1988-01-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I , ~ Council Meeting Minutes January 12, 1988 In discussions with counsel, LeFevere stated it has been sugges- ted, due to site restrictions because of the landfill and other characteristics of the site, if Boerner is not able to proceed with their trailer storage area, the property may be deprived of all reasonable use. Another question, about which LeFevere had very few facts, is whether the landowner has acted in reliance on the current ordinances to such an extent that applying a moratorium ordinance to this application, if that is what the council decides to do, would work a substantial prejudice. If so, the court could conclude that the city would be a stop from applying a moratorium to this application, even though the moratorium might otherwise be reasonable. As counsel has pointed out, the city cannot prevent a permitted use by the simple expedient of denying a site plan applicant; city council could deny site plan application if, for example, it was inconsistent with the code (not providing a dust-free surface) or it could approve with appropriate conditions as has been suggested by counsel. Whatever the city council does with regard to the site plan review process, should be made on the basis of site- plan-type considerations rather than a dispute about the appropriateness of the zoning in this case, or the appropriateness of having trailer storage facilities included in that zoning classification. LeFevere continued that the factors before the city council have changed somewhat since the last council meeting because the appli- cant has since agreed to accede to all conditions posed by the city, including providing a dust-free surface. As to legal impli- cations of imposing a moratorium, the city council must have a ra- tional basis for what it does and the question arises whether the moratorium, even on an interim basis, deprives a property of all reasonable use. The relatively recent U. S. Supreme Court case from California ruled that if action of a city council on adopting an interim ordinance or moratorium ordinance deprives property of all reasonable use even on an interim basis, the landowner may be entitled to compensation, although the compensation would only be for the interim or temporary interference with the right to use property. If what is proposed is that the city council wishes to have input from other agencies which have jurisdiction over the construction of this project (and where those agencies have greater expertise with regard to stormwater management, percola- tion characteristics of soil, and pollution matters), LeFevere is of the opinion that that is not an unreasonable thing for the city to do. There is very little guidance in the cases of which LeFevere is aware which helps the city to decide how it has to act on an ap- plication when there are several governmental bodies which have jurisdiction over the proposed action; in a case like this it would be appropriate to get their input on the site plan before the city council acts; it is possible that the conditions or re- strictions imposed by those bodies may have a bearing on what this Page 11