interests. cities intend to require park dedication Does this mean you cannot secure But the Court stated that although in exchange for plat and subdivision park property via development the City's interests were legitimate, the approval, or various permits, a city is agreements?Absolutely not! As you can City still had to demonstrate that the going to (1)have to demonstrate how see by reading the following article, dedication of the greenway and pathway the dedication requirement promotes a courtesy of our Association attorneys, had a sufficiently close relationship to legitimate public interest;and(2) Severson,Wilcox and Sheldon,you can accomplishing the City's purpose. The provide a factual basis why the proposed still secure park dedication.Pay Court examined the City's reasons for use of the subject property sufficiently particular attention to the final requiring the property. The City had impacts the public so that the park paragraph! made a finding that increased storm dedication is necessitated by the water would flow from the expanded development. For example, if a Store into the floodplain requiring more developer intends to create a residential Dedication of management of the floodplain.The City community, dedication of a park area is had also found that the expanded use of necessary to alleviate overburdening Park Land the parcel-would increase traffic other park areas by the increased congestion and the pathway would brought in b the residential we can still get park land. population g y Rmcntly, the United States Supreme provide an alternate means of development and to satisfy the Court decided the extent a city can transportation that"could" ease some of legitimate government interest of require dedication of land for park and the increased congestion. providing recreational areas for the playground space in conjunction with The Court held that the City's citizens of that city. City staff should development. In Dolan v. City of reasons for requiring the owner to give present the Council with population Tigard,a plumbing and electric supply up the property were not sufficient.The numbers, statistics of park use, store owner sought to expand the size of court held that a required dedication geographical location,etc., to enable the the store and applied to the city for a must be"roughly proportionate" or, Council to make acceptable findings building permit.The expansion and generally equal, to the nature and the supporting why the park dedication in intensified use were permitted by the extent of impact of the proposed that case is necessary. city's zoning regulations. The city's development. The Court said that the planning commission granted the permit City had not demonstrated why application but required the store owner requiring a public easement from the to dedicate part of her property lying store owner permitting recreational within the floodplain for greenway and visitors along the floodplain easement also required dedication•of an additional aided the City's flood control instead of 15-foot strip of land next to the just prohibiting construction within the agen�� floodplain that would be used as a floodplain and requiring a private public pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The easement. area of the pathway amounted to nearly The court also stated that the City 10%of the total size of the property. had not demonstrated that the additional 0&1 The store owner sued claiming that traffic caused by an expanded use of the requiring dedication of these areas in property owner's parcel was reasonably ,1�V(0 ". exange for the permit was an related to the City's requirement for 6 ti SO S u stitutional taking of her property dedication of a pathway easement.The ope•. 1,g00' g.9�5 for which she should be compensated. Court did not accept the City's .1� The United States Supreme Court "conclusory statement that [the stated that the city must demonstrate Pathway] could offset some of the traffic that"essential nexus" (essential demand generated"by a plumbing and connection)exists between the electrical supply store but required the