Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

April 15, 2007\ Volume 1\ No.8 provided a 180-day period.for a party to "protest...an action to attack... the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency." The court had to determine if the challenged action by the city-re- ducing the number of residences allowed in the zone-fell in any way under the Fee Act as Fogarty claimed. Fogarty argued that the vague language adding "other exactions" created a catchall that included the potential financial loss created by the city's decision to restrict develop- ment. However, the court found that the language of the Fee Act had to be read as a whole, and the intent of the act was to challenge fees that were assessed by an administrative agency as part of a decision on a de- velopment project. The court noted that the statutes did not define exaction, but "the term [was] generally defined to i.l'1Clude a 'compensation arbitrarily or wrongfully demanded,''' and it concluded that the usual and ordinary meaning of the word-the standard by which the court had to interpret a statute-did not include land use restrictions because they were not payments. Further, there was a clear .precedent that inverse condemna- tion claims-which Fogarty was essentially making here-could be filed only after administrative remedies had been exhausted and in compli- ance with the provisions of the Map Act; Fogarty's claim did not satisfy eit.her of those conditions. Because the court found that the Map Act governed Fogarty's appeal, it was bound to the long-expired 90-day limitation period. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. See also: Guillemin v. Stein, 104 Cal. App. 4th 156, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65 (3d Dist; 2002). Churches-Board denies major aspects of church's expansion proposal Church argues board violated religious land use protections Citation: Board of CQunty Com'rs of County. of Boulder v. Rocky Mountain Christian Church, 2007 WL 840884 (D. Colo. 2007) COLORADO (03/19/07)-Rocky MountaD."'1 Christian Church oper- ated a church and related entities in Boulder County since 1993. In 2004, the church applied to the county board of commissioners for approval of a project that would more than double the size of the church, increase the parking area by more than 50 percent, and make other significant modifications to its property. The church stated that the expansion was essential to its ability to carry out its mission. After several hearings, the board decided to approve the church's pro- posal LTl parr. However, the board found some elements of the proposal 9 173