Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 7 "the kind of function or land use involved"; "the extent of the public interest to be served thereby"; "the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned"; "the impact upon legitimate local interests"; "[the] applicant's legislative grant of authority"; "alternative locations for the facility in less restrictive zoning areas"; "alternative methods of providing the needed improvement"; and "intergovernmen- tal participation in the project development process and an opportunity to be heard." Here, weighing those factors, the court concluded that "the public safety concerns inherent in operating a safe and functional county jail [were] analogous to wider public interests, and the extent of the public interest to be served must be weighed in favor of the County." The court found that "[w]hile the Village's concerns regarding losing taxable Vil- lage property [were] acknowledged, the financial impact on the Village in locating the jail at [the chosen site] [did] not outweigh the County's need to fulfill its statutory obligation to maintain a safe and functional county jail." Additionally, the court found that the "financial impact in continuing to board out inmates [was] more detrimental to the Village than losing this parcel of taxable property." The court found "[i]t would be anomalous to allow a small village to impede the County in the per- formance of an essential governmental duty for the benefit of the health and welfare of the residentsof the entire county." Furthermore, the court found that the rejection of alternative sites was valid and reason- able, and that the County had undertaken an "exhaustive process" in searching for a suitable site. See also: Matter of City of Rochester, 72 N.Y.2d .138, 533 N.Y.S.2d 702, 530 N.E.2d 202 (1988). Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA Reportedly, the US Supreme Court recently let stand a lower court ruling "that upheld laws in many California cities that require develop- ers to include affordable housing in condo projects. The high court declined to hear an appeal of San Jose's so-called inclusionary zoning law brought by developers and conservatives. The California Supreme Court previously upheld San Jose's inclusionary zoning law." Source: East Bay Express; www.eastbavexvress.com OREGON The Oregon legislature has passed "a landmark bill lifting the state's 2016 Thomson Reuters 11