Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 23 <br />tion 66020. Looking to the plain meaning and legislative purpose of section <br />66020, the court found that "other exactions" included actions that divest the <br />developer of money or a possessory interest in property, but not restrictions on <br />the manner in which a developer may use its property. The court said that sec- <br />tion 66499.37 governed the latter. <br />The court concluded that the requirement that Sterling Park set aside 10 of <br />96 condominium units as below market rate housing was an exaction such that <br />the 180-day Mitigation Fee Act statute of limitations on "exactions" imposed <br />on a development, rather than 90-day Subdivision Map Act statute of limita- <br />tions regarding the validity of a condition attached to an agency or appeal <br />board decision, governed Sterling Park's challenge to the requirement. The <br />court also found that the imposition of the in -lieu fees was similar to a "fee," <br />and the requirement that Sterling Park sell units below market rate was similar <br />to a "fee, dedication, or reservation" under section 66020. <br />See also: Fogarty v. City of Chico, 148 Cal. App. 4th 537, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d <br />795 (3d Dist. 2007). <br />See also: Williams Cornmunications, LLC v. City of Riverside, 114 Cal., <br />App. 4th 642, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96 (4th Dist. 2003). <br />Case Note: <br />In this case, the Supreme Court of California disapproved the holding in Trinity Parh, <br />L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1014, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 26 (6th Dist. 2011) <br />(disapproved of by, Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2, 310 <br />P.3d 925 (Cal. 2013)), to the extent that it was inconsistent with the opinion in this <br />case. <br />Jurisdiction —Lakefront property <br />owner seeks to build new dock on <br />lake. <br />Property owner says town Tacks jurisdiction over <br />construction since state owns the land under the <br />navigable water <br />Citation: Hart Family, LLC v. Town of Lake George, 2013 WL 5745757 <br />(N. Y. App. Div. 3d Dep 't 2013) <br />NEW YORK (10/24/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />municipality had jurisdiction over, and thus the authority to grant or deny an <br />application for construction in, a lake where the state owned the land under <br />the navigable waters in its sovereign capacity. <br />The Background/Facts: Hart Family, LLC (the "Harts") owned Lot 9 in <br />the Trinity Rock Estates subdivision in the Town of Lake George, New York <br />2013 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />