PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 15 J Palazzolo v.Rhode Island,533 A taking might occur even when a purchaser buys property and is aware of a U.S.606,121 S.Ct.2448 zoning ordinance that may restrict the intended use. However,background (2001). principles derived from state law may limit a claimant's property interest. First English Evangelical If a zoning or land use regulation is so restrictive as to deny property owners Lutheran Church v.Los Angeles reasonable use of their property,they may recover monetary damages for the County,482 U.S.304,107 S. Ct.2378(1987). period the restriction was in effect,regardless of the length of time. This action is referred to as a temporary taking. Tahoe-sierra Pres.Council,Inc. A temporary taking is in the nature of a regulatory taking in which courts will v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning look to the parcel as whole. There is no bright-line rule for regulatory Agency,535 U.S.302,122 S. Ct. 1465(2002). takings; rather, they must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Parranto Bros.,Inc.v City of Minnesota courts have ruled that in order for a taking to occur, the New Brighton,425 N.W.2d 585 application of a land use ordinance must deprive the owner of all reasonable (Minn.App.1985). use of the land.Where a legitimate governmental purpose exists and some economically viable use of the property exists, a taking will not be found. The court will look at the regulation's economic impact, the extent to which the landowner's investment-backed expectations have been diminished by the- regulation, and the general character of the regulation. • C. - Conditional use permits Hubbard Broad.v.City of According to the courts, denial of conditional or special use permits and Afton,323 N W.2d 757(Minn. building permits do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property 1982). where reasonable uses remain. Nollan v.California Coastal No taking occurs where an"essential nexus"exists between a condition that Comm'n,483 U.S.825,107 S. is imposed on a development proposal and the burden on the local unit of Ct.3141(1987). government caused by such development. Dolan v.City of Tigard,512 Cities considering land use permit applications must prove that any U.S.374,114 S Ct.2309 conditions or requirements in the form of land dedications or easements are in (1994). "rough proportionality"to the impact of the proposed development in both nature and extent. The determination that conditions imposed or extractions required are roughly proportional to the impact of the proposal must be made in each individual case. At the very least, cities should give serious consideration to generically applied conditions or extractions, such as using a flat percentage fee or dollar amount for park dedication fees for each type of permissible use subject to variances for special circumstances for particular property. The generic condition, however, should be based on a study of the rough proportional impact of each type of use. r HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES 15-25 This chapter last revised 12/15/2004