July 1999

By James Lawlor

North Carolina: Growth bills coming? Two proposals before the legislature would move growth management to the front burner, legislative committee chair Timothy Gauss, AICP, reports. The prompt: near-gridlock traffic in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area—the famed Research Triangle.

A proposal by state senator Howard Lee of Chapel Hill calls for a $250,000 appropriation for a study commission. A second measure, introduced by representative Joseph Hackney, also of Chapel Hill, would go further. H.B. 1468, the Growth Management Act of 1999, would create a growth management framework and authorize a school impact fee.

The chapter supports the study commission proposal, which would establish a 31-member body with representatives from government, business, the professions, and the general public, to be appointed by the legislature and the governor. It would also include a governor-appointed representative from the chapter.

As for the Hackney bill, Gauss says the chapter supports it in principle but fears that it is too ambitious for most legislators. The detailed measure would direct county commissioners to identify urban growth boundaries and growth areas, and to ensure that local land-use decisions are consistent with the plan. Counties that adopt a growth plan would be able to levy a tax of up to $1 per square foot on new development to offset the cost of building new schools or repairing existing facilities.

Texas: Three in one. By the May 31 close of the regular session, the legislature had enacted and sent to Gov. Bush the religious freedom restoration act (S.B. 138) and a modification of the existing impact fee law (H.B. 2045). The governor had already signed H.B. 1704, the vested rights law.

The chapter and the Texas Municipal League had opposed the impact fee and vesting bills. They supported the religious freedom bill in principle while suggesting amendments to make it easier to administer, according to chapter president David Gattis, AICP.

The major objection to the vesting law is that it limits local governments' ability to adapt rules to changed circumstances. The most disliked feature of the impact fee bill is a provision that requires a credit to be given to developers when fees collected as part of property tax and utility payments are used to fund capital improvements. The bill also prevents impact fees from being used to fund more than half the cost of growth-related improvements.

Colorado: No growth bill this year. Chapter legislative cochair David White, AICP, reports that the proposed Colorado Responsible Growth Act failed to make it out of committee. S.B. 211, was originally introduced by representative Brian Sullivant of Summit County, and when he was appointed to a vacant senate seat, reintroduced in that chamber.

The growth bill would have required the state's fastest growing, most urbanized counties to work together with municipal governments to prepare comprehensive plans and define urban service areas. It would have allowed farmers and ranchers to transfer development credits. It would not, however, have created a state growth policy or involved the state in growth regulation issues, White notes.

The bill had the support of APA and a variety of interest groups, including the metropolitan Denver-area home builders, the Urban Land Institute, and the associations of municipalities and counties. The chapter hopes to bring back this bill or a similar one in the next legislative session. It may also file a petition for a voter initiative on the growth issue.

Two other bills affecting planning did make it through, White reports. One is S.B. 218, which is ostensibly intended to codify constitutional standards for development exactions. The chapter objected to this one, White says, because of several provisions relating to standards.

Under one provision, all conditions imposed on land-use approvals must be "based on adopted standards." That could be interpreted to mean that a municipality must provide specific standards for every condition—an onerous task. Another provision establishes a separate system of court appeals for landowners who believe that a specific requirement does not meet constitutional standards.

Finally, H.B. 1280 amends the state's vested rights law. It requires local governments to specifically identify what types of approvals trigger vested rights—or risk having the courts do it for them.