Opinion
LUBA 91-161; CA A73769; SC S39393; USSC 93-518
Received and submitted on remand July 29, 1994
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings August 11, 1994
In Banc
On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Reversed and remanded, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S Ct 2309, 129 L Ed 2d 304 (1994); on certiorari from 317 Or. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (1993); on review from 113 Or. App. 162, 832 P.2d 853 (1992); on judicial review from 22 LUBA 617 (1992).
David B. Smith, Tigard, for petitioners on review.
James M. Coleman, of O'Donnell, Ramis, Crew Corrigan, Portland, for respondent on review.
Daniel J. Popeo and Paul D. Kamenar, Washington, D.C., and Gregory S. Hathaway, of Garvey, Schubert Barer, Portland, for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation.
Timothy J. Sercombe and Edward J. Sullivan, of Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates, Ellis, Portland, for amicus curiae 1000 Friends of Oregon.
Ronald A. Zumbrun and Robin L. Rivett, Sacramento, California, and Richard M. Stephens, Bellevue, Washington, for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
PER CURIAM
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the Land Use Board of Appeals are reversed. The case is remanded to the City of Tigard for further proceedings.
This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. Dolan v. City of Tigard, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S Ct 2309, 129 L Ed 2d 304 (1994).
On review, this court upheld the City of Tigard's dedication requirements that had been imposed as a condition of approval of Dolan's application to construct a larger store on her property, holding that the conditions did not amount to an unconstitutional taking of Dolan's property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 317 Or. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (1993), affirming 113 Or. App. 162, 832 P.2d 853 (1992).
On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that the City of Tigard's findings supporting the conditions did not meet the constitutional requirement of demonstrating "rough proportionality" between those conditions and the nature and extent of the impact of the proposed development. 114 S Ct at 2322. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Ibid.
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the Land Use Board of Appeals are reversed. The case is remanded to the City of Tigard for further proceedings.