My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01829
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01829
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:32:59 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:40:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8030
Description
Section D General Compact Issues - US Water Resources Council
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
8/1/1971
Author
US Water Resources C
Title
Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses - Draft - Volume II Part V - With Appendices
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />JUDICIAL ~ACTION <br /> <br />002335 58 <br /> <br />5-342;20 <br /> <br />municipal construction of improvements. Some. of these require- il@ <br /> <br />ments., have <br /> <br />been disapproved if such exactions have not been <br />.. 98 . '. <br />by enabling statutes or if the improvements were <br /> <br />. authorized <br /> <br />not directly related to subdivision.needs. A California court <br />disapproved. a drainage fee of $99.07 per lot because the fees <br />were to be used for general city improvements.99 However, a <br /> <br />second California court approved a fee of $50,000 for a sub- <br /> <br /> <br />division where the fee was to be used by the municipality to <br /> <br /> <br />construct a drainage ditch to serve the subdivision.lOO In <br /> <br />other contexts some courts have approved fee requirements in <br /> <br />lieu of construction ofse,~er systems or dedication of parR <br /> <br /> <br />space.101 Like the California court sustaining the $50,000 <br /> <br />. , <br />exaction, these courts have usually sustained <br /> <br />exactions 'wnen <br /> <br />the fees wexedesignedto pay for costs uniquely attributable <br />to the subdivision. A.comprehensive California statute spells <br />out procedures for assessing drainage fees uniquely .related to <br />bd' ,. 'd 102 <br />su 1V1S10n nee s. <br /> <br />.for <br /> <br />342.20 Requirements/'Parks and Park Space <br /> <br /> <br />Often the preservation of flood plain and drainag~ <br /> <br /> <br />areas as open space within a subdivision can serve dual objec-. <br /> <br /> <br />.tives of reducing flood losses and providing recreation areas. <br /> <br /> <br />Infrequent flooding of an area will not seriously disturb park <br /> <br /> <br />or recreation use. Planning board requirements that flOoded <br /> <br />areas be preserved as open spaces may be strengthened against <br /> <br />legal attack by dual objectives. For example, a landowner may <br />argue with some persuasiveness that he should not be required <br />to preserve a wide flood plain to pas.s flood flows generated by <br />lands throughout the municipality. Courts in other contexts <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.