Dolan v. City of Tigard: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Dolan also loses in the later appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. | Dolan also loses in the later appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. | ||
|issues=Are the city's permit conditions reasonably related to Dolan's development plan? | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/dolan-v-city-of-tigard | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/dolan-v-city-of-tigard | ||
Revision as of 20:30, February 28, 2023
| Dolan v. City of Tigard | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 24, 1994 |
| Appealed from | Oregon Supreme Court |
Facts
In the 1990s, the city of Tigard, Oregon, faced (1) increased traffic of motor vehicles and (2) flooding of streets because of concrete surfaces.
In an effort to lessen auto traffic, the city planned bike paths and sidewalks. Next, to reduce flooding, Tigard required businesses to maintain 15% of their parcels as open space.
Florence Dolan owned a store within the floodplain area of Tigard. She wanted to double her store size & pave her parking lot (which would make rainwater impossible to seep into the ground).
Tigard granted Dolan a building permit with 2 provisos: (1) Dolan would need to deed all her land within the floodplain to the city, & (2) Tigard demand the construction of an extra walkway & bicycle path.
In summary, Tigard was asking for 10% of her land in exchange for Dolan's building permit.Procedural History
Dolan appealed the stipulations for her building permit in Tigard to the land use board where she loses.
Dolan also loses in the later appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.
