Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2007

Home

July 1, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 13 eral zoning plan for the Snyderville Basin in 1997 and passed a com- prehensive development code for the basin the following year. Under the system, a low base density was established for the basin, and it included a "performance" or "incentive" zoning system. In general, the plan allowed developments of less than one unit per 20 acres. The restriction was even more stringent for lands that were designated as "environmentally sensitive." The rationale for the re- strictions was to preserve "a lifestyle that I was] based principally on mountain, resort, and recreational qualities; and where preservation and stewardship of the Basin's natural resources and scenic qualities are paramount." The zoning plan included a development matrix that offered "rea- sonable density incentives" for projects that further promoted the gen- eral plan and produced "tangible" community benefits. Density incen- tives-meaning higher density projects would be considered-existed for appropriate projects that included: environmental enhancements, transfer of development rights from less desirable development sites to more appropriate sites, public facilities and amenities that exceed- ed specific project requirements, open space that exceeded project re- quirements, certain affordable housing projects, and compliance with appropriate design principles. Severallandolivners from the county objected to the incentive zon- ing practices in the general plan and development code, alleging that they constituted a pattern of extortion in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The landowners sued several members of the board and commission, citing 41 alleged predicate acts that demonstrated racketeering. The board and commis- sion members (collectively, county officials) asked the court to find in their favor without a trial, citing lack of standing, no proof of predi- cate acts, and immunity as county officials. The lower court found in favor of the county officials, and the land- owners appealed. Decision: Affirmed. To succeed on a claim under RICO, the landovlners had to prove: 1) conduct, 2) of an enterprise, 3). through a pattern, of 4) racketeering activity consisting of at least twO predicate acts. Instances of extor- tion or attempted extortion were considered predicate acts. Extortion was defined as "the obtaining of property from another, with his [or her] consent, induced by 'i'VI'ongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 3 161