Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Z.B. ; May 15, 1995 m Page 5 compensat on to widen city streets. Dolan ~. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (1994). Taking, iOrdinance Requires Landscaping of Parking Lots Parkin~ Association of Georgia Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 450 S.E.2d 200 (Georg!a) 1994 The cit~ of Atlanta, Ga., passed a zoning ordinance that affected surface parking lot.~ with 30 or more spaces in downtown and midtown locations. The ordinance ~equired minimum barrier curbs and landscaping areas equal to at least 10 peicent~ of the paved area within a lot; ground cover (such as pine bark or similar--landscape materials); and at least one tree for every eight parking spaces. At ~ost, landowners could lose 3 percent of their usable parking spaces due to the 6~rdinance. The ordinance was designed to regulate beauty, promote public safely, and improve air quality and water mn-off problems. Severa~ companies that owned surface parking lots sued the city. The own- ers asked t~e court to stop enforcement of the ordinance and to declare it void. The owner~ claimed the ordinance was unconstitutional because it took their property without compensation. The co, irt found that the owners did not prove the ordinance was a 'signifi- cant detrirr ent to landowners, or that it was not related to the public health, 'safety, mot flity, and welfare. The col lrt ruled in the city's favor, and the owners appealed. DECISIOI~[: Affirmed, in favor of the city. The orr inance was valid. It merely regUlated the use of Property, it did not authorize agy taking of property. A loss of up to 3 percent of parking spaces was not a s~gmficant detriment. The ordinance was not an improper exercise of police po~er just because it might diminish the property's value. The ordi- nance had ~ real relation to protecting the public health, safety, morality, and welfare. H & H Operations Inc. v. City of Peachtree City, 283 S.E. 2d 867 (1981). Rockddle County v. Mitchell's Used Auto Parts Inc., 254 S.E.2d 846 (1979). Development -- Developers Challenge Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance F & W~ssociates v. County of Somerset, 648A.2d 482 (New J~. rsey) 1994 F & W iAssociates owned 40 acres of land in Warren Township, N.J. The land was divided into two tracts, one of which bordered Mountain Boulevard, a county ro~d. F&W p[oposed building an office complex on the lot that bordered Moun- tain Boulev~ard. On the rear portion, F&W proposed a subdivision of 117 single- family ho~es and 60 rental units, with two access roads to Mountain Boulevard.