Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

Page 6 -- September 1995 Z.B. "~ DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly ordered the city to grant all the permits and variances. The city did not even challenge the lower court's finding that the council's denial of the application was not supported by adequate evidence. Apparently, the council acted in response to the anecdotal and personal opinion evidence of local residents. This was not a good reason for denying the application. The city was wrong when it argued the only permit the lower court could review was the one regarding project size. The council made reviewable deci- sions on all the permits and variances. Although the council technically agreed to reconsider all the permits and variances in November I993, it did not have to take further action on the issues already decided in September. Development-- Builders Call Transportation Impact Fee Unconstitutional Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Inc. v. County of Du Page, 649 N.E. 2d 384 (Illinois) 1995 In I988, an Illinois statute went into effect regarding transportation impact fees for counties with populations between 400,000 and 1 million. In districts that required access to county or state roads, such counties could pass ordi- nances to establish transportation impact districts and to collect transportation impact fees. The counties had to use the fees from a district to maintain roads at a "reasonable level of service" within that district or the surrounding area. Later that year, Du Page County passed an ordinance that established trans- portation impact fees for various areas within it. The following year, the state repealed the enabling statute and replaced it with a similar one that stated home rule municipalities also could pass trans- portation impact ordinances (a right such municipalities already, had under the state consti'tution). The new statute required that impact fees "not exceed a proportionate share of costs incurred by a :unit of local government which are specifically and uniquely attributable to the new development paying the fee." In response to the amendment, Du Page County altered its ordinance's fee tables so developers would be charged only for their impact on county roads. It also added a forfeiture provision that gave developers a. discount if they paid the fee established by the ordinance's schedule. The discount was withheld if a developer requested an individual assessment of the fee due. An association of home builders sued the county, alleging: the enabling statutes and the county's ordinances violated the federal Constitution because they forced developers to bear expenses which should be shared by the general public; the revised enabling statute violated the state constitution because the state had no justification to allow larger municipalities and home rule munici- palities (which could be very small) to impose the fee, while not allowing inter- mediate-sized municipalities to do so; the fees under the county's ordinance constituted a real estate tax, but were not based on property valuation as required