Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-9- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />taneously. Courts tend, in most instances, to defer to le9isla- <br />tive judgment concerning the establishment of priorities based <br />upon budgets, seriousness of problems and other factors. (See <br />Chapter 16.) <br /> <br />16. Q. Must existing floodplain and wetland uses be treated the <br />same as future uses? <br />A. Courts have permitted the imposition of more restrictive <br />controls upon new uses than existing uses with the reasoning that <br />uses adopted prior to regulation should not be subject to parti- <br />cularly difficult or onerous burdens. (See Chapter 16.) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />17. Q. Must government bodies comply with locally adopted zoning? <br />A. In general, Federal agencies are exempt from local zoning <br />although they must comply with Executive Orders 11988 (Protection <br />of Wetlands) and 11990 (Floodplain Management) which incorporate <br />standards similar to those found in local zoning. Federal agencies <br />usually also require a 404 Permit for development in wetlands. <br />State agencies are usually exempt from local zoning but need to <br />comply with state executive order requirements and statutes per- <br />taining to wetlands and floodplains. State agencies require <br />404 Permits. Local agencies must comply with state regulations, <br />404 Permit requirements and, in some instances their own regula- <br />tions. When they are functioning in a "proprietary capacity" <br />such as constructing a water supply system, these must comply <br />with their regulations. When operating in a "governmental <br />capacity" such as construction of a road they usually need not <br />comply with their regulations. <br /> <br />~ 18. Q. Must floodplain regulations be based upon detailed engineering <br />studies and maps? <br />A. Courts upheld sufficiency of flood studies which lacked <br />engineering certainty in several cases. Only one decision in- <br />validated floodplain regulations outright because of lack of <br />data. In this case, there was no theoretical or physical evidence <br /> <br />. <br />