Dolan v. City Of Tigard

512 U.S. 374 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The State of Oregon enacted a comprehensive land use management program in 1973. Tigard (D) developed its own plan in response to the State’s. Part of the plan included a Master Drainage Plan; a dedication of land to pedestrian and bicycle pathways and a 15% open space and landscaping requirement. Dolan (P) owned a store in D. The lot on which the store was located was bounded on its western edge by a creek. The creek had a year-round flow, which rendered the area within its 100-year floodplain virtually unusable for commercial development. The creek's floodplain was included in D's greenway system. P applied to D for a permit to redevelop her store site. P’s plan called for nearly doubling the size of the store and paving a 39-space parking lot. She also proposed to build a second structure on her lot for a complementary business and to provide more parking. The proposal was consistent with D's zoning scheme. D granted P's permit, subject to conditions imposed by its development code. Under the relevant portion of the code, P was required to dedicate a portion of her property lying within the floodplain, as well as an additional 15-foot strip immediately adjoining the floodplain as a bicycle and pedestrian pathway. This total dedication amounted to 10% of her property, but P was allowed to count that 10% towards the 15% open space and landscape requirement. D would also bear the cost of maintaining a landscaped buffer between the dedicated area and the new store. P requested a variance from the regulations. The request was denied because P failed to show undue hardship. P simply argued that her development would not conflict with the policies of the comprehensive plan. D made a series of findings regarding the relationship between the conditions imposed by the development code and the projected impact of P's project. These included findings that the pathway would offset some of the increased traffic which would result from the addition of other stores and that the floodplain dedication was reasonable related to the development since development would place an additional strain on an already overburdened creek and floodplain. P challenged the finding that the conditions were reasonably related to her proposed project and therefore it was an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment. The Board of Appeals found that there was a reasonable relationship between the development and the conditioned dedication along the creek for a greenway. It also affirmed the findings related to the bike path with increased store traffic and the need to alleviate congestion therefrom. P appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing that 'reasonable relationship' was not the appropriate standard, and the court was required to find an 'essential nexus' between the permit conditions and the proposed development. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. That court disagreed with P’s contention that Nollan abandoned the reasonably related test; Nollan meant that an exaction is reasonably related to an impact if the exaction serves the same purpose that a denial of the permit would serve. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.