CCP 09-26-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- _______m_____ I I In the Oregon case before the L'.5. found that preventing flooding and Cities must now be able to specifi- reducing traffic congestion are legiti- cally articulate their reasons for Supreme Court, the city did not mate purposes, The essential nexus imposing conditions on any particular attempt to DJake any indi\'idualized existed between preventing 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 greenway 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, 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 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 effects 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 assessments for individual Under these guidelines. Minnesota 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', 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 that the burden proposals in order for their actions to subdivision regulations, There must be of the subdivision requirement does be constitutional. a "rough proportionality" between the not exceed the benefit tathe deve1op- Carla Hey] 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 APPROAC.H 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 problems is a critical aspect of ship" test. This is the same standard our government practice. OUT attorneys that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied in approving subdivision assist clients in applying strategies to regulation and exaction. In theory, the minimize risk and avoid liabilil)'. We regulations Minnesota cities impose meet the U.S. Supreme Coun standard, se-nJe public clients wit/; ~-ensitiz,'itJ ttJU'ard because they have met the reasonable costs and with a desire to help KIJ1/ernmems relationship test used by the Minnesota function more effeait1dy. Call Suesan Lea Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court Pace for more inftrmatitm. requires findings by the city to show the 6123334BDD reasonable relationship bet\;;een the city-imposed condition and the proposed development. Minnesota POPHAM HAlK courts have not previously required cities to have written findings justifying SCHN08RICH 8< KAUFMAN. LTD. the conditions imposed or to articulate the specific reasons the conditions are Z22 SCUTM NINTH STREET. SUITE 3::JOC required. MINNEAPOLIS, MN SS4Q2 .