Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 6 -- ~arch 15, 1996 z.a. Livingston County Board of Social Services v. Department of Social Services, 5,~9 iV. W. 2d 308 (1995). Albrigh} v. Portage, 470 N.W. 2d 657 (1991). Taking m ~... ssociation Calls County's Cash Proffer Policy Unconstitutional Nationc4l Association of Home Builders of the United States v. Chester~eld County, 907 ESupp. 166 (Virginia) 1995 The county of Chesterfield, Va., adopted an ordinance that allowed it to accept cash!proffers. To guide the county in accepting proffers, its Board of Supervisor~ adopted a policy for calculating the most money a residential rezoning a~plicant could tender with an application. The policy outlined a [ . process thrqugh which the county determined what a new home would cost it "in terms o[ providing public facilities such as schools, roads, parks, etc." Under the p~)licy, $5,083 per lot was the most applicants were asked to proffer. The National Association of Home Builders of the United States sued the county in fqderal court. Although the association had not applied for rezon- lng, it clamied the county's enactment of the policy was an unconstitutional taking with6.ut just compensation. The association said the policy made people pay cash to ~et favorable action on residential rezoning applications. It claimed the county rbally made all applicants pay the $5,083 maximum proffer, so the proffer take~ from any individual might not be roughly proportional to the proposed deyelopment. Both parities asked the court for judgment without a trial. DECISION:i County's motion for judgment without a trial granted. The assdciation did not show the county's enactment of the policy was an unconstitutic~nal taking. The county was entitled to judgment without a trial. When th9 county enacted the policy, it did not physically occupy any prop- erty and did Inot deprive any property of all economically beneficial use. The policy substantially advanced the legitimate state interest of providing for capital improvements the county would have to make because of develop- ment. County officials could apply it so the fee each applicant had to pay would be "r~elated both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." The policy said $5,083 was the maximum anyone had to pay, and that amount was determined based on the average cost to the county of a new home. ~he policy did not say anyone had to proffer any money to get a rezoning request approved~ so the assoc~atmn failed in its argument that ev- eryone had tO pay the maximum for approval. Dolan v. ~ity of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (1994). Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, ]00 S. Ct. 2]38, 65 L.Ed. 2d ]06 (]980). Notice ~ A@plicants Say Opponent Sent Complaints Too Late Bremer v.~'.~ Josephine County, 909 _P..2d 896 (Oregon) 1996 [ The Jose~)hine County (Ore.) Land Use Board of Appeals made several t'tl