Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 4 -- June 25, I999 Z.B. The city was correct in that the "rough proportionality" test, which consid- ered whether dedications demanded as conditions of development were pro- portional to the development's anticipated impacts, didn't apply where the challenge was based on denial of development. This was irrelevant, however, because although the appeals court considered the rough proportionality test, the jury didn't. The developers were entitled to a jury trial on their takings claim. The question of whether a land use decision advanced a legitimate public interest was a mixed question of fact that might, but not always, be appropriate for a jury. But in this case, the narrow question for the jury was whether, considering the protracted history of the application process, the city's decision was reason- ably related to its justifications--"which was essentially fact-bound in nature." The city's decision was irrational. The city claimed the developers didn't provide adequate access even though they had twice changed the plans to com- ply with the city's access demands. It claimed the development would damage the environment even though'the location was required by the city's demands. Finally, the city claimed the plan would disrupt the natural habitat of the Smith's Blue Butterfly even though the plan would restore buckwheat habitat on al- most half of the property -- and even though only one. larva had ever been found on the property. Citation: City of Mo~terey v. Del Mot~te Dunes at Monterey Ltd., Sul2reme Court of the United States, No. 97~2235 (1999). see also: Williamson County Regio~al?lanning Commissio~ v. Hamilto~ Ba~zk of Johnson Cio~, 473 U.S. J72, 105 S. Ct. 3208, 87L.Ed. 2d 126 (1985). see also: Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, ~t14 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (1994). Code Violation ~ Township says lawn tractors qualify as 'motor vehicles' PENNSYLVANIA (5/6/99) -- Kissell leased property in a commercial district in Ferguson Township. He ran a retail business that sold and rented lawn, gar- den, and recreational equipment. Some of his products, including riding and self-propelled lawn mowers and lawn tractors, were displayed outside the build- ing in the property's front setback ~:ea. The township's zoning officer sent Kissell an enforccmcnt notice stating he was displaying "motor vehicles" in violation of the township zoning ordi- nance, which prohibited displaying or storing "motor vehicles" in setback ar- eas. The zoning officer ordered IGssell to stop violating the ordinance and to bring the property into compliance within one month. Kissell appealed the enforcement fiotice to the zoning appeals board, argu- ing self-propelled lawn mowers and lawn tractors weren't "motor vehicles." He also sought a variance that would allow him to display those items in the setback area.