|
- •
<br /> . C;;'
<br /> k
<br /> , § 8.01(3) ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-6 •
<br /> islation by the local governing body to create the incentive scheme,
<br /> • but does not generally require a concomitant private agreement as •
<br /> in conditional or contract zoning.16 .
<br /> Local communities usually derive their power to exact dedications .
<br /> of land from subdividers,or fees in lieu of dedication,from state land
<br /> dedication statutes.37 Traditionally, land subdividers have been re-
<br /> . - quired to provide specified utilities, pave streets,=$ and build side- •
<br /> walks and gutters. More recently, local planning boards have been Ali
<br /> • • given authority to exact dedication of park and recreational land
<br /> from developers,as a condition*precedent to approval of subdivisions
<br /> . or the granting of permits.19 Incentive zoning, unlike dedication •
<br /> 16 Under recently enacted amendments to the plaza incentive provisions for • •
<br /> commercial and residential buildings, New-York City requires developers to post : •
<br /> a bond, City securities or a suitable undertaking to insure the continued mainte-
<br /> . nance of required.plaza amenities such as trees and seating.City Planning Commis-
<br /> . .
<br /> ;; - sion Report CP 22784B, Urban Open Space, Zoning Resolution Section 12-10 •
<br /> Definitions; City Planning Commission Report N 760066 ZRY, Urban Design - .
<br /> Guidelines—Residential Plazas,Zoning Resolution,Sections 26-00 et al and 37-00 • •
<br /> et al.
<br /> See Krasnowiecki,"The Basic System of Land Use Control:Legislative Preregu- .
<br /> lation v. Administrative Discretion" 3, 17-22 (Marcus & Groves, eds., Praeger •
<br /> Publishers 1970), for some of the•legal issues involved in incentive zoning.
<br /> - . 17 See,e&, Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of
<br /> Walnut Creek,94 Cal Rptr 630,484 P2d 606(1971),app dism'd 404 US 878(1971).
<br /> . 1a See, eg;, Matter of Brous v.Smith,304 NY 164, 106 NE2d 503 (1952):
<br /> •
<br /> 19 , &.
<br /> e •
<br /> art
<br /> California: Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of •
<br /> Walnut Creek,Note 17 supra (parks).
<br /> Connecticria Aunt Hack Ridge Estates,Inc.v.Planning Comm'n of the City of•
<br /> Danbury, 160 Cone 109, 273 A2d 880(1970) (parks).
<br /> • New York Jenad,Inc.v.Village of Scarsdale, 18 NY2d 78,271 NYS2d 955,218
<br /> g
<br /> NE2d 673 (1966)(parks).
<br /> l4
<br /> 4
<br /> Wisconsin:Jordan v.Village of Menomonee Falls,28 Wis2d 608, 137 NW2d 442
<br /> • (1965)(parks and schools). •
<br /> Contra:
<br /> Florida:Admiral Devel.Co.v.City of Maitland,267 So2d 860(Fla 1972)(parks).
<br /> New Jersey. West Park Ave.v.Twp.of Ocean,48 NJ 122,224 A2d 1 (1966)(fee
<br /> to finance schools).
<br /> Vim. See generally Curtin,"Requiring Dedication of Land by Developers," 1974 Inset-
<br /> tune on Planning: Zoning and Eminent Domain 57 (SW Legal Found, Matthew
<br /> ? Bender& Co.).
<br /> . • m
<br /> , . f
<br /> • •
<br /> , .
<br /> ..
<br /> .......... --- ----4z ii.•tin �-n�"4'•: .
<br /> , .
<br /> , . r v
<br /> GA�'t
<br />
|