Laserfiche WebLink
<br />plan which did not provide drainage facilities and issued building <br />permits, borough was not liable because it owed no duty to land- <br />owners outs~ae its boundaries. However, the developer was held liable.) <br /> <br />One state court, however, has held that a municipality is liable~ <br />for damages where the municipality has furnished building permits <br />to a contractor for development of an industrial complex which <br />benefited the village financially, but also diminished surface <br />area available for drainage of water causing flooding of neighboring <br />servient estates. Myotte v. Village of Mayfield, 375 N.E.2d 816 <br />(1977). In Myotte, the village's liability was based on the follow- <br />ing reasoning: <br /> <br />"To require the developer to pick up the <br />cost of flood prevention by requiring him <br />to acquire land along stream margins for <br />widening or deepening to accommodate <br />accelerated flow, would subject him to <br />possible overreaching by riparian owners. <br />The developer has no power of eminent <br />domain. Municipalities do have powers of <br />condemnation. Accordingly, as an advan- <br />taged party with the power to protect <br />itself from crisis pricing, it seems <br />reasonable and just that the municipality <br />should either enlarge the stream to <br />accommodate water accelerated from per- <br />mitted improvements which enrich it or pay the <br />consequences." Myotte, supra at 820. (Day, <br />J. concurring.) See also, Armstrong v. <br />Francis Corporation, 20 N.J. 320, 120 A.2d <br />4 (1956); Sheffet v. County of Los Angeles, <br />3 Cal. App. 3d 720 (1970); Powers, et al., <br />v. County of Clark and Clark County Flood <br />Control District, District Court, State of <br />Nevada (No. A 125197) (1978). <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />There is a trend toward imposing a greater burden or responsibility <br />on municipalities for the drainage consequences of urban development. <br />See Wood Brothers Homes, Inc. v. City of Colorado Springs, 568 P.2d <br />487 (1977) ~City abused discretion by not granting variance and by <br />assessing entire cost of major drainage channel on developer where <br />area to be served by the major drainage channel already suffered <br />from occasional flooding and needed expanded drainage facility <br />whether the property was developed or not). <br /> <br />(7) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1-15-80 <br />