Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTER- i b <br /> <br />hut:' l£l ?, CL <br /> <br />7'~lJloe- h_'ierro .Prc.9 (,'tmllct[. [tlc. <br />,-I~u,cv. 535 U S. 302. 122 S <br /> <br />~r):ll'rrlntr) ,¢rO.r.. Jilt. v CioJ <br />(~-A inn. A0p. <br /> <br />/-i,z~oord P~rood. v CiO, <br /> 323 N.W 2d 757 (Mmn <br /> <br />z\[oilott I' (-c,'llJ))l'ruu COLl81ol <br />C't>mm n. 483 I,, S. 325. I[)7 ~q <br /> <br />Cl 3J41 ~I987) <br /> <br />.gu/rut ~' ,"tO' hi'Tim',ch'ct'. 312 <br /> <br />A taking might OCCLIr even when a purchaser buys property and is aware cfa <br />zoning ordinance that may restrict the intended use. However. background <br />principles derived fi'om state law may limit a claimant's properD' interest. <br /> <br />Ifa zoning or land use regulation is so restrictive as to deny proper~y owners <br />reasonable use of' their property, they may recover monetary damages ['or the <br />period the restriction was in effect, regardless of' the length of'time. This <br />action is referred to as a temporary taking. <br /> <br />A temporary taking is in the nature cfa regulatory taking in which COUl~S will <br />look to the parcel as whole. There is no bright-line rule for regulatory <br />rakings: rather, they must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. <br /> <br />Minnesota courts have ruled that in order for a taking to occur, the <br />application of a'land use ordinance must deprive th~ owner of all reasonable <br />use ct' the Jan& Where'a legitimate governmental purpose exJs~:s, and some <br />economically viable use of the propert? exists, a taking 'will not be found. <br />The cour~ will look. at the regulation's economic impact, the extent to which <br />the [andowner's investment-backed expectations have been diminished by the <br />regulation, and the general character of the regulation. <br /> <br />C, Conditional use permits <br /> <br />According to the courts, denial of' conditional or special use permits and <br />building permits do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of' prope~-ty <br />wlnere re~onable uses remain. <br /> <br />No taking occurs wt~ere an "essential nexus" exists between a condition <br />is imposed on a development proposal and the burden on the local unit of <br />government caused by such development. <br /> <br />Cities considering land use permit applications must prove that any <br />conditions or requirements in the I:orm of land dedications or easements are in <br />"rough proportionality" to the impact of the proposed development in both <br />B3.tttl'e and extent. <br /> <br />The determination that conditions in]posed or extractions required are <br />roughly proportional to the impact oftl]e proposal must be made in each <br />individual case. At the very least, cities should give serious consideration to <br />genericall':,, applied conditions or extractions, such as usim, a fiat percentage <br />fee or Jollar amount for park dedication fees for eaci~ b'pe of permissibie use <br />subject to variances f~r spec!al ch'cumsrances for parricuiar property. The <br />generic condition, however, should be based on a study of`the rough <br />proportional impact of each type of use. <br /> <br />95 <br /> <br /> <br />