Opinion ID: 1387144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Dolan Test of Constitutionality

Text: The statement of the law by the Court of Appeals conflicts with the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Dolan v. Tigard, supra . The Court of Appeals stated a dedication is permissible only if it reasonably prevents or compensates for, in a specific and proportional fashion, adverse public impacts of the proposed development. [31] Dolan found such exacting scrutiny unacceptable. [32] In Dolan, a property owner sought a permit to remove the existing building housing her electric and plumbing supply business and to replace it with a larger building and an expanded parking lot. As a condition for approval, the City of Tigard required the owner to dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year floodplain for improvement of a storm drainage system and to dedicate a 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the floodplain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. In an administrative appeal, it was determined that the floodplain dedication was reasonably related to the increase in impervious surface and stormwater runoff caused by the development, and that the pathway dedication was reasonably related to the need to accommodate increased traffic and provide alternative transportation. The Oregon Supreme Court determined the dedications did not constitute takings because they were reasonably related to the impact they were designed to mitigate. [33] The United States Supreme Court reversed. It stated that whether a dedication requirement constitutes a taking depends upon resolution of two questions. First, does an essential nexus exist between a legitimate state interest and the requirement? [34] And second, if so, does the required degree of connection exist between the dedication and the projected impact of the proposed development? [35] The court readily found an essential nexus in Dolan, since prevention of flooding and reduction of traffic congestion are legitimate public purposes, and the dedications required by the City of Tigard would theoretically help achieve those purposes. [36] However, the degree of connection necessary between the dedications and the impacts caused by the development was a matter of concern. The court in Dolan then announced that a rough proportionality standard of scrutiny best embodies the requirement of the Fifth Amendment. [37] Under that approach, the local government must demonstrate that the exaction it imposes is roughly proportional to the impact of the development: No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.[ [38] ] Applying this test to the facts, the Supreme Court in Dolan rejected the conditions imposed upon the proposed store expansion. First, the court determined that, although keeping the floodplain open and free from development advanced the legitimate purpose of flood control, the City of Tigard's condition requiring the dedicated land to become part of the public greenway system did not promote the interest of flood control. [39] If the proposed development had somehow encroached on existing greenway space in the city, the court said, it would have been reasonable to require some alternative greenway space for the public. But because the City did not make any individualized determination to support such a condition, it did not show the required reasonable relationship between the floodplain easement and the proposed building. [40] The court acknowledged that, although dedications for public ways are reasonable requirements to avoid congestion from a proposed property use, the City did not show the required reasonable relationship when it found only that the pathway could offset some of the traffic demand, but made no finding that it will or is likely to offset some of the traffic demand generated by the project. [41] While stating that a precise calculation is not required, the court said the City must nonetheless make some effort to quantify its findings beyond making a mere conclusory statement of impact. [42] The approach adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Dolan can be applied in consonance with Washington law. RCW 82.02.020 permits dedications as a condition for subdivision approval if the local government can show the conditions are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement is to apply. Reviewing agencies must consider adequacy of access to a proposed subdivision, and may condition approval on provision of adequate access. [43] Short subdivision plats may not be approved unless the legislative body finds, among other things, that appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for... open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads.... [44] But the fact that the dedications in this case were imposed, in part, to accommodate anticipated future improvement of the roads makes application of the Dolan standard less certain. It is not clear whether, under Dolan, municipalities may take into account future developments and their anticipated cumulative impacts. A Nebraska case cited in Dolan as representative of the reasonable relationship standard held that a local government may not require a property owner to dedicate private property for future public use as a condition for obtaining a building permit when that future use is not occasioned by the construction sought to be permitted. [45] At any rate, the determinative issue in this case is not future use, but the degree of connection between the County's exaction and the impact of the developments.