|
•
<br /> •
<br /> • § 8.011[3] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-6
<br /> illation 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." Traditionally, land subdividers have been re-
<br /> •
<br /> • quired to provide specified•utilities, pave streets,18 and build side-
<br /> walks and gutters. More recently, local planning boards have been
<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 smrable undertaking to insure the continued mainte-
<br /> .nanc a of required plaza amenities such as trees and seating.City Planning Commis-
<br /> sion,Report CP-22784B, Urban Open $pace. Zoning Resolution Section 12-10 •
<br /> 'Definition. 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. Ave Discretion" 3, 17-22
<br /> (Marcus & Groves, eds., Praeger
<br /> Publishers 1970), for some of the Iegal issues involved in incentive zoning.
<br /> - 17 See.ag, Associated Hone 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 /> • 18 See, e.g, Matter of Brous v.Smith,304 NY 164, 106 NE2d 503 (1952).
<br /> 19 See, e.g:
<br /> California Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of.
<br /> Walnut Creek,Note 17 supra (parks).
<br /> Connecticut Aunt Hack
<br /> Ridge Estates,Inc.v.Planning Comm'n of the City of
<br /> Danbury, 160 Conn 109,273 A2d 880(1970)(parks).
<br /> New York'Jenad,Inc,v.Village of Scarsdale, 18 NY2d 78,271 NYS2d 955,218
<br /> NE2d 673(1966)(parks).
<br /> 1
<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 /> See generally Curtin,"Requiring Dedication of Land by Developers," 19741nsri-
<br /> • lure on Planning Zoning and Eminent Domain 57 (SW Legal Found, Matthew
<br /> Bender& Co.).
<br /> •
<br /> •
<br /> •
<br /> . .
<br /> r ..
<br />
|