CCP 09-12-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

found that preventing flooding and Cities must now be able to 5pecifi- In the Oregon case before the U.5. reducing traffic conge~tion are legiti- cally articulate their reasons for Supreme Court. the city did no, mate purpose~. The essential nexus imposing conditions on any particular aHempt to make an}' indh.idualized existed between preventing flooding development. Certainly, standards determination to suppon the require- and limiting development within the stated in the subdivision regulation will mem that the landowner leave 15 creek's floodplain, The essential nexus give guidance for the need of requiring percent of her property as open space, also existed between traffic congestion public dedicali\>n for necessary public and dedicate a public green way in the reduction and providing alternate improvements and open space. But flood plain when a private greenway means of transportation such as bicycle cities will be required to articulate and could also have been an effective flood paths. justify the particular street. park land, comrol measure. The city also failed to In Minnesota, cities should be able to sewer. and water conditions proposed meet its burden of demonst:mting that meet the essential nexus requirement on particular developments. the additional number of vehicles and by enforcing their present subdivision Minnesota courts have also been bicycle trips generated by the develop. regulations as they have in the past. In requiring cities to mak.e clear their ment was reasonably related to the general. the essential nexus test would findings in zoning matters, so the U.S. city's requirement for the dedication of be met if the city has a legitimate Supreme Court's requirement for a pathway easement. The Court stated public purpose in reducing the findings should not be that onerous to the city must quantify its findings negative effecrs of development and cities_ Proving the need for specific beyond a conclusory statement that the the regulations are geared to merely development dedication requirements pathway dedication could offset some reducing these negative effects. also should not be very difficult for of the traffic demand generated by the However, the second question may cities. This new zoning requirement is development. (See also Legal notes, be the more difficult one to answer in somewhat analogous to cities having to page 26.) determining whether the required prove special assessmenES for indhidual Under these guidelines, Minnesota condition bears the proper relationship lots. and show tha, the burden imposed cities must be able to state with some to the projected impact of ,he pro- on the property owner does not exceed particular specificity. the reasons for posed development. The city must the benelit granted by the city's action. requiring subdivision dedications and have findings sufficient to justify the Arguably, the same standard will be regulations to particular development conditions imposed through the applied in determining !hat !he burden proposals in order for their actions [0 subdivision regulations, There must be of the subdivision requirement does be constitutional. a "rough proportionality" between the not exceed the benefit to the develop- Carla Heyl is senior staff attorney city's conditions as they relate to the ment by the subdivision requirements. with the League of Minnesota Cities. impact of the development. No precise mathematical calculation is required. but the city must make some type of A PREVENTIVE individual determination that the APPROACH TO required dedication is related to the PUBLIC LAW. proposed development's impact. This determination must consider both the nature and extent that the condition will impact the proposed development. The United States Supreme Court views this test as "a reasonable relation~ Anticipating proh/en'II is a O'ifical aspect of ship" test. This is the same standard our government practice. Our attorneys that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied in approving subdivision assist clients in app/)'ing Jfrategies fn regulation and exaction. In theory, the minimize risk and at/Did liability. We regulations Minnesota ciries impose meet the U.S. Supreme Court standard. serve puhlic diems with Jensitivity toward because they have met the reasonable costs and with a desi"! to help giX'ernments relationship test used by the Minnesota fl/nainn more iffeaivel)', Cal! Sueran Lea Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court Paa /0,. more information. requires findings by the city to show the 612 33.3 4saa reasonable relationship between the ciry-imposed condition and the proposed development. Minnesota POPHAM HAIK courts have not previously required dties to have written findings justifying SCHNOBAICH BI: KAUFMAN. l.'l"D. the conditions imposed or to articulate the specitic reasons the conditions are %%:;t '!1IICLJTIoI NINTM STREET, SLJIT'!:; ':I~CC required. M1NNItAPOl.,lS. MN 55....C2.