X hits on this document

176 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

31 / 52

No.

2006AP450

¶44 The court in Dur-Bar Realty identified several policy objectives for restricting use in a flood plain:

(1) the protection of individuals who might choose, despite the flood dangers, to develop or occupy land

on

a

flood

plain;

(2)

the

protection

of

other

landowners from damages resulting from the development of a flood plain and the consequent obstruction of the flood flow; (3) the protection of the entire community from individual choices of land use which require subsequent public expenditures for public works and disaster relief.

Id.

The court concluded,

"[i]t is beyond question that these

the present

ordinance,

may be

the

exercise of

the police

power."

Id.

objectives,

which correspond closely

to the stated purposes of subject of a legitimate The court further stated

that, "'Land Conservation District' provisions do substantial relation to legitimate governmental purpose

bear and

a a

reasonable since the

relation to the goal of flood safety." limitations related to flood safety, the

Id. Thus, restriction

satisfied the relationship to the public health, or general welfare.

safety, morals

¶45 In its analysis, the Dur-Bar Realty court contrasted the "flood plain" ordinance in that case with the ordinance at

issue in Marshall v.

654

(N.Y.A.D.

1967).

Village In

of Wappingers Falls,

279

Wappingers

Falls,

there

N.Y.S.2d were no

permitted uses as of but twelve uses were 655-56. The court "Planned Residential zoning in accordance

right in the "Planned Residential District"

available

through

a

special

permit.

Id.

at

in

Wappingers

Falls

concluded

District was ultra vires because

with

a

comprehensive

plan."

Id.

that the it was not The court

29

Document info
Document views176
Page views176
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 16:13:01 UTC 2017
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments