|
program ofsignage, landscaping, and streetscape design. The
<br />approach worked for Suisun as well. Their redevelopment zone
<br />generated a larger pool of financial and political resources for
<br />the project. The city subsequently sold nearly $60 million in
<br />tax-increment bonds to finance the projects.
<br />
<br />A Unique Approach
<br />Despite common long-term goals, many communities begin
<br />waterfront revitalization with unique approaches. Visioning may
<br />be the first step for many communities, but dealing with access
<br />issues, political cooperation, or funding can precede the
<br />visioning process in communities with very serious problems.
<br /> After failing to attract a master developer, Suisun chose
<br />to handle the project itself, acquiring much of the water-
<br />front property over time and expanding its redevelopment
<br />agency, which combined its planning and housing functions
<br />and became virtually independent of the city government. City
<br />officials felt this strategy was necessary if the community was to
<br />tackle the projects "head on." The city mapped out its
<br />reclamation and retained tight control over the siting, design,
<br />and timing of development. Its revitalization strategy required
<br />that the project be completed in increments and be
<br />implemented by hiring smaller, more specialized, developers.
<br />
<br />Conclusion .'
<br />Industrial waterfronts need not be a liability to the community.
<br />Suisun's infill approach seems to be paying dividends. Changes
<br />have led to redevelopment efforts elsewhere in town. "It isn't
<br />expanding the city," one design contractor has noted, "it is
<br />recycling land."
<br /> Integrating mixed-use residential development into the gritty
<br />fabric ora working waterfront can provide a definitive sense of place
<br />and remind residents of their link to the past. Maritime-related
<br />businesses and manufacturing facilities may put greater value on not
<br />only the architecture but the atmosphere of a bygone era.
<br />
<br />Ohio Impact Fees
<br />Upheld
<br />
<br />For the first time in the state's history, an Ohio court has
<br />upheld a traffl, c impact fee ordinance and in the process
<br />established a new "dual nexus" text to gauge the
<br />constitutionality of such exactions.
<br />
<br />Zoning Neua is a monthly newsletter publilhed by thc American Planning Association.
<br />Sub~:riptlons arc available for $50 (U.S.) and $65 (foreign). Frank S. So, Executive Dirccton
<br />William IL Klcln, Director of Research.
<br />ZonlngNewrls produced at APA Jim Schwab and Mike Davidsofl Editors' Chris Burke Fa
<br />olnick, Gifla Jack~on, Sanjay Jeer, Megafl Lewis, Marya Morris. Beck3 Retzlaff, Martin Roupe,
<br />Jason Wittenberg, Reporters; Cynthia Cheskl, Aasistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and
<br />Production.
<br />Copyright 01998 by American Planning A~ocladon, 122 $. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600,
<br />Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning A~ociation has headquarters offices at 1776
<br />Mas~achusetu Ave., N.W., Wa~hington, DC 20036.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />any means, electronic or mechanical, including phococopylng, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without pcrmiaslon in writing from the American Planning
<br />Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber
<br />and 10% postconsumcr waste. ~
<br />
<br /> The case involved a challenge to a "Traffic System
<br /> Improvement District Ordinance," adopted in 1993 by the city
<br /> of Beavercreek, a suburb on the eastern edge of the Dayton
<br /> metropolitan area. The plaintiffs, the Home Builders
<br /> Association of Dayton and the Miami Valley and a local real
<br /> estate development firm, contended that the ordinance
<br /> constituted a taking because the impact fees were not
<br /> "specifically and uniquely attributable" to development. They
<br /> also argued that the city did not have the authority under Ohio
<br /> law to enact such an ordinance
<br /> The Beavercreek ordinance establishes impact fees on new
<br /> land development in an area of the city. The ordinance's
<br /> purpose is to provide for new or upgraded streets, roads, and
<br /> traffic facilities in the impact fee district. The impact fee is to be
<br /> paid, based on a fee schedule in the ordinance, at the time of
<br /> application for a zoning permit or final residential plat approval.
<br /> Funds collected from developers of land in the district are
<br /> segregated into a special trust fund to be used for construction
<br /> of traffic system improvements. The ordinance is based on
<br /> detailed consultant studies of traffic generation in the district
<br /> and improvement costs, which in turn were based on the city's
<br /> comprehensive plan.
<br /> Judge Thomas Rose of the Greene County common pleas
<br /> (trial) court held in a 33-page opinion in September 1997 that
<br /> the ordinance satisfied a "dual nexus" test for constitutionality.
<br /> Under this test, which was adopted from the Florida courts,
<br /> Rose said the burden of justifying the impact fee falls on the
<br /> city. First, the city must demonstrate a reasonable connection,
<br /> or "rational nexus," between the need for those roadways
<br /> generated by the development. Second, the city must show a
<br /> rational nexus between the expenditure of funds collected and
<br /> the benefits accruing to the development. "In other woi'ds,"
<br /> Rose wrote, "the development paying the impact fees must
<br /> receive substantial benefit from the roadway improvements."
<br /> Rose rejected the "specifically and uniquely attributable test"
<br />for exactions, which originated in the Illinois courts, as being
<br />impractical and burdensome. "Municipalities must be given the
<br />flexibility to deal realistically with problems that are not
<br />susceptible to exact measurement and precise mathematical
<br />formulas," he wrote.
<br /> In a preliminary ruling in the same case in 1996, Rose
<br />determined that Ohio municipalities have the authority under a
<br />"home rule" provision in the Ohio constitution to adopt impact
<br />fees, absent an express or implied prohibition by the state
<br />legislature. Ohio does not have impact fee enabling legislation
<br />for municipalities.
<br /> Beavercreek's planning director, David Lyon' said the city
<br />.recognized from the outset that the impact fee was likely to
<br />undergo a court test. "We feel that one of the reasons it was
<br />upheld was that we did a careful job in trying to develop an
<br />ordinance that would withstand a legal challenge," Lyon said.
<br /> The decision, which is on appeal, marks the first time any
<br />impact fee ordinance has been sustained in the Ohio courts.
<br />An earlier effort involving a park and recreation impact fee
<br />ordinance adopted by the city of Westlake, near Cleveland,
<br />was invalidated on federal and state equal protection grounds
<br />by a Cuyahoga county appeals court in 1995.
<br /> Stuart Meck, AJCP
<br />
<br />
<br />
|