Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

z.g. September 1995 -- Page 7 by the state constitution; and the forfeiture provision contained in the second ordinance violated the federal Constitution's guarantee of due process. After a series of proceedings, a court ruled that the statutes and ordinances were generally valid, but the forfeiture provision was not. The forfeiture provi- sion could, however, be severed from the ordinance, leaving the fee provision intact. The builders' association appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part. The first enabling statute was unconstitutional. The second statute was con- stitutional, but the forfeiture provision had to be taken out. The first enabling statute violated the federal' Constitution because it did not ensure that the fees collected would be spent on necessary improvements which were "specifically attributable" to the development being charged. The ordinancO allowed counties to use the collected fees for areas outside the trans- portation impact district. Accordingly, the ordinance based on the original statute was inval!d, and the county had to return fees collected under that ordinance. The ravised enabling statute was constitutional. It required the fees imposed to be "spe.cifically and uniquely attributable" to the traffic demands created by the fee payer. The revised statute's classification of home rule mUnicipalities and muni ~cipalities with a population of 400,000 to a million was constitutional because it was based on a rational difference between such municipalities and other communities. Larger communities suffered much worse traffic conges- tion, so tl!ey were more severely affected by new development. Since home rule municipalities already had the power to collect impact fees, their inclusion enabled the Legislature to impose procedures and standards for the collection of such fees. The impact fees were not an unconStitutional real estate tax. They were a regulatory or service fee. The fees compensated the county for improvements made in the fee payer's district and provided the fee payer with a direct benefit. The fees represented only a portion of the money the county spent on these improver/lents. The forfeiture provision was unconstitutional. It penalized only those fee payers who appealed the imposition of impact fees. Therefore, the forfeiture provision had to be omitted from the ordinance. Northern Illinois Ho~ne Builders v. County of Du Page, 621 N.E. 2d 1012 (1992). Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. Village of Motmt Prospect, 176 N.E. 2d 799 (1961). Special Exception m Is Composting An Agricultural Use? CLOUT Inc. v. Clinton Cottnty Zoning Hearing Board, 65 7 A.2d 111 (Pem~syh,ania) 1995 HEJ Partnership owned 1,700 acres in an agricultural district of Clinton County, Pa. It wanted to or)erate a comr)ostine facilitv ~here. Cornpc~qt producticm