8/1/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as completely as possible and just say that the backup material is available if anyone wishes to refer to it. Administrator Chandler stated that they are working on this. CODE WATER ACCESS REQUIREMENTS Asst. County Attorney Collins reviewed the following, recommending that we delete the subject dedication requirements from our ordinance and look at some other means of accomplishing the same thing: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM:oC.- William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney DATE: July 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Code Water Access Requirements The County Subdivision and Platting Ordinance, Section 10(r) requires every subdivision that fronts on a natural water body for a distance of 600 feet to dedicate a 15 -foot access easement for each quarter mile to the water, and to construct a walkway thereon from the nearest publicly dedicated street to the water. The County can waive this dedication requirement in return for the fair market value of the easement being contributed to a fund to be used for capital improvements to the parks system. Similarly, the site plan review provisions of Section 23.3(1) has the similar standard required prior to site plan approval. The legal standards for such dedications were set out In a 1983 case by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in West Palm Beach in the case of Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward Countx. The essence of the ruling to that case was t at "reasonable dedication ... requirements are permissible so long as they offset needs sufficiently attributable to the subdivision and so long as the funds collected are sufficiently earmarked for the- substantial benefit of the subdivision residents." I believe that this "impact fee" type analysis Is Inappropriate in view of the United States Supreme Court rulings in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. However, even were we a5le to persuade the circuit court to disregard the appellate court ruling and apply the Nollan tests, the Nollan ruling sets up a very strict standar�or government action which involves a physical invasion of property. In such cases a compelling government interest must be substantially advanced. While providing public access to pu is water bodies is a legitimate function of government, I am not sure whether it could withstand the stricter scrutiny of the compelling standard. It would also be questionable whether providing access easements without accompanying parking would substantially advance the public's access to water. AUG 75 PUCK�g FAGE'p J