Opinion ID: 2612225
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: parklands dedication fee

Text: I have no quarrel with the general philosophy expressed in the majority opinion relative to the desirability for a city to insure proper dedication by a developer for park-lands area within a development. It may even be desirable to provide for a cash payment to a parklands-use fund in lieu of such dedication where the parklands area is already sufficient without the dedication. However, I do not find express or implied powers for a Wyoming city to mandate a cash payment in lieu of parklands dedication in connection with approval of a subdivision plat. It must be recognized that my concern is not addressed to annexation, or zoning, or planning requirements. [5] These factors are not in this case. The land for the development has already been annexed and rezoned without any parklands requirement. It was only when the City directed it to be subdivided that the parklands requirement was introduced. Section 15-1-415, W.S. 1977, provides: (a) The owner of any land within or contiguous to any city or town may subdivide the land into lots, blocks, streets, avenues and alleys and other grounds under the name of ... . addition to the city (town) of... . An accurate map or plat shall be made designating the subdivided land and particularly describing the lots, blocks, streets, avenues and alleys and other grounds of the addition. The lots must be designated by numbers, and the streets, avenues and other grounds by name or numbers. (b) The plat shall: (i) Be acknowledged before some officer authorized to acknowledge deeds; (ii) Have appended a survey made by some competent surveyor with a certificate that he has accurately surveyed the addition, and that the parts thereof are accurately staked off and marked. (c) When the map or plat is made out, acknowledged, certified and approved by the governing body, it shall be filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk. When filed it is equivalent to a deed in fee simple to the city or town from the owner, of all streets, avenues, alleys, public squares, parks and commons and of that portion of the land set apart for public and city use, or dedicated to charitable, religious or educational purposes. All additions thus laid out are a part of the city or town for all purposes, and the inhabitants of the addition are entitled to all the rights and privileges and subject to all the laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the city or town. (d) The governing body, by ordinance, may compel the owner of any addition to lay out streets, avenues and alleys to correspond in width and direction and be continuations of the streets, ways and alleys in the city or town or other additions thereto. No addition is valid unless the terms and conditions of the ordinance are complied with and the plat submitted and approved by the governing body. (Emphasis added.) Certainly, this section gives to a city the implied power to require reasonable dedication of parklands in connection with subdividing, but it would be stretching reason to find authorization in it to extract a cash payment in lieu of dedication. See quotation in majority opinion from Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Planning Commission of City of Danbury, 160 Conn. 109, 273 A.2d 880, 885 (1970). The majority opinion notes that other cases cited therein are premised on construction of statutes, but the opinion comments we are of the opinion that the lack of a specific statutory provision in this case is not determinative. I do not agree. I believe it is determinative, and that it becomes judicial legislation to stretch general language authorizing regulation and operation of parklands to include authority to extract a cash fee in lieu of dedication in a subdivision plat.