Laserfiche WebLink
Fees —Developer seeks <br />refund of develop- <br />ment :fees paid ;to school <br />district <br />Nonconforming <br />UseNested Rights -Town <br />finds property owner <br />has illegally <br />converted buildings to <br />dwellings <br />Nonconforming <br />Use/Short-term rentals <br />Township says short- <br />term rental of home <br />violates zoning ordinance <br />Housing Discrimination — <br />Ordinance restricts <br />treatment centers for Cur- <br />rent addiction of <br />substance used in illegal <br />manner <br />Nonconforming Use — <br />Applicant proposes <br />to demolish and <br />reconstruct an existing <br />nonconforming <br />multi -family dwelling <br />Zoning News from Around <br />the Nation <br />'' THOMSON REUTERS° <br />February 10, 2019 I Volume 13 ( Issue 3 <br />Fees Developer seeks refund <br />of development fees paid to <br />school district <br />School district based fees on hypothetical new <br />schools it was not going to build <br />Citation: Summerhill Winchester LLC v. Campbell Union School <br />District, 2018 WL 6695971 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2018) <br />CALIFORNIA (12/4/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />facility fees imposed by a school district on a developer were justified. <br />The Background/Facts: SummerHill Winchester LLC ("Sum- <br />merHill") owned a 100-unit residential development project (the "Proj- <br />ect") in the City of Santa Clara, within the boundaries of the Campbell <br />Union School District ("CUSD"). In 2012 and 2013, SummerHill paid <br />to CUSD, under protest, development fees of $499,976.96. SummerHill <br />later filed a legal action in superior court, seeking a refund of the fees it <br />had paid to CUSD. SummerHill contended that the development fees <br />5 were invalid and unreasonable because they were "excessive," "not <br />roughly proportional or reasonably related to the burdens caused by the <br />Project," and "lack[ed] an essential nexus between the amount of the <br />school development fees imposed on the Project and CUSD's alleged <br />need to construct certain improvements and facilities for reasons that <br />[were] attributable to the Project." More specifically, among other <br />6 things, SummerHill alleged that the fees were based on a faulty fee <br />study, which failed to identify the new facilities that would be necessary <br />7 for new students generated by new residential development. In fact, <br />SummerHill noted, the fee study used hypothetical schools that CUSD <br />was not going to build as the premise for calculating the fees imposed <br />on SummerHill. <br />The trial court agreed with SummerHill, and invalidated the fees and <br />ordered SummerHill's fees be refunded. <br />CUSD and the Campbell Union School District Governing Board <br />(hereinafter, collectively, "CUSD"), appealed. CUSD maintained that it <br />used a reasonable methodology to calculate the fee. <br />DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed. <br />Mat #42479375 <br />