|
Additbna~ In-Lieu.
<br /> Uni~ Produced Developer Pa~ment/t
<br />Municipaii~ Year to Dare ApplicabiJi~ Sea-aside Con~oi Period Oensi~ Sonus Incentives OeveJop~
<br />
<br /> 2000: No careshoia; Permanent
<br />,3ouider. Cmorado Awaended March 70 ,an[ts appiicable to ail 20 oetcent lr~ordabiiiry by Not offered
<br /> 2002 residential deed resmction
<br /> development
<br />
<br />· L"Yaivero(excisetax , Fees in
<br /> or'£site ail. ow
<br />' =-!i~b[e For !oral deveiopmea
<br />housing mesidy un[cs and
<br />grants · Mall or'
<br />· Waiver
<br />deveioomenr units; many
<br /> constructed
<br />review application
<br />~'e~ more !'lex[bi
<br /> rental units
<br />
<br /> [2.5 percent Sliaing
<br /> · May renu,
<br /> mia[mum for 15 years for owner uu co 20 m lieu
<br /> [990: Oeve/°pmen~ owner unl~; 6.25 ' ~ercenr (or ~e~uce~ b~
<br />Fairr~ Counq/, A~ende~ ~uiv =59 renrfl anus; :~rearer chaa 50 ani=: 20/ears ~br ~ deagn [easi
<br /> ' q7! owner ,mits percent minimum rental an[ts owner
<br />'/{rgima 2002 ' ' un[rs ~or muitif~ilV co/0 percent oerm~ed
<br /> ~nirs for cenr~ ~mits
<br />
<br /> -"5 oercent {or ' &eduction in
<br /> bfo ~reshoid: ~0 percent ~o,,v ' ~igibtiiry ~b
<br />ill,'me. C ',uiibrma ',995: .%needed 59{) :mas applicable co iii [5 oetcenc 30-40 '/eats income or [0 CDBG and ©frs[re and
<br /> 2003 residential ~OME ~'un~ lieu adowee
<br /> peter-ur ,se,,-, '
<br /> deveiopmenr iow income
<br /> processing
<br />
<br /> · ~ee :eo. ttc~ious o17~
<br /> Up tb 20 up ~o 75 pert:ur
<br /> percent ~-or · &::pod[red plan · Offs[re
<br /> : -qo?.~.. .... >lo'threshold: L0 oercent orr 20 ,';ears for :entel d. eveiooments review on z case-by
<br />Longmont, - , 523 ;entre ,mits: applicable co ail phase a[ un[rs: t0 7eats vta char exceed the ' Variances from basis
<br /> ,:waeaaec. July deed restriction cbt land ue:,moomeur
<br />Coiotado 200i t02 ,owner ,.mits residenria .xe,,eioomeac required. : · :'~.~ ~n
<br /> development ' owner units zmounr oi: tequhremencs ~ulo;¥ed
<br /> · Reduction o£
<br /> aag'oraabie '~taits
<br /> '.vater/wastewarer
<br />
<br /> >{o thresaom; Permanent Fe~ in leu
<br />ivionrere'/CounW. [980: ~kmenae,a 230 :earn urea; ~ppiicabie co ~I !0 percent [~raabiiiq~ by Not currendy None ,:urrendF offai~¢ ~tow
<br />C~iibrnia May 2003 170 owner un:= :~:denfi~ - deed :esmcrion ,oR'red o~Sred sPec:m
<br /> de'/eioomenr clrcumsranc
<br />
<br /> · Smaller lot sizes o~Sire ~ow
<br /> ii) ],ears ~br owner ' Abiiky to btuid in 'axceorio
<br />Montgomery 1974: A,mendcd %i74 :entel ,mits: blew construcrton !2.5-[5 oercent un[cs; 20 years (or Uo to 22 attached ,,mits on
<br /> · ' ' ' ,:2ses" ir
<br />Counq;, Mar/land 2003 8,036 owner un[cs' ,at'35 units or more rental units percent detached zoned dbcrermn o:
<br /> property director
<br />
<br /> L i-L6 percent 30 7ears: 30-year L t-l.6 percent plum. submkta{
<br />Janra Fr. :,998: ,hwnended i2 umcs bio threshold depending on target petted start over {~ontts is eqU~ I Waiver of Nor permin
<br />New Mexico March 2003 income ieveb (or wim¥ each new co ;Ar SOtliside building ~'ees ~'or
<br /> deveiopmeet occupant percentage z~-:fo rdz ble un[re
<br />
<br />Table re2earchea ann as:em~iea by Lynn Ross. Oemograpmc mtbrmarion source: LI.S. ~,¢nsus 3ureau, C'~mu.r -"000 Summary iri/e 3. ,kccezsed july 9, 200% through American Fact Finacr ~.vaqzble az rhcuinder, censusl§OWServierlg~
<br />
<br />Anderson identifies darer possible rakings chaltenges co
<br />inciusionar7 zoning.
<br /> Anderson's ~rsr arg. umenc is <her the re<mired affordable
<br />housing set-as[ties so severc!y diminish. .:he economic value of cue
<br />[and char '_he,,./result in a cai<lng. She ne×r agrees chat indusionarv
<br />:oning [acks a :arionai nexus co iegitimare government ?urposes.
<br />Finally', she says inciusionary :on[ag (orces the Landowner <o bear
<br />the cost o£whar is esaenriaJlv ~ public burden. Each argument
<br />poses a serious ~rear to [ndusionary zoning ora[nantes. 5ri[l, a
<br />manic[pa Jify can cake steps re address <kern prior re the
<br />implementation {of irs reguJ, arions.
<br /> A.rgnmenrs over diminished economic value can be ~ddresscd
<br />',virh ,5.eveiooer. incentives. This is often done wan a density/bonus.
<br />[n 197l, Falr£ax Count',/, Virginia. became one of ~he first places in
<br />
<br />the nation r.o impiemenr {nclusionarv zoning, T'ne original
<br />ordinance did aec incittde .~ d. ensiry bonus. A- 1973 Virginia
<br />Supreme Court ruling Found _the ordinance, unconsr/rurionai in
<br />part because ir resuked in ~ talcing. When Fairfax County
<br />introduced a new inciusionaz7 zoning ordinance in 1.990, che
<br />regulations included a sliding-scale densiw bonu.s of up co 20
<br />percent. The 1.990 ordinance has never been ch~lenged in court.
<br /> The municipality can circumvent Zaderson's second cakings
<br />~gumenr by perfbrming a nexus study co d. emonsrrare
<br />connection beo~veen ,m inc!usionary ordinance and
<br />municip~ity's desire re provide 5fl:brdable b. ousing. ~dmderson
<br />says mar because me nexus study relies on darn analysis ir can
<br />assist rhe locality in arrio,.daring objective reasons
<br /> ~aq8
<br />indusionary zoning. ~or exampm, prior ro implementing a
<br />inciusionary zoning ordinance, Santa Fe conducted such a study.
<br />gv (ocusing ,on so,dca employees, the study tied the need Obr
<br />cbc ,ordinance re <he creation el: marker-rare housing un[rs. THe
<br />
<br />
<br />
|