Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 19 <br />See also: Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. <br />Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1073, 17 Envtl. L. <br />Rep. 20918 (1987). <br />See also: Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 <br />L. Ed. 2d 304, 38 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1769, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 21083 <br />(1994). <br />Case Note: <br />The Developers had also alleged that the City's violations of the Impact Fees <br />Act violated the Utah Constitution. Because the Developers failed to "under- <br />take an independent analysis of the language of the Utah provision" (as <br />compared to the relevant provisions of the United States Constitution), the <br />court declined to conduct an independent analysis of the Utah takings clause. <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, despite finding the Developers' claims failed, the court did offer <br />suggestions for redress of misspent impact fees and/or violations of the Utah <br />Impact Fees Act. The court noted that the residents of the City "retain the <br />interest in having those fees used as designed," and that "[a]ny injury from <br />misuse of impact fees would be to the residents, either from being underserviced <br />for form increased taxes to cover costs of additional development that should e <br />paid from the impact fees." The court, however, offered no opinion on the <br />nature of any such injury or on what, if any, remedies for it might exist. <br />The court further offered that "[i]f the [D]evelopers want the right to <br />a refund of unspent impact fees, or if they want an enforcement provi- <br />sion, or if they don't like the ways that impact fees are calculated or <br />may be expended, they can seek legislative modification of the [Impact <br />Fees Act]." <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />The state Legislature is considering several bills aimed at combating <br />housing shortages. Among those bills is SB 35, which "seeks to force <br />cities and counties to streamline the planning process for urban, multi- <br />family projects." <br />Source: KPCC; wwwscororg <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />