approvals and permits, borrow pits, drainage ditches, water retention areas, rest areas, replacement access for landowners whose access could be impaired due to the construction of a future facility, and replacement rights-of-way for relocation of rail and utility facilities.(s.334.03(29), F.S.) “Transportation corridor management” means the coordination of the planning of designated future transportation corridors with land-use planning within and adjacent to the corridor to promote orderly growth, to meet the concurrency requirements of this chapter, and to maintain the integrity of the corridor for transportation purposes,” (s.163.3164 (48), F.S.) State transportation law continues to provide authority to local governments to “…adopt such additional ordinances and regulations as necessary to manage designated transportation corridors,”s.337.273(6), F.S.). As with previous law, corridor management ordinances that are adopted to manage development along designated corridors must include the following (s.337.273(6), F.S.): • Criteria to manage land uses within and adjacent to the corridor, • The types of restrictions on nonresidential and residential construction within the corridor, • Identification of uses that are permitted within the designated corridor, • A public notification process, • A variance and appeal process, and • An intergovernmental coordination process that provides for the coordinated management of transportation corridors with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. Local governments are directed to notify FDOT before approving any rezoning, building permit, subdivision change, or other permitting activity that would substantially impair the future viability of the corridor for transportation purposes (s.337.243(1), F.S.). The provision was intended to provide FDOT an opportunity to determine whether to purchase the affected property or initiate eminent domain proceedings, as well as an opportunity to identify problems and negotiate acceptable alternatives. Rough Proportionality and Unconstitutional Conditions Government actions to require property owners to convey land for transportation right-of-way in the context of a development approval are subject to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Such actions must have an essential nexus to a legitimate government interest and any exactions must be roughly proportionate to the impacts of the development in question. This important legal concept, known as “rough proportionality,” continues to govern land dedication requirements. The key case on this matter is Dolan v. City of Tigard, US 1994, where the U.S. Supreme Court weighed a city action requiring dedication of land for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway as a condition of permit approval to expand an existing hardware store. Questioning the constitutionality of the condition, the court transferred the burden of proof to the city to demonstrate a “rough proportionality” between the impacts of the development and the nature and degree of the exactions. Allowing that the relationship need not be “precisely quantified” the court held that “the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development...beyond a conclusory statement that the dedication ‘could offset some of the traffic demand’ generated by the development.”
13
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog