Land Development

The Law of Physical AllotmentLand Subdivision

Keller 2003 - 2004

Brought to You By:

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Land Subdivision

Keller 2003 - 2004

Land Development Regulation Rules for the physical development of land

are old – dating back to the 8th Century When Great Britain and Spain first settle

America they sent “regulations” for the development of villages and towns in the colonies

Land development is not zoning. It is the process of land design form, infrastructure, amenities, and services used to bring order to physical development

Keller 2003 - 2004

Why Have Land Development Regulations? Order and efficiency in development The use of consistent & common

development standards throughout a jurisdiction

To establish exactions and allocate responsibility in the provision of infrastructure and hold the community harmless

Consumer protection Preservation of natural resources Prevent harm to others

Keller 2003 - 2004

Types of Land Development

The site planning process Used as an intermediate and final stage in

the fine grained design of physical development

The platting process A plat (not a plot plan) is a map and precise

plan The plat is a precise survey of a tract of land

that contains the necessary bearings, monuments, curves, and notations necessary to locate any lot.

Platting is also used to divide a tract of land into “lots” rather than using a metes and bounds description

Keller 2003 - 2004

Early Development Land speculation was rampant in the U.S.

from the very beginning of settlement. Speculation became a serious concern when

early 20th Century towns began to expand from the limits of the original town plan

Speculators (developers and subdividers) used standards for development that were inferior to those developed by the host community

Land development regulations evolved over a period of 20 – 30 years in the U.S. and were not guided by the exact standards and models used in zoning

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Need For Consistency

Keller 2003 - 2004

Zipper of the Day Freda Mae Batts Binford

Freda Mae Batts Binford, 56, of Louisville, died Tuesday at her home. She was a native of Huntsville, AL, and a member of Sweet Leaf United Primitive Baptist Church. She is survived by several nieces and nephews; a godson, Pee-Air Binford; and other relatives and friends. Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m. Saturday at her church, 1814 Cedar St., with burial in Louisville Cemetery. Visitation will be from 6-9 p.m. Friday. .

Keller 2003 - 2004

To Begin Last week, I stated this woman was

the ugliest woman I had ever seen.  I have since been visited by her sister . . . . and now wish to withdraw that statement. ~Mark Twain

Keller 2003 - 2004

Was There A Euclid v Ambler for Land Development Regulations? Not really! There has never been an federal

appellant level test of physical regulations Why? One of the reasons is the

constitutional nature of zoning versus subdivision

Use of the land (zoning is burdened with numerous constitutional protections)

Land development has few protections other than the right to a consistent procedure

Land use is a right – but building is commodity Selling lots to the public is somewhat like selling

used cars

Keller 2003 - 2004

Mansfield & Swett, Inc Town of the Twsp. Of West Orange Facts

A 4.5 acre plat is prepared and sent to the Planning Commission for review

The plat contains 19 lots and 2 streets and is know as “Shadowlawn.”

The projected sales price is $15,000 - $18,000 (in 1939)

The Planning Commission disapproves the plat on the basis that the proposed plan does not conform to the “estate” nature of the vicinity (which were estate homes on 4 – 5 acre tracts and 3 times the value)

Does not conform to the wishes of the neighbors Too much density

Keller 2003 - 2004

ShadowLawn

Thomas Edison’s home in West Orange N.J. Located by Shadowlawn near his movie studio and lab

Glenmont

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Developer Sues This is a constitutional attack on the

substantive due process of the subdivision approval process Tests the validity of the West Orange

statute which requires a precise plan even after the property is zoned

Mansfield – Swett claims that zoning powers are valid but that subdivision is actually a planning process where objective standards rule – not deliberations

The trial court holds for the city and the developer appeals to the N.J. Supreme Court

Keller 2003 - 2004

Legal Analysis The court distinguishes between planning

and zoning. The character of zoning is the dedication of

particular uses to designated districts designed to protect the public welfare

Planning (as subdivision) is a term of broad meaning but is used to designated the inherent authority of the town – in its building and development – to resort to such measures as are necessary to assure that the community has a common essential fabric.

There can be no question that the power to properly plan and design the community is constitutional

Keller 2003 - 2004

Approval The court finds that, unlike zoning, a large

measure of discretionary authority is vested in the City to determine the standards for development

HOWEVER This is not to say that the power can be

used in an arbitrary manner Land development regulations “are not

written in the context of advantage or detriment of a particular neighbor or owner but the effect on the entire community as a social, economic and political unit”

Keller 2003 - 2004

Conclusion Although the density may be much higher

than the surrounding neighborhood, Shadowlawn is nevertheless an area of stately brick homes in a well planned setting. If the density is too great, then the Planning Commission may modify it

When surrounded by appropriate safeguards it will not create abnormal traffic nor is there a reason to believe that it will degrade thee value of the nearby homes

Held for Mansfield and Swett

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Platting Process Land and Infrastructure/Economic

Studies The Sketch Plan The Preliminary Plat The Final Plat The Precise Plat

Keller 2003 - 2004

StudiesDrainage

Traffic

Circulation

Soil

Keller 2003 - 2004

Example Sketch Plan - Informal

Keller 2003 - 2004

Sketch Plan - Formal

Keller 2003 - 2004

Preliminary Plat – With Topography

Keller 2003 - 2004

Final Plat

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Subdivision/Development

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Integrated Fabric of Development

Keller 2003 - 2004

Even Manufactured Homes

Keller 2003 - 2004

Vesting, Platting and Approvals What is the relationship between

the preliminary and final plats? What is the obligation of

government? The obligation of the applicant?

When does the right to vest occur in subdivision?

Keller 2003 - 2004

Youngblood v Bd. Of Supervisors of San Diego County This case involves the Rancho Del Dios

subdivision In 1974 the County approved a tentative plat

for one acre lots which was then permitted by the zoning ordinance and in accord with the general plan

Later that year the County amended the general plan for this area calling for 2 acre lots

Final plat approval was given in 1975 for the one acre lots on 274 acres. In 1978 the County rezoned the area for 2 acre lots

Neighbors brought action for a mandamus to force the county to rescind the plat and conform to the two acre lots

Keller 2003 - 2004

Youngblood - Reasoning The County – Since the lots are already

platted and the infrastructure is installed and sized to the scale of development, the plat or any revisions do not have to conform to the current plan.

Youngbloods – The County has a duty to conform all densities and lot sizes to the current plan. If necessary, potential buyers can purchase two lots.

The CA Supreme Ct. – Once a tentative plan is approved, infrastructure is installed, and the final plat ready for signature, the rights of the developer are vested

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Real Argument The opponents argue that even if the

preliminary plat was consistent with the Comp. Plan, the Commission should not have approved the final plat because by this time the requirements had changed

Once the tentative map is approved, the developer often must expend substantial sums to comply with the conditions attached to that approval. These expenditures will result in the construction of improvements consistent with the proposed subdivision, but often inconsistent with alternative uses of the land.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Conclusion “It is only fair to the developer and to the

public interest to require the governing body to render its discretionary decision whether and upon what conditions to approve the proposed subdivision when it acts on the tentative map.” Approval of the final map thus becomes a ministerial act once the appropriate officials certify that it is in substantial compliance with the previously approved tentative map

Rancho Del Dios rules!

Keller 2003 - 2004

Governing Body Action State law requires that the PLANNING

COMMISSION approve the plat and the Governing Body endorse the dedications

Lawrence passed a home rule ordinance that gave the City Council the authority to APPROVE plats

Moore’s plat was reconsider and refused for reasons other than non-conformance of public dedications

Keller 2003 - 2004

Moore v City of Lawrence, 1982 Mr. Moore submitted a subdivision plat to

the City of Lawrence The plat was found to be in conformance

with the City’s subdivision regulation The Planning Commission endorses the

plat The Plat was sent to the Governing Body

as required by law The Governing Body defers the

endorsement for 4 months

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Thought Plickens The city commission refuses to

accept the dedications because of an zoning issue with the Moore’s

The Lawrence ordinance requires endorsement by the city before filing the final plat

KS statutes vest the planning commission with the task of approving or disapproving the plat.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Conclusion The planning commission is

responsible for reviewing & approving all plats

The governing body may refuse to accept dedications only when such offers to dedicate do not meet the technical requirements for infrastructure development

Keller 2003 - 2004

In Kansas At Least - The final plat must be approved by

the planning commission and: Endorsed by the governing body The endorsement means that the

proposed dedications conform to the city’s standards

Endorsement cannot be withheld for reasons unrelated to physical and engineering standards

Keller 2003 - 2004

Good Reasons For Standards

Keller 2003 - 2004

Things To Avoid

Keller 2003 - 2004

Two Reasons to Refuse Dedications

Keller 2003 - 2004

Ellington Const. V Hempstead So how long does a plat last? Where do old plats go? Do lots die – or do they age in

place?

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Background Village Law provides for an exemption period

of three years after the filing of a subdivision plat during which an amendment increasing lot area or dimension requirements shall not "be applicable to or in any way affect any of the lots shown and delineated on such subdivision plat“

Prior to an increase in the applicable area and dimension requirements, Ellington failed to complete his approved subdivision to apply for building permits on all of the proposed lots.

Keller 2003 - 2004

What Did Ellington Do? In 1975, the Town of Ramapo Planning Board

accepted for filing petitioner's "average density" subdivision plat. As a condition of its "average density" approval, the town required that 12.105 acres of the 33.522 acres in the subdivision be irrevocably dedicated to it for parkland purposes. The subdivision was approved to be developed in two sections, the first to consist of nine lots and the second of twenty-two lots.

3 months later the parkland was dedicated and Ellington files the final plat the following month

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Next Step Between 1980 and 1984 seven homes were

built However, in 1982 the Town Board amended

the platting ordinance (it did not change any lot or street arrangement)

All seven homes were constructed in phase one – phase two remained vacant but all its lots complied with the Town’s requirements

However, in 1984 the Town amended its ordinance to make the minimum lot 35,000 sq ft. Phase I lots were all 22,500 sq. ft.

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Saga Continues In 1986 Ellington seeks a building permit for

Phase II but is denied because he did not seek a permit during the 3 year exemption period (Sept. 1975 to 1978)

Ellington applies to the Board of Zoning Appeals for an area variance but is denied

Both the trial and the appeals court reversed the BZA findings that the development rights were vested and orders the Town to issue permits to Ellington

The case is appealed by the Town to the Supreme Court of New York

Keller 2003 - 2004

Vesting Gets Complicated This is a question of statutory interpretation It ain’t simple On its face, the statute said that everything

on the plat is exempt for three years but it does not say how you get the exemption

Do you have to apply for a building permit(s) – do you have to apply for all the building permits?

Do you have to construct all the homes within three years?

Is it enough that you just install all the infrastructure?

Keller 2003 - 2004

So – What Gives The court says that the normal law will grant

vested rights once the final plat is approved and the developer makes substantial investments

The Town says – no way – you have to apply for building permits – and you have to actually build

The court concludes by using common sense: You have to have your preliminary and final plat

approved before the change When you made substantial improvements and

expended $$$ sum of money you get vested rights After this the 3 year rule does not apply

Keller 2003 - 2004

Garipay v Hanover Can you flat deny a preliminary

plat? Put in another way – if the land is

properly zoned doesn’t the owner have a right to develop it

What happens when you can’t get there from here?

Keller 2003 - 2004

Background Garipay proposes a preliminary plat of 49

homes in the Town of Hanover The road leading from the Town’s road

network to the subdivision is steep, winding, an inadequate to carry the increased traffic. It is only 15 feet wide with no shoulders

There are already 18 homes in the area The Planning Commission denies the

preliminary plat The egg sucking contest begins

Keller 2003 - 2004

Narrow, Winding Roads Are A Problem

Keller 2003 - 2004

Different Views

The Planning Commission says that this proposed development is premature

Garipay says how can it be premature if there are already 18 homes in the area?

Keller 2003 - 2004

Court’s View Under the statutory scheme used in New

Hampshire it is the the duty of the Planning Commission to judge when services are inadequate to serve new, proposed development

If inadequate, the Planning Commission must make this judgment and declare the subdivision to be premature

And yes, the Planning Commission may examine “off-site” facilities to make this judgment rather than just pure “on-site” facilities

Keller 2003 - 2004

Take Home Point A new development is not an island. It

must be viewed within the context of the whole community and must mesh within the total pattern of infrastructure

Keller 2003 - 2004

Baker v Planning Board In 1935 Baker and wife grant the town

of Farmington an easement across their land

Easement contains a drainage pipe with an open ditch to conduct water from one part of the town to its out-skirts

Farmington builds a ditch across Baker’s land: Water is collected into a drain scupper – then to the river

Keller 2003 - 2004

From the Town to the River

Keller 2003 - 2004

Can You Guess What Happens

Keller 2003 - 2004

NextOver the years the town develops

in the direction of the Baker’s property

Within 25 years the construction of two large parking lots overwhelms the drainage capacity

Baker’s land floods every time it rains

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Baker’s Plan In 1965 the Baker’s submit a preliminary

plan to development their 11 acres It is denied because:

Would need a sewer lift rather than a gravity tie into the main sewer lateral

If the town can no longer use the property as a detention basin the downstream drainage system would be overwhelmed

Commission votes it down because the town cannot stand the expense of the new drainage system

Keller 2003 - 2004

Court’s Finding “Obviously a planning board may not

exercise its authority to disapprove a plan so that a town may continue to use the owner's land as a water storage area and thereby deprive the owner of reasonable use of it.”

Meeting the public interest does not include using the land of another for lack of community ambition

Keller 2003 - 2004

The LineYou might say the Planning Board crossed the line

Keller 2003 - 2004

Keller’s View Of Subdivision Review

Two things are sure to happen when you wrestle with a pig

1. The pig will enjoy it

2. You are sure to get dirty

Keller 2003 - 2004

Exactions – Fees and Other Give Me’s The core principle of subdivision review and approval

is that the local government should be held harmless This means that all new development must pay their

way and not shift the financial burden to the local government as a whole What is a fair exaction? Are exactions only limited to on-site

improvements or should the developers pay all or part of the costs for off-site improvements?

What forms of exactions are permissible? Is cash $$ in the form of a fee OK to use?

Keller 2003 - 2004

How To CollectThe Exactions

The Developer’s View

Keller 2003 - 2004

Homebuilder’s Association of Palm Beach v Palm Beach, FL

This case involves the validity of a Palm Beach County ordinance imposing an impact fee on new development for the purpose of constructing roads made necessary by the increased traffic generated by such new development.

The ordinance requires any new land development activity generating road traffic to pay its "fair share" of the reasonably anticipated cost of expansion of new roads attributable to the new development.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Fair Share of Traffic Cost

                                                               

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Method The formula takes into consideration the

costs of road construction and the number of motor vehicle trips generated by different types of land use

A fee of $300 per unit for single family homes, $200 per unit for multi-family, $175 per unit for mobile homes with other amounts for commercial or other development, all subject to annual review.

Palm Beach is divided into 40 traffic zones and the fees go into a trust fund for each zone to finance new road construction

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Construction Association Sues The lawsuit against Palm Beach poses

three challenges Whether Palm Beach County has authority

to impose an impact fee on new development for the construction of public roads

Whether the proposed ordinance violates the equal protection clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and State of Florida.

Whether the ordinance imposes a regulatory fee or a tax

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Authority The Const Assoc says there is no special

grant of power to enact a fee for traffic The court says that the home rule power of

counties to govern themselves is broad. There is nothing in the general statute of the state the forbids this

There are statutes that allow the county to provide and regulate arterial, toll, and other roads, bridges, tunnels and related facilities; eliminate grade crossings; provide and regulate parking facilities; and develop and enforce plans for the control of traffic and parking.

The Association loses round 1

Keller 2003 - 2004

Equal Protection The Const Assoc says that our position is

that since anyone can drive a vehicle over any of these roads, regardless of whether he lives in the zone or has paid the impact fee, there is too great a disparity between those who pay and those who receive the benefit

The court says “use your head” since it is sufficient if the improvements constructed with the fees imposed bear a reasonable relationship to the needs created by the subdivision.

But, says the Const Assoc., the fair share ordinance isn’t fair because some Palm Beach communities decided not to adopt it

Keller 2003 - 2004

Is It Fair The fact that an impact fee is payable on

land located in the county whereas it would not be payable on nearby land in a municipality which has opted out does not offend equal protection. Unequal or different charges or fees assessed in incorporated and unincorporated areas, like different hours for retail liquor sales and other areas of regulation which may lack uniformity, are not improper where such legislation is otherwise a valid exercise of governmental power.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Round 3 – Tax Or a Fee?

Keller 2003 - 2004

This Is Important Revenue raising by government takes two forms

A tax – where the amount of funds generated do not have to be proportionate to the need

A fee – where the amount of money raised must be proportionate to the need

When you collect a tax you can spend it on anything. When you levy a sales tax you can pay salaries, buy donuts for meetings, or hats for police

When you levy a fee it must be spent on the specific need that created the fee. You can’t spend road fee money to catch stray dogs

Keller 2003 - 2004

Conclusion – It Is A Fee! The ordinance is well crafted by a specific study It recognizes that the rapid rate of new

development will require a substantial increase in the capacity of the county road system.

The cost of construction of additional roads far exceeds the fair share fees imposed by the ordinance by about eighty-five percent. The formula for calculating the amount of the fee is not rigid and inflexible, but rather allows the person improving the land to determine their fair share by furnishing his own independent study of traffic and economic data in order to demonstrate that his share is less than the amount under the formula set forth in the ordinance.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Hollywood Incorporated v Broward County - 1983 The Florida Constitution gives

charter counties such as Broward all the home rule powers of local self-government not inconsistent with general law, empowering the County government with broad powers.

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Issue Broward county intends to provide open

space and recreation by one the three methods: Dedicate three (3) acres for every one

thousand residents of the proposed subdivision;

Pay the amount of money equal to the value of land that would have been dedicated;

Pay an impact fee according to a schedule in the ordinance.

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Program The county implemented a county park program with

a standard of three acres of developed county level parkland per one thousand residents. This is on the low side.

The ordinance requires the funds collected to be "expended within a reasonable period of time, for the purpose of acquiring and developing land necessary to meet the need for county level parks created by the development in order to provide a system of county level parks which will be available to and substantially benefit the residents of the platted area.“

The ordinance limits the use of these funds to acquiring and developing new land for park purposes within fifteen miles of the platted land.

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Challenge Hollywood, Inc is a real estate development

corporation that paid a fee equal to the value of the land that would be dedicated under the second option of the ordinance.  Later, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a refund of the fee, challenging the part of the ordinance that requires, as a condition of plat approval, the dedication of land or the payment of a fee for use by the County in acquiring and developing county level parks.

Keller 2003 - 2004

The 1st Argument Hollywood asserts that Broward

County lacked the legal authority to adopt this type of ordinance and that violates fundamental constitutional rights including due process and equal protection and constitutes a taking without compensation and is, in fact, an illegal tax.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Keller 2003 - 2004

Retroactive Impact Fees? The City of Key West v R.J.L.S Corp.

Keller 2003 - 2004

What Happened? In the August of 1981 Key West issued

building permits for 76 condo units to R.L.J.S. – all units were pre-sold

In 1983 the City issued permits for 92 additional units and 40 were pre-sold. R.J.L.S. paid $19,400 in sewer connection and permit fees when they obtained these permits

In the Spring of 1984 the City issued the certificates of occupancy for the first 76 units

In late 1984 the City enacted separate impact fees for sewer, solid waste, and traffic

Keller 2003 - 2004

The New Fees The purpose of these ordinances was to

allocate to new residents of the City 'a fair share of the cost of new public facilities', specifically those . . . dealing with sewer and solid waste treatment and those capital improvements necessitated by increased traffic on account of new development in the City

Fees would be collected when the occupancy permit was issued

R.J.L.S. would not pay the fees and Key West refused to issue the certificates

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Trial Court "The timing in this case is particularly

significant to the Court in that it makes virtually impossible any chance of the developer citizen being able to pass on the impact fee. Because the Plaintiffs' rights in their building permit had already vested, Key West could not retrospectively impose fees that amount to a personal punishment to him. Such interference with the Plaintiffs' vested rights to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the building permits, constitutes a due process violation and are therefore unconstitutional."

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Appeals Court In principle we see nothing wrong with

transferring to the new user of a municipally owned water or sewer system a fair share of the costs new use of the system involves.

The developers say the doctrine protects them because after receiving the building permit, they reasonably believed that they knew of all the expenses that they would have to pay, and in reliance on this set prices for the units. They claim that the City's subsequent assessment of impact fees after the units were sold retroactively denied them the force and effect of the building permit and violated their vested rights.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Conclusions The court finds that “Vested rights involve a

change of mind or broken promise, the imposition of different requirements after the start of construction. Because the building department approved plans and issued a building permit, there is no reason to believe that the city council would not enact impact fees where needed

No constitutional right of the developer was offended by the municipalities action …” without a contractual agreement, one cannot assume that additional taxes or fees will be imposed

Keller 2003 - 2004

Exactions – Dedication of Infrastructure Rohn v City of Visalia

Tulare Ave

Cou

rt S

treet

Can the City condition site plan approval and a building permit on 14% of Rohn’s land for alignment of Court Street?

ROHN

McSwain Mansion

Keller 2003 - 2004

Background Court Street runs north and south and

intersects Tulare Avenue, which runs east and west. The portion of Court Street south of Tulare Avenue is skewed to the east; it does not line up perfectly with the continuation of Court Street as it crosses Tulare to the north. It appears that this imperfect intersection came into existence during the original planning development of the area.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Layout

Tulare Ave

Cou

rt S

treet

Keller 2003 - 2004

Rohn’s Property Rohn owns real property at the southeast corner

of Court Street and Tulare Avenue. A single family residence was on the property and it was zoned for either single or multifamily residences. Rohn applied to the city for an amendment to the general plan to change the land use designation from residential to professional administrative offices. The owners intended to convert the house to an office building.

During this process the house was placed on the State Register of Historic Places

Keller 2003 - 2004

Plan Amendment The Planning Commission and the City

Council approved a change from multi-family housing to office buildings on the property. Both hearings mentioned the condition that Rohn must dedicate land to complete the street re-alignment

Rohn applied for a special permit and it was granted by the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and the City Council. The zoning was conditioned on the dedication of land for Court Street improvement

Keller 2003 - 2004

Rohn Submits A Site Plan The City presents a plan for street

alignment that represented a dedication of 14% of Rohn’s land or 3,401 sq ft. of Rohn’s 24,259 sq. ft.

Rohn files suit before the district court The court finds that there was no reasonable relation between the required dedication and the use for which the building permit was requested given the amount of new traffic generated

Cou

rt S

treet

To be dedicated

Keller 2003 - 2004

Appeals Court A dedication involves the uncompensated

transfer of an interest in private property to a public entity for public use. A regulatory body may constitutionally require a dedication of land as a condition of development, and such a requirement is not viewed as an act of eminent domain

If the applicant must donate property for a public use that bears no relationship to the benefit conferred on the applicant or the burden imposed on the public, there is a taking of property. Conversely, if there is such a rational relationship, the requirement of dedication of property . . . is a validly imposed condition.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Analysis The disagreement in this case is whether

there is a sufficient nexus or relationship between the condition imposed and respondents' proposed conversion

The city argues that the required nexus exists because Rohn’s project imposes a greater traffic burden and creates the need for the street widening and realignment.

The city contends that as long as there is some nexus, the amount of property required for dedication is unlimited.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Conclusion There is no substantial nexus between the

dedication condition and the alleged traffic burden created by the conversion

The record disputes that the change in use of the property will impose a significant traffic burden in the area or the city's streets in general

The staff findings concluded that the conversion of the property would impose no significant traffic problems in the area

The planning report acknowledged that conversion of the property, and others in the area, to professional use would decrease the potential traffic that could result if the zoning remained the same and apartments were built

Keller 2003 - 2004

So – What Happens? The dedication required by the Site Plan

Review was not based on any traffic problems, but as a means of implementing the connection and the long-awaited realignment of Court Street at its intersection with Tulare Avenue

Therefore, it is neither proportionate to the impact of development nor does it form a rational nexus to the need for dedication.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Too Bad, So Sad For the City “The record indicates that the city viewed

the landowners' application for rezoning and site plan review as the "hook" it needed to acquire this property for nothing, even though the reasons for the dedication existed long before the conversion of the McSwain Mansion was proposed.”

The "hook," however, is unavailable. As in Nollan, the city may proceed with its general traffic plan, but if it wants 3,400 square feet of respondents' property for a street project lacking any relation to the proposed conversion, it must pay for it.

Keller 2003 - 2004

And More Exactions

Keller 2003 - 2004

Sparks v Douglas County The Sparkses filed 4 minor plat applications Each plat would contain 4 lots The planning director reviewed the plat

applications and determined the streets bordering the plats were deficient in right of way width by county standards and thus would not accommodate future construction of street improvements. The director also determined that 32nd Street did not meet fire code requirements for safe access.

Keller 2003 - 2004

Widening

4 short plats

Sparks

County R

oad The Subdivision Review Committee approved the plats subject to certain conditions. Each plat had to dedicate a certain amount of right-of-way – ranging from 5’ to 25’ for road widening purposes

Keller 2003 - 2004

Actions

The Sparkses appealed to several local administrative review bodies but the conditions were upheld

The district court also held that the streets were deficient in size and capability and upheld the conditions for dedication

Keller 2003 - 2004

Circuit Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals reversed the trial

court in a split decision. The majority determined there was no

evidence that residential development of the Sparkses' properties would have an adverse impact which would necessitate widening the adjacent roads. The court concluded that requiring dedication of rights of way as a condition for plat approval was an unconstitutional taking.

Keller 2003 - 2004

The Sparkses Are Elated

Keller 2003 - 2004

Mr. Sparkes says: “we kicked butt”

Keller 2003 - 2004

Washington Supreme Court As a prerequisite for development permission,

a regulation may require a landowner to dedicate property rights for public use if the regulatory exaction is reasonably calculated to prevent, or compensate for, adverse public impacts of the proposed development

Using the Dolan Rule - No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.

Keller 2003 - 2004

So Who Made This Determination? The Planners did The Subdivision Review Committee did The Douglas County Regional Planning

Commission did The Board of County Commissioners did The Trial Court Did The appeals court may not substitute its

findings for those of the trial court unless such findings are so wide of the mark as to constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable finding

Keller 2003 - 2004

Decision The Sparkse’ concede that a "nexus“ exists

between requiring dedication of rights of way and the County's legitimate interest in promoting road safety.

The pivotal issue is whether the exactions demanded by Douglas County are roughly proportional to the impact of the Sparkses' proposed developments The Sparkses also claim there is no way to truly measure the impact of development

Reversed – The Degree of connection is sufficient to permit the conditions on platting to remain

Keller 2003 - 2004

OH! Failure

Sparks moves out of town and starts a new business

Keller 2003 - 2004

Recent Manhattan “House of the Week Awards”

The “Short Shaft Award”

Keller 2003 - 2004

The “Good Taste Award”

Keller 2003 - 2004

The “Pedestrian Access Award”

Keller 2003 - 2004

At Law Should the County have approved the final

plat or should they have rescinded the preliminary plat and required compliance with the 2 acre lots?

It is clear that California Land Development Law requires that the tentative subdivision map be in accord with the existing comprehensive plan at the time of its approval

The court notes the Comp. Plan only required that lots sizes in this area must range from .1 - .75 acres

Rancho Del Dios’ lots averaged .6 acre