Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Page 6 -- May 15, 1995 Z.B. The township Planning Board (township board) granted preliminary ap- proval for the subdivision with two conditions: approval from the Somerset County Planning Board (county' board); and F&W's agreement to make fair share contributions for future traffic improvements on Mountain Boulevard. F&W met With the county board to discuss traffic implications of its proposed developments and agreed to help pay.for a joint traffic study. The study recommended, that the township establish a Transportation Im- provement District (TID) to fund roadway improvements. The study devised a formula for calculating each development's share of the cost based on the num- ber of trips generated by that development.. The township enacted an ordinance creating the TID. This ordinance re- quired developers to enter into fee. agreements with the township or thecounty if proposed developments involved county roads. The county board assessed F&W. a fee for road improvements associated with the subdivision and office complex. F&W sued the county, the township, and both boards claiming the county board had no authority to assess traffic impact fees, and.that the assessment was unconstitutional. The court upheld the assessment, and F&W appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the county, the township, and the boards. Although the county board had no express authority tO impose the assess- ment, the assessment was still legal. It was made under the municipal TID ordinance, and municipalities had this authority under New Jersey law. The township was a party to the agreement that stated F&W's share would be based on the TID ordinance. In addition, the township board conditioned subdivision approval on F&W's payment of future traffic improvements. The assessment was constitutional because F&W's share of road improve- ments was required by its proposed development. The municipality did not have to identify precisely which improvements were a direct consequence of the development. All that was needed was a rational relationship between the needs the development created, the benefits conferred on the development, and the cost of improvements. Commercial Use -- Community Fights Proposed Shopping Center Indian Trail Property Owner's Association v. City of S_pokane, 886 P.2d 209 (Washington) 1994 .~ The Indian Trail Syndicate Limited Partnership owned the Indian Trail Shopping Center, which was on four acres of land in Spokane, Wash. The site was in the local business zone, which included "small retail sales and service stores and shops of a character which contribute to, rather than detract from, the quality of residential use." The purpose of the local business zone was to "provide limited shopping facilities in residential neighborhoods." Spokane's Land Use Plan described neighborhood shopping districts in local business zones as typically having a gross leasable area of about 50,000