Dolan v. City of Tigard
Citation | 317 Or. 110,854 P.2d 437 |
Parties | , 62 USLW 2036, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,151 John T. DOLAN and Florence Dolan, Petitioners on Review, v. CITY OF TIGARD, Respondent on Review. LUBA 91-161. CA A73769, SC S39393. |
Decision Date | 01 July 1993 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
David B. Smith, Tigard, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners on review.
James M. Coleman, of O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew & Corrigan, Portland, argued the cause and filed the response for respondent on review.
Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar, Washington, DC, and Gregory S. Hathaway, of Garvey, Schubert & Barer, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae for Washington Legal Foundation.
Timothy J. Sercombe and Edward J. Sullivan, of Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates, & Ellis, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae for 1000 Friends of Oregon.
Ronald A. Zumbrun and Robin L. Rivett, Sacramento, CA, and Richard M. Stephens, Bellevue, WA, filed a brief amicus curiae for Pacific Legal Foundation.
Petitioners in this land use case seek review of a Court of Appeals' decision affirming a Final Opinion and Order of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in favor of respondent City of Tigard (city). Dolan v. City of Tigard, 113 Or.App. 162, 832 P.2d 853 (1992). The issue is whether city has demonstrated the required relationship between the conditions that it attached to its approval of petitioners' proposed land use and the expected impacts of that land use. 1 Petitioners argue that, because city failed to demonstrate an "essential nexus" or a "substantial relationship" between the exactions demanded by city and the impacts caused by their proposed development, city's exactions constitute a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment of the federal constitution. 2 City responds that it need only show a "reasonable relationship" between the imposition of the conditions and the legitimate public interest advanced. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Court of Appeals' decision.
Petitioners own 1.67 acres of land in downtown Tigard. The land is within city's "central business district" zone and is subject to an "action area" overlay zone (CBD-AA zone). The land's current use is as a retail electric and plumbing supply business, a general retail sales use.
Petitioners applied to city for a permit to remove an existing 9,700-square foot building and to construct a 17,600-square foot building in which to relocate the electric and plumbing supply business and to expand their parking lot (phase I). Petitioners eventually intend to build an additional structure and to provide more parking on the site (phase II); however, the exact nature of that additional expansion is not specified. Petitioners' proposed intensified use (phase I) is permitted outright in the CBD zone; however, the AA overlay zone, which implements the policies of the Tigard Community Development Code, allows city to attach conditions to the development in order to provide for projected transportation and public facility needs.
City granted petitioners' application, but required as conditions that petitioners dedicate the portion of their property lying within the 100-year floodplain for improvement of a storm drainage system and, further, that they dedicate an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. 3 Petitioners sought a variance from those conditions, which city denied. 4
In its 27-page final order, city made the following pertinent findings that petitioners do not challenge concerning the relationship between the dedication conditions and the anticipated impacts of petitioners' project:
City of Tigard Planning Commission Final Order No. 91-09 PC at 13, 20-21.
On petitioners' appeal, the Tigard City Council approved the Planning Commission's final order.
Petitioners appealed to LUBA. They did not challenge the adequacy of city's above quoted findings or their evidentiary support in the record. Rather, petitioners argued that city's dedication requirements are not related to their proposed development and, therefore, that those requirements constitute an uncompensated taking of their property under the Fifth Amendment.
In considering petitioners' federal taking claim, LUBA assumed that city's findings about the impacts of the proposed development were supported by substantial evidence. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 22 Or LUBA 617, 626 n 9 (1992). Accordingly, LUBA considered only whether those findings were sufficient to establish the requisite relationship between the impacts of the proposed development and the exactions imposed, i.e., do city's findings support city's action? LUBA stated:
Id. at 621 (emphasis in original).
LUBA concluded:
"In view of the comprehensive Master Drainage Plan adopted by respondent providing for use of the Fanno Creek greenway in management of storm water runoff, and the undisputed fact that the proposed larger building and paved parking area on the subject property will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and, therefore, runoff into Fanno Creek, we conclude there is a 'reasonable relationship' between the proposed development and the requirement to dedicate land along Fanno Creek for a greenway.
LUBA held that the challenged conditions requiring dedication of portions of petitioners' property did not constitute an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 627.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dolan v. City of Tigard
...a conclusory statement that the dedication could offset some of the traffic demand generated by the development. Pp. ____. 317 Ore. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (1993), reversed and REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVEN......
-
West LINN Corp.ORATE PARK v. CITY of West LINN, USCA 05-53061
...that the condition must bear a reasonable relationship to the impacts of the use to which the city has attached it. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 317 Or. 110, 854 P.2d 437, cert. granted 510 U.S. 989[, 114 S.Ct. 544, 126 L.Ed.2d 446] (1993). The facts on both sides of the equation are readily su......
-
Montgomery County v. Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership
... ... by the State for the support of the general State Government, and by the Counties and by the City of Baltimore for their respective purposes, shall be uniform within each class or sub-class of ... Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari to hear the appeal of a property owner from Dolan v. City of Tigard, 317 Or. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (1993). One of the issues to be presented is the ... ...
-
F.P. Dev., LLC v. Charter Twp. of Canton
...pathway system will , or is likely to , offset some of the traffic demand." Id. (quoting Dolan v. City of Tigard , 317 Or. 110, 854 P.2d 437, 447 (1993) (en banc) (Peterson, J., dissenting)). Here, the township provides us with little information about its replacement or relocation requirem......
-
Where the wild things are: the Endangered Species Act and private property.
...See, e.g., Barrett v. State, 220 N.Y. 423, 116 N.E. 99, 100 (1917). (220.) Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960). (221.) 317 Or. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (Or. 1993), cert. granted, 62 U.S.L.W. 3301 (U.S. Nov. 29, 1993) (No. 93-518). (222.) See Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, ......
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...approval of her building permit on the dedication of a portion of her property for flood control and traffic improvements. 317 Ore. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (1993). We granted certiorari to resolve a question left open by our decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 97 L. Ed.......
-
Constitutional wish granting and the property rights genie.
...1993) (describing the provisions of Measure 5, a constitutional amendment limiting property tax rates approved in 1990); Dolan v. Tigard, 317 Or. 110, 129, 854 P.2d 437, 448 (1993), rev'd, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994) (Peterson J., dissenting) (noting that "The temptation, particularly in times o......
-
Reading Dolan v. City of Tigard.
...Recurrence in First English Lutheran Church and Nollan, 59 U. Corp. L. Rev. 427 (1988). (12) See, e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard, 854 P.2d 437 (Or. 1993). (13) Dolan, 114 S. Ct. at 2317-18. (14) Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices O'Connor, Scalia, K......