Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page 6 -- April 10, 2004 All of Heath's alleged injuries in the way of legal expense, alleged slander to title, and inability to use his property were caused by the fact Heath brought an action against his neighbors that clearly invited the county to intervene. The county simply asked Heath to prove legal access to his property as a post-approval condition of his subdivision application. Heath had other options besides suing his neighbors. For instance, he could have attempted to acquire legal access at the outset by means of a private mutual agreement with his neighbors. This approach would have made any county involvement unnecessary. Alternatively, Heath had the right to condemn a private right-of-way to his property, another option he did not pursue. There was no reason to believe this option would have involved the county either. Instead, Heath chose to file a quiet title action seeking an easement against neighboring property owners based on prescriptive use, and a declaratory judg- ment the Old Wagon Road was public. Not surprisingly, this caused the county to intervene. Ultimate[y, his own choice of remedies led to his alleged damages. Taking -- County demands additional setback for road expansion Won't approve subdivision without it Citatioa: B.A.!Pl. Development LLC v. Salt Lake CourtU, Court of'Appeals of Utah, No. 200JO840-CA (2004) UTAH (02/20/04) -- B.A.M. Development LLC wanted to develop a subdivi- sion on its property. In anticipation of a neighboring highway being widened, B.A.M. agreed [o dedicate a 40-foot strip of abutting land. The Salt Lake County Ptanning and Zoning Commission granted prelimin?y approval. A year later, the county told B.A.M. it had to dedicate an additional 1% foot strip of land for the anticipated highway widening. B.A.M. objected, ar- guing it had already drafted and divided the subdivision plots utilizing the original dedication. [t claimed increasing the dedication ro 53 feet would alter. several ptots dramatically and require an expensive reconfiguration of the en- tire subdivision. In response, the commission denied B.A.M. a license to de- velopment the subdivision without a 5S-foot dedication. B.A.M. appealed to the Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners. With- out any hearing, the board upheld the commission's decision. B.A.M. sued, arguing the county's demand was an unconstitutional taking because it was not roughly~ proportional to the planned development or high- way. The court ruled in favor of the county. B.A.M. appealed~ DECISION: Reversed. The board acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided B.A.M.'s tak- ings issue without conducting a hearing. One ~?'pe ~>f t~dn7 associ.ared'wirh subdivision :approval was a ~'developmenr :~;~ 2004 Quil~tan ¢,_iblisi]mg G¢oup. Any reproduction is proi~ibited. For more information please.ceil (617) 542-0~48. ]42