Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Page 4 -- May 15, 1995 Z.B. company sued. It alleged the design criteria were unconstitutional and that the county violated its rights by making it provide drainage for the entire water- shed. The court found the company's claims about how the county applied the design criteria were not ready for the court to decide, and that the criteria did not violate the federal Constitution. The company appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the trial court. The trial court could decide the claims regarding the design criteria be- cause the county made a final decision about them. The county harmed the company by refusing to reimburse it for the drainage system. Although the trial court properly found the criteria constitutional, the county applied them in an unconstitutional manner. Requiring the company to provide drainage for the entire watershed vio- lated its constitutional equal protection rights. The county had a legitimate interest in ensuring that the area was properly drained, but it could not put that burden on one landowner. The company could get reimbursement for amounts it spent beyond its fair share. The trial court had to determine these amounts. Dolan v. City. of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (1994). Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.& 825 (1987). Conditional Approval m City Makes Owner Dedicate Land to Widen Streets Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 884 P. 2d 569 (Oregon) 1994 Schultz owned 3.85 acres of land in the city of Grants Pass, Ore. He ap- plied.for a development permit to divide the lot in two. The city conditionally approved the application. One of'the conditions required Schultz to dedicate (without compensation) 20,000 square feet ofland to widen neighboring streets. The city said the conditions were needed because the neighboring streets would be used more ifSchultz developed the divided property. Schultz asked the Land Use Board of Appeals to review the decision, but it refused because the city's decision was not a land use decision. Schultz sued the city, arguing the conditions violated the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution, which prevents takings of land for public use with- out compensation. The court found for the city, and Schultz appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The conditions were unconstitutional because they amounted to an inap- propriate taking of property without compensation. There was no connection between the conditions and the projected impact of the proposed development. The proposed development divided a single lot in two; it did not seek to build numerous homes. There was no connection between Schultz's limited application and the requirement that he give up 20,000 square feet without