Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JUDICIAL REACTION. 002333 <br /> <br />56 <br /> <br />5-342.11 <br /> <br /> <br />hazards be justified in some broad enabling statute lan- <br /> <br />4.""'. <br />'(:~~lfi <br /> <br />guage. <br /> <br />342 .1lAdequa:c~{ of Enil-bHhg Legislation <br /> <br /> <br />. Some municipil-lities have experienced diffi- <br /> <br /> <br />.culty in re~uiring subdividers to-install drainagefil-cilities <br /> <br /> <br />where the enabling il-cts or regulations failed to clearly' <br /> <br /> <br />authorize such requireme.nts. 86 However, other courts have <br /> <br />broadly ~nterpreted munjcipa1 powers il-nd hil-ve found that <br />reasonable drainage requirements were authorized by enabling <br /> <br />acts which authorized municipalities to prescribe standards <br />'for streets. 87 <br />342.B! :Reasonableness <br /> <br />. , . <br />Regulatory standards for flooding and drainage <br />facilities must be reasonable. One court held that refusal <br />to approve a subdivision with valley gutters was unreil-sonable <br />in circumstanoes where such gutters were practical il-1though <br />planning regulations required .curbsand gutters.88 A second <br /> <br />court held that <br /> <br />~efusal by a plan commission to approve a sub- <br /> <br />. division to prel;lerve a natural ponding area WaS not authorized <br />was <br />by the enabling act and/confiscatory.89 A third. court held <br />that a plan commission could not refuse plat approval because <br />of possible water supply and dril-inage problems where there <br />Wil-S no factual data to support the c1aim.90 A California case <br />noted that a subdivider was not obliged to carry out improve- <br />.. <br />ments in an area adjacent to a flood control work where a flood <br /> <br />control district had failed to construct the work according to <br />specifications and this prevented or complicated the subdivider's <br />job.9l <br /> <br />;e:-!:r..-,. <br />~: i~.'~~l <br />"'~"'.:.:-. <br />