Wed 22 Oct 2008
Be the First to Comment
Quick reminder that there is another joint meeting between Council and UNC’s BOT representatives tonight (Oct. 22nd) from 7 – 9:30 pm at the Chapel Hill Public Library (no agenda online – boo!).
More on the nuances of development agreements here: Exactions, Dedications and Development Agreements Nationally and in California: When and How Do the Dolan/Nollan Rules Apply [PDF] and Development Agreements: Bargained for Zoning That is Neither Illegal Contract or Conditional Zoning [PDF]. Description of some possible legal pitfalls here:
- NJ Supreme Court Holds that a Development Company Cannot be Required to Pay More than its Fair Share of Off-Site Improvements, Irrespective of Development Agreement
- Zoning Requires Uniformity and CA Appeals Court Says Developer Agreement is Not a Substitute for Rezoning
- DURAND V. IDC BELLINGHAM, LLC:TOWNS FORSALE?
The Durand case is interesting. The development agreement between Bellingham and a developer was set aside by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court because “rezoning action was tainted and improperly influenced by the presence of a large cash gift from a developer”. In that case, an $8 million payment to the municipality for “general use” in return for zoning consideration was considered improper.
Here’s a brief outline of my comments to Council at the Oct. 15th Public Hearing on Guiding Development at Carolina North (video of the meeting here).
Tonight you are being asked to approve a resolution that does three things: start the development agreement process, create a base zone for Carolina North and agree to a timetable. I endorse moving forward with this resolution - flexibility and predictability - caution: flexibility is a double-edge sword - make sure requests comply with: + LUMO, comprehensive plan - exactions outside normal zoning law - secondary agreements - lease, easement, contract extending reach of - mechanism to extend beyond term of team members - process must live outside of tenure of negotiators + not an agreement between Mayor Foy and Chairman Perry but current and future Councils/UNC BOTs - "escape hatch" - resolution doesn't bind us to development agreement CONCERNS -- process - transparency - ex parte communications - no side comments like Barry Jacobs/UNC airport - evidentiary process - apply to some part of the process - establish factual basis for agreement within a couple quasi-judicial proceedings - public hearings/outreach - multiple checkpoints in process - let public know of progress - website FAQ/all questions asked by public, answers online - "bang drum loudly" - seek out neighborhoods, don't expect folks at public hearings -- other questions - impact fees not normally assessed elsewhere, how does this fit with fiscal equity - "freeze" rules, most examples compatible underlying zone new zone - explain flexibility - application of general development philosophy, requirements to out-parcels... - Airport Dr. - Duke Energy parcel - method to incorporate other parcels under guiding philosophy -- schedule - aggressive - huge undertaking - lots of moving parts - number of concerns need to be resolved ASAP - clear list of UNC "will and will nots" + LAC process has already high-lighted a few/formalize -- new zone - developed outside of but in cooperation with planning board, highly public - OI-4 controls a built-out footprint, new zone more open ended - new zone needs to go beyond "base" + zone will act as safety net + effectively manage unanticipated edge cases, etc. -- fiscal, transportation, other studies not ready - need to merge their schedules into dev. agreement schedule -- requirements complimenting/exceeding zone and LUMO guidelines - new task force - HWCC environmental elements - light pollution, air particulate + measurable goals parking ratios, noise, particulates, light, etc. -- specific metrics - "best in class" - Arizona/Hawaii light pollution - air particulates - energy budget/carbon footprint - AIA 2030 -- enforcement provisions - look at "best practice" - loose enough to manage mistakes, tight enough to control growth -- secondary legal agreements - usually implement elements outside zoning requirements - who will develop - lawyers from Town or UNC or both? - who pays? -- multi-governmental negotiations/agreements - Is there adequate time for multi-governmental cooperation? -- cost management - defray costs to Town - building permit fees won't cover upfront planning dept. costs + chip away good idea