|
<br />63
<br />
<br />0023-'to
<br />FOOTNOTES CHAPTER III
<br />
<br />(!~ IS7eh, e.g87., Ridgemont Develo(pment Co. v. East Detroit, 358
<br />".-"'-' M~c . 3 , 100 N.W.2d 30l 1960) (City oould, not compel
<br />dedication of park area where statutes did riot authorize
<br />such a requirement.) Santa Clara County Contractors and
<br />Homebuilders Assn. v. Santa Clara, 232 App. 2d 564, 43
<br />Ca1. Rptr. 86 (1965) (Municipality could not require fee
<br />from subdividers for maintenance,'of recreation facilities
<br />where such a fee was not authorized by the enabling act.)
<br />
<br />2See, e.g., Lawton v. Steel, 152 U.S. 133, 137 (l894); See
<br />particularly Baker v. Planning Bd. of Framingham, 353 Mass.
<br />141, 228 N.E.2d 831 (1967) in which the court held that it
<br />is beyond the power of a planning board to refuse to approve
<br />a subdivision so tha.t town could continue to use O1,mer's land
<br />asa flood water storage area. The court intimated that this
<br />would be an invalid objective for regulation even if such
<br />regulation were properly authorized.
<br />
<br />3See. e.g., ~ve1ch v. S~lasey, 214 U.S. 91, 105 (1909). See
<br />particularly Kesselring v. Wakefield Realty Co.., Inc., 306
<br />Ky. 725, a09 S.W.2d 63 (1948) in which the court held that
<br />specific planning regulations' requiring curbs and gutters
<br />were unreasonable where valley gut~ers were in fact more appropriate.
<br />
<br />4See, e.g., Yick W. v. Hopkins, 118 u.s. 356 (1886). See
<br />.a16o KaSsv.Lewin (Fla.), 104 Sc.2:'! 572(1:)58) in\vhich the
<br />oourt held that a statute which required platting of all
<br />divisions of land less than an acre but not those greater
<br />than an acre was discriminatory.
<br />
<br />,
<br />5See Pennsylvania coai Co. v. Nahan, 260 U.S. 393 (1922); ~ee
<br />Hidtown Properties, Inc. v. Madison T01mships, 68 N.J. Super.
<br />197, In A.2d 40 (1961) in which the court held that to co:n-
<br />pel a subdivider to pay for a school or donate land for a
<br />school was a taking of property.
<br />
<br />6See, ~, Langridge Estates v. City of 'Los Angeles,6 Cal.
<br />Rptr. 900, 905 (1960); Young v. Town Planning and Zoning
<br />Conunission, 151 Conn. 235, 196 A.2d 427, .j 32: (1963 )illvlhictl the
<br />court stated that" (c)ourts do not substitute theirm.:n judg,..
<br />mentfor that of the. (Zoning) ~mmission so long as honest
<br />judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised after a
<br />full hearing."
<br />
<br />'See Blakeman v. Planning Comm'n. of Shelton, 152 Conn. 303,
<br />206 A.2d 425 (1965); But see Snyder v. ZoningBd. of Town
<br />of tvesterly (R.I. Sup:-CtT200 1~.2d 222 (1964) in whioh the
<br />court held that the planning board oould not refuse to
<br />approve a plat because of possible sewerage and drainage
<br />problems when there was no evidence of possible problems.
<br />
<br />2Steward v. Stone, 130 So. 2d 577
<br />
<br />(Fla., 1961).
<br />
<br />'In' re Sidebotham, 12 Cal. 2d 434, 85 P.2d 453, 454, cert.
<br />- .......- ---.-
<br />den~ed, 307 U.S. 634 (1938).
<br />IOpeop1e v. Haxwell, 1G2 Colo. 495, 427 P.2d 310 (1967).
<br />
<br />
|