CCP 09-21-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

found that prt"venting flooding and Cities must now be able to specifi~ In the Oregon case before the V,S, reducing traffic congestion an: legiti- cally articulate their reasons for Supreme Court, the city did not mate purposes. The essential nexus imposing conditions on any particular auempt to make any indi\'idualized existed between preveming flooding development. Certainly. standards determination to support the require. and limiting development within the stated in the subdivision regulation will ment 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 dedication for necessary public and dedicate a public greenw.y in the reduction and providing alternate improvements and open space. But flood plain when a private green way means of transportation such as bicycle cities will be required to articulate and could also have been an effective flood paths, justify the particular SlTeet, park land, control measure. The city also failed to In Minnesota. cities should be able to sewer, and water conditions proposed meet its burden of demonstrating 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 make dear their menl was reasonably related to the general, the essentia.l nexus test would findings in zoning matters, 50 the U.S. city's requirement for the dedication of be me' if the city has a legitimate Supreme Coun's requirement for a palhway easemenL The Court stated public purpose in reducing the findings should not be that onerous to the city must quantify its findings negative effects of development and cities. Proving the need for specific beyond a conclusory Slalement that the the regulations are geared to merely development dedication requirements pathway dedication could offset some reducing these negative effects. .lso 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 [0 answer in somewhat analogous (0 cities having to page 26,) determining whether the required prove special assessments for indi\;dual Under these guidelines. MinnesoEa condition bears the proper relationship lots, and show that the burden imposed cities must be able to state with some to the projected impact of the pro. on the property owner does not exceed particular specificity, the reasons for posed development. The city must the benefit granted by the city's action, requiring subdivision dedications and have findings sufficient to justify the Arguably, the same standard will be regulations [0 particular development conditions imposed through the applied in determining that the burden proposals in order for their actions to subdivision regulations. There must be of the subdivision requirement does be constitutional. a ;Orough proportionality" between the not exceed the benefit to the develop- Carla Heyl is senior staff attorney city's conditions as they relate to the mem by the subdivisiOfl 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- Amicipating problems iJ a critical aspect of ship" test. This is the same standard our government practicr. Ou,. attorneY1 that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied in approving subdivision anist dients in applying urategieJ to regulation and exaction. In theory, the minimize risk and at'oid liability. We regulations Minnesota cities impose meet the U.S. Supreme Court standard, serve puhlic clients with sensitivity ttnilard because they have met the reasonable costs and with a desire to help got'ernmenrs relationship test used by the Minnesota function more effectivel)'. Cal! Suesan Lea Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court PeKe for more information. requires findings by the city to show the S 1 2 333 4800 reasonable relationship between the city.imposed condition and the proposed development. Minnesota POPHAM HAIK courts have not pre...iously required cities to have written findings justifying SCHNOB RICH I3r KAUI'"MAlII. t..T'O. the conditions imposed or to articulate the specific reasons the conditions are 222 5C1U--r"" .......T"" STJl!!:!:T. SU'T!!; 33CC required. ""'NNE:APOL1S, M'" 5540% ------