|
<br />01"l"l3'/:,
<br />U (J ':i '_i
<br />
<br />69
<br />
<br />"',~,.
<br />'-"'':,'N
<br />'f.~~~t~'
<br />
<br />USee Miller v. Beaver Falls, 368 Pa. 189, 82 A.2d 34 (1951).
<br />see, also Lomarch Corp~ v. Mayor of Englewood, 51 N.J. 108,
<br />237 A.2d 881 (1968). The, 'latter caseip.volveda One year
<br />"reservation" of park lands. See discu$sion in text. accom-
<br />panying notes '9-17 of Chapter V;-of par~ III.
<br />
<br />66COurts have invalidated attempts to reqtiire dedication of
<br />park areas where the enab'ling acts did hot a).lthorize suoh
<br />'dedioation requirements. See,e..g,., Gordon v. Village of
<br />Wayne, 370 Mich. 329, 121 N.W.2d 823 (1963).
<br />
<br />67) ANDERSONs1703 at 287, 288.
<br />
<br />68See Nelson, Master Plan and Subdivision Control, 16 MAINE
<br />r;:-REV. 107 (1964) for a general discussion.'
<br />
<br />69See cases discussed in Nelson, note 68 supra and cases in
<br />notes 70-72 infra.
<br />
<br />70 See Ayres v .ci ty Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 2d 31, 207
<br />. P.2d I (1949); RidgefieldLand Co. v. City of Detroit; 241
<br />,Mich. 468, 2l7N.I'I. 58 (1928) (The "master plan" involved in
<br />. this case was in fact a major street plan.)
<br />
<br />71Lordship Park Ass'n,. v. Bd, of Zoning Appeals, 137 Conn.
<br />84, 75A.2d 379 (1950).
<br />
<br />HBeach v. Planning and Zoning Com f n. of Tn.' of HilfQrd , 141
<br />. COnn. 79,103 A.2d814, 817 (1954). .
<br />
<br />7 SWIS. STAT. ANN. 9 236...13 (1957 and Supp. 1971).
<br />
<br />74MICH. STJI.T.ANN. 926.430 (117). (1970). See discussion accom,...
<br />panying note 4 of Chapter II.. .
<br />
<br />~sFor oases sustaining state revie\~ of water supply facilities
<br />see Gulino Constr. Corp. V~ Hilleboe,167 N.Y.S. 2d 787 '.
<br />'(S:" Ct., Onondaga Co. 1956); Town of Dyer v. Monaldi, 245
<br />. Ind.. 585, 201 N.E.2d 268 (1964)' (Plans for water supply to
<br />be approved by state board ofhea1 th . )
<br />
<br />'f,,;;:,
<br />;:;t~:)
<br />
<br />76 , ' ,,'
<br />See, e.g., Kelber v. Upland, 155.Cal. App. 2d 631, 318 P.2d
<br />561 (1958) whiohhe1d that an ordinance requiring payment of
<br />$99.70 per lot to be placed into a subdivision drainage fund
<br />~n lieu of specified drainage facilities was invalid because
<br />it was not authorized by the enabling act.
<br />
<br />Hsee, e.g., Kesselring v. Wakefield Realty Co., Inc., 306 Ky.
<br />725, 209 S.W.2d 6:3 (1948), whi.ch held that specific planning
<br />regUlations requiring curbs and gutters were unreasonable in
<br />particular circumstances where "valley gutters" were more satis-
<br />factory. '
<br />
<br />78See,e.g., RO).lssey v.Burlingame, 100 Cal. App. 2d 321, 223
<br />F.2d 517 (1950). . .
<br />
|