Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

goB. May 15, 1995 -- Page 3 through e~tablished legislative procedures, the council members had absolute immunity,i This was true even though the legal notices misidentified the rezon- ing classit~ication. The council voided the approved plans not to enact ~any new laws, but to enforce e~.isting zoning laws against a single parcel of land. Therefore, it was an adminigtrative not legislative w act, and the council members were not entitled toilegislative immunity. However, they were entitled to qualified im- munity, w~ich is immunity for violating a right that was not clearly established when the ~lleged violation occurred. If Acierno had a vested right to develop his properiy according to the approved plan, that right was not s0. clearly estab- lished thai the council members and the attorney who advised them could be held accountable for violating it. It was not certain that Acierno had a right to rely on tke plan approval before he got a building permit and significantly started th~ project. Jodec4 Inc. v. Hann, 674 ESupp. 488 (1987).. ~ Aitchi4on v. Raffiani, 708 E2d 96 :(1983).. Conditional Approval-- County Makes Developer Build Drainage System Christopher Lake Development Co. v. St. Louis County, 35 E3d 1269 (Missouri) 1994 Christ~ ~pher Lake Development Co. bought land in St. Louis County, Mo., intending ~:) develop two residential communities, Waterford Estates and Chris- topher La! e Estates. Part of the land had sinkholes,.which are natural holes in the limesff.ne that allow storm water to drain underground. The cciunty's preliminary approval of the projects was conditioned on the company'~ providing a storm.water drainage system. In so doing; the company had to cor~ply with design criteria that the county Department of Highways and Traffit~ enacted. The county interpreted the design criteria so that the com- pany had tO have a drainage system from sinkholes on its property to sinkholes on other p:~operties and, ultimately, to the Meramec River. When he company complained that the design criteria required it to pro- vide draimige for the entire watershed area (of which the company owned about 12 percenl }, the county scheduled a hearing before its Public Improvements Committec~. Durihg the hearing, the company asked that it be required to pay only its proportionate share of the costs of complying with the design criteria. The department director told the company it would have to pay for the drain- age syste~ up front, but would be reimbursed later. The county then approved the site i]evelopment plan for Christopher Lakes, and requir~d~ the company to place in escrow the funds for the drainage system. The count~ refused to approve the site development plan for Waterford Estates until the d',tainage system was completed. Later, the Waterford plan was ap- proved af? the company got easements from its neighbors and built a $465,000 drainage system. When !he county rejected the company's claims for reimbursement, the