Figure 1. Dolan v. City of Tigard
Murphy Auto Grp., Inc. v. Fla. DOT, 310 So. 3d 1066 In Florida, the issue of rough proportionality in corridor management arose in Murphy Auto Grp., Inc. v. Fla. DOT, 310 So. 3d 1066 (Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District November 20, 2020, Opinion Filed). Murphy Auto Group (a car dealership) requested a driveway connection permit to construct access to U.S. 27 and acceleration/deceleration turn lanes within the existing highway right-of-way and proposed to fill a drainage ditch owned by FDOT that spanned the length of the property. As a condition of the permit and associated drainage permit, FDOT required Murphy to dedicate 12 feet along the property frontage and reconstruct the drainage ditch. Murphy’s proposals to use the existing drainage collection system and grant FDOT a drainage easement around an existing retention pond were declined. Murphy sued, asserting that the drainage improvements exacted by FDOT were not roughly proportional to the project's drainage impact. FDOT claimed that Nolan/Dolan did not apply as it was exercising its proprietary (not regulatory) power and claims for damages were barred by sovereign immunity. The 2 nd District Court of Appeals of Florida disagreed stating “FDOT's position involved permitting decisions made in connection with its regulation of a landowner's right of access to the State Highway System. Thus, the trial court was required to apply the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to determine whether there was an essential nexus and rough proportionality between the monetary exactions and the effects of Murphy's development project.” The
Court reversed and remanded this case. B.A.M. Dev., L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County, 2006
Similar cases have arisen across the country involving the court’s application of rough proportionality to right-of-way exactions. One example is B.A.M. Dev., L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County, UT 2, 128 P.3d 1161, 543 Utah Adv. Rep. 10, 2006 Utah LEXIS 2 (Supreme Court of Utah, January 10, 2006, Filed ). The case involved a challenge to County Ordinance 15.28.010, which requires prospective developers to dedicate
14
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog