Planning

Articles

The Mayor’s Leadership Role in Economic Development

Congratulations: You’re Our Newest Plan Commissioner

Defining Accessory Uses A Three-Step Work Sheet

Zoning Litigation

Position Your Project For Quick Municipal Approval

Does Comprehensive Planning Work?

Illinois Business District Law

Key Financial Strategies

Fiscal Impact Review of New Development

THE ATTORNEY - PLANNER RELATIONSHIP 'KEY' TO GOOD LOCAL ZONING

PREPARING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

SMART GROWTH IT'S MORE THAN AG PRESERVATION

“Just outside Chicago, there’s a place called Illinois.”

Transit Oriented Development - Development Oriented Transit

Illinois Chapter Leads Tornado Recovery Plan Charrette

Handling Complaints About Zoning Enforcement

Do We Have a Smart Growth Plan?

Position Your Project for Quick Municipal Approval

Ten Ingredients Found in Successful Downtowns

Municipal Sponsorship of Golf Course Development

Is it Time to Update Our Zoning Ordinance?

Approve This Rezoning - It's The Highest and Best Land Use!

You Can't Do That - It's Spot Zoning!

Retail Business incubators - A Downtown Redevelopment Strategy

You May Use Our Copyrighted Articles - Just Give Us Credit

The Mayor’s Leadership Role in Economic Development

Defining Accessotry Uses - A Three-Step Work Sheet

"Congratulations" You Are Now Our New Plan Commission Chairman

Smart Growth - It's More Than Ag Preservation and Stopping Urban Sprawl

The Attorney - Planner Relationship - Key to Good Local Zoning

Illinois Chapter Leads Tornado Recovery Plan Charrette

2010-07-25T10:37:00.000-07:00

Easier to Read and Find Copies of the Articles in this blog at:

http://planningarticles.blogspot.com/

Economic Development and Planning News on this blog

http://economicdevelopmentnews.blogspot.com/

My Web Site

http://craighullinger.com/

craighullinger@gmail.com

2009-10-17T06:09:00.023-07:00

Most of the Articles in this Blog have been published in the Illinois Municipal Review Magazine. Feel free to use the copyright information in the articles - just give us your undying gratitude.

Contact Craig Hullinger at CraigHullinger@gmail.com or Chuck Eckenstahler at pctecken@netnitco.net or Beth Ruyle at bethruyle@gmail.com.

Read the Articles on the Illinois Municipal Web Page at

http://www.iml.org/rm/review.htm

http://www.iml.org

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "DO YOU HAVE A SMART GROWTH PLAN?", January 2001. With Larry McClellan

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "SMART GROWTH - IT'S MORE THAN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AND URBAN SPRAWL", August 2000. With Beth Ruyle

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "IS IT TIME TO UPDATE YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE?", March 2000.

Bar Briefs Kane County Bar Association, "POSITION YOUR PROJECT FOR QUICK MUNICIPAL APPROVAL, February 2001.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "APPROVE THIS REZONING - IT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE", February 2000.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "POSITION YOURSELF FOR MEDIA EXPOSURE", October 1999.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "ADMINISTERING THE ZONING ORDINANCE DO WE HAVE GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE?", August 2000.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "ALIGNING INTERSTATE ROAD INTERESTS, August 2000.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "YOU CAN'T DO THAT - IT'S SPOT ZONING", May 1999.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "DOES COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING WORK?", March 1999.

Illinois Municipal Rev Magazine, "DEFINING ACCESSORY USES - A THREE STEP WORK SHEET", February 1999.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "CONGRATULATIONS: YOU ARE OUR NEWEST PLAN COMMISSIONER. SO NOW WHAT DO YOU DO?", February 1998.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "ZONING LITIGATION - COMMON SENSE RULES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITY", November 1997.

Illinois Municipal Review Magazine, "FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS: GETTING THE PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVED IN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION”, January 2003.
With Dianne Gormely-Barnes AICP

2009-10-17T06:09:00.017-07:00

The Mayor’s Leadership Role in Economic Development

(Published by the Illinois Municipal League)

Making something happen or just let anything happen!

INTRODUCTION

In the “big picture” of community economic development, a Mayor can make things happen! The Mayor is ultimately responsible for the community’s economic development strategy. The Mayor as the chief elected officer of the community must combine public and private interests to complete projects that result in better community - in other words, to implement the community’s economic development strategy.

A community economic development strategy is essentially developed in two ways, - strategically or haphazardly. Too often in small communities, Mayors, staff and other elected officials are too busy reacting to citizen problems and complaints to consider the serious importance of a formal written community economic development strategy.

This article describes how Mayors find themselves trapped into a reactionary haphazard community economic development strategy. The authors advocate that it is the responsibility of the Mayor working with other elected officials and staff to defend against these haphazard traps and provide necessary leadership to facilitate a strategically focused community economic development strategy.

COMMON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TRAPS

#1 - WHY PLAN, WHEN YOU CAN REACT?

The old adage “why plan, when you can react” especially applies to local government economic development. Today, most Mayors feel overwhelmed with the day-to-day government services that need to be provided with limited and decreasing revenues. Almost every Mayor has at one time or another lamented the difficulty of getting things done. In addition to working full times jobs themselves, they must now face increased citizen demand for services and uncertain revenues.

In times like this it is hard to focus community leadership towards future planning when there are so many daily problems to solve. How can long-term creative ideas for the future seriously be considered when government administration is totally involved in meeting daily service needs?The result is reaction to any ( if there is any) economic development in a haphazard, uncoordinated fashion.

# 2 - ANY ROAD WILL DO WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING.

The “squeaky wheel fix” is another common trap. This typically occurs when citizens complain loudly. The government then takes action to correct the problem with little, if any, forethought of how it “fits” into the larger scheme of economic development for the community. The result is often disconnected projects having no relationships. They do not set the framework for future economic development projects.

#3 - GIVE ME DEVELOPMENT - ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT INCREASES TAX BASE!

If your community is a “hot growth spot”, the desperation for new tax base may not be as great as older comminutes or communities affected by recent job losses. However, in many communities any development is welcome even if might jeopardize a desired long-term position of the community.Again, the result is often development not related to any plan for the future.

#4 - SIT BACK AND JUST LET IT HAPPEN!

Another strategy may be simply to wait until developers come forward with projects. You then react to their proposals. Like above, the result is often development not related to any plan for the future

WINNING FRIENDS WHILE BUILDING YOUR STRATEGY

To avoid the above traps, you want to influence the long-term economic future of your community. The Mayor must be pro active and facilitate the preparation of a community economic development strategy. This strategy will illustrate the long range vision of the community and identify specific projects necessary to achieve this vision. The Mayor must initiate the community economic development strategy planning process.

An exercise must be completed that identifies specific projects that are necessary to the economic goals of the community. The community must prioritize the projects and determine their cost. The community then builds the priority projects that are financially prudent.

The community does this over a number of years. The priority may be modified because the community faces a major change, but for the most part the community continues its long term vision and funds the next priority and not today’s hot topic.The overall community economic development strategy must be built on the consensus of elected officials, private business interests and the majority of citizens. Mayoral leadership fosters a process that develops a community-wide consensus about projects resulting in implementation of an economic vision.

STEPS IN PREPARING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

#1 - DEFINE THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VISION OR GOAL

Our experience is that residents and business owners within any community have many ideas about economic and community development improvements needed for the community. The Mayor and community leadership need to hear these ideas at the very beginning of the process.There are a number of ways to solicit these ideas. The most popular process is to hold a community meeting, send out a mail return questionnaire, and/or solicit ideas through a survey undertaken by a professional firm or listed on your web page.

The community meetings works only when it is directed. Our experience is that it is beneficial have a disinterested third party facilitator experienced in community goal setting techniques conduct the meeting.

Another technique is to have a community open house with a number of concepts aired for citizens to see and react to at specific stations. Based on this input the Mayor leads the other elected officials in forming a vision for the overall future for the community. The community then communicates this vision both graphically and in writing. An implementation strategy accompanies this vision which contains creative proposals to improve the community and the process to implement the proposals.

#2 - IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING PROJECTS

The community economic development strategy will include a listing of projects that could enhance the community. We are always faced with the question of how to develop specific projects? Projects that the community must implement are sometimes not the priority of the community, but some regulating body. For instance, improvements may be required by the State before communities can address extensions and enlargements of the municipal water and sewer system.

Others are identified by staff, consultants, business leaders, citizens, other elected officials or bodies and developers that would like to invest in the community.You can simply sit down with theses individuals and identify needed and required projects. Similar processes are needed here as with the development of the overall strategy.

Ultimately the Mayor and elected officials must develop priorities. They must then work with staff to make the plan feasible. They then develop an the implementation schedule of the community economic development plan. The Mayor will serve as the facilitator for its implementation. The Mayor will meet and interact with or direct staff to undertake this role with developers, grant agencies, development approval bodies, other elected officials and the citizens of the community.

CONCLUSIONS

Mayors can make things happen. A Mayor can lead the community economic development strategy that will seek to implement specific actions and projects or react to initiatives brought about by others. It takes vision, leadership, and courage to step out front and lead community economic development. History has proven that

Mayoral leadership, energizing the political and economic leadership of a community, has success in achieving the community’s desired economic development vision

About the Authors

2009-10-17T06:09:00.011-07:00

Congratulations: You’re Our Newest Plan Commissioner.

So Now What Do You Do?

By Charles Eckenstahler and Craig Hullinger

Introduction

Being appointed to a Plan Commission is an honor very few residents of a community ever receive. Where else can you serve your community where you need to have the wisdom of a seasoned judge, the patience of a saint, familiarity with the legalities of land use law, and a personal sense of doing what is right for the common good?

Serving on a Plan Commission is not easy but it can be one of the most rewarding experiences of a person’s life. This article summarizes the basic functions of the Plan Commission and the everyday responsibilities of the Plan Commissioner. Duties Of The Plan Commission A Plan Commission, under Illinois law, is primarily an advisory body to the city council, village board of trustees or county board of commissioners.

The jobs assigned to the Plan Commission are rather few, but significant: · to gather public input and recommend to the legislative body the adoption of a comprehensive Plan for the municipality; · to gather public input and recommend to the legislative body the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance for the municipality; · to review and/or approve new development - more specifically site development plans for specific projects; and · to review and/or approve plats of subdivision.

In many areas of Illinois, planning and zoning programs have a long history. In others, communities are just beginning to develop a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Whether you have been appointed to a new or seasoned Plan Commission, it will involve the same procedures and require a considerable amount of research and preparation.

In Illinois, the Plan Commission prepares the Comprehensive Plan, holds the required public hearings and makes a recommendation to the legislative body regarding its adoption. The zoning ordinance follows a similar process, where the Plan Commission oversees the preparation of the ordinance, holds the required public hearing and recommends its adoption.

Once these documents are adopted, the Plan Commission assumes the duty of reviewing development proposals, development site plans and plats of subdivided land. Typically, the review is designed to assure that the proposed development is completed according to regulations and development standards established by the community. The Plan Commission may also decide whether or not certain types of development will be allowed as special uses or planned developments according to specific provisions of the zoning ordinance.

The Plan Commission also functions as the “think-tank” and “community sounding board.” It provides a mechanism to publically introduce new ideas and concepts for a better community for evaluation, approval and implementation by the legislative body. Most often it is an individual commissioner, who researches the idea, presents the idea to the public for comment and then molds the idea into a specific plan for implementation. This process is not for the faint of heart since Plan Commissioners, even when provided professional staff, spend a large amount of personal time in order to be fully informed concerning decisions they will be recommending.

Responsibilities Of A Plan Commissioner Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan (or its amendment), zoning decisions and development review are significant responsibilities for which the lay commissioner must prepare him or herself. The process for becoming an effective Plan Commissioner is not found in any study course but is typically learned “on the job,” in six easy (or not so easy) lessons.

Lesson #1 - Attendance At Every Meeting This is probably the most important lesson. The Plan Commission represents a cross section of the community and each member’s viewpoint is important to the decision making process. When a Commissioner is absent, this portion of the community viewpoint may not be fully represented and the other Commissioners are not provided the valuable insights of the Commissioner. Much of the process of planning and zoning is learned “on the job” and faithful attendance allows the Commissioner to “learn the ropes” more quickly.

Lesson #2 - Study The Plan And Ordinance This is an obvious statement, but one often ignored. Every Commissioner should have an understanding of the major development goals, policies and objectives detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. He/she should have a casual working knowledge of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Detailed and specific knowledge is not a prerequisite, but the ability to find information within the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance is necessary to evaluate development proposals and make recommendations. It’s obvious some amount of home work is required to gain a casual working knowledge of the documents.

Lesson #3 - Meeting Preparation It is especially helpful for Commissioners to review those portions of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance which have a bearing on the issues being discussed at the meeting. Therefore, Commissioners should read the agenda and any supporting documentation to familiarize themselves with the specific issues to be considered prior to the meeting. Some Commissioners actually write out specific questions they want answered prior to the meeting. This personal preparation time makes the meeting proceed smoothly and efficiently and prevents endlessly long drawn-out meetings where little seems to be accomplished.

Lesson #4 - Tour the Community And Visit The Site Good Plan Commissioners routinely tour the community in order to be familiar with every portion of the community. This helps with the understanding of an applicant’s request and determining the impact of a recommendation made by the Plan Commission. Even if the Commissioner knows the neighborhood, it’s good practice to visit the site of any issue pending before the Plan Commission. It’s important to personally observe the current conditions of the site and the surrounding land uses. This provides an opportunity to personally evaluate and understand what changes a decision will have on the site and its surroundings. It allows the Commissioner to personally view critical site factors which site plans, aerial photograph and other information, provided by the developer and staff, may not show.

Lesson #5 - Prepare Questions And Personal Opinions While “home work” is important, Commissioners should not hastily form final opinions and recommendations before the meeting. Testimony from the applicant, staff reports, comments from the public and comments from fellow Commissioners should be taken into account in forming personal opinions and recommendations. It is important for Commissioners to “speak out” and ask questions to clarify issues. It’s the duty of each Commissioner to express an informed opinion and respond to specific inquires by fellow Commissioners. Many times the deliberations and public hearing procedures have a way of raising the “blood pressure” of participants. Plan Commissioners must remember to treat these situations with understanding, tact and courtesy. Remember reasonable people can, and do, disagree which leads to a fair and open-minded evaluation of the facts surrounding the issue and the issuance of a decision by the Plan Commission which represents the best situation for the community.

Lesson #6 - Training, Training and More Training The one certainty in the planning and zoning process is change. As a result, each Commissioner should be committed to a long-ranged program of continual education. There are a number of excellent publications which can be reviewed. Additionally, universities and planning and zoning professional organizations sponsor seminars which can be attended for education and training. Summary Illinois planning and zoning laws leave final land use decisions in the hands of local citizens. The quality of the decisions and the professionalism of the procedures used to arrive at the decisions are entirely in the hands of the Plan Commissioners themselves. The personal investment of time to become fully knowledgeable about the planning and zoning process and local administrative procedures has a direct relationship to the level of personal satisfaction realized by each Commissioner. What is more important, the better Commissioners understand the duties required of them, the better the quality of the decision the Plan Commission, as a whole, will make. Better decisions will directly influence the quality of the community today and into the future.

2009-10-17T06:09:00.003-07:00

Defining Accessory Uses A Three-Step Work Sheet

By: CHARLES ECKENSTAHLER, ACP and CRAIG H. HULLINGER AICP

Introduction

Complaints about red tape in the processing of zoning requests are frequent. Developers and citizens are frequently frustrated by the time required to process simple requests. Local governments should streamline processes where possible.

Accessory uses are incidental to the principal permitted use in zoning districts. Typical accessory uses include storage sheds in the rear yard of a residential lot. Home occupations are other examples of frequently requested accessory uses. Zoning ordinances often do not include a list of accessory uses. They seldom provide a guide in determining whether a specific proposal should be considered an accessory use.

The determination of whether the application is an accessory use is usually delegated to the Zoning Officer who may or may not be empowered to grant approval. Some ordinances provide that the Zoning Board of Appeals determine accessory uses, some designate the Zoning Enforcement Officer and some are silent on the matter.

This article seeks to establish a three-part test which can be used to determine accessory uses. A worksheet is provided which can be used to guide local government decision making. The article also seeks to streamline the approval process, and reduce time and frustration for applicants and enforcement personnel. An Example Situation

To illustrate a typical situation, consider the following. A local landscaping service has a retail sales and service yard located on a commercially zoned lot abutting the main commercial street in your community. Like a lot of landscaping businesses, it has expanded to do tree trimming, lawn mowing and other home maintenance chores throughout the community. With the expanded business, the service has hired more residents, especially high school and college kids, during the summer months.

With a fleet of vehicles, it was a natural need to have a radio communication system to keep in contact with all the work teams circulating with within the community. Approval of a radio tower as an accessory use was granted to help the successful growth of the business, some time back.

Today, an application for a cellular communication tower designed to replace the approved radio communications tower has been filed. The application states the new tower is an accessory use to the business, because it is needed to communicate over a larger service territory. It will also be leased by a cellular phone company to provide mobile phone communications services.

Defining Customary And Incidental

The critical issue of this situation is defining whether the circumstances, the location of the tower for the use by the landscaping business, is customary and incidental to the landscaping business and secondly, whether the use of the tower as a cellular communications tower is customary and incidental to the landscaping business.

To help answer the question, the following questions can be asked:

1.Is the accessory use to be conducted on the same lot as the principal permitted use? In this situation, the use of the tower for radio communications for the landscaping business is clearly accessory to the landscaping business operations. It can be concluded the use of the tower for cellular communications is not an accessory use because no other cellular business operations are located on the site.

2.Is the proposed accessory use customarily found in connection with the principal permitted use? It is not unusual for a landscaping (or similar business) to have a radio tower for communications purposes and it can be concluded that the tower, when used in this manner, would be considered an accessory use. However, it is more difficult to find a communications tower jointly used by a landscaping business and a cellular communications business. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of the tower for this purpose, because it is not commonly found and does not have any direct relationship with the landscaping business, would not pass the test as an accessory use incidental to principal use.

3.Is there unity of ownership between the principal and accessory uses? For this question, clearly the ownership of the tower by the landscaping business for their use meets the guidelines and the leasehold interest of the communications company does not. Therefore, the tower would be an accessory use for the landscaping business but not the communications company.

The Decision Use of the three questions provide guidelines for the analysis of this complex situation. Findings of fact gathered from the above analysis include:

1.The location of a radio communications tower for use by the landscaping business is an accessory use of the landscaping business. The tower is located on the same zoning lot as the business, a radio communication system is commonly found in use by other landscaping business and related type businesses and the tower is owned by the business.

2.The use of the tower by a cellular communications company is not an accessory use. The tower is not on the same zoning lot as any principal communication company use, use of a tower for such purposes is not usually located with a landscaping business and the tower is not owned by the cellular communication company.

Therefore, the community would approve the tower for use by the landscaping business but prohibit the use of the tower for use as a cellular communications tower.

A Simple Work Sheet The work sheet, displayed below, can be used to help evaluate accessory use applications and become part of the application file documentation. If answers to all three questions posed in the work sheet are yes, then there is substantiation for the claim that the proposed use is accessory to the principal permitted use.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Village of Sauk Village, Illinois

ACCESSORY USE DETERMINATION WORKSHEET

21701 Torrence Avenue Sauk Village, IL 60411 (708)758-3330 Fax: (708) 758-9044

Zoning Case:_____________________________________________

Date: ___________________________________________________

12/10/98 Commissioner:

___________________________________________

STANDARDS FOR REVIEW STANDARD APPLICABILITY COMMENTS

1. Is the accessory use to be conducted on the same lot as the principal permitted use? Yes No Uncertain

2. Is the proposed accessory use customarily found in connection with the principal permitted use? Yes No Uncertain

3. Is their unity of ownership between the principal and accessory uses? Yes No Uncertain

Conclusion

More and more often plan commissions, zoning boards of appeals and zoning officials will be faced with the question of when to approve an apparent unrelated use as an accessory use on a single zoning lot. Along with the tower example other situations such as storage sheds for hobby (and retail sales) use, living units as part of commercial and industrial businesses, and manufacturing uses as part of a retail sales business have potential to be considered as accessory uses, depending on the construction of the language in the local zoning ordinance. Use of the work sheet allows the analysis of the individual circumstances of each application and uniform application of guidelines to help decision making.

2009-10-17T06:08:00.007-07:00

Zoning Litigation - Common Sense Rules To Reduce Vulnerability

By CHARLES ECKENSTAHLER AICP and CRAIG HULLINGER AICP

Introduction

The days when municipalities were not subject to litigation over disputed planning and zoning decision are long over. Property owners and developers now often seek judicial action when the decision of the plan commission, city council, village board or county commission is not favorable to their cause. Some developers plan from the start to proceed with litigation as part of the approval strategy.

The United States Supreme Court has issued rulings concerning compensation for the regulatory taking of private property in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994). In these complex cases the court held that compensation for the taking of property rights by regulations may be cause for compensation.

As a result, more property owners and developers are using the threat of litigation as a ploy to influence decisions in their favor. They reference the threat of litigation as part of their presentations using it to demand prompt and favorable decisions on zoning matters. This threat, however, is not idle. Zoning and “takings” litigation is on the rise notes Beth Ruyle, Executive Director of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. Ruyle administers a self insurance fund covering nineteen local governments in the southern suburbs of Chicago. Ruyle notes, “When we first started our insurance program we didn’t think seriously about zoning and property rights litigation, because none of our members experienced problems with such litigation. Today, we are much more concerned. We have, over the past two years, been involved in several cases. Clearly, the trend for this type of litigation is increasing.”

Six Ingredients For “Bullet Proofing” The Plan and Zoning Process

We recommend that municipalities consider the following six ingredients to avoid litigation:

1. Define The Reasonable Use Of The Subject Property If you have not done so in the recent past, review and update your comprehensive plan, especially the official statements of goals and policies. This portion of the document expresses the desired future land uses for various portions of the community. These statements will form the legal basis for the zoning ordinance. It also demonstrates that the ordinance was not arbitrary or imposed in violation of planning and zoning laws. The goals and policies should tie directly back to state enabling legislation for planning and zoning. This direct linkage makes it easy for the court to follow the logic for the development of the municipal goals and objectives.

2. Update The Zoning Ordinance

It is fairly common for communities to adopt a zoning ordinance and believe that it should never be amended. We recommend that periodically (every few years) a comprehensive review of the ordinance be completed by the plan commission. This process further documents the effort of the municipality to “keep current” the zoning map, change outdated language and to modify specific language to further implement the comprehensive plan.

Your legal counsel is an important part of this process. You and your attorney should carefully review the ordinance to ensure that you are following it and that it is current with state law and recent court rulings. You may also want to engage a professional planner to assist in the update process. This may prove cost effective in avoiding litigation.

Professional assistance can provide you information concerning recent rulings and legislation which may require you to modify some of the current ordinance language. The advisor is most often an “outsider” who can discuss problems and make recommendations without the emotional attachment found in local property owners. Neither will the advisor reflect individual preferences.

It is also good practice to update the zoning ordinance when the comprehensive plan is updated, or immediately following the update of the plan. Ideally, the same individuals should prepare the land use plan maps and zoning maps at the same scale and at the same time. The categories of the land use plan should also correlate to the zoning map categories.

3. Organize Your Decision Making Process

To Rely On Facts Many plan commissions pay little attention to the specific facts of the matter at hand. They often do not formally state why they denied or approved the zoning request. They do not make a formal written report. In making your recommendation or decision on a zoning request, you should carefully consider all relevant information. You should ensure that the rationale for your decisions is documented in writing so that the court will not have to speculate as to why you made your decision. The written “Findings of Fact” should be prepared by your attorney and approved by the commission. You should, of course, reference the land use plan and map, zoning map, the goals and policies of your plan, and the purposes and intent of your zoning code. Topography, flood plain, wetlands, wet soils and prime farmlands are all relevant information. The distance to utilities is also important.

In Illinois, the courts rely heavily on the standards for review of zoning cases enunciated in the LaSalle v. County of Cook (1957) and Sinclair Pipe Line Company v. Richton Park (1960). The first six standards were established in LaSalle V. Cook, while the last two were developed from the Richton Park case. The court uses these standards to evaluate the legitimacy of your decision. It is, therefore, logical to use these standards when developing your decision. The standards are as follows:

1. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property;

2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions;

3. The extend to which the destruction of plaintiffs’ property values promote the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public;

4. Relative gain to the public compared to hardship imposed upon the individual property owner;

5. The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes;

6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the vicinity;

7. Community need for the proposed land use;

8. The care with which the community had undertaken to plan its land use development.

A misconception is that the land use of the property changes with the change of owners. In most cases zoning matters are tied to the land and any subsequent owners of the property can continue to use the property within the terms and conditions as approved by the municipality. We recommend that you develop a non-emotional, factual evaluation process based on the specific requirements and procedures outlined in the zoning ordinance for every rezoning matter. You must include a motion to approve or deny a rezoning request and reiterate the finding of fact, reasons that the request is inconsistent with the approved municipal plan and the specific reasons that the request is not in the best interest of the municipality. You should write this in proper form and make it available for public inspection.

4. Follow Proper Procedure Within Legitimate Authority

The courts have ruled in favor of developers in a large number of recent cases because the municipality did not follow proper procedure or acted beyond the authority given to them by the zoning ordinance. The public hearing must follow precisely the terms of the ordinance. Failure to do so could result in cancellation of the decision and the necessity to repeat the zoning process. In one (non-Illinois) instance, the municipality caused a delay and the judge ruled the municipality, as a result, caused monetary loss to the developer. The court then required the municipality to pay damages. Acting within the boundary of the zoning ordinance is also important. Issues of appearance, color of the building, and construction materials are not typically regulated under the terms of the zoning ordinance. Nor can you consider the qualifications of the property owner or the developer.

5. Establish Written Record And Document Procedures

From the first meeting with the applicant, written records are important. A short note in the file may be important in the case of litigation. Some communities record or video tape each meeting for their permanent record. Others take written notes on lap top computers which are distributed to all parties. You should request a completed application, with supporting information, for every zoning matter. You should note all conversations and prepare a summary of every meeting. The community then places these into the file. You should also make a record of all phone calls attempted and include this information in the file. The community must also keep a copy of all correspondence and the minutes of each meeting at which it takes action. The community should store these according to the law and until the time limit for litigation expires.

6. Use Consistent Procedures

This last rule is common sense, but is often forgotten. Realize that all prior actions of the municipality are open for inspection and review. Therefore, if you approved an action once, your reasons for that decision become the rationale for someone to ask for a similar consideration. Know the reasons for prior decisions and return to them when granting or denying a request. The community should resolve any questions of doubt before taking action and, if the action is not similar to any previous decision, state the reasons. Listen to supporting and opposing views on the matter before rendering an opinion. You must act in “good faith” and make the decision which is in the best interest of all the residents of the municipality, not just those attending the meeting.

Do not make your decision prior to the public hearing. This is true for both commissioners and staff. A common problem is staff writing reports and making a specific recommendation before the public hearing. This insults the public. It is both poor planning and poor politics. Staff should make recommendations following the public hearing.

Conclusions

The authors developed the six ingredients for successful zoning as a result of their twenty-five plus years of experience in concert with the review of recent litigation. The authors intend that the six ingredients serve as a guide for plan commissioners and their staff to address the growing problems caused by the threats of litigation against municipal decisions in planning and zoning. Ever present diligence is necessary today to ward off both the effective use of threats of litigation and litigation itself.

Knowledge and consistent administration of the planning and zoning functions in a fair impartial manner remain the best means to “bullet proof” your municipality’s planning and zoning functions. Likewise, it remains imperative that the municipality retain the services of a qualified attorney. The attorney should be made available to the planning commission or zoning board of appeals for advice on difficult land use decision. No criteria can replace knowledgeable specific legal advise.

2009-10-16T22:49:00.000-07:00

Position Your Project For Quick Municipal Approval

“Recommendations for Applicants Entering The Plan and Zoning Process”

By CRAIG HULLINGER AICP and CHUCK ECKENSTAHLER AICP

Introduction

It is inevitable that proposed new development will meet stiff opposition in the approval process. In the minds of many people, any new development will impact everything from traffic on existing roads to consuming valued open space. Some plan commission meetings resemble open warfare between developers and concerned citizens with the plan commission acting as reluctant referees.

Neither the applicant nor the plan commissioner wishes to participate in these angry and unproductive meetings. With an understanding that open warfare can erupt at any time, what’s a plan commission to do? Whether it is a new project or a routine decision before the plan commission (or zoning board), we recommend the municipality advise (or preferably require) the applicant to prepare for the public presentation and hearing process.

It pays for the applicant to be well prepared, and to approach the community with a willingness to compromise. Increasing The Odds For Approval It is a duty of a good municipal planning staff to advise the applicant concerning the preparation of the application and public presentation procedures. These procedures vary from community to community. Both the individual who has never processed a request before and the most experienced developers appreciate this “coaching” because it allows then to prepare and present their request in the “best possible light.”

This coaching also helps the plan commission, since it informs the applicant of the process of the meeting and the type of information which the plan commission desires to see publically presented. It gives the applicant time to organize a public presentation including expert presentations and display drawings to illustrate important elements of their proposal.

Below is a list of ten guidelines we give to applicants to help them “increase the odds” of making a winning presentation.
1.Do Your Homework Too often applicants before the plan commission do not come prepared and “ad-lib” responses to pointed questions put forth by citizens during the public hearing. We recommend to applicants that they attend meetings to see how the process works and to gain an understanding of the type of questions raised by citizens and the members. We urge all applicants to prepare for the meeting and come ready to answer questions. We also suggest that large “display-sized” drawing and maps be prepared and used to illustrate the key points of the applicant’s request.

2.Understand the Communities Growth Policies Every community views growth and development differently. Some welcome new development while others are somewhat more particular and support only certain types of new development.

We recommend applicants take time to review the Comprehensive Plan and discuss their proposal with local officials. These discussions usually identify whether the proposal conforms with the general intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and “unwritten” desires of the plan commission and community. The closer the proposal conforms to the “written and unwritten” growth policies, the greater likelihood of acceptance of the proposal. Crafting a development proposal which conforms to the intent of the community growth policies, obviously, will receive a more favorable consideration than one which doesn’t.

3.Identify How the Project Will Benefit The Community

In the fiscally constrained local governmental financial environment of today, many local governments examine the financial merits of every new development proposal. They assess whether the cost for municipal services and infrastructure will exceed the tax revenue generated by the real estate property, sales and income taxes the community will receive as a result of the new development. We suggest that applicants consider having a cost-benefit analysis completed to test whether the proposed development will pay “its fair share” of costs. In cases where the development does not meet local financial obligations, we encourage the developer to reconsider the type of development proposed or to evaluate the possibility of donations to off-set potential revenue losses.

4.Go The Extra Mile Attitude Gaining approval of a new development today is often a negotiation process. Developers, realizing that communities do not have to approve a request, spend more money and time in the preparation of the application for approval. We see more attention to the growth policies of the communities being given by the developers and a greater sensitivity to meeting the fiscal needs of the community than in the past. Applicants who are ready to “go this additional mile” are received with enthusiasm and have the greatest chance to secure approvals.

5.Know Your Legal Position Development is governed by number of local ordinances, state laws and regulations. In addition there can be private restrictions in the form of deed restrictions, easements and “clouded” ownership. Applications sometimes are submitted without completing research of permits and restrictions which may alter the development proposal when discovered. We recommend that property title research be completed and that applications for “curb cuts,” water/sewer connections, storm water systems, floodplain alteration and wetland permits be submitted as needed, as early as possible in the concept development process. This knowledge assures that required permits can be obtained and no legal objection to the development of the proposed concept will be encountered. We also recommend applicants know the rules prescribed by the zoning ordinance for the subject property. This knowledge gives a base line density determination for the property and a measurement tool for any negotiated changes.

6.Don’t Overlook The Opportunity For Innovation Innovative planning techniques such as traditional neighborhood development, zero lot line development, transit orientated development, cluster development and the like are being discussed as means to achieve smart growth and reduce “urban sprawl.” We encourage developers to recognize that communities are willing to consider innovative development, sometimes of higher density with less development costs, where a carefully crafted development plan fulfill local community development goals. Obviously, in cases where an application supports a desired innovative development concept, the application approval process is likely to be easier.

7.Be Willing To Scale Back Developers seek to maximize their return on investment in land, often seeking to build the greatest number of housing units (or other buildings) as permitted by the zoning ordinance. We recommend applicants take a “hard look” at the development opportunity in light of the community plan and unwritten development polices before finalizing any concept plan for a specific project. Proposing maximum density of development for a site viewed as a lower density development site by the plan commission, will almost always give rise to lengthy debate and review.

8.Trade Density For Open Space or Cost Reductions Applicants should recognize the overwhelming desire expressed by citizens for more open space. Innovative design which clusters development allowing greater sized open space areas are viewed positively by most communities. We encourage developers to consider asking for additional density for provision of larger land areas left in open space especially with creative designs which provide access to the open space through the total development.

9.Listen and Show Respect for Local Officials This is another obvious statement, however, we have found that many times an applicant will bluster in to a community demanding prompt approval due to a “short deadline.” It must be recognized that plan commissioners must deal with residents concerns and need time to review and complete their job. Applicants who rush the process and “push” the decision process without regard for the plan commission members’ time and need for review seriously hinder a respectful dialogue.

10.Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say We have attended meetings where applicants “promise the world” and conveniently forget the promises once the development is completed. We caution applicants to be honest in their commitments and fulfill their promises.

Conclusions

It is important to understand the role of each member participating in the decision process; applicant, plan commission and staff. Not every project, even though that’s what the applicant wants, will pass through the approval process without change. Preparation and understanding is the “key” to achieving an approval supported by all parties of the process. Understanding an applying the about principles provides for a higher chance of success.

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm which has consulted with the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN and the Eastern Will County Regional Council.

2009-10-15T14:22:00.000-07:00

By CHARLES ECKENSTAHLER, AICP and CRAIG HULLINGER, AICP

Introduction

Does our Comprehensive Plan function as it was intended? Does it guide land use decisions? Should it be updated or replaced?

These are common questions frequently raised by elected officials and planning staff. But it was of more recent concern to Bill Ernat, Community Development Director for the Village of Homewood. “ The Board of Trustees, after several months of discussion, authorized the update of our plan last updated in 1986,” said Ernat.

“ The Trustees questioned whether the Plan was effective and worthwhile. They asked if it had helped guide past land use decisions, and was in need of updating.” As the first step in preparing an update to the plan, Ernat wanted to know if officials and village administrators thought that the current plan was valid. He also wanted to know whether the Plan had influenced past and current decision making in the village.

To gather information, the Village Planning Consultant was instructed to survey thirty key officials. Included in the roster were all elected officials; the members of the Plan Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals; chairmen of several advisory committees and commissions, such as the Economic Development Committee and Appearance Commission; the Park District; as well as village management staff and department heads.

The Survey Data was collected on two primary issues. The first issue was to test whether the current plan (prepared in 1986) was still valid for current use. The second issue questioned the respondees’ familiarity with the plan and whether they personally viewed the document as influential in decision-making. Survey Findings Responses were returned by about one-half of the key village leaders. While the survey was not a true statistical sampling, the results were felt to represent a realistic portrayal of the attitudes of village leadership.

The results of the survey, by question, follow:

Is the current plan valid? 14% said yes, 29% said no and 57% said they didn’t know.

Is the current plan relevant for the future? 14% said yes, 21% said no and 64% said they didn’t know.

Have you read the plan? 14% said yes, 71% said no and 14% had no opinion.

Has the plan provided guidance for decision-making? 36% indicated some and substantial, 14% said little and 50% said none.

What Homewood Officials Realized Village President Richard Hofeld wasn’t surprised with the results of the survey, but a little disappointed. “We take pride in the process of local government decision-making in Homewood,” said Hofeld. “I am happy that more than a third of the respondees indicate the plan influences our decision-making process. What’s more disturbing is the uncertainty of whether the plan is a valid decision-making tool now and in the future. These survey findings really confirm that we made the right decision to update the plan. The process of the update will provide the opportunity for the leadership and all residents to reacquaint themselves with the plan and our development goals for the future.”

Ernat suggests there may be a number of reasons for the survey results, including:

1.Timeliness of the Plan The plan document was more than 10 years old. Many changes had occurred in the community since the plan was last updated. It can be surmised that many of the leaders would view the document as out of date. Many leaders had not bothered reading the document, assuming it was out of date.

2.Personalization and Community Ownership of the Plan Another reason could be the existence of new participants in village planning and governmental administration, many who have specific ideas of what direction future planning should take.

3.Lack of Validity It can be surmised that the content of the plan may be out-of-date, so why bother to read it! What Was Learned From The Survey Process? Ernat states that the village learned from the survey that, “Our plan was no longer an up-to-date document. A plan has a useful shelf life. That time period is different in every community and is based on many factors. Most important is who participates in the process of preparing the plan, what issues are addressed and how the document is amended to remain current. Probably just as important is how the document is promoted by elected and appointed officials as the village tool for decision making.”

The update process of the Homewood Comprehensive Plan included six neighborhood public input sessions, interviews with the key leaders, and a wide variety of discussion sessions with advisory bodies and resident interest groups. The outcome, in addition to the traditional big report, will be an Executive Summary “Brochure Plan” summarizing future development policies. The brochure will include a copy of the Future Land Use Map of the village.

This document will be used to promote the updated Comprehensive Plan as an easily recognized decision making tool for both government and private sector use. What Other Communities Should Know Almost every elected official has heard the advice on how important it is to have a current plan when defending legal challenges to land use decisions in court. However, there are a number of other benefits, including:

1.Elected and appointed officials are more likely to make a concerted effort to use the plan in making land use decisions if they were involved in its development and adoption. Listening to citizens’ input makes elected officials more aware and knowledgeable of the community.

2.The preparation of the plan must include a wide range of interests and the maximum number of participants to assure “ownership” of the plan.

3.The document must be widely distributed in a concise format which is easily read by the general public.

4.Elected officials and community leaders must promote awareness of the Comprehensive Plan and its importance in decision making.

5.Staff should consider use of the Plan for influencing development decisions by distribution of the Plan as a statement of what the community likes and dislikes in terms of new development within the community.

6.Elected officials and staff should always include reference to the Comprehensive Plan in the approval and denial of development actions.

7.Annually, the test of current validity and the need for updating should be considered to retain high visibility, use and public recognition of the Comprehensive Plan as a guide for decision making.

8.When the Board makes a decision that does not comply with the Plan, the Plan should be formally amended so that the Plan remains consistent with that decision.

9.A large, full-color Land Use Plan Map, containing goals and objectives, and principal recommendations should be framed and mounted in the Village Board room.

Conclusion

Village Manager Dave Niemeyer sums up the feelings of elected and appointed officials plus administrative staff this way. “We will ask the same questions about a year after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. I’ll bet the results of the survey will show opposite results. We intend to ask these questions annually, to determine when to update the plan next. Homewood officials have a vision for the future. Our updated Comprehensive Plan will serve its intended purpose.”

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, MI, planning consulting firm engaged by the Illinois communities of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is a governmental planning consultant and President of Planning Development Services. He recently reentered private practice after serving as the Assistant Village Manager for Tinley Park. He also has served as Will County Director of Land Use.

2009-10-12T11:52:00.000-07:00

Illinois Business District Law (BD) Amended:
New Sales and Hotel/ Motel $$’s are available for Redevelopment
By
Beth Ruyle, Executive Vice President & Director
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.

The Business District is not a new economic development tool in Illinois, but with legislative amendment in 2004, it is a tool worth exploring. Like Tax Increment Financing (TIF), the BD allows communities to pledge tax revenues toward redevelopment in a blighted area. However, unlike TIF, this tool allows communities to increase sales and/or hotel motel tax within the boundaries of the Business District as that revenue. Previously the Business District was used for the powers it provided a community as opposed to a real revenue source to help with development or redevelopment. Now, the BD can generate its own revenues or be used in conjunction with TIF to generate additional revenues for projects.

The Business District also deals only with municipal revenues so there is no concern on the part of the other taxing bodies. If additional property tax dollars are generated, all districts receive the new share of those property taxes.

The Illinois Business District law now authorizes municipalities to levy an additional sales tax of up to 1.00% in .25 increments on retail goods and hotels in a designated commercial area. (Certain sales are exempt as drugs, medicines, handicap/disability equipment, etc.) If you are an Illinois community of any size or population, and you are seeking additional revenue to help finance economic development and redevelopment in your community, you should consider implementing the Illinois Business District law (P.A. 093-1053)

The law requires that a municipality make a formal finding that the area is blighted. The “blight” definition is similar to that of TIF, but not exact. In cases of a BD that overlays a TIF, eligibility of both could be concurrently established.

Other requirements similar to TIF are the “but for” provisions, the requirement of a Redevelopment Plan, a required budget, required contiguity of parcels in the District, and required agreement between the BD plan and the comprehensive plan. The time period of 23 years is also the same as TIF.

The Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) collects the retail tax. The State Treasurer disburses checks for sales taxes to municipalities on or before the 25th day of each calendar month. IDOR retains 2% of the amount for their administrative costs associated with the collection and disbursement of the business district sales tax revenues. You must file your ordinances with IDOR by April and October 1st for July and January 1 collection startups.

The municipality must collect the hotel portion of the tax.

Adoption of the BD is much easier than that of a TIF. The law only requires that the municipality hold a minimum of two public hearings at least one week before designation. However, communities should undertake an information plan for its residents and businesses and seek support of the affected business community prior to the designation of the BD.

Some questions to consider before using this financing tool:

Question 1.

When would a community consider using a Business District?

Answer.
Two possibilities have already been mentioned—when there is opposition by the taxing districts to a TIF that cannot be surmounted or when additional revenues beyond TIF are needed to make the project work. Other times when a BD might apply are when property tax revenues are already committed and cannot be used, when there is agreement from the retail community that they are willing to participate in the renovations of the area or when a hotel project may be the center piece to the development. These and other reasons are rationale to look at this tool.

Question 2.
Will the imposition of an added sales tax for a retail development located in one part of your community and impact existing retail in other parts of the community? Will this tax drive customers away?

Answer:
In other states that use this financing tool, like Missouri, the experience shows that the payment of the added sales tax is not an issue with consumers, particularly if the retailers in the Business District are new to the community, and provide a greater variety of goods and services to customers that they cannot get elsewhere.

Question 3.
Should we create the district so that we include retailers of high cost items?

Answer:
We would advise that you carefully analyze the impacts of imposing the tax on retailers of expensive items and major retail purchases. You may want to begin with a smaller increment of additional sales tax on those types of high- end retail purchases in order to gauge consumer response to the additional tax.

Question 4.
Is there opposition or resistance to these added taxes by existing retailers?

Answer:
Some retailers (most notably Wal-Mart) have opposed the business district taxes. There is no evidence though to prove that these retailers have lost sales revenue as a result of the additional tax.

Question 5.
If we have an existing TIF, can we still get the Business District and will it require any additional documentation?

Answer:
You can set up a Business District with an existing TIF. At this point, you must complete additional documentation because the qualifying criteria for blight differ in the separate Acts. However, this documentation will be much less extensive than the TIF and can use portions of TIF documents as part of the designation. Such items as the plan and the “but for” evidence will be there from the TIF. Documentation of the criteria will be different or modified.

Question 6.
If we have a Business District can we just impose this tax?

Answer:
Only if you have made a formal finding that the area is a blighted area based on the criteria in the Act. You should also assure your plan conforms to the specifications in the Act. Then, you can pass the ordinances imposing the tax (es).

Question 7.
How complicated is it to create a Business District Redevelopment Plan.?

Answer:

Establishing eligibility still carries with it the need to justify the basis for blight in the BD. Likewise, you must establish that “but for” the Business District development or redevelopment will not occur. The plan must document these items and also provide goals and objectives for the BD, a review of the existing Comprehensive Plan to assure conformity, a budget for the project, and a set of powers and, most importantly, the rate of sales tax or hotel/motel tax that will be imposed.

Beth Ruyle is a Financial Advisor in the Ehlers’ Illinois Office. She is the former director of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. She has extensive economic development and municipal finance experience. She specializes in development of TIF, BD and Special Assessment/Special Service Area Bonds. She is joined in the Ehlers Illinois office by Financial Advisor Brad Townsend another former municipal manager.

2009-10-12T11:49:00.000-07:00

Key Financial Strategies
By
Beth Ruyle
Financial Advisor, Ehlers & Associates

Recognizing that change is inevitable, most communities have undertaken a planning process to view where they are and where they want to be. As a result, most communities in Illinois have comprehensive plans to guide their physical development. However, do these communities have a similar plan to direct their fiscal development? The answer is no. Officials recognize that communities grow and age. They may need new facilities or to replace aging infrastructure. Unfortunately, analyzing only the physical side of the equation does not make a complete and doable vision.

Just as a community needs a comprehensive plan to guide change in the community, it needs a financial plan that provides a framework for good fiscal decision-making. This is not just a budget or a capital improvements program. A financial strategy looks at setting financial goals for the community and the methods to achieve those goals. Both revenues and proposed capital items are parts of a framework that guides the financial decisions of the community. Tying this financial strategic plan to existing financial components and comprehensive planning creates a plan for the community that works.

When a community desires to pursue an action, it will know in advance whether that action is a financial reality. The financial strategy also provides a context in which elected officials understand their options and the implication of their decisions. The impact of competing needs can be fully understood and priorities are realistically set without putting taxpayers at risk. Can you afford to undertake that economic development project? Or, perhaps more importantly, can you not afford to undertake that project?

Communities in other states in the Midwest have embraced this new financial planning tool. For example, The Fitchburg Star, Fitchburg, Wisconsin noted that the process included a well-organized outline of borrowing options and an equally well-organized list of ramifications. The paper then praised the community’s decision to undertake the strategy.

Illinois communities should, likewise, consider this key strategic financial component that includes the following:

Confirm and prioritize community goals;
Review the community’s current financial position;
Develop an inventory of capital needs and program request beyond the traditional Capital Improvement Program;
Develop an inventory of financial resources;
Present options;
Analyze the financial impact of each option;
Prepare an affordable, comprehensive financial plan;
Develop a framework to review future capital projects.

Even the rating agencies have noted that this long-range view of the community’s finances is beneficial. According to both Moodys and Standards and Poor the process assists in the rating process.

Undertaking a “Key Financial Strategies” process is now timely given the positive nature of the economy. Waiting may mean that the community may sacrifice some of its options and, in general, will face less flexibility as it attempts to prepare for the future. Developing a financial strategy will become a necessary tool as communities face the future. Illinois communities should consider this new program quickly to assure that their financial future is sound.

As Printed in the Illinois Municipal League Review, March, 2000

2009-10-12T11:47:00.001-07:00

Important Questions for a Fiscal Impact Review of New Development

Many communities are facing new development and redevelopment. A common question is what financial impact the development will have on budgets of cities and school districts. Cities and school districts are especially interested in assessing whether a proposed development will provide sufficient revenue to cover its future operating and capital cost both in the short and long-term.

Many municipal officials assume that most new development will pay for itself, Unfortunately, that is not always the case. For a variety of reasons, it is not always easy to predict which developments will cover their cost and which will not. Tax rate limitations and conservative assessing practices have combined to limit the financial upside of new development and re-development.

It is a recommended financial practice for communities to review financial impact of new developments. Many communities are asking developers to provide this information as they submit their plans. However, these analyses may not explore the full costs of development. Having full information can provide important insight and even leverage when negotiating development and annexation agreements.

Cities and School Districts should consider the following questions and responses when evaluating new development and re-development.

1. Why is it important to review the fiscal impacts for a proposed development? Fiscal impact reviews are an essential component to financial planning for communities. Knowing, and preparing for, the capital and operating needs of new developments are keys to successfully managing growth. Without such information and financial plans, communities experiencing growth may find themselves supporting budgets from building permit and impact fees. When the growth subsides, these communities are likely to face financial stress.

2. Who should prepare a fiscal impact review? It is best that local government staff or a financial advisory firm working for the local government should perform the review. Many communities rely on information provided by the developer's consultant. This may present problems for the community if those interested in the impacts of the development question that information. It is hard for the community to verify that conclusions are correct if they have not been involved in the development of the fiscal impact data. In many cases, the client requesting the fiscal impact review is the developer and not the local government. It is sometimes difficult to assure objectivity of the fiscal impact review when it is in the best interest of the developer to show a positive fiscal impact for their project.

3. Who pays for the study if the local government staff or financial advisor performs the work? The study will need to be paid for by the local government. Local governments can treat this like any other internal review, such as engineering, where the local government assumes the costs or contracts for the review and becomes the client, yet requires the developer to assume the costs.

4. Don't new developments pay for themselves? No, not always. Tax rates and fees vary greatly because various types of development generate widely different local revenue. As a result, it is difficult to generalize about their financial viability. Typically, specific analysis is needed.

5. If new development pays for new streets and utilities is there any need for additional impact fees? Yes, new development will typically add to the need to eventually expand or build and equip new city halls, police stations, public works facilities, fire stations, parks, libraries and schools. New equipment for police, fire, and public works will need to be financed. Finally, because of the lag between new development and receipt of property taxes and state revenues based on population census data, transition financing is also needed.

6. Is budget or audit information the best source to develop projections for future operating costs? Yes, that is the best place to start. But most local governments have been faced with cutbacks to the point that budgets do not always reflect the true cost of operations. It is critical to identify the real cost to maintain existing services and facilities and adjust projected costs accordingly.

7. What options are available if the development will not support itself financially? There are quite a few options, depending on circumstances. Some options include changing phasing, development type, revising the base plan, conducting special census, and increasing up-front impact fees.

8. When is the best time to prepare a fiscal impact study? The best time is once an initial concept has been presented, but prior to initiating the formal approval process. This allows for adjustments to the plan based on the results of the study. It is much more difficult to make changes once a development concept has been submitted for formal review and approval.

9. Is there really any difference between studies performed by the developer’s consultant and one prepared by a city or their consultant? Yes, some development consultants do not have the municipal background needed to properly evaluate impacts and cost of services. Rarely, does a developer or their consultant have actual municipal operating knowledge. In addition, it is important to recognize that service levels vary from community to community.

10. What type of organization provides Fiscal Impact Review services? These studies are prepared by a variety of sources including cities themselves, planning firms, financial advisory firms and even some universities. Some communities require disclosure of current and recent clients to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. It is always a good idea to check references as part of the selection process.

James Prosser is a financial advisor and leads Ehlers’ Illinois Office. He has city management experience in f Richfield, MN and in Hazel Crest, Glen Ellyn, IL. Jim has also managed numerous redevelopment and fiscal impact project s for communities.

Beth Ruyle is a financial advisor and is the municipal group leader for the Ehlers’ Illinois Office. She is the former director of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. She has extensive economic development and municipal finance experience.

2009-10-10T21:23:00.000-07:00

THE ATTORNEY - PLANNER RELATIONSHIP 'KEY' TO GOOD LOCAL ZONING by Craig Hullinger AICP and Chuck Eckenstahler AICP

INTRODUCTION Planners carry-out day-to-day zoning administration. The municipal attorney normally is involved in the zoning process through review of proposed ordinance language and with enforcement proceeding. A positive working relationship between the planner and attorney is vital to successful zoning administration. This article examines the role of the planner and the municipal attorney in day-to-day administration of the planning and zoning process. YOUR LAWYER - DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT HIM
Municipal planning and zoning have become more complex and legalistic. Gone are the days when the planning commission, zoning board of appeals and elected officials could "kick back" and informally decide what to do about a zoning request. Today the process of making the zoning decision requires strict adherence to procedures. Public notification and decision making is based on compliance with predetermined standards (typically contained in the local zoning ordinance). In almost all cases the planner must be concerned with future litigation. The planner, planning commission, and Board must make decisions that will be upheld in court. Your lawyer is your expert, and an individual that you should rely on to ensure that your decisions will be fair, and will be viewed as fair by the courts.

AND ORDINANCE Decision making by a planning commission and board should be fair and unbiased. If a project is turned down, the reasons for the denial should be clear. The decision should be documented. The public debate should be clearly summarized in the minutes of the Board meeting. The motion to approve or deny should include the reasons for denial. In practice this seldom happens. After an acrimonious debate a board member will often move to deny without summarizing the reasons for denial. This enables the attorney for the developer to speculate as to why the development was denied in a subsequent legal challenge. The public will often vent against a project and offer testimony that is untrue or derogatory at the meeting. The local government must make it clear that they are not making their judgement on unfair or inaccurate testimony. It is important that the municipality explain clearly and factually in writing why the request was denied. Some planners actually write out both motions to recommend approval or denial, with the reasons clearly stated. The reasons for denial or approval are taken directly from the ordinance, or State enabling legislation, or from the Comprehensive Plan.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A formal findings of fact prepared by the planner and attorney and adopted by the Plan Commission and referred to the legislative Board is the best protection against a law suit. The planner and attorney have time to prepare a logical summary of the legitimate reasons for approval or denial of the applicants request. The legislative Board typically adopts the findings a month or two after the denial, with emotion out of the decision making. In practice most towns do not write and adopt a formal findings of fact. Alternately, they develop such a finding for major projects where litigation seems likely.

BE FAIR, OPEN AND HONEST

The developer before the Plan Commission is usually a successful businessman who is often betting his life savings on his project. You must treat him fairly. If the developer is proposing an unpopular project, citizens will speak out strongly against the proposal. At the public hearing the Chairman should keep order, and rule out of order testimony that is not pertinent to the case. The planner has the most contact with the developer. The planner is often advising the developer, but must make sure that the developer understands that the planner is only an advisor to the Plan Commission. The Commission and Board can and will take action that is not consistent with the planners recommendation. The Plan Commission and legislative Board makes decisions. The planner owes both the developer and the Plan Commission his honest and open assessment of the project. When it becomes clear that a Plan Commission will recommend denial of a project the planner should work closely with the attorney to ensure that no procedural errors are made. The attorney and planner must work to ensure that there is no case against the community.

THE COURTS AS A SUPER ZONING BOARD

Most judges do not wish to become a super zoning board. They do not typically overturn a local denial that is based on law and sound judgement. The Courts and the local government should ensure that they have a logical and current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The plan and code should be consistent. The goals and objectives of the plan and the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance should be consistent. A simple restatement of purposes and intent in the zoning code that is taken directly from the State enabling legislation ensures that at least the purposes of the code are consistent with State enabling legislation.

MAKING SURE THAT YOUR DECISION MATCHES CASE LAW

In Illinois standards were established in the courts in two major cases. These standards will be considered by the courts in evaluating challenges to municipal zoning decisions. The planner and attorney should obviously consider these standards when making zoning decisions, and preferably state so in writing in the findings of fact.

LASALLE NATIONAL BANK v. COUNTY OF COOK (1957) SINCLAIR PIPE LINE COMPANY v. RICHTON PARK (1960)

1. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property.

2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions.

3. The extent to which the destruction of plaintiff's property values promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public.

4. Relative gain to the public compared to hardship imposed upon the individual property owner.

5. The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes.

6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the vicinity.

7. Community need for the proposed land use.

8. The care with which the community had undertaken to plan its land use development.

A simple written statement with a paragraph explaining how your decision is consistent with these 8 standards is valuable. They form a good framework for your report to the board and your findings of fact. THE TRACK RECORD OF YOUR COMMUNITY Does your community make logical decisions on land use, or are your decisions unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious? Have your zoning decisions often been overturned by the courts, or are you usually upheld? You must try to make sure that the decisions of your Plan Commission and legislative Board is consistent. Communities often have developers who cause no problems, and other developers that cause major problems. You still must make sure that you treat both developers fairly. YOUR LAWYER IS YOUR PARTNER It is important that your lawyer is your partner in working with your community. His training is different than yours, and he sees things in a different way. You need to work closely with him or her to ensure that you and your community make consistent, logical, and fair decisions based on law.

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm which has consulted with the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters' Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other from the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 150 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master's Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 309 966 1616 or E-mail chullinger@gmail.com.

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at http://www.ruhu12/blogspot.com

2009-03-12T12:40:00.000-07:00

PREPARING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

TEN EASY STEPS

Chuck Eckenstahler and Craig Hullinger

3/6/2009

Introduction

Every local governmental official is now challenged with the need to promote jobs and new investment in their community. The question asked is “How does our community accomplish this task?”

This question is often answered by chamber of commerce members, government employed professional economic developers, and/or an assembled group of academics. These individuals usually work with a large group of interested individuals offering their opinions of what programs and activities should be undertaken by businesses and government to stimulate the local economy.

The recommendations might include an improved effort to retain existing businesses or an effort to attract new businesses. Tasks could also include developing a business park or improving education to provide more skilled employees. It may also include efforts to improve our neighborhoods and downtown business districts to attract young well-educated adults who wish to live and work in an attractive and exciting community.

The responses differ, typically having as many variations as there are people discussing what should be done. To the lay person preparing the community economic development strategy can be an overwhelming and complex task; being something “best left to the professionals.”

The truth is that strategic economic development planning is rather simple. It is not rocket science. This article seeks to demystify preparation of an economic development strategy, simplifying the process into ten easy tasks. By answering simple, easily understood questions, a group of people can prepare a strategic plan organizing an economic development program for their community.

Question 1 - Who are we?

A simple question! Yes, we know we are a community of, for example, 5,000 people. That’s correct, but what do we know about ourselves? How many people do we have in the workforce and what are their ages? What jobs do they do and how much and what type of education do they have? How many are unemployed or underemployed? How many kids are in school, when will they graduate, how many will go on to college and how many will obtain other advanced technical training?

Many of these questions can be answered by data obtained primarily from the US Census. This information can provide a narrative and quantified description of who we are and who makes up the workforce. It can also identity their education and job skills. According to business site locators, available workforce is one of the top criteria of any firm seeking to expand or locate a new business operation.

Question 2 - What is our economy?

It is usually simple to identify the major employers. This typically includes school district and hospital. The city or county government and a few major businesses are also major employers. They account for a substantial number of jobs located in the community. However, there is a large segment (some estimate 80%) of jobs that are provided by smaller business that often times are overlooked in this simple tabulation and small businesses are the primary generator of new jobs.

Data from the US Census, US Department of Commerce and state employment agency can be useful in providing a narrative and quantified description of the number and type of jobs in the community. This data allows examination of the number of jobs and wage scale of the current jobs in the community. It can also help identify the growth (or decline) of these jobs over time, which is important to know to determine what specific jobs the community currently has and what types of jobs that the community would like to attract.

Question 3 - What are our problems and opportunities?

This is a more difficult question answered by a detached unemotional critical evaluation of “community competitiveness”.

One way to answer this question is to complete what researchers call a “SWOT” analysis. To complete a SWOT analysis, the community lists its economic Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

The completed list provides information identifying unique opportunities for existing business expansion and opportunities for recruiting new businesses. It also identifies weaknesses and future threats which may discourage business expansion and new business location, which may be remedied by specific community action.

For example, the SWOT analysis might disclose that the workforce has a concentration of skilled computer operated machine tool makers. This workforce can be offered to prospective businesses needing such workers. It may also disclose that the farmland designated for industrial development has no water and sewer and is not “shovel ready” for a business to immediately begin construction.

Question 4 - What are our strengths?

Like a well trained prize fighter, who patiently waits to use his “best punch” to win the fight, an economic development strategy must identify the community’s economic development “best punch”. Completing the SWOT analysis helps identify unique economic strengths that can define the “economic development knock-out punch” for use in the fight to create new employment opportunities in the competitive global environment.

Identifying the “knock out punch” is sometimes easy. It might be a unique geographic location affording superior logistic transportation amenities. Or it might be proximity to a nationally rated university. Or perhaps it might be a young highly educated available workforce. It could be an attractive recreational or small town residential lifestyle that the community offers to new residents. Regardless of the type of strengths identified, analysis of community strengths is necessary to select those specific opportunities that can be used to create new jobs within the community.

Question 5 - What do we want to be - our future vision?

Of the ten questions, this question is the most difficult to answer - what do we want to be?

This question is most often answered by a carefully worded vision statement, prepared by the consensus of interests that places into words a mental image of what the desired future should be. The phrase “Our Future Vision is that our community will be the premier regional location for business investment in 2015” is an example of a vision statement.

This statement tells a big story. It proposes that the community will be the premier location for new business investment when compared surrounding areas. It also provides a means to measure comparative success by measuring economic indicators such as 1) increased jobs, 2) an increase in number of businesses and 3) and an increase in business tax base within the community. It also gives a time period to measure success.

Question 6 - How do we get there?

With an understanding of our strengths, weaknesses and opportunities plus a vision of what the community wants to be in the future, answering this question may become clear. The answers become a list of specific actions that must be completed to either eliminate defined weaknesses, or maximize identified strengths to capitalize on identified opportunities.

For example, the lack of “shovel ready” sites can be remedied by investment in utilities, roads, and governmental approvals necessary to have the site ready for construction immediately upon receipt of a building permit. Another action may be a Tax Increment Financing District or a Business Development District or a Special Service Area to provide incentives for business investment. Other actions may include completion of community appearance projects, securing worker skill training programs for laid-off workers, or conducting a national marketing program to recruit new businesses to locate in the community.

Question 7 - What resources do we have and need?

Every community has resources, typically scattered among a large number of separate organizations. Key to answering this question is identifying these resources and involving them in developing the economic development strategic plan with agreements to “take-on” and fund specific work tasks.

A chart can be prepared listing the specific work task identifying the person or organization that is responsible for the task, when the work is to be completed and how it will be funded. Preparing this chart early in the strategic planning process also identifies work tasks that do not yet have a sponsor or funding.

In our example, a work task to install infrastructure for a “shovel ready site” may be assigned to the city public works department. Obtaining necessary planning and zoning approvals would be a task for the city Planning Department. The City Council could be assigned responsibility to begin city council sponsorship of a TIF district for a future business using tool making machinery equipment. The Community College could be asked to sponsor a workforce retaining effort with the chamber of commerce assigned the task of developing and implementing a marketing program.

The chart may also identify the need to involve other organizations or recommend formation of new entities to carry out specific works tasks. We might need a downtown development organization to sponsor a downtown redevelopment plan or a neighborhood redevelopment organization to sponsor redevelopment programs.

Question 8 - Who is responsible?

The key to successful implementation requires gaining commitments from specific individuals to complete work tasks. This “buy-in” of responsibility is critical to success.

In our model economic development strategy, the Mayor, Public Works Director, City Planner, Economic Development Director, President of the Community College and Chamber of Commerce Director would be named as “responsible parties” and charged with the duty to complete one or more specific work tasks.

Question 9 - How much does it cost?

Undertaking an economic development program costs money, typically more that any single organization has within their budget. Answering this question establishes a budget for each work task and identifies who is to provide the funding for the task.

Question 10 - How do we know when we get there?

In every successful economic development program the progress towards completion of each work task is periodically reported. It gives the opportunity to celebrate success and to modify the tasks if necessary to assure successful accomplishment.

Measurement tools to gage progress are critical. Useful milestones to measure success should be included as part of the Strategic Plan.

Some strategies break the process down into a number of separate categories, such as logistics, health care, energy, agri-business, retail, etc. Other approaches include a much quicker and simpler process, with the development of a on page strategy. This approach can sometimes be used as an interim until a full blown strategy can be developed.

On Line Examples

The following web pages show examples of recent Economic Development Strategies. Each effort is somewhat different, but most of them follow most of the ten items.

One Page http://peoriastrategy.blogspot.com/

Neighborhood http://www.renaissanceparkpeoria.com/

Regional http://www.edc.centralillinois.org/content/about-edc-central-illinois

Conclusion

Preparation of an economic development strategic plan is not an overly complex process and can be accomplished by answering ten questions to define a Vision for an economically improved community. Specific answers lead to identification of weaknesses that need to be remedied. The process also identifies strengths and specific opportunities with can serve as the base for a job expansion and business investment program. It provides a mechanism to identify specific work tasks, determine their cost and assign responsibility for their completion and means to measure incremental progress.

There are numerous resources to help communities prepare economic development strategies, including regional planning organizations and private consultants. While use of outside assistance brings technical skills and greater experience to the process, community representatives are still required to answer all ten questions, develop the vision and work tasks, and accept responsibilities to complete each work task.

About the authors -

Chuck Eckenstahler is 35 year veteran of municipal planning, economic development and real estate consultant serving clients in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, and a past contributor to the Illinois Municipal Review. He teaches economic development subjects in the Graduate School of Business at Purdue North Central, Westville, Indiana and serves on the faculty of the Lowell Stahl Center for Commercial Real Estate Studies at Lewis University, Oakbrook Illinois. He can be contacted at pctecken@comcast.net or by phone at 219-861-2077.

Craig Hullinger AICP has 35 years of experience in economic development, city planning, and transportation planning. He is the Economic Development Director of the City of Peoria, Illinois, and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and Lamda Alpha. He was formerly Planning Director of Will County. He publishes a number of blogs on Peoria economic development which can be found at http://peoriaed.blogspot.com/ . He can be contacted at Hullingerc@gmail.com or by phone at 309-494-8640.

___________________

Economic Development Strategy Questions

1. Who are we?

2. What makes up our economy?

3. What are our problems and opportunities?

4. What are our strengths?

5. What do we want to be - our future vision?

6. How do we get there?

7. What resources do we have and need?

8. Who is responsible?

9. How much does it cost?

10. How do we know when we get there?

EXAMPLE STRATEGIC PLAN WORK TASK CHART

Easy to Print Link Below:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgp5tpcd_118pjfvkng6&btr=EmailImport

2008-10-31T14:08:00.000-07:00

SMART GROWTH IT'S MORE THAN AG PRESERVATION AND STOPPING URBAN SPRAWL By CRAIG HULLINGER AICP, CHUCK ECKENSTAHLER AICP and BETH RUYLE

Introduction

Smart Growth is the latest buzz word in the planning media. During 1999, there were over 100 various ballot initiatives concerning urban sprawl, growth management, open space and smart growth placed before the voters across the United States. Even candidates for the presidency of the United States discuss the concept of offering different federal funding strategies to assist states and local governments to reduce sprawl.

In Illinois local officials are reviewing their plans to incorporate smart growth land use goals in response to national and statewide attention toward smarter land use planning. Nevertheless, what is smart growth? How will governments determine if their local plans are smart growth oriented? Do we need to make changes so that our plans are smart growth oriented and ,if, so what changes do we need? The intent of this article is to answer these questions.

Smart growth means different things to different people. Some proponents think that any infrastructure improvements, such as new road, especially interstates, in suburban areas promote sprawl, or in their minds "unsmart growth." They believe that we should target federal and state resources to rebuild older central cities, whether or not these cities lack vitality. Obviously, this approach also has opposition.

Some developers feel that smart growth means higher density development on smaller lots, which may provide for greater profits. Others feel that governments should purchase land to save it from development pressures. It becomes open space or could even continue to be farmed. Not since the environmental movement of the 1970's have we seen such a public emphasis on land use and land regulation.

The $10 billion Clinton Administration "Livability Agenda" which calls for the control of urban sprawl through preservation of open space and protection of water supply is only the beginning. The current attention to the issue of urban sprawl and wise management of our resources could result in new legislation and state policies addressing future new development. The concern for preservation of open space and protection of our resources has resulted in new resources and may initiate new legislation and state policies concerning land use controls. Background and a

Definition Smart growth has grown from the anti sprawl development movement. In part, smart growth seeks to prevent leapfrog developments that are not contiguous to existing communities. A primary goal of smart growth is to save our most valuable natural resources and direct new development to areas where infrastructure is already in place, thus saving the expense of building new infrastructure and converting undeveloped land for urban uses.

The State of Maryland has enacted a "Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation" initiative, which they intended "to reverse the inefficient and often costly pattern of development that has been the standard in this country for the past half century."

According to the Maryland model, smart growth has three straightforward goals:

To save our most valuable remaining natural resources before they are forever lost;

To support existing communities and neighborhoods by targeting state resources to support development in areas where the infrastructure is already in place (or is planned) to support it; and

To save taxpayers millions of dollars in the unnecessary cost of building the infrastructure required to support sprawl.

Many supporters of smart growth in Illinois identify with the Maryland goals. These goals support logically planned infrastructure and development. Who's Doing What? In Illinois, the smart growth movement is expanding rapidly. Besides supporters of wise infrastructure development, the movement has grown to encompass many diverse groups including open space preservationists, transportation planners, pro growth advocates, economic developers who seek the location of jobs closer to home and citizens seeking additional and higher levels of government services. Each group brings a specific agenda and view concerning the pattern of future land use. In Northern Illinois, a quick inventory of interested groups would include the Metropolitan Chicago Mayors Caucus, the Northern Illinois Planning Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Council, Openlands Project and the State among others.

County and multi-jurisdictional planning bodies will also become involved with smart growth initiatives as needs to plan for both redevelopment within existing communities and for expansion of the urban areas beyond local governmental jurisdictions become necessary. Various research studies and, more recently, policies and recommendations for better land use management have been published by many of these groups. These studies are designed to provide information and simulate local officials to action, recognizing, in Illinois, land use planning and development regulations are administered by local government.

As the collective mayoral voice of municipalities in the Chicago region, the Metropolitan Chicago Mayors Caucus established the following vision and principles related to smart growth: Vision The Chicago metropolitan region will be a place where all residents enjoy a high quality of life characterized by access to jobs, economic opportunity, quality housing, educational opportunity, an effective transportation system, and a safe environment.

The mayors adopted the following principles to support their vision:

1. Regional growth and development policies, programs, and projects should respect local decision making authority.

2. Policies to guide the region's growth and development should be developed by the region.

3. Regional growth and development initiatives should promote balanced economic development throughout the Region.

4. Initiatives to promote the region's growth and development should employ positive incentives, not mandates or penalties.

5. Regional growth and development initiatives should respect personal and economic choice and the diversity of the Region's communities. The most recent Smart Growth Vision was released by the Metropolitan Planning Council in December. "Building Stronger Communities" represents a year long effort to build consensus concerning smart growth for the greater Chicago region and the whole state.

The study identified five goals which embody smart growth;

1. Protect open space,

2. Coordinate transportation with development,

3. Improve water quality,

4. Expand housing for workers, and

5. Coordinate and expand state support to local communities.

Smart Growth Graduates to Sensible or Sustainable Growth Almost daily the local newspaper contains a report about future land development, whether it be titled smart growth, sustainable growth, sensible development or anti sprawl development. Usually the media summarize a state or local effort to achieve one or more of the goals stated above. In Illinois Governor Ryan and the Illinois General Assembly have established the Illinois Growth Task Force to study smart growth and establish state policy and investment guidelines.

Many local governments are reviewing their plans and testing whether their current plans fulfill smart growth standards and provide for sensible and sustainable future development. One such group is the Eastern Will County Regional Council, an intergovernmental agency created for joint planning by the local governments in that area. According to Ken Kramer, Chair of the Council and a Park Forest Trustee, "Eastern Will County is truly a microcosm of the State. In terms of smart growth, we represent older cities as well as fast growing rural communities. We need to improve existing roads. We need new roads built as well as better public transit to job centers.

In the future we will be one of the fastest growing Illinois county and we must consider our need to house this expanding workforce." "The goal of the Smart Growth Strategy for Eastern Will County will be to draw together our local governments to assure we have a land use plan which conserves resources and supports our ability to grow in the future. We also need to increase the number of jobs in our area, to reduce long commute times for our workers." Kramer believes the Eastern Will County Regional Council is a proper vehicle for the study of smart growth since the council represents a group of communities which, while independent, must base their future planning on several common growth and development issues including transportation improvements and location of new employment opportunities.

"Ultimately, the character of Eastern Will County will be shaped by the individual decisions made by each local government. Collective future planning will provide a chance to address quality of life issues, reduction of traffic congestion, increasing available jobs and reducing impact to our schools rather than reacting to new as it happens." Testing The Local Plan For Smart Growth Consistency Local officials should determine whether their community plan is a Smart Growth Plan.

Below is a series of questions which can be used to test as to whether the plan could be considered a Smart Growth Plan.

1. Does the plan provide for increased land for new development adjoining the current developed area?

2. Does the plan call for developing vacant land within the existing pattern of development?

3. Does the plan promote the building or improving of new roads which will expand the pattern of development to vacant or existing agricultural land areas?

4. Does the plan specify land which should be preserved from development?

5. Does the plan require the installation of additional water and sewer lines, using state grants or loans, while current capacity remains unused?

6. Does the plan seek to decrease the average single family home lot size?

7. Does the plan consider more pedestrian pathways within the community including shopping/entertainment areas, schools, government buildings, etc. and have you considered road width and sidewalk requirements in new subdivisions.

8. Does the plan promote coordination of the pattern of land use with abutting neighbors?

9. Does the plan explore mass transportation for workers to reach their places of employment?

10. Does the plan include housing for families employed in jobs located in the community?

Fortunately, there is no correct answer nor wrong answer to these test questions. These questions form the basis for discussion and determination, by local officials, whether their plan meets their definition of smart growth. What to Do with this Information Citizens and the media will call upon individual communities in the next several years to test whether their community plans fulfill requirements for smart growth.

It is possible that coordination with surrounding comminutes will be necessary. It is also possible that coordination with county, regional and state agencies will be required to assure that investment in roads and other infrastructure correspond with state and local established smart growth policies. The long established land use planning rules are beginning to change with increasing demand on local governments to limit urban sprawl, to provide for more open space, to preserve agricultural land, and to lessen the dependance on the auto as the principal means of transportation. A review of the local plan today may identify changes necessary to reach conformance with forthcoming statewide smart growth policies. Careful attention should be given to Illinois Growth Task Force deliberations as the outcomes of the task force may indicate new statewide goals and possibly legislative initiatives which will shape the role of local government planning in the future.

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters' Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other form the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 100 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master's Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 309 634 5557 or E-mail Craighullinger@gmail.com

Beth Ruyle is a Financial Advisor with Ehlers and Associates. She recently served as the Director of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. For over twenty years she lead this thirty eight municipalities in this Council of Governments in the development of plans and programs. At Ehlers and Associates she is undertaking a myriad of projects in fiscal strategic planning, economic development, intergovernmental programs and public finance. Ruyle has her Master Degree in Public Administration from the University of Georgia. Contact Ruyle at 309 966 1616 or at E-mail Bethruyle@gmail.com.

For more information visit our web page at http://www.ruhu.blog.com. .May 2000 / Illinois Municipal Review

2008-01-19T06:54:00.000-08:00

Move your business and home to downstate

“Just outside Chicago, there’s a place called Illinois.” The State of Illinois developed this catchy slogan for it’s tourism marketing program to encourage Chicago-area residents to visit the Illinois south and west of Chicago, instead of visiting Wisconsin and Michigan. The strategy aimed to keep tourism and the dollars it generates in Illinois.

The strategy need not stop at tourism, though. Communities in downstate Illinois should employ a similar strategy when attracting businesses and economic development. Outside of the Chicago metropolitan area, the cost of home ownership and renting is tremendously cheaper. The cost of doing business is also much less. Congestion, often cited as a quality-of-life issue, is virtually non-existent: “rush hour” in smaller communities is often the “rush minute”.

Demographic trends indicate that the problem is only going to get worse in Northeast Illinois. Of Illinois’ population of 12 million people, 8 million citizens live in or around Chicago. By 2030, Illinois is projected to grow over 15%, but of the 2 million more people living here, most will be living in or near metro Chicago.

While growth is encouraging, it also comes with associated costs. Both Chicago and Illinois would be better off if some of the projected growth occurred in other Illinois communities. The addition of two million more people to the Chicago area will create more traffic congestion and air pollution. This will require increased capital expenditure at the federal, state and local levels as the transportation, protective and educational infrastructures swell to accommodate this growth. The increase in taxes need to manage this growth is rarely appreciated by citizens.

Illinois communities outside of Chicagoland could accommodate and welcome this growth. Many communities are at best experiencing moderate growth, while many more are losing population. These smaller communities often have housing stock, roads, schools, and other infrastructure that have capacity sufficient to the task.

This potential is illustrated by comparing two large metropolitan areas in Illinois. The moderately-growing Peoria metropolitan area is the second largest metro area in Illinois. However, as the following table demonstrates, there are significant advantages to locating or relocating “downstate”:

Chicago / Peoria

Median Home Price[1]

$ 274,700 / $ 114,900

Average Commute Time (2000)[2]

35 minutes / 20 minutes

“Cost of Doing Business” Rank[3]

90th / 47th

Cost of Living Index Composite[4]

103.9 / 96.9

Student-Teacher Ratio[5]

16.40 / 14.40

Relocating Businesses and Employees Downstate

More and more people are controlling their own job location. The Internet permits more people to work remotely. Telecommuting allows mobile professionals to flee large, congested metro areas and work and live in a pleasant environment. Free lance writers, advertising executives, entrepreneurs, artists, computer experts and even salespeople are typical of employees who often have control of their work location. Jack Manahan is a perfect example. Manahan left the Chicago suburbs for Peoria. As a home-based computer consultant to government, he simply drives 10 minutes to the airport when he needs to visit a client. "I saved half the cost of my auto insurance and got a much nicer home in Peoria when I left Chicago. And the rush hour is much less than in Chicago. Peoria is a pleasant place to live and work, without the hassle of a really big city. "

Long gone is the requirement for manufacturers, agencies, sales forces and consulting companies to be located in a large metropolitan area. In fact, the cost of doing so might well outweigh the benefits. The same connectivity that permits telecommuting allows business leaders the flexibility to move their entire company to smaller, more attractive communities where both the quality of life and the cost of doing business are better. The marketplace is no longer local – it is global and requires little more than a strong technology and transportation infrastructure. This trend is accelerating and will likely continue to be popular, especially as congestion increases.

Attracting a Retiree Migration South

Moving to a downstate community can also be an excellent retirement strategy. Retirees can achieve substantial savings from the sale of their homes. With Chicago’s real estate market rocketing skyward, retirees can often turn the sale of one home into the purchase of two: A home in a moderately-sized downstate community that offers proximity to family and friends and offers all the amenities of city life, and possibly a second home for the winter months in the Sun Belt. This move is especially appealing to those individuals who grew up downstate but moved to larger metropolitan areas for work reasons.

One budding strategy in attracting retirees is to build housing communities in conjunction with universities and colleges. The housing can be privately developed, with alumni and faculty targeted as purchasers. The partnership is a win-win situation: Alumni bring a love of the institution and serve as natural source of volunteers, donors, event boosters and even students in continuing education. The city gets more homeowners and consumers in the local economy, but does not need to concern itself with these new citizens taking high-paying jobs or additionally taxing the local public school system.

Craig Harlan Hullinger AICP is the Economic Development Director for the City of Peoria. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration, a Master s Degree in Environmental Planning. Contact him at (309) 494-8639 or chullinger@ci.peoria.il.us.

Christopher Setti is an Economic Development Specialist with the Economic Development Department of the City of Peoria. Chris has a BA in Political Science and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration. Contact him at (309) 494-8618 or csetti@ci.peoria.il.us.

[1] National Association of Realtors: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/nar_3q05/price.html#table
[2] Arbitron “Average Travel Time to Work Comparison.” www.arbitron.com/outdoor_companies/travel_result.asp
[3] Forbes Magazine, “Best Places for Business and Careers.” May 5, 2005.
[4] ACCRA Cost of Living Index, 2nd Quarter 2005
[5] www.money.cnn.com. “Best Places to Live 2005.”

2004-12-31T14:38:00.000-08:00

Transit Oriented Development – Development Oriented Transit

As communities increasingly seek to strengthen the viability of their traditional downtowns, a new awareness of the value of commuter rail service and stations has emerged. Formerly viewed as the sole responsibility of the operating entities, many towns have begun to view their commuter rail assets as downtown redevelopment engines.

Over the last decade, this new awareness termed -- Transit Oriented Development (TOD) by the New Urbanism Movement has been used to describe a number of related activities-- principally designed to encourage residential and commercial development near transit facilities.

More recently, planners have realized that not every station area redevelopment project fits completely under the TOD designation. A new operational project category inversely termed-- Development Oriented Transit (DOT) takes a more direct approach to achieving the same objective-- beneficial development spurred by fixed rail-transit assets.

In both cases, whether TOD or DOT, community vision is essential. This includes a clear understanding of local values regarding community character, aesthetics and of course, business attraction and retention. Consistent with the "Transit Village" principles of the New Urbanism, both approaches emphasize improved public safety, pedestrian and bike access, and shopping opportunities for commuters.

The difference lies in the project role taken by a sponsoring community. In a TOD effort, it is the developers who refocus a renewed interest or “orientation” towards transit as a previously overlooked or less than lucrative business opportunity. Aware of the market potential of these sites, developers typically provide the financial impetus, the development pressure and the investment appeals to the public agencies. Hence, a typical TOD projects requires a local community to act as a facilitator between related interests such as the rail operator, landowners, commuters, merchants, and developers. With an eye towards beneficial improvement-- an overarching goal for both the public and private sectors, the community’s primary objective is to assist, motivate, and support activities that enhance the attractiveness of its transit assets. In this model, initial public sector investment centered on the immediate station area is critical, but from that point onward to implementation, the principal drivers of redevelopment come from the private sector.

With some exceptions, this TOD pattern most often occurs in turn-of-the-century suburbs (Oak Park, Tinley Park) and large satellite towns (Aurora, Joliet) with traditional historic town centers or established industrial service sites along existing commuter rail lines. We call these traditional TOD type cases "rail stations in search of a community".

Conversely, with DOT type projects, the communities are primarily-- project protagonists. We call these DOT types "communities in search of a rail station"--because of their ability to spur development. Most often driven by Baby Boom Auto Oriented Suburbs and Super Towns or Edge Cities (Naperville, Orland, Schaumburg), they are also attractive strategies for economically depressed communities. Nonetheless, most often associated with greenfield expansion or new rail lines-- DOTs require substantial public sector investment of local, state and federal funds.

There are several examples in the region. The proposed southeast commuter rail line along the Illinois Indiana border is one example, where the transit improvement is oriented towards complimentary development. Some of the communities have already begun initial land acquisition in preparation for a major new rail line. In Manhattan, Illinois the village board recently passed an ordinance to borrow $6.5 million for new water and sewer projects in addition to ongoing infrastructure improvements--in anticipation of expected community development concurrent with Metra's Southwest Service Expansion. The funds would be recaptured by the village as developers pay fees.

In many areas, TOD neighborhoods are older communities in need of redevelopment. TOD tools can be especially effective in urban redevelopment. And in general, these areas do not redevelop easily on their own - governmental leadership and incentives are required.

Through its Regional Technical Assistance Program (RTAP), the Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) has been a leader in TOD, typically providing 50% of the funding for the TOD study, with local government providing the balance. The program encourages communities to undertake a balanced, coordinated and integrated approach to community and transportation planning. This is accomplished, in part, through technical and financial assistance provided by the RTA to the various levels of local governments. A hallmark of the program is its emphasis on providing communities with the tools to identify their vision and a plan to attain it. The TOD Planning process itself is similar to traditional downtown redevelopment planning efforts. The process includes the assessment of the existing situation, extensive citizen participation, and an analysis of how much increased density is acceptable and desirable. An aggressive implementation effort follows the completion of the TOD study, with property acquisition, demolition, and redevelopment.

Projects in the program fall into four general categories; Station Area Planning Studies, County Transit Plans, Corridor Studies, and Technology Initiatives. Station Area Planning projects have been designed to address local conditions and meet varying community objectives. For example, the Olympia Fields and University Park station areas are located in Greenfield sites, and accordingly, the studies produced plans to guide new development in their station areas. Morton Grove and Hazel Crest, alternatively, developed plans to promote and direct redevelopment of their station areas. Regardless of the location, the basic tenets of transit supportive development, mixed uses, higher densities, and pedestrian friendly environments are encouraged, often resulting in complimentary improvements and enhancements to the community’s transit facilities.

A typical successful RTA funded TOD effort was undertaken by the Village of Tinley. The Village hired the Chicago-based planning and design firm of Camiros, Ltd. to lead a community planning process that resulted in recommendations to enhance the appearance and viability of the "Old Town" area along Oak Park Avenue, adjacent to the Metra station, and for the new METRA station two miles from the Oak Park Station.

The older downtown area of Tinley Park had deteriorated as new commercial areas developed on main State highways away from the historic business district. This deterioration caused considerable concern among residents and local officials. Mayor Zabrocki noted that "this historic Oak Park Avenue area is the soul of the community." The early history and self image of the community was tied to the historic area. Trustee Pat Rea said, "don't rebuild it the way it was, rebuild it the way it should have been built."

The new station area was a clear canvas, with little development close to the new station. The Village zoned and approved a commercial center adjacent to the station. The Village constructed bike paths to the station. The Village also acquired a large parcel of land next to the station, and envisions an aggressive improvement effort to construct buildings that will support and enhance transit access. The Village is constructing a new public library adjacent to the new station.

Higher density is usually desirable in TOD development or redevelopment. Higher densities increase transit ridership that helps to justify frequent service. It also can create active street life and commercial activities, such as convenience stores, restaurants and coffee shops, within convenient walking distance of homes and worksites.

TOD also includes many other improvements, including enhanced landscaping, lighting, facade improvements, and parking enhancements. The development of small parks and plazas, fountains, sculpture, and attractive focal points are an attractive amenity for TOD. The removal of unsightly old industrial uses, and the redevelopment of this land into transit oriented uses is also a fundamental part of the process.

A synergistic use that has developed in Tinley Park are restaurants. Five new restaurants have opened or expanded since the initial TOD plan was developed, in part because of the improvements and "sizzle" engendered by the TOD improvements. Minimal new parking for these restaurants is needed, since they peak in the evening after the commuters have returned home. So the large parking lots around the train station are not wasted in the evenings but have a second use.

Like all planning efforts, implementation is the key. A colorful plan that is not implemented is simply attractive wall paper. A key to successful implementation is the involvement of the decision makers. The Village government and local businessmen have to be convinced to make the investments necessary to implement the plan.

Transit Oriented Development can be an effective tool to rebuild an older transit community while increasing the use of transit.

About the Authors

Craig Harlan Hullinger AICP has 30 years of experience in planning economic development. He has developed numerous economic development strategies and redevelopment projects. He can be contacted at 309 634 5557, E-mail CraigHullinger@gmail.com
web ruhu.blog.com .

John De Laurentis is the Planning Director of the Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Authority. He can be reached at 312 913 3237, Email at Delaurentiisj@rtachicago.org,
web http://www.rtachicago.com/ .

2004-11-11T10:35:00.000-08:00

The American Planning Association has published an article about the Utica Planning Charette on their Web Site. You may find the link to it at the top of this page: http://www.planning.org/features/. The article is shown below.

By Grace Bazylewski and Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP

The Village of North Utica, Illinois was hit by a tornado on April 20, 2004, that killed nine people and destroyed the north end of the historic village. The Village Hall, Township Hall, Ambulance Building, and 56 other homes and structures were destroyed.

The village, FEMA, and other governments and citizens produced the Utica United Recovery Plan, a document that called for the expenditure of about $20 million dollars to restore the town and to construct a number of improvements to the community. Some of the major improvements called for were the rerouting of a state highway through the downtown, the removal of the downtown from a floodplain, the enhancement of the historic Illinois and Michigan Canal, improvements to the local economy and tourism, and the reconstruction and beautification of the historic town.

The Pro Bono Committee of the American Planning Association's Illinois Chapter led a planning charrette to assist the citizens in developing the plan. The committee has helped numerous communities over the last eight years on a variety of issues and planning programs. A "charrette" is a design session held over a short time period and designed to produce quick results. Assisted by the Illinois Association of Landscape Architects, the Pro Bono Committee led a five-hour charrette on September 25, 2004.

The charrette was a success.

About 110 people attended the event that began at the fire station directly across from the area destroyed by the tornado. Mayor Fred Esmond introduced the participants, who gave a short introduction to the town, the disaster, and the recovery plan. Smaller groups were created for walking tours of the town, then those groups were broken down into 10-person teams charged with researching and expanding the recovery plan findings and recommendations.

The findings of each group were presented to the larger group at the end of the session. These findings will be incorporated into the downtown improvement plan, tourism plan, and economic development strategy currently under development by the North Central Illinois Council of Governments. Grants have been or will be provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Economic Develoment Administration, Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Charette also served as the initial public participation portion of the planning program. Work of the teams included downtown improvement plan physical improvements, facade improvement recommendations, economic development strategy, tourism development marketing work, park improvements, etc. Interesting recommendations included the proposed development of the Illini Native American Village, riverfront parks, a marina, the development of a quarry into a lake, and numerous other positive ideas and proposals for the community.

Long term success and implementation of the projects identified in the charrette depend on the local participants. Local government and individuals must now sort out proposals and decide which ones to implement. Local leaders will have to take ownership of the plan, and develop a consensus to successfully implement it.

2004-06-23T12:26:00.000-07:00

HANDLING COMPLAINTS ABOUT ZONING ENFORCEMENT
by
Charles Eckenstahler, AICP and Craig Hullinger, AICP

INTRODUCTION
It is 8:30 a.m. Monday morning. You sit down with your morning cup of ambition. The phone rings. “You the planner? The Mayor told me I should talk to you. I came home from work on Friday and found a red note on my new garden shed saying I can’t use it and it must be moved. They delivered it Friday and put it right where I told them to, on the back of the lot near my fence. Where you do get off saying I need to get a building permit and I have to move it? You can’t tell me what I can do on my land. What is this, Communist Russia? I have a lot of clout with the Mayor and the Board, and I don’t have to take this harassment. If you can’t straighten this out, I’m going to my lawyer and take you to court!”

Complaints about zoning enforcement actions are a part of the daily administration of the zoning ordinance. Every zoning administrator and some Plan Commissioners and elected officials will be faced with similar irate phone calls. A goal of good zoning administration is to resolve the matter so that the citizen is fairly treated and understands the reasons for the zoning decision. This article provides guidelines to remember when handling the irate complainant.

RULES FOR HANDLING AN IRATE CITIZEN COMPLAINT

1. Listen
According to zoning administrators, the most important thing to remember when faced with an irate resident is to let them talk. Usually they are upset that someone has told then they did something wrong and they have to follow certain rules concerning what they can do on their property. According to Frank Zolp, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer in Sauk Village, “it is best to let the complainant vent their frustration and get every thing off their chest. Usually, after they calm down we can begin the process of explaining the ordinance regulations and reasons they were enacted.”

2. Remain Neutral
We recommend remaining neutral and not take sides between the zoning inspector and the complainant. The complainant will immediately seek to establish that the zoning inspector is wrong and that the provision of the ordinance does not apply to them. At this stage of the process, it is better to let the resident continue to talk rather than begin to defend or debate the intent of the ordinance or its application to the situation.

You need to make sure that your zoning inspector understands your actions when listening to a complaint. You must be fair to the citizen, and at the same time be fair to your inspector. You trust your inspector to make fair and accurate field inspections. You should not undercut your inspector. But you must also give fair consideration to the citizen.

3. Obtain Information
In this stage of the discussion, ask questions to obtain information. Some possible questions might include: How big is the shed? Where was it purchased? How did you determine where you want the shed on your property? Did you let your neighbors know you were putting a shed in this location? Did you know that a permit was needed? Did you talk with anyone at the Village Hall? Were you aware the Village regulates the location of all buildings? Are you aware that sometime neighbors object to the location of a shed along their backyard property line? Could the shed block a drainage path? Did you know placement of a shed in a side yard is sometimes a problem for fire trucks reaching a home?

The purpose of asking question is to gather information. It also provides the opportunity to give the resident some information in a nonthreatening manner.

4. Schedule an On-Site Meeting with the Complainant
The most important action to take is to meet with the resident and view the situation. This does several things. It brings the resident face-to-face with someone who intends to resolve the problem and it allows for a second visual inspection of the situation. According to Zolp, “it is easy for someone who is upset to take out their frustrations by phone since they don’t see who you are. We like to have the face-to-face discussion and to personally view the situation. We find that the level of frustration lessens when we meet face-to-face and show interest in resolving the problem.”

It is usually a good idea to have the zoning inspector at the meeting with the citizen. You can then quickly understand the viewpoint of both the inspector and the citizen.

5. Do Background Homework
Before the face-to-face meeting, Zolp recommends that facts be gathered. Which inspector issued the ticket? Did a neighbor file a complaint? What section of the ordinance is violated? What are the exact specifications required for the placement of storage shed in the rear yard? What are the required fees? Will there be a penalty fine? Does the installation require an inspection? What process would be required to seek a variance or special use permit allowing the installation of the shed? Has special permission been granted for similar installations in the past? Are there many similar sheds on similar locations in the neighborhood?

This information will be necessary for discussion with the resident and to offer options to resolve the violation.

6. Confirm the Facts - Omission vs. Commission
Upon completion of the face-to-face meeting, Zolp suggests a meeting be held with the zoning officer who issued the notice of violation. Based on the visual inspection of the situation, and photographs of the situation all facts should be confirmed including permit requirements, location/set back specifications established by Village ordinance, and information about the current situation, ie: where the shed is currently located, dimensions of the shed, distance from property lines etc.

Was the resident simply ignorant of Village regulations and did not realize that the Village regulated sheds? A homeowner can be given more leeway than a builder or developer who routinely ignores permit requirements.

Or did the owner know that the Village ordinance regulated sheds, and chose to ignore the regulations, hoping that it would not be noticed? As one well know developer often says, “it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.” You obviously treat a repeat offender who is in the building trades differently than a homeowner who may not have realized a permit was required.

7. Seek a Remedy - Identify Options
Zolp notes the “Village really wants the property owner to use his property in a way that pleases the homeowner. In a situation like this we would first try to identify a solution to move the shed to a spot where it would comply with the ordinance. If the resident did not know we regulate the location of sheds and was willing to move it we would likely dismiss the violation. However, if the resident willfully disregarded the ordinance we would recommend enforcement and penalties.”

Zolp added that “if the applicant was not willing to comply with the terms of the ordinance, seek special permission or willfully disregarded the provisions of the ordinance, we would likely make a formal complaint and quickly move the matter to civil court for resolution.”

You should also inform the citizen of his right to appeal your decision to the zoning board of appeals. The citizen should understand that he can appeal above your decision. This provides the citizen a path above you other than complaining to the elected officials or taking the matter to court.

8. Establish a Compliance Date
During the meeting with the resident, Zolp recommends that a date for the resolution of the matter be targeted and acknowledged. The date will in part be determined by the action to resolve the matter. Moving the shed might require the scheduling of a contractor and a two week compliance period may be sufficient. Filing a request for a variance or special use permit may require 30-90 days to complete. Taking action in court may require a longer period. Zolp notes “that regardless of the method used to resolve the violation, a date must be set for compliance. Progress must be monitored and if the resident cannot resolve the complaint within the schedule, legal action should be initiated. The resident should also be prohibited from using the shed while the matter is being resolved, so as to not give the impression to the resident or others that the Village is allowing use of the shed in violation of the ordinance.”

9. Reduce Everything to Writing
Immediately upon receipt of the first phone call, written records of all discussion actions and reasons for decision should be made. Photographs showing the location of the shed and dimensions to property lines and other important features should be taken to document the current situation. Periodic inspections with written findings should be made until the issue is resolved. Formal correspondence to the resident should be made identifying the violation, the agreed on resolution and expected compliance dates agreed-on during any face-to-face discussions.

10. Establish Permanent Records
A zoning decision made today establishes a decision which will be referred to in the future. Each decision should be documented including the rationale of any solution which is offered and accepted by the resident. Every unique circumstance should be identified and an explanation established why permission was granted due to the unique circumstance. Decisions made today set precedent for decisions to be made in the future. If you do not want that precedent set then you should identify in writing why the decision made today is unique, and will not be routinely approved in the future.

CONCLUSIONS
Zoning enforcement is often a thankless job. While every community wishes to allow residents freedom to use their property as they wish, it is necessary to restrict some activities to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public. Most residents will comply with ordinance provisions when they are aware of the reason behind the ordinance and the specifications. Many residents do not realize that minor building activity such as the construction of a shed requires permits and inspections. A majority of the time gaining compliance simply requires educating the resident and helping find a solution within a reasonable time period.

However, zoning administration does require enforcement. Usually this occurs where a resident refuses to comply, even after attempts to find compliance solution have been made by zoning enforcement staff. In these situations legal action is required to gain compliance. Documentation of the process of meeting and working with the resident to resolve the issue will help demonstrate to the court that every effort was expended by the Village to gain compliance. Proper documentation of the case and proof that the Village acted fairly provide the rationale for a court ordered compliance solution.

About the Authors
Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm which has consulted with the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village, Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other from the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 150 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, solid waste, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration, a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning.. Contact him at 708-532-8991, www.craig.hullinger.com, or email at craig@hullinger.com

2004-06-23T12:24:00.000-07:00

DO WE HAVE A SMART GROWTH PLAN?

By

Charles Eckenstahler, AICP, Craig Hullinger, AICP and Dr. Larrry McCellan

INTRODUCTION
Every local official in Illinois is faced with the question of determining whether their local government Comprehensive Plan is a Smart Growth Plan. With the growing concern about urban sprawl, agriculture preservation, need for greater open space and environmental concerns, local officials are frequently called upon to reexamine their comprehensive plan to determine if the plan represents Smart Growth.

Unfortunately for local officials, Smart Growth is an elusive concept. Presently there is no consensus of what Smart Growth is. There is no legislation, which sets forth a prescription of required contents for a Smart Growth plan. There are no standards of professional planning practice, which establish the contents for a Smart Growth plan.

Smart Growth means many things to many people. To some, Smart Growth is nothing more than good planning practices historically used to prepare most of today’s current Comprehensive Plans. Others, view Smart Growth as a platform for advancing special purpose planning objectives, including agriculture land preservation, stopping urban sprawl development patterns, demanding the acquisition of more open space, or stopping the construction and expansion of roadways.

For local officials called upon to justify whether they’re Comprehensive Plan is a Smart Growth Plan, there is little, if any, tools to help in making a decision.

EASTERN WILL COUNTY REGIONAL COUNCIL ADOPTS SMART GROWTH STRATEGY
The Eastern Will County Regional Council, representing Beecher, Peotone, Monee, University Park, Park Forest, surrounding townships and Will and Kankakee counties decided to respond to the problem facing local officials. In September the Council adopted the first Smart Growth Strategy in Illinois.

The council members determined their Regional Development Strategy, which is a composite plan of the member local governments within eastern Will and northern Kankakee counties, demonstrates Smart Growth. This conclusion was drawn from research identifying specific planning practices that should be included in a Smart Growth plan and how well local government officials felt the regional development plan fulfilled these planning principles.

According to Ken Kramer Chair of the Council and a Park Forest Trustee, “The Council wanted to test whether our plan truly represented Smart Growth concepts. We wanted to identify how we can further Smart Growth principles on a regional and local government basis.

What we found is that we rated ourselves at about 60% overall based on 70 Smart Growth planning principles addressing planning capacity, urban form, infrastructure, development review procedures and fiscal policies. We identified 11 topics that we believe must be discussed by local officials if we are to advance Smart Growth planning in Eastern Will County.

Our self-evaluation process established benchmark values that we can be to measure progress toward Smart Growth in the future.”

WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS SMART GROWTH?
The pressing problem for Smart Growth in Illinois is who will make the decision whether a Comprehensive Plan fulfills Smart Growth principles.

_____ Benson, Mayor of the Village of Peotone who sits on several of the Governors Sustainable Growth Task Force expresses the concern of many local officials. “The most common model of Smart Growth relays heavily on a hierarchy of approvals with a state body holding ultimate authority. We in eastern Will County believe the traditional power granted to local governments to determine future land use is the proper means to implement Smart Growth. Our strategy that established measurement criteria and which we, local elected and appointed officials, used to evaluate our plan is preferable to having an outside consultant, planning agency, or state body determine compliance with Smart Growth principles.”

YES, YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A SMART GROWTH PLAN!
Based on the process employed by the Eastern Will County Regional Council, it is likely that all Comprehensive Plans prepared over the past 20 years address Smart Growth planning principles. It is also highly probable the Comprehensive Plan should be evaluated in terms of Smart Growth principles to identify how well the plan addresses each principle. The evaluation will allow local elected and appointed officials to determine if it is necessary to amend the plan to strengthen responses to certain Smart Growth planning concepts.

HOW TO CONDUCT THE EVALUATION
Alicia Hanlon, Administrator of the Eastern Will County Regional Council, believes the system developed by the Council can be used by other communities to determine how well their Comprehensive Plan conforms with Smart Growth principles. “We directed our consultants to develop a self evaluation system for use by our local elected and appointed officials. We asked them to provide a process which would allow self examination in the future to determine whether we made progress in implementing Smart Growth concepts with the Comprehensive Planning process of the region and local governments.

We would encourage other comminutes to do the same, they can develop criteria and establish a scoring system which tabulates the opinions of a large number of elected and appointed officials concerning how well the Comprehensive Plan conforms to each specific planning principle.

In the near future we hope to schedule a training session for interested parties who would like to use the process developed by the Council for determining if their Comprehensive Plan conforms with Smart Growth participles.”

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler, Craig Hullinger and Dr. Larry McCellan served as the consulting team for the Eastern Will County Smart Growth Strategy.

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm that has consulted with the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village, Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other from the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 150 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, solid waste, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration, a Masters Degree in Environmental Planning. Contact him at 708-532-8991, www.craig.hullinger.com, or craig@Hullinger.com

2004-06-23T12:22:00.001-07:00

POSITION YOUR PROJECT FOR QUICK MUNICIPAL APPROVAL
“RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLICANTS ENTERING
THE PLAN AND ZONING PROCESS”
by
Craig Hullinger AICP and Chuck Eckenstahler AICP

INTRODUCTION
It is inevitable that proposed new development will meet stiff opposition in the approval process. In the minds of many people, any new development will impact everything from traffic on existing roads to consuming valued open space. Some Plan Commission meetings resemble open warfare between developers and concerned citizens with the Plan Commission acting as reluctant referees. Neither the applicant nor the Plan Commissioner wishes to participate in these angry and unproductive meetings.

With an understanding that open warfare can erupt at any time, what’s a Plan Commission to do? Whether it is a new project or a routine decision before the Plan Commission (or zoning board), we recommend the municipality advise (or preferably require) the applicant to prepare for the public presentation and hearing process. It pays for the applicant to be well prepared, and to approach the community with a willingness to compromise.

INCREASING THE ODDS FOR APPROVAL
It is a duty of a good municipal planning staff to advise the applicant concerning the preparation of the application and public presentation procedures. These procedures vary from community to community. Both the individual who has never processed a request before the Plan Commission and the most experienced developers appreciate this “coaching” because it allows then to prepare and present their request in the “best possible light.”

This coaching also helps the Plan Commission, since it informs the applicant of the process of the meeting and the type of information which the Plan Commission desires to see publically presented. It gives the applicant time to organize a public presentation including expert presentations and display drawings to illustrate important elements of their proposal.

Below is a list of ten guidelines we give to applicants to help them “increase the odds” of making a winning presentation before the Plan Commission:

1. Do Your Homework
Too often applicants before the Plan Commission do not come prepared and “ad-lib” responses to pointed questions put forth by citizens during the public hearing. We recommend to applicants that they attend meetings to see how the Plan Commission works and to gain an understanding of the process and type of questions raised by citizens and the members.

We urge all applicants to prepare for the meeting and come ready to answer questions. We also suggest that large “display-sized” drawing and maps be prepared and used to illustrate the key points of the applicants request.

2. Understand the Communities Growth Policies
Every community views growth and development differently. Some welcome new development while others are somewhat more particular and support only certain types of new development. We recommend applicants take time to review the Comprehensive Plan and discuss their proposal with local officials. These discussions usually identify whether the proposal conforms with the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and “unwritten” desires of the Plan Commission and community.

The closer the proposal conforms to the “written and unwritten” growth policies, the greater likelihood of acceptance of the proposal. Crafting a development proposal which conforms to the intent of the community growth policies, obviously, will receive a more favorable consideration than one which doesn’t.

3. Identify How the Project Will Benefit The Community
In the fiscally constrained local governmental financial environment of today, many local governments examine the financial merits of every new development proposal. They assess whether the cost for municipal services and infrastructure will exceed the tax revenue generated by the real estate property, sales and income taxes the community will receive as a result of the new development.

We suggest that applicants consider having a cost-benefit analysis completed to test whether the proposed development will pay “its fair share” of costs. In cases where the development does not meet local financial obligations, we encourage the developer to reconsider the type of development proposed or to evaluate the possibility of donations to off-set potential revenue losses.

4. Go The Extra Mile Attitude
Gaining approval of a new development today is often a negotiation process. Developers, realizing that communities do not have to approve a request, spend more money and time in the preparation of the application for approval. We see more attention to the growth policies of the communities being given by the developers and a greater sensitivity to meeting the fiscal needs of the community than in the past. Applicants who are ready to “go this additional mile” are received with enthusiasm and have the greatest chance to secure approvals.

5. Know Your Legal Position
Development is governed by number of local ordinances, state laws and regulations. In addition there can be private restrictions in the form of deed restrictions, easements and “clouded” ownership.
Applications sometimes are submitted without completing research of permits and restrictions which may alter the development proposal when discovered.

We recommend that property title research be completed and that applications for “curb cuts,” water/sewer connections, storm water systems, floodplain alteration, and wetland permits be submitted as needed, as early as possible in the concept development process. This knowledge assures that required permits can be obtained and no legal objection to the development of the proposed concept will be encountered, once presented to the Plan Commission.

We also recommend applicants know the rules prescribed by the zoning ordinance for the subject property. This knowledge gives a base line density determination for the property and a measurement tool for any negotiated changes.

6. Don’t Overlook The Opportunity For Innovation
Innovative planning techniques such as traditional neighborhood development, zero lot line development, transit orientated development, cluster development and the like are being discussed as means to achieve Smart Growth and reduce “urban sprawl.” We encourage developers to recognize that communities are willing to consider innovative development, sometimes of higher density with less development costs, where a carefully crafted development plan fulfill local community development goals. Obviously, in cases where an application supports a desired innovative development concept, the application approval process is likely to be easier.

7. Be Willing To Scale Back
Developers seek to maximize their return on investment in land, often seeking to build the greatest number of housing units (or other buildings) as permitted by the zoning ordinance. We recommend applicants take a “hard look” at the development opportunity in light of the community plan and unwritten development polices before finalizing any concept plan for a specific project. Proposing maximum density of development for a site viewed as a lower density development site by the Plan Commission, will almost always give rise to lengthy debate and review.

8. Trade Density For Open Space or Cost Reductions
Applicants should recognize the overwhelming desire expressed by citizens for more open space. Innovative design which clusters development allowing greater sized open space areas are viewed positively by most communities. We encourage developers to consider asking for additional density for provision of larger land areas left in open space especially with creative designs which provide access to the open space through the total development.

9. Listen and Show Respect for Local Officials
This is another obvious statement, however, we have found that many times an applicant will bluster in to a community demanding prompt approval due to a “short deadline.” It must be recognized that Plan Commissioners must deal with residents concerns and need time to review and complete their job.

Applicants who rush the process and “push” the decision process without regard for the Plan Commission members time and need for review seriously hinder a respectful dialogue.

10. Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say
We have attended meetings where applicants “promise the world” and conveniently forget the promises once the development is completed. We caution applicants to be honest in their commitments and fulfill their promises.

CONCLUSIONS
It is important to understand the role of each member participating in the decision process; applicant, plan commission and staff. Not every project, even though that’s what the applicant wants, will pass through the approval process without change.

Preparation and understanding is the “key” to achieving an approval supported by all parties of the process. Understanding an applying the about principles provides for a higher chance of success

About the Authors
Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm which has consulted with the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other from the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 150 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532- 8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com.

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at www.Craig.Hullinger.com

2004-06-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

TEN INGREDIENTS FOUND IN SUCCESSFUL DOWNTOWNS
by
Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP and Carl Baxmeyer, AICP

INTRODUCTION
Traveling across the Midwest today, one encounters many prosperous downtown shopping areas in small communities. However in equal number, one stumbles into small communities where the downtown retail buildings are, maybe, half occupied and little, if any, economic prosperity shows.

Once can easily ask the questions: “Why is one successful and other not?” Why are retail and services businesses in one downtown thriving and in another withering? Is there some magic ingredient in one downtown which leads business and property owners to develop successful attractions that draw customers to shop that is absent in another?

For more than twenty-five years, we have worked with many government and business leaders seeking to reinvigorate the economic vitality within downtowns of smaller communities. Many lessons learned twenty-five years ago have not changed. While obviously population and future growth heavily favor success, we find business owners and local governmental officials can, and often do, make the difference between a thriving and withering downtown.

We have identified ten ingredients that contribute to successful downtowns. We offer these as a measurement tool to evaluate success and as a pathway to organize a downtown revitalization effort.

TEN INGREDIENTS FOR A THRIVING DOWNTOWN

1. Customer Focus
Successful downtowns look at the customer in a different way from others. Rather than viewing the customer “as the opposing team player,” successful downtowns view the customer as a team member who defines the merchandise and products which business owners need to supply. Using the team approach, businesses ask what goods and services are needed and then stock them. They take one step further and show the availability of these products through advertising to those whom many not shop frequently in the downtown.

2. Tell A Story Everyone Knows
Successful downtowns have “cheerleaders” who promote excitement and enthusiasm about the downtown shopping experience to customers and business owners. They make the shared vision of the current level of success widely known and serve as the spokesperson for plans that will make the downtown even more exciting to shoppers.

3. Clearly Communicated Shopping Experience
Every shopper has an expectation of what shopping will be like in a particular downtown. Close and easy parking; friendly sales staff; picturesque stores; and wide variety of merchandise for example express part of the shopping experience. Successful downtowns document the shopping experience and tell others about it. They go to great lengths to retain and improve the customers’ perception of their personal shopping experience.

4. Value Driven Service
The mission of the downtown is to provide goods and services at a value acceptable to the customer while making a profit for the individual business. Much has been written about impersonal mass merchandisers, catalogues and Internet firms and the growing desire of some shoppers for a personal service shopping experience. Successful downtowns have identified their market niche and are known to provide a higher level of value for their services within the bounds of their market niche.
5. Brick And Mortar To Support the Mission
Every successful downtown has a “brick and mortar” improvement project underway, or “in the making.” The image of a successful downtown is, in part, displayed by incremental completion of “brick and mortar” improvements, be they small landscape plantings or large streetscape improvements. Successful downtowns plan and carry-out a program of physical improvements that show government and private owner dedication to “fix-up” and revitalize the physical infrastructure necessary to support private business investment.

6. Reliance on Customer Attraction
All success stems from customers and the success of a downtown comes from attracting customers to the downtown for social and shopping needs. Successful downtowns never get caught in the “that’s the way we do things” syndrom and are always looking for new ways to make people visit the downtown for social and shopping reasons. They want customers to first think to shop in the downtown and shop downtown more often, even as part of a trip for some social activity.

7. A Long Term Customer Loyalty Program
It is a fact of modern retailing that “customer loyalty” is rewarded. Preferred customer cards, direct mail special discount offers, special sales hours, and reward points are but a few of the incentives offered to loyal customers. Successful downtowns have learned a lesson about “customer loyalty” and provide a loyalty reward or discount program for shopping in the downtown.

8. Feedback on Performance
How well we doing? What is our customers’ satisfaction rating this month? Is it better than last month? Is it better than last year? These are a few of the continual questions that successful downtown sponsors should answer. A successful downtown will establish a mechanism periodically to monitor customer satisfaction. They identify progress and make changes designed to increase future customer satisfaction.

9. Dedicated Sales Staff Training
Being a downtown sales person is an important position. In successful downtowns being a sales person is more than knowing how to “ring-up” the sale but also to be a tourist guide, problem solver and referral agent. In successful downtowns, they organize a formal training program to give information to sales personnel better to inform visitors and regular customers about other shopping that can be done and the latest social events that will bring then back into the downtown.

10. Good Business Rations - Cross Selling
Today, mass merchandisers provide a variety of goods within their stores. They adopt the principle that once the shopper enters the store they will find everything they need under one roof. Successful downtowns have adopted a variation on this theme, “shop in our downtown and you will find (almost) every thing that you will need.” The goal, identical to the mass merchandiser, is to get the customer to do all (or most ) of their shopping within the downtown with downtown sales staff making reference to goods and services available from other downtown businesses.

CONCLUSIONS
Twenty-five years ago we identified that successful downtowns were composed of business and property owners who had a compulsion for success. Lenders and governmental leaders who believed in the need for a successful downtown supported them and were willing to accept a long-term dedication to the compulsion of the private interests. All parties took risks; some risks were clearly “winners” others clearly “losers.” However, with each success or loss the process narrowed choices aiming this compulsion closer toward success.

Success we learned, are “fleet-of-foot. Downtown success is a living growing perception, much like a living organism. As with any living organism it needs continual nourishment for it to grow. Even more important, like a living organism, growth is not an upwardly straight line but filled with starts and stops, rapid jumps and sometimes dies back requiring a little selective pruning. Over time however, the need to grow and survive achieves success much like the compulsion expressed by successful downtown business owners.

Not much has changed during the past twenty-five years. Using the ten ingredients will help organize and achieve success. Clearly however, the compulsion for success, is single handily the magic elixir that nourishes the long term success.

2004-06-23T12:20:00.001-07:00

MUNICIPAL SPONSORSHIP OF GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
A Public/Private Economic Development Approach
by
Craig Hullinger AICP & Charles Eckenstahler AICP

INTRODUCTION
A golf course surrounded by residential or commercial development has become an increasingly popular means to provide open space while serving as an attractive amenity for newer developments. Golf courses also provide a visual amenity which enhances the image of the community and attractiveness of a site to potential occupants. It can also help acceptance of major new development by the surrounding property owners. Because of benefits which can be accrued, many communities seek the opportunity to develop a golf course in their community. Many start this process by including a golf course in their Comprehensive Plan.

While showing a golf course on the Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map, most communities do little to implement the goal. Instead, they leave the job of “making-it-happen” to private developers. This article address the role of local government in implementing the Comprehensive Plan goal of developing a golf course in their community.

GETTING STARTED
The initiative for development of a golf course may come form the public or private sector. First, as a part of its Comprehensive Plan, local government can identify an area for the course and designate the land for a future golf course development. Alternately, a property owner or developer can propose a suitable land area. In either case, inclusion of the site on the Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map, acknowledges the goal of the community to locate a golf course; regardless whether publicly or privately owned.

MERITS OF A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
From the perspective of local government, the case for a public-private partnership to develop a golf course is strong, especially for office and industrial projects that will enhance local tax base. The development of a golf course to stimulate other private sector development, such as a business park, can be viewed as a legitimate public-purpose economic development activity since it will provide benefits including:
● Increasing potential for other economic development in the community;
● Enhancing the image and prestige of the community;
● Increasing the amount of land in open space;
● Providing land for wetland rehabilitation and/or preservation;
● Providing land for stormwater detention purposes;
● Improving the visual appearance of the community;
● Encouraging annexation of key properties, sometimes; and
● Providing a valued recreation resource within the community.

Benefits are not one-side. Development a golf course also provides several financial incentives for the developers of abutting property, including:
● Increasing the pace of sales/lease-up within the development;
● Increasing the development value of surrounding property;
● Enhancing the image and prestige of the development (higher prices/lease rates);
● Improving private sector returns on investment made to the development;
● Increasing likelihood of prompt governmental development approvals;
● Possibly lowering costs for stormwater management costs for the development;
● Possibly lowering utility construction and connection costs; and
● Possibly assisting development financing.

GOLF COURSE PARTNERSHIP MODELS
Generally there are three partnership development models: 1) government owned course with private owned abutting land development, 2) private owned course with private abutting land development and 3) public/private owned course with private abutting land development.
For each of the models the financing of the course can be entirely municipal, or private, or a mix of public and private capital. Normal, Illinois recently developed a public owned course on land abutting I-55 surrounded by residential and commercial development. The developer initiated the idea, and gave the land to the City with the condition that the City develop the course.

Park Forest, Illinois, expanded its successful executive nine hole course in partnership Naughton Development Company. Naughton Development has constructed single family and town homes around the expanded municipal course.

Munster, Indiana designed a golf course as an open space amenity in a proposed office and industrial park adjacent to a municipal airport. Munster is seeking a developer to undertake the public and private portion of the development.

Country Club Hills, Illinois proposes a joint public/private project with a golf course on Cook County Forest Preserve with abutting private development for land abutting I-57. The City is currently working with the Forest Preserve and private property owners to bring the project reality.

The Kankakee Community College campus has three hole golf course located adjacent to I-57. Vacant land surrounding the course allows for expansion of the course and potential public or private development. This course demonstrates how a small golf course can serve as a initial low-cost way for a community make an attractive entryway feature while enticing additional future private development surrounding a future full-scale golf course.

It is oblivious from these examples, there is an endless number of ways the public and private sector can cooperate in a public/private development partnership. Undoubtably, each situation will dictate the role and commitment of each party. Planning experience and legal counsel will be required to prepare a written development agreement setting forth duties of each party, at some point in the process.

SITE SELECTION AND COURSE DESIGN
Ideally, from the perspective of the community planner, the golf course should use floodplain areas, provide stormwater detention and wetlands preservation areas as part of its overall design. A floodplain area along a creek or river is an ideal location and provides the opportunity to include wetlands and water features into the course design.

The ideal location, from the private developers perspective, is a site just beyond municipal utilities where land cost are low and private development can easily be attracted. Since the local government is a partner in the development their cooperation and financial support for extension of utilities could be negotiated as part of their participation. Obliviously, if the site is not within the municipality, annexation of the course will likely bring an large new area into the community for future development.

Soil and site conditions must be suitable for a golf course development. Certain flooding conditions is acceptable if the frequency and volume of water storage is made part of the overall course design. Frequently flooded areas or areas where flood water are detained for inordinate periods of time are inappropriate. These areas, however, can serve as buffers and less used portions of the course , if properly designed. Attractive rolling terrain and mature trees are desirable and provide interest into the course design. Thus, the course will usually take maximum advantage of the low ground around a creek or drainage way, the high ground especially rolling tomography and any mature vegetation on the site.

The ideal site is large enough to allow private development along the perimeter of the property. Ideally, a 170 acre course should be located on a 320 to 640 acre tract to ensure sufficient private development around the course. The course should provide the maximum exposure to adjacent development property.

It should be viewable from surrounding roads should providing an attractive vista within the context of the community. Usually, if development is a joint public/private partnership, the course will open for public use and walking and jogging path should surround perimeter the course for use by walkers, joggers, bikers and skaters.

MAKING OF IMAGE - SELECTING THE NAME
What's in a name? Quite a lot. One major benefit of the private/public development effort is creating or enhancing community image. The best opportunity to help the image of the community occurs when the name of the golf course (and surrounding development) is tied to the name of the of the community. Some examples include: The Munster Golf Course, Munster Country Club, Munster Office Research Center, and Munster Golf Estates for a golf course development in Munster, Indiana. While prestige and marketability of the community and development are enhanced by the name use of the community name links the community location with the development for persons seek to find the golf course and abutting developments.

FINANCIAL AND OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS
The current cost of developing an average 18-hole course is two to three million dollars excluding land costs. A pro-named champion course can cost considerably more. Ideally green fees and sales of goods and services should cover all operating costs and repay loans necessary for purchase of land and construction of the course. Whether public or private, the course should operate and generate revenue over and above operational and debt payment expenses.

If the municipality, park district, or forest preserve district, owns the course it has the advantage of as owner has the advantage of not paying property and sales taxes plus can borrow funds for construction as a lessor interest rate. Therefore, public ownership has an easier time making a profit when compared to public ownership. Ownership, will effect the cost charged for daily green fees and other services. Therefor, the form of ownership will be likely be one of the earliest decisions made in creating the public/private agreement for the overall development project.

Public golf courses are, for the most part, profitable although losses must expected during the initial start-up period. In some communities, the public course is viewed as a recreation amenity and the residents of the community are given reduced green fee rates. These communities view the course, in part as a community recreational amenity. While they seek to have the course profitable they recognize that the course may require a minor subsidy from the community form time-to-time.

Local park districts, communities, and forest preserve districts today routinely operate public courses. Sometime, a private operator is engaged to operate the course. In many instance, an experienced golf course operator is probably the best choice, if the local government has no experience.

CONCLUSIONS
A public/private partnership approach to golf course and abutting land development can enhance the economic development objectives of any community. A mixed-use public owned golf course surrounded by private residential or commercial development is the type of developments which should be encouraged. . This type of public/private economic development partnership seems will increase in the future. Both local communities and the private developers will benefit

Public/private partnerships can take many forms, but the most obvious golf course development approach is for the local government to own and finance the course while the developer controls the surrounding development. The actual financing arrangements would vary, with the terms of the project, and can be a combination of public and private sources.

A public/private partnerships is difficult achieve. Local government operates in the "fish bowl" of public scrutiny. The public sector must balance both public and private interests so as the development is not viewed as a "give away" to a developer but a “true” incentive for economic development.

We believe the best partnership is one that keeps public functions separate from private functions. We suggest the model of public ownership of the golf course with the responsibility of abutting private development left to private sector interests. The "right" developer and community are clearly critical for the successful completion of a public/private partnership. The community must want to grow, be progressive, and be willing to take some risk to enhance the community. The developer must function in the public fish bowl and be able to take and handle public criticism.

2004-06-23T12:20:00.000-07:00

IS IT TIME TO UPDATE OUR ZONING ORDINANCE?
by
Charles Eckenstahler, AICP and Craig Hullinger, AICP

INTRODUCTION
Is it time to update our zoning ordinance? Almost every elected official at some time will be faced with this question. Prompting the need for changes to the code may be expressed by the planning staff, members of the Plan Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals, other elected or appointed officials, developers, or concerned citizens.

How does an elected official know when it is time to update the zoning ordinance? Illinois law does not specify when a community should update their zoning ordinance. Therefore, the decision to update the zoning ordinance is made by the Plan Commission in conjunction with their legislative body.

Some communities embed an artificial time trigger into the ordinance or other planning document that requires the Plan Commission and/or Zoning Board of Appeals to review and amend the ordnance at a specific time period. More often than not, this trigger is this forgotten or ignored.

This article proposes a three-part test that gauges the need to update the zoning ordinance. It can be used to identify whether it is time to take action to complete a serious review of the zoning ordinance.

THREE COMPONENTS OF ZONING
Daily administration of the zoning ordinance functionally falls into three duties:

Staff Administration - handing out applications, helping applicants in completing the application, review of applications, conformance decision making, referral of applications matters to the Plan Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals, scheduling of Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals actions, and issuance of documentary paperwork.

Plan Commission - consideration of applications for map and language rezoning actions and issuance of special land use permits, as specified in the ordinance including special land uses, planned unit development approvals and approval of plats/site plans.

Zoning Board of Appeals — Issuance of variances (or special land use permission, if applicable), interpretation of the administrative actions or decisions of the zoning administrator and interpretation of ordinance language.

To decide when the ordinance is “broken” and in need of an update, an inventory of actions taken in each category and an assessment of what “fixes” are required. This assessment should address the zoning process from distribution of an application through issuance of final documents to the applicant.

A ZONING VALIDITY TEST
Below is a sample test instrument that can be used to help determine if it is time for an update. We recommend the test be given to members of Plan Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, administrative staff and elected officials. The tabulated results will reflect a consensus score and show whether it is truly time to update the ordinance.

ZONING ORDINANCE VALIDITY SURVEY
Please place a checkmark to indicate the answer that most closely indicates your answers to the following questions.

1. How often is staff required to help applicants’ fill-out our standard application(s)?
❑ Never ❑ Sometimes ❑ Often ❑ Frequently ❑ Very Frequently SCORE ☐

2. How often does staff refer an applicant’s request to the Plan Commission or Zoning Board of Appeals?
❑ Never ❑ Sometimes ❑ Often ❑ Frequently ❑ Very Frequently SCORE ☐

3. How often is staff required to seek an interpretation of the ordinance to clarify a definition or ordinance language
provision?
❑ Never ❑ Sometimes ❑ Often ❑ Frequently ❑ Very Frequently SCORE ☐

4. Of the total number of zoning matters considered last year, what percentage were referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a yard dimension variance?

❑ 0% ❑ Less than 25% ❑ 25% to 49% ❑ 50% to 75% ❑ More than 75% SCORE ☐

5. Of the total number of zoning matters considered last year, what percentage required the issuance of a special land
use permit?
❑ 0% ❑ Less than 25% ❑ 25% to 49% ❑ 50% to 75% ❑ More than 75% SCORE ☐

6. Of the total number of zoning matters considered last year, what percentage requested zoning map changes?
❑ 0% ❑ Less than 25% ❑ 25% to 49% ❑ 50% to 75% ❑ More than 75% SCORE ☐

7. Of the total number of zoning matters considered last year, what percentage requested language changes?
❑ 0% ❑ Less than 25% ❑ 25% to 49% ❑ 50% to 75% ❑ More than 75% SCORE ☐

8. In the past five years, has an applicant challenged a decision in court?
❑ Yes ❑ No SCORE ☐
9. In the past year, has legal counsel suggested a review be conducted?
❑ Yes ❑ No SCORE ☐

10. Please indicate how many time during the past five years a text change ordinance has been enacted?
❑ None ❑ Less than five times ❑ 5 to 10 times ❑ 11 to 25 times ❑ More than 25 times SCORE ☐

TABULATING RESULTS
For questions one through three give the following scores for each answer; a 1 for never, a 2 for sometimes, a 3 for often, a four for frequently and a 5 for very frequently. For questions five through seven give the following scores for each answer; a 1 for 0%, a 2 for less than 25%, a 3 for 25% to 49%, a 4 for 50% to 75% and a 5 for more than 75%.

For questions 8 and 9 give the following scores; a 5 for yes and a 1 for no. For the last questions, question s 10, give a 1 for none, a 2 for less than five times, a 3 for 5 to 10 times, a 4 for 11 to 25 times and 5 for more than 25 times.

In our opinion a community should consider updating a zoning ordinance when the total score exceeds 25 points and the following trends have been identified using the results of the test:
∙ when administrative staff needs to seek interpretations of zoning ordinance language “frequently,”

∙ when more than 25% of the applications require rezoning or special land use permission,

∙ when more than 25%of the actions require issuance of a dimensional variance, and

∙ when more than 50% of the applicants require staff assistance to complete an application.

WHAT TO DO AND WHEN
If your community tests positive, it is time to discuss an update of the ordinance. Remember, the test serves as a “quick indicator” identifying whether it is time to consider an update. This test should trigger a more in-depth analysis, before expenditure of time and funds for an update of the zoning ordinance is authorized.

If you test positive, we recommend that staff study the matter more fully and begin identification of specific problem areas. Assistance of your legal counsel is advisable at this time, since they may also have identified specific issues to be address as part of the update process.

We advise seeking outside planning consultant assistance to complete an impartial review and offer recommendations for consideration in the updating process, even if you intend to complete the update process with “in house” personnel. An outside planning consultant can draw upon working experience from a wide range of clients to identify current and future zoning issues that should be addressed as part of the update. The outside consultant also lends credibility to the process, and can absorb some of the blame sure to accrue if you make your ordinance more stringent.

PREPARING FOR THE UPDATE
A complete “overhaul” of a zoning ordinance is a time consuming and costly venture. A community is best served when it includes extensive public input. Active participation from the plan commission and zoning boards of appeals is also important. This reduces the preparation time and assures community support during the public hearing and adopting phase.

CONCLUSION
Updating the zoning ordinance is difficult, but a community should keep its code current. Using the three-part test can help you determine if your code requires an update.

About the Authors
Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other form the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 100 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as a Village Manager and a County Director of Land Use and Planning supervising planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Mokena, Tinley Park, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532- 8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at http://www.Craig.Hullinger.com.

2004-06-23T12:19:00.000-07:00

APPROVE THIS REZONING - IT’S THE HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE!
By
Craig Hullinger, AICP and Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP

INTRODUCTION
It is common in today’s zoning administration to hear someone call upon the plan commission to recommend the rezoning of a parcel because the proposed use will be the “highest and best use” of the parcel of land. Typically, the statement is made by the applicant, their attorney or their real estate agent, in an effort to persuade the plan commission to approve their request.

In the public hearing process, planners hear a lot about highest and best land use. In common usage, highest and best land use is nothing more than an individuals’ personal opinion concerning how a parcel of land should be used. However, in real estate law and real property appraisal practice, the concept of highest and best land use is a technical analysis which can be used to determine the best use of land, subject to certain assumptions.

This article is designed to review the technical process of determining highest and best land use, as viewed by the legal profession and real estate appraisers. This review will provide background for community planners and local zoning officials to separate a petitioner’s personal opinion from judgements based on factual technical analysis about the potential use of a specific parcel of property.

HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE - A DEFINITION
The concept of highest and best land use originates from the real estate appraisal field. Appraisers define of highest and best land use as:
The use, from among reasonably probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, that results in the highest land value.
What this definition states is the highest and best land use is the use which meets a four part test demonstrating the use is (1) physically possible, (2) legally permissible, (3) financially feasible and (4) maximally productive.

Physically Possible - Not all parcels of land are created equal. In planning a use for the parcel of land, consideration must be given to the size of parcel, roadway access, subsurface conditions, presence of environmental concerns (wetland, endangered species) and even contamination from prior use or illegal dumping.

Many times the size of the parcel, physical shape, access or prior use prohibit the development or use of the parcel for specific uses. For example, a small parcel of land along a major roadway cannot be use for a fast food restaurant if it cannot obtain a “curb cut” allowing a safe driveway entry to the property.

Uses which pass this first test are the uses which in the judgement of the appraiser can be developed or built on the property. The appraiser may consult with a design team composed of land planners and engineers. More complicated cases can require the services of architects, land surveyors, traffic experts, geologists, and environmental consultants. Based on their combined expertise they can eliminate uses which cannot physically be developed on the parcel.

Legally Permissible - Local, state and federal government have laws and regulations which govern the use of land. In this test, the only permissible uses of the land are those which are permitted by these laws and regulations. In addition to local zoning, development of a parcel of land must adhere to stormwater management regulations, wetland protection, endangered species, “curb cut” access from roadways and many other rules. Each regulation may establish a rule which impacts what may or may not be legally permitted.

From the developers view, where the regulation prohibits development of the parcel of land as desired, an appeal to the local government or regulating agency to vary the strict terms of the regulations may be considered. The probability of receiving favorable consideration for the request must also be considered to determine whether the proposed use will pass this test.

Financially Feasible - With enough money you can develop any use on any site, assuming its size is adequate. With modern engineering techniques a developer can correct or mitigate many problems, including subsurface soil problems, wetlands and floodplain. The developer can construct parking garages to get more parking spaces per square foot of land area to meet applicable zoning regulations.

The test of financial feasibility, however, addresses the question of can a profit be made on the investment of funds in the development. Building a shopping center which requires rent of $12.00 per square foot of floor area in a market where shop keepers can only pay $7.00 per square foot would not be a financially feasible investment.

To pass this test, a proposed development is subjected to a financial feasibility analysis. This analysis projects the income generated from the development compared to the cost to develop the parcel of land. The profit (excess income) after payment for developing the parcel is compared to profit of comparative projects or other investments such as returns an investor would gain in a stock market portfolio. In the real world today, a developer of property seeks a 20-25% return on their invested funds for developing real estate.

Maximally Productive - Understanding this concept is rather easy. It suggests that a developer will seek to develop uses which provide the highest profit and largest amount of financial return.

DETERMINING HIGHEST AND BEST LAND USE
Highest and Best Land Use, by definition, is much more than a personal opinion. The uses which pass the four part test are those which meet the needs and are allowable by the local government, are physically possible, have development costs which can be supported by rents or sales prices offered in the current or future market and provide for a market rate financial return to the developer.

Local governments share the duty of determining the highest and best land use in their communities with property owners, realtors, developers and others. The process of determining the highest and best land use is embodied in the process of preparing the Comprehensive Plan for the community. Community-wide highest and best land use decisions are made as part of the land use planning process (especially the physically possible and legally permissible criteria) and subsequently identified and regulated in the zoning ordinance. Implicit in the process of preparing the plan and zoning ordinance map is designation of which areas of the community should be used for residential, commercial and industrial uses.

RULES TO CONSIDER FOR ADJUSTING THE PLAN AND ZONING MAP

Developers often use Highest and Best Land Use as a reason to change the plan and rezone a parcel of land to another use. Recognizing the community planning process does not truly consider each of the four parts of the Highest and Best Land Use test, there is good reason to listen to the claim and adjust the community plan and zoning when appropriate. Below is a list of questions to ask yourself when faced with the claim, approve this rezoing - it’s the highest and best land use!

1. Who is making the statement; does the opinion come from a independent third party?
2. Is the proposed use a complete change of use (residential to commercial) or a refinement to a designated use (single family residential to multi-family residential)?

3. Does the proposed use of the land conform to the intent of the community land use plan?

4. Is there other land easily available, designated in the community land use plan where this proposed use can be located?

5. Does the use physically “fit” the parcel of land?

6. Are the existing uses and zoning of abutting and nearby properties comparable with the proposed use?

7. Would a change of land use at this location have a detrimental impact on abutting properties?

8. What is the length of time the property has been vacant as currently zoned in context of land development in the immediate vicinity?

9. Is there a community need for the proposed land use?

10. How much care was taken by the community to identify the specific use of this property and the surrounding vicinity during preparation of the community land use plan?

CONCLUSIONS
Local communities hold the “key” to the determination of the highest and best use of any property under their planning and zoning control, since they establish what is legally permissible. Typically, the comprehensive planning process analyzes the physically possibility for development of the land and may consider (although slightly) the financial feasibility of development.

Claims made by developers should be given due consideration, especially when the claim is based on technical information, data and analysis prepared by a professional development team organized by the developer using the four part test. When a claim is based on the four part Highest and Best Land Use test it will provide detailed information concerning the physical development of the parcel, an analysis of why it cannot/should not be developed under the terms of the current plan and zoning ordinance, and why it is necessary to change the plan and ordinance to meet current real estate development investment expectations.

Planners and local officials serve their communities best when they listen to all claims that a property should be rezoned because the proposed use it is the highest and best land use of the parcel of land. They serve the community well when they disregard the impassioned personal opinion plea and seriously consider the well prepared and documented claim substantiated by independent third parties, even if engaged by the applicant, based on the four part test.

About the Authors
Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other form the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 100 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He served as the Assistant Village Manager for Tinley Park and as Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532- 8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com.

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at http

2004-06-23T12:17:00.000-07:00

YOU CAN’T DO THAT - IT’S SPOT ZONING!

By
Craig Hullinger, AICP and Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP

INTRODUCTION
Almost every Plan Commission at one time or another, has been chided with the statement that the Commission cannot approved a rezoning request because it will create a spot zone. Most often this statement is made by a disgruntled adjoining property owner who objects to the neighboring property being occupied and used in a certain way. The accusation implies the Plan Commission is doing something wrong and possibly illegal by creating a spot zone.

This article is intended to demystify spot zoning. Spot zoning in actuality, is a misnomer. A spot zone cannot be created if the Plan Commission carefully considers the facts of the property, the proposed land use and relies on an up-to-date adopted Comprehensive Plan as the guide for the application of zoning regulations for the specific property.

SPOT - A DEFINITION
Nowhere in planning and zoning legislation is the term spot zone defined or used. Spot zoning is colloquial term developed to describe the application of a specific zoning district classification to a small area which is surrounded by a larger different (usually less intense) zoning district.

Webster defines spot as 1) a particular place of relatively small a definite limits, 2) a mark on a surface differing sharply in color from the surroundings, 3) a position; location and 4) a set of circumstances; a situation, especially a troublesome one.

In fact, the courts concur with this definition. In the case of Landcaster development Ltd. V. Village of River Forest (1st Dist.1967) the court stated for a decision “to constitute spot zoning, two requisites must coexist: First, a change of the zone applicable to a small area and second, a change which is out of harmony with comprehensive planning for the good of the community.”
It is easy to seen why the term spot zoning is often used. It is most often used to describe action where a relatively small parcel of land is rezoned and granted some special benefit . The parcel of land is then shown on the community zoning map as one color within a larger zoning district of a different color. But, the accusation could be made in a number of other rezoning situtations.
******Craig wax profusely here!

REZONING ISSUES TO CONSIDER
In Illinois, there is a specific set of requirements which a Plan Commission must consider when evaluating a request for the rezoning of a parcel of land. These standards were established by the Illinois Supreme Count in two cases; LaSalle and Richton Park. Generally, for a rezoning matter upheld in the Supreme Court the Plan Commission must consider:

PREVENTING SPOT ZONING
Good planning practices will prevent appearances of spot zoning. In fact, adhearance to the standards anfd an up-to-date comprehensive plan describing the intended use of the ;and which is in the best interest of the community virtually eliminates the problem.

Zoning decision making which relies on the eight rezoning standards, clearly establish a rationale why a requested rezoning should be granted, even if provided the opportunity for the the land to be used more profitably. Secondly, the use of the Comprehensive Plan for justification of the decision documents that the decision was made “for the good of the community.”

SPOT ZONING — DO’S AND DON’TS
DO - evaluate each rezoning on its individual merits using the eight standards. A written record of the rationale be prepared.

DO - reference the Comprehensive Plan as documentation for why a decision has been made.
DO - amend the Comprehensive Plan (preferably before granting the rezoning)if a made which is inconsistant with the current plan.

DON’T - succumb to public pressure. Recognize spot zoning is oftentimes used as a threat by those who may object to the rezoning.

DON’T - worry about the size of the parcel(s) of land under consideration. Rather, consider the importance of the proposed land use and its interrelationship with surrounding properties (which may only one abutting property or many properties located in the much larger area).

CONCLUSIONS
A spot zoning action can not occur if good planning practices are followed. Careful adherence to the suggested standards and procedures will prevent appearances of preferential benefits being granted by a rezoning action. The best defense, when being chided, is reference to the action being in the best interest of the community documented in the Comprehensive Plan and shown on it’s Future Land use Plan.

About the Authors
Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner. He holds two masters degrees one form Governors State University and the other form the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having in excess of 100 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is a governmental planning consultant and President of Planning Development Services. He recently reentered private practice after serving as the Assistant Village Manager for Tinley Park. He also has served as Will County Director of Land Use on two occasions. In both positions he supervised planing, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He has served as a planning consultant to the Villages of Tinley Park, Frankfort, Munster, IN, and several other communities. He serves as an expert witness for numerous attorneys with most of his current activity centering on the I-355 Corridor. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. Craig can be contacted at 708/ 532-8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com Web www.Craig.Hullinger.com

2004-06-23T12:10:00.000-07:00

March 31, 2004

RETAIL BUSINESS INCUBATORS
A DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
by
Charles Eckenstahler, Craig Hullinger and Jim Mooney

WHY AN INCUBATOR?
All across Michigan, mayors and managers seek the magic strategy to refill vacant downtown retail store buildings with viable businesses. Cities and villages construct streetscape beautification projects and establish incentive programs designed to attract customers and new businesses to the downtown central business district. Often these efforts do not achieve the goal of recruiting businesses to fill the vacant buildings with viable activities.

A newer, albeit more risky strategy, is being tried by some communities designed to seed downtown buildings with locally formed new businesses. These communities feel that “growing their own businesses” will provide a continuous stream of new small businesses with ties to the local community. They require small low cost space to start-up and grow their new businesses. Their goal is to fill-up downtown retail buildings with these new businesses and use these new businesses to entice other businesses and revitalize the downtown.

A pioneer of this strategy is Don Beavers, Manager of the Village of Constantine, Michigan. Constantine recently opened its retail mixed-use business incubator in a 30,000 square foot retail building anchoring the south edge of their downtown.

According to Beavers, “the incubator concept has been under study for over 18-months. We believe that we can organize a business assistance system to provide needed guidance to local entrepreneurs giving them a better chance for business success. Housing these new start-up businesses in our downtown will fill vacant buildings, increase the downtown daytime population and begin to provide a market for more traditional downtown services.”

This article summarizes the process undertaken by the Village of Constantine Downtown Development Authority (DDA) as they studied the market for a retail incubator, decided how the incubator should be organized and managed and determined whether it would be financially feasible for the DDA to own and operate the incubator.

STEP ONE - DETERMINING MARKET DEMAND

IS THERE A NEED FOR AN INCUBATOR?
Reading economic news today illustrates the growing trend in entrepreneurialism. Analysis of the difference between federal employment and unemployment data discovered that many persons were not being reported as employed due to lack of tabulating self-employed persons. Historically, this difference was viewed as inconsequential. However, this trend has now been studied by unemployment analysts who have documented a substantial growth of the proportion of the employable population that is self-employed and previously not recognized in the federal employment data. A recent study completed by the US Small Business Administration estimates that home based businesses represent over 10% of the US economy. Small home based business are the most likely tenants in an incubator,

The idea of encouraging the starting of new businesses is not a new economic development strategy. Studies of entrepreneurialism abound in government agencies, universities and private research firms. Many of these agencies and firms also provide formal programs and counseling services to encourage new business formation with the goal of increasing their rate of success.

Study of who is the most likely candidate to start a business is the key to determining market support for a retail incubator. In the case of Constantine, research discovered that 1 in 12 Americans was actively trying to establish a new business in 1999 and 10% of males aged 18-64 years and 10% of females aged 25-54 sought to establish a new business in 2000. For the Constantine market study, 220 business owners registered with the county were surveyed. It was discovered that 78% of the businesses surveyed were headed by males aged 35-48 years with 65% having a minimum of some years of college education.

With these profiles in hand, applying each specific entrepreneurial profile to the population characteristics of the market area yields the number of potential new businesses that could be formed in the market area. For Constantine, a 25-mile market area was chosen for analysis purposes. Population in the market area is projected to increase by almost 4% between 2002 and 2005. The data disclosed that there were approximately 26,000 males meeting the county entrpreneurial profile.
The market study concluded using the three entrepreneurial profiles that the size of the entrpreneurial market ranged between 18,000 - 30,000 potential new businesses with the greatest confidence being about 26,000 new businesses based on the county profile determined from the county registration data.

Beavers noted that “this data confirmed our hunch that if we provided an incubator facility that we could generate enough interest from people living in the area that wanted to start a new business to fill the building with new businesses. Our concern was whether these new start-up businesses would have staying power, add full and part-time employment plus draw customers to our downtown to make a market to revitalize the downtown.”

Estimating the staying power of newly formed businesses is most difficult. However, county registration data provides some indicators which on a countywide basis can be used to determine the longevity of registered small businesses. County data for the period of 1999 through 2002 was analyzed to identify the net increase in businesses registered. Additionally, US Census data for the period of 1995 through 1999 was also analyzed for firms having less than five employees.

The data analysis disclosed that there are approximately 670 - 700 operating businesses having less than five employees and that on-the-average slightly more than 100 new businesses register with the county each year. In any single year, the annual growth in the number of new businesses could range between a loss of approximately 30 businesses to a growth of nearly 320 new businesses.

To estimate the number of these businesses that would locate in the retail incubator, if developed by the DDA, the question was posed to current businesses owners as part of the survey of businesses registered with the county. Of the respondents, 27% indicated that they would locate their business in the downtown retail incubator if it was available.

The consultant concluded on an annual basis that, of all new businesses started in the county each year between 2 and 29 new businesses would be candidates to locate in the retail incubator. According to Beavers, “the results of the analysis left the DDA with a degree of confidence that there was a market for the retail incubator and the DDA should proceed with the review of organization and management considerations.”

STEP TWO - OK THERE’S A NEED - HOW DO WE FORM AN INCUBATOR?

ORGANIZING AND OPERATING AN INCUBATOR
Incubators have been in operation since 1959. Credit for the first incubator is usually given to the real estate development firm Manucso & Sons who, having acquired the 850,000 square foot former Harvester/Massey Fergenson manufacturing plant constructed in 1882, sought ways to increase building occupancy. The developer divided the building into smaller rentable spaces and leased 30 spaces in the first year, some at reduced rates to subsidize the growth of newly organized businesses. One of the first tenants was an egg hatchery and incubator, a term that quicky became the common title for the building that housed several new start-up business operations.

Today there more then 1,200 formally recognized incubators in the US. These incubators can be categorized into one of five types:
Industrial Building Owner Sponsored - these incubators focus on creating industrial jobs by organizing industrial businesses most typically housed in older industrial buildings with minimal or subsidized rent.
University Sponsored - these incubators are usually organized by the research arms of colleges and universities and are designed to transfer business ideas from the academic world to a commercial business venture.
For-Profit Ventures - these incubators are usually formed by financiers who hope to profit from the profits generated by the growth of the business housed in the incubator.
Corporate Venture - these incubators can be described as the new product development arms of major companies who seek to develop products that the company can produce.
Government / Not-for Profit Sponsored - These incubators typically are organized to develop jobs and investment in a community often using an existing building donated or purchased at a discount from the owner.

The decision on how to organize the Constantine incubator was not easy according to Beavers. “First, the DDA did not own a building nor did it wish to purchase a building. Second, unlike many Michigan DDA’s, Constantine did not establish a tax increment financing district till 2002 and had no revenue to subsidize the operation of the incubator. Lastly, there was no specific state grant program that would assure state financial support for building purchase or start-up expenses. We needed to develop an operating form that was operationally and financially sensitive to our limited resources.”

“The DDA, almost by default decided to own and operate the incubator based on four goals: 1) encourage job creation by encouraging entrepreneuralism, 2) diversify the economic base of the community, 3) use vacant property and 4) create ‘good will’ in the community,” notes Beavers

INCUBATOR SUCCESS INGREDIENTS
There are four ingredients necessary for a successful incubator. These include:
Land and building - the right building at the right price,
Operating Knowledge - the right staff capacity,
Capital - revenue for staffing and to operate the facility, and
Tenants - initial and replacement tenants to retain full occupancy.

Beavers research identified four downtown buildings that could serve as the incubator. Each required substantial cost to remove code deficiencies and to renovate the space for occupancy by new businesses. “We spoke with each owner seeking an affordable solution to securing a building for the incubator. We offered to let a private owner operate the incubator as a landlord, to joint venture building ownership, to allow the owner to make a charitable donation of the building to the Village or to sell the building to the DDA.”

After several months of discussion with the property owners, a purchase agreement was reached with one building owner.

STAFFING THE INCUBATOR
Staffing of the incubator became even more complex according to Beavers. “We recognized the DDA would not have sufficient funds to employ a full time staff person to manage the facility and assist the tenants with their individual business management needs.”

To the credit of Beavers, he was able to secure partial financial assistance from the County Economic Development Corporation to provide part-time professional staffing of the facility and technical assistance from several small business service organizations and local university business students.
Services provided to tenants include visitor/customer reception, communications, copy/computer access, word processing, mail and package shipping and receiving. Services brought by others include professional business management assistance, business start-up clinics, business situation case studies, business planning workshops, individual business mentoring and introductions to business financing sources. Local professionals agreed to hold periodic workshops on legal, accounting, personnel, education/training and intellectual property business matters of concern to the tenants.

SELECTING INCUBATOR TENANTS
A problem was identified early in the discussion of occupants of the incubator. The DDA members, several who were also downtown landlords, specified that the incubator should not compete with efforts of private building owners seeking tenants. In other words, according to Beavers, “we needed a selection process that would separate those new businesses that really need assistance to develop successfully from the businesses that might just be seeking cheap rental space.”

The DDA settled on six criteria that would be used to evaluate specific businesses, including that the business:
1. Must be proposing a new product or service not now available in the community,
2. Must demonstrate commercial viability within 3-years,
3. Must have a plan to exit the incubator within a 2 to 3 year period,
4. Must have a written business plan at the time the application is being made (or shortly thereafter) that also addresses topics 2 and 3 above,
5. Has potential to create jobs for residents, and
6. Has sufficient initial capitalization to pay start-up facility and service expenses.

Beavers also noted that the character of the owner is important in the selection process. “We want only individuals who can demonstrate certain personality traits, especially an individual with an entrepreneurial mind-set and has an intimate knowledge of their business plan, knowledge of the product and its market potential, who understands the need for a return on investment (profitability) and can verbalize a plan of execution. In our interview, we also need to assess whether the owner is a team player, a good listener and learner, their willingness to accept performance milestones, and especially their willingness to accept help.”

STEP THREE - CAN WE AFFORD TO OWN AND OPERATE AN INCUBATOR?

DETERMINING FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Financial feasibility is an easy concept for most people to understand. Simply stated the operation of the retail incubator must generate enough revenue to pay all expenses. According to Beavers, “we needed an independent third-party assessment of the financial feasibility of our proposed incubator project to assure the DDA members, our Village Council and our citizens that there was a reasonable probability that the incubator would be self financing and not require a subsidy from the Village general fund.”

PROJECTING REVENUE FOR OPERATION
The principal source of revenue for any incubator is the monthly rent paid by tenants. Determining the total amount of rental revenue is a complex exercise that must consider the number of and size of each rentable space, the rental rates that are charged for other comparable buildings in the downtown area, the probability of not collecting 100% of total monthly rent (or not receiving the monthly rent on time), and whether all rental units will be occupied at all times.

For Constantine, several assumptions were employed to project revenue. First, it was determined to have 5 tenant spaces, with lower-level business storage spaces and second floor residential dwelling. To account for late and non payment circumstances plus vacancies, the initial total monthly rental revenue was reduced by 40% and gradually increased to 5% to project the total rental revenue.

Another assumption made was that tenants would also be responsible for a portion of certain joint operating expenses, including telephone, janitorial services and possibly a portion of reception and clerical staffing available for use by any tenant. Lastly, it was assumed that there would be revenue for specific services and materials purchased by the tenants for such items as office supplies, copies, refreshments, etc. According to Beavers, “we were very concerned about the secondary sources of revenue. In our analysis this revenue was estimated to be about 10% of the gross revenue. We wanted to make sure that the rental revenue was more than sufficient to operate the facility and to retire any capital expenses we would incur for the purchase of the building, it’s improvements and all furnishings without relying on these variable sources of revenue.”

ESTIMATING OPERATING EXPENSES AND DEBT RETIREMENT
More difficult for Beavers was establishing assumptions concerning operating expenses. “We didn’t have a real good idea of what costs that we might incur. We figured that we would staff the incubator with a part-time manager and try to secure student or volunteer assistance to keep someone in the facility during business hours. We hoped that we could rely upon a state or other grant to help in furnishing the facility. We anticipated that with Village ownership of the building that the Village general fund would absorb any insurance costs for the incubator. We also figured that the assessor would treat the incubator as taxable commercial property and subject the incubator to real estate taxes.”

Analysis of operating budgets of other incubators led the consultant to conclude that expenses would be approximately 75% of the net revenue. The remaining 25% would provide funds to pay principal and interest on any loans necessary for the building purchase and improvement and furnishings. Hopefully a small amount of revenue would remain to meet monthly operating cash needs.

Based on the pro forma financial statements prepared by the consultant, the concept of the proposed retail incubator was projected to be financially feasible using the assumptions employed. Net revenue after operations and debt service indicated that the incubator would provide sufficient cash flow to meet monthly cash obligations.

STEP 4 -THE DECISION TO PROCEED AND GRAND OPENING
After reviewing the study and the risks involved a decision to proceed to purchase a downtown building and develop a retail incubator was made by the DDA with support of the Village Council. The decision to proceed was difficult according to Beavers, “while the market and feasibility study provided a strong indication that the retail incubator was financially feasible, there was no similar successful project that we could point to demonstrate success. We spent quite a while discussing the risks involved since the concept of a downtown retail incubator may be more risky than the traditional mixed-use subsidized incubators.”

The Constantine Downtown Retail Incubator grand opening was held on _______, 2004 and currently houses ____tenants.

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler’s career in municipal planning and economic development spans more than 30-years. He is owner of Public Consulting Team based in Benton Harbor and was responsible for the Constantine Retail Incubator Market and Financial Feasibility Study. He can be contacted at 219-861-2077 or pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger AICP has 30 years of experience in economic development. He has developed numerous economic development strategies and redevelopment projects. He can be contacted at 708-532-8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com.

Jim Mooney is President of DeSco a economic development consulting firm based in Valparaiso, Indiana and principal author of Building the Base - The Business Incubator’s Role in Creating Jobs and Investment prepared for use in the Village of Constantine. Building the Base is a basic primer on the process of establishing a business incubator. He can be contacted at 219-548-9999 or jmooney.desco@verizon.net.

For additional information about the Constantine project or to obtain a copy of Building the Base contact Don Beavers at 269-435-2085 or constantinemanager@voyager.net

2004-06-23T12:09:00.000-07:00

Feel Free to us our articles, which are copyrighted. Just give us copious credit, and the promise of your first born child.

2004-06-23T12:07:00.000-07:00

The Mayor’s Leadership Role in Economic Development

Making something or just let anything happen!

INTRODUCTION
In the “big picture” of community economic development, a Mayor can make things happen! The Mayor is ultimately responsible for the community’s economic development strategy. The Mayor as the chief elected officer of the community, must combine public and private interests to complete projects that result in better community - in other words, to implement the community’s economic development strategy.

A community economic development strategy is essentially developed in two ways, - strategically or haphazardly. Too often in small communities, Mayors, staff and other elected officials are too busy reacting to citizen problems and complaints to consider the serious importance of a formal written community economic development strategy. .

This article describes how Mayors find themselves trapped into a reactionary haphazard community economic development strategy. The authors advocate that it is the responsibility of the Mayor working with other elected officials and staff to defend against these haphazard traps and provide necessary leadership to facilitate a strategically focused community economic development strategy.

COMMON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY TRAPS

#1 - WHY PLAN, WHEN YOU CAN REACT?
The old adage “why plan, when you can react” especially applies to local government economic development. Today, most Mayors feel overwhelmed with the day-to-day government services that need to be provided with limited and decreasing revenues. Almost every Mayor has at one time or another lamented the difficulty of getting things done. In addition to working full times jobs themselves, they must now face increased citizen demand for services and uncertain revenues. In times like this it is hard to focus community leadership towards future planning when there are so many daily problems to solve. How can long-term creative ideas for the future seriously be considered when government administration is totally involved in meeting daily service needs?

The result is reaction to any ( if there is any) economic development in a haphazard, uncoordinated fashion.

# 2 - ANY ROAD WILL DO WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE GOING.
The “squeaky wheel fix” is another common trap. This typically occurs when citizens complain loudly. The government then takes action to correct the problem with little, if any, forethought of how it “fits” into the larger scheme of economic development for the community.

The result is often disconnected projects having no relationships. They do not set the framework for future economic development projects.

#3 - GIVE ME DEVELOPMENT - ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT INCREASES TAX BASE!
If your community is a “hot growth spot”, the desperation for new tax base may not be as great as older comminutes or communities affected by recent job losses. However, in many communities any development is welcome even if might jeopardize a desired long-term position of the community.

Again, the result is often development not related to any plan for the future.

#4 - SIT BACK AND JUST LET IT HAPPEN!
Another strategy may be simply to wait until developers come forward with projects. You then react to their proposals.

Like above, the result is often development not related to any plan for the future

WINNING FRIENDS WHILE BUILDING YOUR STRATEGY
To avoid the above traps, you want to influence the long-term economic future of your community. The Mayor must be pro active and facilitate the preparation of a community economic development strategy. This strategy will illustrate the long range vision of the community and identify specific projects necessary to achieve this vision.

The Mayor must initiate the community economic development strategy planning process. An exercise must be completed that identifies specific projects that are necessary to the economic goals of the community. The community must prioritize the projects and determine their cost. The community then builds the priority projects that are financially prudent. The community does this over a number of years. The priority may be modified because the community faces a major change, but for the most part the community continues its long term vision and funds the next priority and not today’s hot topic.

The overall community economic development strategy must be built on the consensus of elected officials, private business interests and the majority of citizens. Mayoral leadership fosters a process that develops a community-wide consensus about projects resulting in implementation of an economic vision.

STEPS IN PREPARING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

#1 - DEFINE THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VISION OR GOAL

Our experience is that residents and business owners within any community have many ideas about economic and community development improvements needed for the community. The Mayor and community leadership need to hear these ideas at the very beginning of the process.

There are a number of ways to solicit these ideas. The most popular process is to hold a community meeting, send out a mail return questionnaire, and/or solicit ideas through a survey undertaken by a professional firm or listed on your web page.

The community meetings works only when it is directed. Our experience is that it is beneficial have a disinterested third party facilitator experienced in community goal setting techniques conduct the meeting. Another technique is to have a community open house with a number of concepts aired for citizens to see and react to at specific stations.

Based on this input the Mayor leads the other elected officials in forming a vision for the overall future for the community. The community then communicates this vision both graphically and in writing. An implementation strategy accompanies this vision which contains creative proposals to improve the community and the process to implement the proposals.

#2 - IDENTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING PROJECTS
The community economic development strategy will include a listing of projects that could enhance the community. We are always faced with the question of how to develop specific projects?

Projects that the community must implement are sometimes not the priority of the community, but some regulating body. For instance, improvements may be required by the State before communities can address extensions and enlargements of the municipal water and sewer system. Others are identified by staff, consultants, business leaders, citizens, other elected officials or bodies and developers that would like to invest in the community.

You can simply sit down with theses individuals and identify needed and required projects. Similar processes are needed here as with the development of the overall strategy.

Ultimately the Mayor and elected officials must develop priorities. They must then work with staff to make the plan feasible. They then develop an the implementation schedule of the community economic development plan. The Mayor will serve as the facilitator for its implementation. The Mayor will meet and interact with or direct staff to undertake this role with developers, grant agencies, development approval bodies, other elected officials and the citizens of the community.

CONCLUSIONS
Mayors can make things happen. A Mayor can lead the community economic development strategy that will seek to implement specific actions and projects or react to initiative brought about by others.

It takes vision, leadership, and courage to step out front and lead community economic development. History has proven that Mayoral leadership, energizing the political and economic leadership of a community, has success in achieving the community’s desired economic development vision.

About the Authors
Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Richton Park, Tinley Park, Minooka, Mokena, Munster, IN, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532- 8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com

Beth Ruyle is an Executive Vice President and Director with Ehlers and Associates. She recently served as the Director of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. For over twenty years she lead thirty -eight municipalities in this Council of Governments in the development of plans and programs. At Ehlers and Associates she is undertaking a myriad of projects in fiscal strategic planning, economic development and redevelopment, and public finance. Beth has her Master Degree in Public Administration from the University of Georgia. Contact Ruyle at 630/355-6100 or at E-mail bruyle@ehlers-inc.com.

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other form the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 100 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

For more information on Craig or Chuck visit our web page at http://www.Craig.Hullinger.com

For more information on Ehlers and Beth visit her web page at www.ehlers-inc.com.

2004-06-22T11:20:00.000-07:00

DEFINING ACCESSORY USES
A THREE-STEP WORK SHEET
by
Charles Eckenstahler, ACP and Craig H. Hullinger, AICP

INTRODUCTION
Complaints about red tape in the processing of zoning requests are frequent. Developers and citizens are frequently frustrated by the time required to process simple requests. Local governments should streamline processes where possible.

Accessory uses are accessory to the principal permitted use in zoning districts. Typical accessory uses include storage sheds in the rear yard of a residential lot. Home occupations are other examples of frequently requested accessory uses.

Zoning ordinances often do not include a list of accessory uses. They seldom provide a guide in determining whether a specific proposal should be considered an accessory use. The determination of whether the application is an accessory use is usually delegated to the Zoning Officer who may or may not be empowered to grant approval. Some ordinances provide that the Zoning Board of Appeals determine accessory uses, some designate the Zoning Enforcement Officer, and some are silent on the matter.

This article seeks to establish a three-part test which can be used to determine accessory uses. A worksheet is provided which can be used to guide local government decision making. The article also seeks to streamline the approval process, and reduce time and frustration for applicants and enforcement personnel.

AN EXAMPLE SITUATION
To illustrate a typical situation, consider the following. A local landscaping service has a retail sales and service yard located on a commercially zoned lot abutting the main commercial street in your community. Like a lot of landscaping businesses, they have expanded to do tree trimming, lawn mowing and other home maintenance chores throughout the community. With the expanded business, they have hired more residents especially high school and college kids during the summer months. With a fleet of vehicles, it was a natural need to have a radio communication system to keep in contact with all the work teams circulating within the community. Approval of a radio tower, as an accessory use was granted to help the successful growth of the business, some time back.

Today, an application for a cellular communication tower designed to replace the approved radio communications tower has been filed. The application states the new tower is an accessory use to the business, because it is needed to communicate over a larger service territory. It will also be leased by a cellular phone company to provide mobile phone communications services.

DEFINING CUSTOMARY AND INCIDENTAL
The critical issue of this situation is defining whether the circumstances, the location of the tower for the use by the landscaping business, is customary and incidental to the landscaping business and secondly, whether the use of the tower as a cellular communications tower is customary and incidental to the landscaping business. To help answer the question, the following questions can be asked:

1. Is the accessory use to be conducted on the same lot as the principal permitted use?
In this situation, the use of the tower for radio communications for the landscaping business is clearly accessory to the landscaping business operations. It can be concluded the use of the tower for cellular communications, because no other cellular business operations are located on the site it is not an accessory use.

2. Is the proposed accessory use customarily found in connection with the principal permitted use?
It is not unusual for a landscaping (or similar business) to have a radio tower for communications purposes and it can be concluded that the tower when used in this manner would be considered an accessory use. However, it is more difficult to find a communications tower jointly used by a landscaping business and a cellular communications business. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use the tower for this purpose, because it is not commonly found and does not have any direct relationship with the landscaping business, would not pass the test as an accessory use incidental to the principal use.

3. Is their unity of ownership between the principal and accessory uses?
For this question, clearly the ownership of the tower by the landscaping business for their use meets the guideline and the leasehold interest of the communications company does not. Therefore, the tower would be an accessory use for the landscaping business but not the communications company.

THE DECISION
Use of the three questions provide guidelines for the analysis of this complex situation. Findings of fact gathered from the above analysis include:

1. The location of a radio communications tower for use by the landscaping business is an accessory use of the landscaping business. The tower, is located on the same zoning lot as the business, a radio communication system is commonly found in use by other landscaping business and related type businesses and the tower is owned by the business.

2. The use of the tower by a cellular communications company, is not an accessory use. The tower is not on the same zoning lot as any principal communication company use, use of a tower for such purposes is not usually located with a landscaping business and the tower is not owned by the a cellular communication company.

Therefore, the community would approve the tower for use by the landscaping business but prohibit the use of the tower for use as a cellular communications tower.

A SIMPLE WORK SHEET
The work sheet, displayed on the following page can be used to help evaluation of accessory use applications and become part of the application file documentation. If answers to all three questions posed in the work sheet are yes, then there is substantiation for the claim that the proposed use is accessory to the principal permitted use.

CONCLUSION
More and more often plan commissions, zoning board’s of appeals and zoning officials will be faced with the question of when to approve an apparent unrelated use as an accessory use on a single zoning lot. Along with the tower example other situations such as, storage sheds for hobby (and retail sales) use, living units as part of commercial and industrial businesses, and manufacturing uses as part of a retail sales business have potential to be considered as accessory uses, depending on the construction of the language in the local zoning ordinance. Use of the work sheet allows the analysis of the individual circumstances of each application and uniform application of guidelines to help decision making.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Associates. He has 25 years of experience. He has recently served as the Assistant Manager for the Village of Tinley Park, and the Director of Will County Land Use Department where he was responsible for the planning, zoning, engineering, building, and solid waste functions for the rapidly growing county south of Chicago. He is the author of numerous plans and zoning codes. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. Craig can be contacted at 708-532-8991. Email Craig@Hullinger.com Web at www.Craig.Hullinger.com

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, CED, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher and Sauk Village to serve as their planner. Chuck has written numerous zoning codes and amendments and serves as and expert witnesses in land use cases. He is the former Executive Director of both the Berrien County and Southwest Michigan Regional Planning commissions. Chuck holds a Masters Degree in Environmental Planning and an MBA from Notre Dame. Chuck can be contacted 219-879-1012. Email at Eckenst@AOL.COM.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT Village of Sauk Village, Illinois
ACCESSORY USE DETERMINATION WORKSHEET 21701 Torrence Avenue
Sauk Village, IL 60411
(708) 758-3330
Fax (708) 758-9044
Zoning Case:

Date:

Commissioner: 12/10/98

STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
STANDARD APPLICABILITY COMMENTS
1. Is the accessory use to be conducted on the same lot as the principal
permitted use? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Uncertain
2. Is the proposed accessory use customarily found in connection with
the principal permitted use? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Uncertain
3. Is their unity of ownership between the principal and accessory uses? ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Uncertain

2004-06-22T11:18:00.000-07:00

“CONGRATULATIONS” YOU ARE NOW OUR NEW PLAN COMMISSION CHAIRMAN!
by
Craig Hullinger AICP and Chuck Eckenstahler AICP

It is quite an honor to be elected to be the Chairman of a Planning Commission. It’s also a big responsibility, as members expect the Chair to organize the decision making process, guide the discussion and help make sure the Plan Commission functions according to state laws and local ordinances.

We have all attended poorly organized meetings where aimless discussion lengthens the meeting. These meetings often end with an inappropriate motion being adopted which may not fulfill the legal requirements of the law or local ordinance. Often the Plan Commission “simply gets by.”

By taking a few moments before the meeting, the Chair can organize the meeting providing the opportunity for better discussion and preparation of carefully worded motion fulfilling local ordinance standards. In these situations the Plan Commission has a better defense if someone challenges the action in court.

TEN GUIDELINES FOR A BETTER CHAIRMANSHIP

This article is designed to provide ten guidelines to help the Chair of a Plan Commission organize the meeting and guide discussion leading to adoption of formal motions.

1. Establish a Regular Meeting Date

This sounds elementary, but in practice some communities do not have a regular meeting date and time scheduling meetings “only when necessary.” The benefit of a regular date encourages members to “block-off” dates on their calender thus assuring better attendance. The second and forth Tuesday of the month at 7:30 p.m., for example, establishes a routine.

A published and posted schedule provides information to residents and applicants increasing the likelihood of more public attendance and earlier application submission by applicants. We support the notion of regular monthly meetings; (of course which can be canceled due to a lack of agenda items) to establish regular meetings.

2. Give Public Notice of the Meeting

Illinois law requires that the public be notified of all Plan Commission meetings. Typically, communities post the schedule of meetings in the front window or door at the Village Hall and may post the agenda before the specific meeting to fulfill this legal requirement.

Specific actions, rezonings, special use permits, variances, etc. require newspaper publication of a special notice, including notification of adjacent property owners (usually within 250 feet of the subject property) and the School District. The Plan Commission must assure the notification requirements are completed to legally consider these matters.

Many communities have established procedures beyond legally required notification requirements to inform residents and encourage participation in the decision process. Some require posting of a sign on the property announcing the matter and date it will be considered, notification of all tenants (and property owners as required by state law and local ordinance), and sometimes notification of property owners (and/or tenants) within a larger area surrounding the property.

The Plan Commission should review legal requirements for public notice found in state law and local ordinances and determine whether they should provide additional public notification. We recommend, at minimum, that communities provide public notice by posting a sign at a conspicuous place on the property to announce the Plan Commission is considering an action involving the parcel of land.

3. Prepare an Agenda

The Chair should prepare (or have staff prepare) an agenda for every meeting. Contents of agendas vary from a simple list of matters to be considered to a brief description of the agenda item with other pertinent information.

We recommend an agenda that provides a brief summary of the matter being considered for each agenda item. The summary should include a description of the action being considered, the address of the property, and actions that the Plan Commission can consider, typically a motion to approve, table or deny the applicants request.

4. Provide Background Information for Agenda Items

Plan Commission members are typically busy people with many responsibilities. We believe it is good policy to prepare background information and provide it to the members before the Plan Commission meeting.

Much of the information given the members can be collected directly from the applicant on a standard application form. The application and plan illustrations and maps can be distributed to the members.

We also recommend that a staff report be prepared and distributed identifying applicable zoning ordinance provisions that the Plan Commissioner should review before making a decision. The report should analyze how the proposal conforms to the ordinance (and other plans etc.), how the request does not comply with the ordinance and what specific actions are required for the Plan Commission to approve the applicants’ request. The report should offer a suggested motion that includes all the items necessary to approve the applicants request. The members can review this before the meeting.

5. Distribute the Agenda and Background Information Before the Meeting

Plan Commission members, in our experience, appreciate time to review an application, view the parcel of land and discuss the matter with surrounding residents before the meeting. This provides them an opportunity to evaluate the request, prepare for public input and eventual discussions leading to a formal decision.

Idealy, the agenda packet should be sent to the members about 5-7 days before the meeting. This allows time for review and a chance for the member to call the Chair or staff with any questions or obtain additional information from the applicant wanted by a member before the Plan Commission meeting.

6. Establish Public Input Procedures

Everyone has heard about the “standing room only” Plan Commission meeting where residents in the audience jump-up and shout their concerns in an uncontrolled fashion. These meetings typically ramble-on and result in a misunderstanding of the process and any action taken by the Plan Commission.

We recommend the Plan Commission establish rules of procedure for the public hearing process and distribute them to all persons who attend a public hearing. We typically read the procedures before starting the public hearing to let everyone know how the public hearing will be conducted, when we will accept public comments and what the Plan Commission decision really means. At this time, the Chair should announce whether the Plan Commission intends to take action after the public hearing or postpone the decision to another meeting.

7. Distribute Minutes of Meetings

Illinois law requires the Plan Commission prepare written minutes of the meeting. Minutes become the permanent record of the discussion and action taken by the Plan Commission. Some communities record the meeting and produce verbatim written minutes of what each person said during the meeting. Other comminutes summerize the discussions and list persons in attendance. Legal counsel should be consulted with respect to the type and style of minutes they recommend be taken.

The minutes should be prepared and distributed to the members for review and approval each month to establish a formal record of each Plan Commission meeting. These minutes should include persons attending, what they discussed, and actions taken. Remember, Plan Commission minutes are public records that must be available for public inspection.

8. Ready Draft “Findings of Fact” Before the Meeting for Review by the Members

Illinois law requires that the Plan Commission provide an explanation for their decisions. The Plan Commission is provided standards to evaluate the applicants request and determine whether they should approve the request. These standards are typically found in the zoning ordinance section dealing with issuance of special use permits, variances, etc. and rezoning.

We recommend the Chair (or staff) as part of the preparation for the meeting, review these standards and analyze the applicants’ request. In our experience, Plan Commission members have found it helpful to have these in draft form for review before the meeting. The members can then review the findings, consider changes they feel necessary and use the draft document for submission of findings into the public record before taking formal action.

9. Plan Commissioner Participation - Encourage Questions and Personal Opinions

Sitting before a crowd of people at a public hearing can be quite intimidating. Some Plan Commissioners, facing a crowd of their fellow residents who oppose the matter under consideration, will not feel comfortable in discussing the matter and offering their views, especially after a hostile public hearing.

It is the responsibility of the Chair to manage meeting procedures and close public input to allow the Plan Commissioners to discuss the matter without interruption. It is the Chair’s job to encourage each member to ask questions and provide comment, if they choose.

We recommend the Chair be aggressive in control of the meeting, using a short recess to “quiet-down” those present and, when necessary, asking for a motion to continue the meeting at a future date, to allow time to review public input and allow the Plan Commissioners to formulate their personal opinions. Plan Commissioners should have time to consider their decision and not be pressured by the tone of public input and the typical call for an immediate decision by the developer.

10. Ready Motions Before the Meeting for Review by the Members

Offering a motion to approve or deny an applicants request is a big responsibility. In a few cases, a simple motion to approve or deny the applicants request will be sufficient. More likely, the motion will be more complex and may include specific recommendations or conditions.

In our experience, drafting a complicated motion following an angry public hearing is difficult. We suggest that a draft motion be prepared before the meeting (both approving and denying the applicants request) so the Plan Commissioners can review them before the meeting. Members can more easily reword the draft “on the fly” to incorporate changes required by public input and Plan Commission discussion.

In some communities, legal counsel prepares the draft motions. In others, draft motions become responsibility of the Plan Commission Chair, a Plan Commissioner, staff, or consulting planner. No matter who prepares the motion, we believe advance review gives the Plan Commissioner the opportunity to study the motion and identify changes etc. that they believe should be made before they make the motion.

SUMMARY

The job of Chair of the Plan Commission comes with duties and responsibilities. The Chair assumes the responsibility to conduct a process assuring public input and informed decision making by the members. Using these ten guidelines will help achieve the goal of good decision making.

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm which has served the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other from the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 150 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532-8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com.

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at http://www.Craig.Hullinger.com

2004-06-22T11:04:00.000-07:00

SMART GROWTH
IT’S MORE THAN AG PRESERVATION
AND STOPPING URBAN SPRAWL

By CRAIG HULLINGER AICP, CHUCK ECKENSTAHLER AICP and BETH RUYLE

Introduction

Smart Growth is the latest buzz word in the planning media. During 1999, there were over 100 various ballot initiatives concerning urban sprawl, growth management, open space and smart growth placed before the voters across the United States. Even candidates for the presidency of the United States discuss the concept of offering different federal funding strategies to assist states and local governments to reduce sprawl. In Illinois local officials are reviewing their plans to incorporate smart growth land use goals in response to national and statewide attention toward smarter land use planning.

Nevertheless, what is smart growth? How will governments determine if their local plans are smart growth oriented? Do we need to make changes so that our plans are smart growth oriented and ,if, so what changes do we need? The intent of this article is to answer these questions.

Smart growth means different things to different people. Some proponents think that any infrastructure improvements, such as new road, especially interstates, in suburban areas promote sprawl, or in their minds “unsmart growth.” They believe that we should target federal and state resources to rebuild older central cities, whether or not these cities lack vitality. Obviously, this approach also has opposition. Some developers feel that smart growth means higher density development on smaller lots, which may provide for greater profits. Others feel that governments should purchase land to save it from development pressures. It becomes open space or could even continue to be farmed.

Not since the environmental movement of the 1970's have we seen such a public emphasis on land use and land regulation. The $10 billion Clinton Administration “Livability Agenda” which calls for the control of urban sprawl through preservation of open space and protection of water supply is only the beginning. The current attention to the issue of urban sprawl and wise management of our resources could result in new legislation and state policies addressing future new development. The concern for preservation of open space and protection of our resources has resulted in new resources and may initiate new legislation and state policies concerning land use controls.

Background and a Definition

Smart growth has grown from the anti sprawl development movement. In part, smart growth seeks to prevent leapfrog developments that are not contiguous to existing communities. A primary goal of smart growth is to save our most valuable natural resources and direct new development to areas where infrastructure is already in place, thus saving the expense of building new infrastructure and converting undeveloped land for urban uses.

The State of Maryland has enacted a “Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation” initiative, which they intended “to reverse the inefficient and often costly pattern of development that has been the standard in this country for the past half century.” According to the Maryland model, smart growth has three straightforward goals:

• To save our most valuable remaining natural resources before they are
forever lost;
• To support existing communities and neighborhoods by targeting state resources to support development in areas where the infrastructure is already in place (or is planned) to support it; and

• To save taxpayers millions of dollars in the unnecessary cost of building the infrastructure required to support sprawl.

Many supporters of smart growth in Illinois identify with the Maryland goals. These goals support logically planned infrastructure and development.

Who’s Doing What?

In Illinois, the smart growth movement is expanding rapidly. Besides supporters of wise infrastructure development, the movement has grown to encompass many diverse groups including open space preservationists, transportation planners, pro growth advocates, economic developers who seek the location of jobs closer to home and citizens seeking additional and higher levels of government services. Each group brings a specific agenda and view concerning the pattern of future land use.

In Northern Illinois, a quick inventory of interested groups would include the Metropolitan Chicago Mayors Caucus, the Northern Illinois Planning Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Council, Openlands Project and the State among others. County and multi-jurisdictional planning bodies will also become involved with smart growth initiatives as needs to plan for both redevelopment within existing communities and for expansion of the urban areas beyond local governmental jurisdictions become necessary.

Various research studies and, more recently, policies and recommendations for better land use management have been published by many of these groups. These studies are designed to provide information and simulate local officials to action, recognizing, in Illinois, land use planning and development regulations are administered by local government.

As the collective mayoral voice of municipalities in the Chicago region, the Metropolitan Chicago Mayors Caucus established the following vision and principles related to smart growth:

Vision

The Chicago metropolitan region will be a place where all residents enjoy a high quality of life characterized by access to jobs, economic opportunity, quality housing, educational opportunity, an effective transportation system, and a safe environment.

The mayors adopted the following principles to support their vision:

1. Regional growth and development policies, programs, and projects should
respect local decision making authority.
2. Policies to guide the region’s growth and development should be developed by the region.
3. Regional growth and development initiatives should promote balanced economic development throughout the Region.
4. Initiatives to promote the region’s growth and development should employ positive incentives, not mandates or penalties.
5. Regional growth and development initiatives should respect personal and economic choice and the diversity of the Region’s communities.

The most recent Smart Growth Vision was released by the Metropolitan Planning Council in December. “Building Stronger Communities” represents a year long effort to build consensus concerning smart growth for the greater Chicago region and the whole state. The study identified five goals which embody smart growth;

1. Protect open space,

2. Coordinate transportation with development,

3. Improve water quality,

4. Expand housing for workers, and

5. Coordinate and expand state support to local communities.

Smart Growth Graduates to Sensible or Sustainable Growth

Almost daily the local newspaper contains a report about future land development, whether it be titled smart growth, sustainable growth, sensible development or anti sprawl development. Usually the media summarize a state or local effort to achieve one or more of the goals stated above.

In Illinois Governor Ryan and the Illinois General Assembly have established the Illinois Growth Task Force to study smart growth and establish state policy and investment guidelines.

Many local governments are reviewing their plans and testing whether their current plans fulfill smart growth standards and provide for sensible and sustainable future development. One such group is the Eastern Will County Regional Council, an intergovernmental agency created for joint planning by the local governments in that area.

According to Ken Kramer, Chair of the Council and a Park Forest Trustee, “Eastern Will County is truly a microcosm of the State. In terms of smart growth, we represent older cities as well as fast growing rural communities. We need to improve existing roads. We need new roads built as well as better public transit to job centers. In the future we will be one of the fastest growing Illinois county and we must consider our need to house this expanding workforce.”

“The goal of the Smart Growth Strategy for Eastern Will County will be to draw together our local governments to assure we have a land use plan which conserves resources and supports our ability to grow in the future. We also need to increase the number of jobs in our area, to reduce long commute times for our workers.”

Kramer believes the Eastern Will County Regional Council is a proper vehicle for the study of smart growth since the council represents a group of communities which, while independent, must base their future planning on several common growth and development issues including transportation improvements and location of new employment opportunities. “Ultimately, the character of Eastern Will County will be shaped by the individual decisions made by each local government. Collective future planning will provide a chance to address quality of life issues, reduction of traffic congestion, increasing available jobs and reducing impact to our schools rather than reacting to new as it happens.”

Testing The Local Plan For Smart Growth Consistency

Local officials should determine whether their community plan is a Smart Growth Plan. Below is a series of questions which can be used to test as to whether the plan could be considered a Smart Growth Plan.

1. Does the plan provide for increased land for new development adjoining the current developed area?

2. Does the plan call for developing vacant land within the existing pattern of development?

3. Does the plan promote the building or improving of new roads which will expand the pattern of development to vacant or existing agricultural land areas?

4. Does the plan specify land which should be preserved from development?

5. Does the plan require the installation of additional water and sewer lines, using state grants or loans, while current capacity remains unused?

6. Does the plan seek to decrease the average single family home lot size?

7. Does the plan consider more pedestrian pathways within the community including shopping/entertainment areas, schools, government buildings, etc. and have you considered road width and sidewalk requirements in new subdivisions.

8. Does the plan promote coordination of the pattern of land use with abutting neighbors?

9. Does the plan explore mass transportation for workers to reach their places of employment?

10. Does the plan include housing for families employed in jobs located in the community?

Fortunately, there is no correct answer nor wrong answer to these test questions. These questions form the basis for discussion and determination, by local officials, whether their plan meets their definition of smart growth.

What to Do with this Information

Citizens and the media will call upon individual communities in the next several years to test whether their community plans fulfill requirements for smart growth. It is possible that coordination with surrounding comminutes will be necessary. It is also possible that coordination with county, regional and state agencies will be required to assure that investment in roads and other infrastructure correspond with state and local established smart growth policies.

The long established land use planning rules are beginning to change with increasing demand on local governments to limit urban sprawl, to provide for more open space, to preserve agricultural land, and to lessen the dependance on the auto as the principal means of transportation. A review of the local plan today may identify changes necessary to reach conformance with forthcoming statewide smart growth policies. Careful attention should be given to Illinois Growth Task Force deliberations as the outcomes of the task force may indicate new statewide goals and possibly legislative initiatives which will shape the role of local government planning in the future.

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm engaged by the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village and Homewood to serve as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other form the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 100 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532- 8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com

Beth Ruyle is a Financial Advisor with Ehlers and Associates. She recently served as the Director of the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association. For over twenty years she lead this thirty eight municipalities in this Council of Governments in the development of plans and programs. At Ehlers and Associates she is undertaking a myriad of projects in fiscal strategic planning, economic development, intergovernmental programs and public finance. Ruyle has her Master Degree in Public Administration from the University of Georgia. Contact Ruyle at 630/355-6100 or at E-mail bruyle@ehlers-inc.com.

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at http://www.Craig.Hullinger.com

For more information on Ehlers and Beth visit her web page at www.ehlers-inc.com.

May 2000 / Illinois Municipal Review

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN
Work Tasks

Description

Funding
Source

Responsible Party

Completion
Date

Progress
Measurement
Tool

2004-06-22T10:52:00.000-07:00

THE ATTORNEY - PLANNER RELATIONSHIP
‘KEY’ TO GOOD LOCAL ZONING

by Craig Hullinger AICP and Chuck Eckenstahler AICP

INTRODUCTION
Planners carry-out day-to-day zoning administration. The municipal attorney normally is involved in the zoning process through review of proposed ordinance language and with enforcement proceeding.

A positive working relationship between the planner and attorney is vital to successful zoning administration. This article examines the role of the planner and the municipal attorney in day-to-day administration of the planning and zoning process.

YOUR LAWYER - DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT HIM

Municipal planning and zoning have become more complex and legalistic. Gone are the days when the planning commission, zoning board of appeals and elected officials could “kick back” and informally decide what to do about a zoning request. Today the process of making the zoning decision requires strict adherence to procedures. Public notification and decision making is based on compliance with predetermined standards (typically contained in the local zoning ordinance).

In almost all cases the planner must be concerned with future litigation. The planner, planning commission, and Board must make decisions that will be upheld in court. Your lawyer is your expert, and an individual that you should rely on to ensure that your decisions will be fair, and will be viewed as fair by the courts.

MAKE FAIR AND LOGICAL DECISIONS BASED ON THE PLAN & ORDINANCE
Decision making by a planning commission and board should be fair and unbiased. If a project is turned down, the reasons for the denial should be clear. The decision should be documented. The public debate should be clearly summarized in the minutes of the Board meeting.

The motion to approve or deny should include the reasons for denial. In practice this seldom happens. After an acrimonious debate a board member will often move to deny without summarizing the reasons for denial. This enables the attorney for the developer to speculate as to why the development was denied in a subsequent legal challenge. The public will often vent against a project and offer testimony that is untrue or derogatory at the meeting. The local government must make it clear that they are not making their judgement on unfair or inaccurate testimony. It is important that the municipality explain clearly and factually in writing why the request was denied.

Some planners actually write out both motions to recommend approval or denial, with the reasons clearly stated. The reasons for denial or approval are taken directly from the ordinance, or State enabling legislation, or from the Comprehensive Plan.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A formal findings of fact prepared by the planner and attorney and adopted by the Plan Commission and referred to the legislative Board is the best protection against a law suit. The planner and attorney have time to prepare a logical summary of the legitimate reasons for approval or denial of the applicants request. The legislative Board typically adopts the findings a month or two after the denial, with emotion out of the decision making.

In practice most towns do not write and adopt a formal findings of fact. Alternately, they develop such a finding for major projects where litigation seems likely.

BE FAIR, OPEN AND HONEST
The developer before the Plan Commission is usually a successful businessman who is often betting his life savings on his project. You must treat him fairly. If the developer is proposing an unpopular project, citizens will speak out strongly against the proposal. At the public hearing the Chairman should keep order, and rule out of order testimony that is not pertinent to the case.

The planner has the most contact with the developer. The planner is often advising the developer, but must make sure that the developer understands that the planner is only an advisor to the Plan Commission. The Commission and Board can and will take action that is not consistent with the planners recommendation. The Plan Commission and legislative Board makes decisions. The planner owes both the developer and the Plan Commission his honest and open assessment of the project.

When it becomes clear that a Plan Commission will recommend denial of a project the planner should work closely with the attorney to ensure that no procedural errors are made. The attorney and planner must work to ensure that there is no case against the community.

THE COURTS AS A SUPER ZONING BOARD

Most judges do not wish to become a super zoning board. They do not typically overturn a local denial that is based on law and sound judgement.

The Courts and the local government should ensure that they have a logical and current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The plan and code should be consistent. The goals and objectives of the plan and the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance should be consistent. A simple restatement of purposes and intent in the zoning code that is taken directly from the State enabling legislation ensures that at least the purposes of the code are consistent with State enabling legislation.

MAKING SURE THAT YOUR DECISION MATCHES CASE LAW
In Illinois standards were established in the courts in two major cases. These standards will be considered by the courts in evaluating challenges to municipal zoning decisions. The planner and attorney should obviously consider these standards when making zoning decisions, and preferably state so in writing in the findings of fact.

LASALLE NATIONAL BANK v. COUNTY OF COOK (1957)
SINCLAIR PIPE LINE COMPANY v. RICHTON PARK (1960)

1. The existing uses and zoning of nearby property.
2. The extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning
restrictions.
3. The extent to which the destruction of plaintiff's property values promote
the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public.
4. Relative gain to the public compared to hardship imposed upon the individual
property owner.
5. The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes.
6. The length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context
of land development in the vicinity.
7. Community need for the proposed land use.
8. The care with which the community had undertaken to plan its land use development.

A simple written statement with a paragraph explaining how your decision is consistent with these 8 standards is valuable. They form a good framework for your report to the board and your findings of fact.

THE TRACK RECORD OF YOUR COMMUNITY

Does your community make logical decisions on land use, or are your decisions unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious? Have your zoning decisions often been overturned by the courts, or are you usually upheld? You must try to make sure that the decisions of your Plan Commission and legislative Board is consistent. Communities often have developers who cause no problems, and other developers that cause major problems. You still must make sure that you treat both developers fairly.

YOUR LAWYER IS YOUR PARTNER

It is important that your lawyer is your partner in working with your community. His training is different than yours, and he sees things in a different way. You need to work closely with him or her to ensure that you and your community make consistent, logical, and fair decisions based on law.

About the Authors

Chuck Eckenstahler, AICP, is the owner of Public Consulting Team, a Benton Harbor, Michigan planning consulting firm which has consulted with the Villages of Beecher, Sauk Village Glenwood and Homewood as their consulting planner. He holds two Masters’ Degrees, one from Governors State University and the other from the University of Notre Dame. He is an active writer, having more than 150 articles published on various economic development, land use planning and real estate development topics. He can be contacted at 219-879-1012, or E-mail at pctecken@netnitco.net.

Craig Harlan Hullinger, AICP, is the President of Planning Development Services. He has served as the Will County Director of Land Use and Planning where he supervised planning, zoning, engineering, and building functions. He is currently working with the Villages of Minooka, Tinley Park, Mokena, Munster, IN, the Eastern Will County Regional Council, and as an expert witness. Craig has a BA Degree in Public Administration and a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning. He can be contacted at 708/ 532- 8991 or E-mail Craig@Hullinger.com.

For more information on Chuck or Craig visit our web page at http://www.Craig.Hullinger.com