Subscribe Now!
 
 
Land Use Law Report
0 item
Read an issue—It's FREE!
Your name
Email ID
6 Compelling Reasons to Subscribe to Land Use Law Alert

Regular readers use Land Use Law Alert to:

  1. Sharpen general land use law knowledge
  2. Uncover past cases relevant to a current dispute
  3. Save time gathering the right evidence to support a case
  4. Incorporate real-world examples into employee training
  5. Apply specific precedent language during litigation
  6. Boost professional development and widen staff's legal perspective
Adobe PDF IconAdobe Acrobat Reader(required to view PDFs)
 
Prev: Nuisance: Wild Animals' Stench May Be Unpleasant, But It's Not A Public Nuisance
 
Next: Takings / Undesirable Land Use: Repetitive Complaint Precludes Federal Suit Challenging City's Nuisance Abatement


Environmental: Building Bridge Through Park Was Reasonable Where Alternative Was More Harmful

Friday, March 03, 2017

Although federal regulations discourage building new bridges across public parkland, doing so is reasonable if the only alternative would cause severe and immitigable social harm.

Facts: The City of Port St. Lucie in Florida has needed a third vehicle bridge since at least 1980. The two that cross the North Fork St. Lucie River have been beyond traffic capacity for decades. Merely widening the bridges wouldn't relieve the traffic, and so, after much study and consultation, the City decided to build a third bridge in 2008. Only one location met the purpose and need of the project, and so the City then set out to determine which of ten possible sites within that location would be best. The City consulted with at least six federal agencies, five state agencies, and four other groups to make its determination. Ultimately, it identified six build alternatives.

At that point, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the lead federal agency involved in the project, began preparing an environmental impact statement, which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In addition, the FHA was required to conduct an analysis under §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Section 4(f) analyses are required whenever a transportation project area contains parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites. Here, the project area included three §4(f) properties: an aquatic preserve, a state park, and a city park.

The FHA determined that all of the possible build options would use some parkland. Thus, the FHA assessed the various options to determine which would result in the ''least overall harm.''

The winner was Alternative 1C, which would use .02 acres of the aquatic preserve and 2.14 acres of the state park and had fewer social and commercial impacts than the other options. However, 1C was the only plan that would impact the Halpatiokee Canoe and Nature Trail. Proceeding with 1C would block access to the trailhead. Thus as part of the mitigation plan associated with using 1C, the FHA and th[...]

Next: Takings / Undesirable Land Use: Repetitive Complaint Precludes Federal Suit Challenging City's Nuisance Abatement
 
Prev: Nuisance: Wild Animals' Stench May Be Unpleasant, But It's Not A Public Nuisance
 
Browse Archives:
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 |