|
<br />Judicial Notic4:! of Floodplains andl
<br />Wetlands
<br />
<br />"No ,1igher duty can devolve upon the city authorities than that of protecting
<br />the proDerly, health, and lives of 111e people; this is their paramount duty..a duty
<br />which cannot be evaded, nor can their right to do so be lost by neglect or be bar-
<br />tered 8N8Y."
<br />City of Welch v. Mltche/,l, 121 S.E. 165 (1924)
<br />.. It was not the State which placed appellant's property In the path of floods.
<br />Nature has placed it where it is and. if respondent had done nothing with respect
<br />to Ilone-plain (sic) zoning, the property would still be subject to physical
<br />realities,"
<br />Maple l.eaf Investors Inc_ v. Srate of Washington Department of Ecology, 565 P.2d
<br />1162. at 1165 (Wash.. 1977 J
<br />"The shoreland zoning ordinance preserves nature, the environment, and natural
<br />resources as they were created and to which the people have a presept right.
<br />The orcinance does not create or improve the public condition but only pre-
<br />serves lature from the despoliage and harm resulting from the unrestricted
<br />activitiE!S of humans."
<br />Just v. Marinette CouMy, 201 N.W. 2d 761, at 771 (Wis., 19721
<br />"An oWller of land has no absolutE! and unlimited right to change the e5sential
<br />natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was
<br />unsui~ed in its natural state."
<br />Jbid.. 201 N.W 2d, at 768
<br />"The denial of the permit by the board did not depreciate the value of the
<br />marshland or cause it to become 'of practically no pecuniary value.' Its value was
<br />the same after the denial of the permit as before and it remained as it had been
<br />for miIlHniums."
<br />Sibsofl v. Slate of New Hampshire, 336 A.:~d 239, at 243 (1975)
<br />
<br />Citatiions for Court Cases that May Be of
<br />Interlest to Floodplain Managers and
<br />Theil' Legal COlllnsel
<br />
<br />CASES IN COLORADO
<br />A. Amb,.osio v. Peri-Mack Construction Co., 143 Colo. 49,351 p, 2d 803 (1960)
<br />B. Barr v. Game, Fish and Parks Commission, 30 Colo. App. 482. 497 P. 2d 340
<br />(1972)
<br />C. BafJrr1 v. Denver, 147 Colo. 104,.363 P.2c1688 (1961)
<br />D. City and County of Denver v. Denver BUiCk, 141 Colo. 121, :347 P.2lj 919 (1960)
<br />E City of Colorado Springs v, Miller, 95 Colo. 450, 319 P.2d 161 (1934)
<br />F. Colb:1 v. Board of AdjustmE~nt of Denver, 81 Colo. 344, 255 P.443 (1927)
<br />G. Denl'er v. American Oil Co., 150 Colo. 341,374 P.2d 357 (1962)
<br />H. Doclleff vs. City of Broomfil~fd, Colo. App., 623 P.2d 69 (1 S180)
<br />I. Famularo v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Colo. 333 505 P.:~d 958
<br />(19i'3)
<br />J. Hoskinson v. City of Arvada, 136 Colo. 450, 319 P.2d 1090 (1958)
<br />K Stmvd v. City of Aspen. 10'38 Colo. 1. 532 P.2d 720 (1975)
<br />CASES FROM OTHER STATE'S
<br />A Cour ty of Clark v. Powers, 611 P.2d 1072 (1980)
<br />B. County of Ramsey v. Stevens, 283 N.W. :Zd 918 (1979)
<br />C. Doo/'3Y v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Fairfield. 1~; 1 ::onn.
<br />304. 197 A2d 770 (1964)
<br />D. Just v. Marinette County, ~~C1 N.W. 2d 7131 (1972)
<br />E. Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 88 Wash. 2d 726 P.2d
<br />1 Hl2 (1977)
<br />F. Mas,y v. Cityof Lorame. 48 Ohio 2d 334. 2 Op. 3d 463. 358 N.E. 2c1596 (1976)
<br />G. Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Parsippany- Troy Hills Twp. 193 A. 2d
<br />232 ,:1963)
<br />H. Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928)
<br />I. Oahe Conservancy Sub-Dlstricf \1. Alexander. 493 F. Supp. 1 :~94 (1980)
<br />J. Pennsylvama Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)
<br />K Texa.s Landowners Rights Assn. v. Harris, 453 F. Supp. 102!5 (1978)
<br />L. Turnpike Realty Co., Inc. \I. Town of Dedham, 284 N.E. 2d 891 (1972)
<br />M. Usdin v. N.J. Dept. of EnVIronmental Protection, 173 N.J. Super 311. 414 A.2d
<br />280 (1980) off'd 179 N.J. Super 113, 4:JO A2(j 949 (1981)
<br />N. YOllr,g Plumbing and Healing Co. v. Iowa, et. a/.. 276 N.W. 2d 3Tl (197H)
<br />
<br />13
<br />
|