Thursday, January 15, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court limits use of local impact fees
The U.S. Supreme Court recently rendered an opinion that, in the words of one Supreme Court justice, will "work a revolution in land-use law." The court's decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013) has given developers a potent new legal tool to challenge local impact fees and mitigation charges by now requiring communities to prove the validity of such fees and charges. The Court's 5-4 decision rose from the denial of an application of a landowner, Coy A. Koontz, for a permit to fill 3.7 acres of wetlands to build a small shopping center. The governmental body denying the application made clear that it would only grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed either to reduce the size of the development or to spend money on any of a variety of wetlands restoration projects designed to offset the project's environmental effects.


After the permit was denied, Mr. Koontz sued, claiming that the permit denial constituted an illegal taking based upon two prior Supreme Court decisions. Nollan v. California coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)


In reversing the Florida State Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Koontz and held that the Nollan and Dolan test applies to cases where a governmental body: (1) issues a permit subject to a condition or outright denies a permit, and (2) requires the conveyance of an interest in tangible property or a generalized requirement of an applicant to spend some money.


This could shift the traditional deference given to government officials and technical experts on issues of regulatory policy, this decision will require a heightened standard of scrutiny of impact fees, shifting to the government the burden of justifying its fees in any legal challenges related to impact fees. It looks as though this decision will make it important for cities and towns to focus on the legality of local impact fees.


This information comes from a municipal law newsletter of the Deutsch Williams Law firm.


Jeff Bennett

No comments:

Post a Comment