Executive Summary This report reviews current thoroughfare planning practices in several Florida counties, as well as those of selected cities and counties in other states. Topics include the policy and planning context for corridor management in Florida, best practices for integrating land use context and modal options, and how resilience to climate change and emerging technology may be reflected in contemporary thoroughfare plans. The purpose of the review is to offer insight and guidance to Hillsborough County on the current state of the practice in Florida, and any best practices that may benefit the County as it updates its Corridor Plan. A table defining acronyms and abbreviations used throughout the report is provided in the Appendix. Legal Review Few if any changes were identified in Florida’s legislative criteria for corridor preservation and management since the 1995 corridor management legislation was enacted. Corridor management under Florida law begins with the designation of transportation corridors in the state-mandated local comprehensive plan, and is supported by goals, objectives and policies that are adopted in accordance with Chapter 163, F.S. Plans or regulations with an unclear purpose or that appear aimed primarily at suppressing right-of-way costs in advance of acquisition have been deemed unconstitutional. Valid public purposes indicated in Florida planning law (s.163.3164(48), F.S.), include “to promote orderly growth, to meet the concurrency requirements of this chapter, and to maintain the integrity of the corridor for transportation purposes.” Other valid public purposes include measures demonstrated to protect the public health, safety and welfare. To carry out the thoroughfare plan, local governments must adopt certain measures to manage corridor development. These include measures to avoid development in the path of a planned transportation project, require mitigation of development impacts, offset any hardship on property owners, and manage roadway access as development occurs. During development review, techniques such as on-site density transfers, setback waivers, and interim use agreements can be used to preserve land ownership and development rights while ensuring that the right-of-way remains clear of major structural improvements. Local governments may also require some property to be dedicated (conveyed) from a private owner to the public for future transportation right-of-way. Subdivision regulations routinely require dedication of land for local and collector roads needed to serve a development and any site-related improvements. However, mandatory dedication of right-of-way for thoroughfares is subject to constitutional limitations. There must be an “essential nexus” between the impacts of the property and the permit conditions (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, US 1987), and the amount of the exaction must be roughly proportionate in nature and degree to the impacts of the regulated activity (Dolan v. City of Tigard, US 1994). Dedication of right-of-way outside of these guidelines is subject to compensation in some fashion. Property owners may be compensated through impact fee credits, density credits, fee simple payments, or some combination of methods. Providing an escape hatch in situations where the regulations would pose a substantial hardship (e.g., permit or buy) further ensures a legally defensible process. This combination of factors differentiates local government programs in Florida from the official map and
1
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog