Chapter 17.110
TAKINGS
Sections:
17.110.010 What this chapter does.
17.110.040 Taking checklist criteria.
17.110.010 What this chapter does.
This chapter establishes the appeals procedures and criteria in processing of alleged taking of property. [Ord. O-23-2005 § 3 (Exh. 1(1) § 22.1)].
17.110.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that property owners that allege that their property has been taken without just compensation have the opportunity to appeal the action of the city. [Ord. O-23-2005 § 3 (Exh. 1(1) § 22.2)].
17.110.030 Appeals process.
If, after completing an appeal to the board of adjustment or city council, any person alleges that a decision of the administrator or planning commission, as affirmed or modified by the board of adjustment or city council, constitutes a taking of property without just compensation, that decision may be appealed to the city council as an alleged taking of property without just compensation. No other aspect of a decision of the board of adjustment is subject to such an appeal. Other appeals from the board of adjustment must be taken directly to court as provided by Section 10-9-708, Utah Code Annotated 1953.
A. An appeal based on an alleged taking of property without just compensation must be filed with the administrator within 30 calendar days after the notice of the decision being appealed was issued.
B. The city council shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within two regular consecutive meetings after it is filed. At that hearing the city council shall consider the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 63-90a-3, Utah Code Annotated 1953, and as advised by the city attorney shall:
1. Reject the appeal because the decision of the administrator or planning commission and board of adjustment did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation;
2. Remand the application for reconsideration by the administrator or planning commission in order to mitigate adverse impacts on the developer’s property value; or
3. If it determines that the public interest requires a restriction on the use of the developer’s property that does constitute a taking without just compensation, direct the mayor to enter into negotiations that will result in just compensation being paid.
C. The administrator shall provide written notice of the city council’s decision to the developer and all interested parties who have specifically requested such notice within 10 working days. [Ord. O-23-2005 § 3 (Exh. 1(1) § 22.3)].
17.110.040 Taking checklist criteria.
The city attorney must use the following questions in reviewing the potential impact of a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. While these questions also provide a framework for evaluating the impact proposed requirements may have generally, takings questions normally arise in the context of specific affected property. The public review process used for evaluating proposed regulations is another tool that should be used aggressively to safeguard rights of private property owners. Although a question may be answered affirmatively, it does not mean that there has been a taking. Rather, it means there could be a constitutional issue and that the proposed action should be carefully reviewed.
A. Does the action result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property?
B. Does the action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of property or to grant an easement?
C. Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the property?
D. Does the regulation have a significant impact on the landowner’s economic interest?
E. Does the regulation deny a fundamental attribute of ownership?
F. Does the regulation serve the same purpose that would be served by directly prohibiting the use of action, and does the condition imposed substantially advance that purpose? [Ord. O-23-2005 § 3 (Exh. 1(1) § 22.4)].