Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />and that the regulation, on its face or as applied, is <br />unreasonable. Subdivision ordinance provisions that <br />have the intent of preventing or minimizing flood <br />damage are generally regarded by courts as having a <br />legitimate public purpose. Site plan review regulations, <br />v,rhich are used in conjunction ,"vith special permit revie\'\' <br />or other discretionary permitting processes, (e.g., <br />planned unit developments and overlay zones) are <br />recognized by courts as having a legitimate public <br />purpose because their goal is to protect the health, safety, <br />and welfare of the citizenry. The planning board or <br />commission charged \....ith review of the site plan <br />typically considers the building layout, appearance of <br />buildings, natural features, screening, safety, <br />environmental impacts, and its compatibility with the <br />surrounding environment. (See Rathkopfs The Larv of <br />P/am1irzg and ZOlling, Chapter 62, Site Plan Review and <br />Approval, Sec. 62,01 Rev. 6/93.) It is probable that a local <br />government that has gone to the trouble of enacting and <br />implementing floodplain management regulations, <br />overlay districts, or any other special permitting <br />procedures for floodplain development ,"vill use a site <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />plan revie'\v process to evaluate proposed development. <br />Equal protection guarantee claims can arise when one <br />class (or several classes) of development are treated <br />differently by the revie\", body_ The equal protection <br />clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is generally <br />interpreted to mean that property m.vners that are <br />"similarly situated" must be treated alike. For example, <br />developers of manufactured housing parks may claim <br />that an ordinance that requires a special permit to locate <br />manufactured homes in single-family districts, but does <br />not require such a permit for site-built homes, violates <br />the equal protection clause. Furthermore, owners of <br />property that share the same level of risk of flooding <br />should be zoned in the same manner. Hmvever, a <br />community would not be violating equal protection <br />guarantees by imposing different degrees of <br />restriction on flood-prone lands where it could be <br />shown that a property is more susceptible to flooding <br />(due to its ground elevationr the velocity of <br />floodvvaters, the ground'water tabler and its proximity <br />to watercourses) than are other properties in the <br />floodplain. <br />