August 1999

By James Lawlor

Pennsylvania: Wish list. More than a dozen planning code amendments have been dropped into the legislative hopper, past chapter president Michael Kaiser, AICP, reports. Kaiser chairs a subcommittee that is studying growth management issues for the chapter. The challenge, he adds, is to be sure that any planning law update incorporates policies that are important to the chapter.

Among those policies: mandatory consistency between zoning and comprehensive plans, consistency among various levels of government, incentives for intergovernmental cooperation, state authorization of techniques such as transfer of development rights and traditional neighborhood development, and concurrency of development and supporting infrastructure. APA Growing Smart coordinator Stuart Meck, AICP, is working with the subcommittee to draft legislative language embodying these concepts.

This year, says chapter legislative committee chair Fred Wilder, AICP, legislators are showing more interest in planning issues than in the past. In large part, he believes, they are responding to citizen concern over sprawl and a lack of effective tools to deal with it. Local governments in Pennsylvania lack legal authority to manage growth and have limited authority to impose impact fees.

The main measure under consideration is S.B. 300, which would authorize intergovernmental planning cooperation, adequate public facilities requirements, and transfer of development rights, among other provisions. In addition, a package of bills has been introduced in the house (H.B 13, 14, and 15). The chapter is concerned because the senate bill does not clearly assign planning responsibility to the various levels of local government, does not clarify the status of comprehensive plans, and does not include a mechanism for ensuring concurrency between development and infrastructure.

Another shortcoming, Wilder says, is the bill's lack of support for training planning commissioners and zoning board members. The chapter believes that legislators should earmark at least a dollar a year per state resident to support local planning. That would come to $11.8 million, 10 times more than current state support for planning.

The chapter plans to be ready with its own proposals for new legislative language by the time the legislature returns from its summer hiatus in September. It also plans to hold an educational session for legislators sometime during the month, Wilder says.

Massachusetts: Trying again. An advisory committee representing a number of interest groups, including the chapter, is working with legislators to craft revised smart growth legislation, reports Lyn Billman-Golemme, AICP, vice-president for legislation and policy. The bill, S. 987, is an outgrowth of the "Growing Smart" bills introduced in previous sessions, she says.

The legislation contemplated by the committee, which includes representatives from the Massachusetts Municipal Association, associations of planning directors and planning boards, realtors, and home builders, would help communities to develop comprehensive plans, provide technical assistance, and offer financial incentives for smart growth.

The chapter also is tracking a group of bills sponsored by Sen. Bruce Tarr that would authorize cities and towns to permit cluster development and planned unit developments by right. The chapter endorses the concept as long as the state law is not overly prescriptive, Billman-Golemme says.

Texas: Vesting bill signed. Before hitting the presidential campaign trail, Gov. George W. Bush signed several planning-related bills, reports chapter president David Gattis, AICP. The measures include: H.B. 1704, which readopts vesting provisions for development projects; S.B. 138, the religious freedom act; and S.B. 89, which makes substantial modifications to code provisions regarding annexation. The vesting and religious freedom legislation has been discussed in previous columns.

The annexation law requires cities to adopt three-year annexation plans. Land not annexed within that time may not be annexed for another five years. All city services must be provided within 30 months of annexation. In addition, says Gattis, the law limits "flagpole" annexations by prohibiting annexations of strips of land that are less than 1,000 feet wide.

Gov. Bush also vetoed two planning-related bills. H.B. 2045, which the chapter opposed, would have amended the state's impact fee law to provide a 50 percent credit for taxes and user fees imposed to pay for capital improvements. Thus, a local government could never collect more than half of the maximum fee, Gattis notes. Both the chapter and the Texas Municipal League opposed the bill, reasoning that the tax credit outweighed the positive aspects of the bill.

The chapter had taken no position on the other vetoed bill, H.B. 247. It would have authorized cities to use neighborhood associations' volunteers to spot health and safety violations visible without entering private property.