Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lasershurt t1_jd2kncs wrote

The law allows for the fees to cover the reasonable and actual costs of the work required. The city said $15k was too low, and raised it.

All that really matters is if they can prove the actual use of the funds in court. What are the typical lifetime costs associated with the Zoning variances for this sort of work? They mentioned trying to make this work faster, which implies to me they're looking to use this funding to offset more staff.

It sounds huge, but for huge multi-million dollar projects being done for long-term profit I am not going to shed a lot of tears as long as it's provably justified.

17

pittlawyer t1_jd3p3ju wrote

I represent developers in the City. I know bring, the hate. There is absolutely no way they will be able to justify the increase in court. The zoning and development review is on top of the 0.7% fee charge for the technical review of building permits by PLI. That review fee is justified because it involves engineering review of technical construction documents. For a 10 million dollar project, that's 70k in building permit fees alone.

The zoning and development fee is essentially just staff and planning commission review for compliance with the zoning code. That involves verifying setbacks, lot area, open space, and some traffic/planning studies. There is no way on earth that costs the City another 30kish in review time for the same project. That single project review would pay half the annual salary of a City Planner, of which there are only 5 or 6.

The best way to ensure that the actually cost is recouped legally (and which is how almost all other municipalities handle land development review) is to require that an escrow amount be posted by the developer and have the review staff bill their actual time and costs to that account. That way, the City is reimbursed for actual review costs, which is all they're permitted to recoup by law.

If its challenged, the City's new structure will be struck down pretty quickly. It's pretty apparent that the percentage was arbitrarily chosen to generate revenue. According to my contacts in the City, this was never run past the City law department for their opinion, which is not at all surprising.

9

JustHereForTheSaul t1_jd3wbel wrote

[not a loaded question, just a request for information] Is the city breaking some law with this rate increase? Or is this a more subtle use of courts to manage public policy that I'm not familiar with? I was kinda surprised to see developers calling this "illegal". In my naivete, I'd have thought it was subject only to the laws of economics, not the laws of the city or state.

7

pittlawyer t1_jd3yark wrote

There isn't a city or state statute or regulation that specifically prohibits municipalities from raising revenue using review fees. However, there is a long line of appellate cases that have created that principle in common law. That precedent essentially has the same effect as if it was codified into law. A developer can sue the City, cite those cases, and have the same likelihood of success as if it were in a statute.

6

MaybeADumbass t1_jd4vtuo wrote

> According to my contacts in the City, this was never run past the City law department for their opinion, which is not at all surprising.

We should ask City law to get right on that! We should have their opinion sometime in mid-2027, provided we stay on top of it and keep reminding them.

5

burritoace t1_jd64i45 wrote

Big developments are subject to more scrutiny than just basic compliance with the zoning code, and 5 or 6 planets for a city with numerous projects of this scale (and many smaller ones) is too few.

2

pittlawyer t1_jd66m6u wrote

I agree. They should have 4 times as many planners so it doesn’t take 6 weeks to get the first round of review comments. But, just follow the law and charge for the review they actually perform. Don’t just pick an arbitrary number that will get struck down immediately and have to be repaid with interest and attorneys fees. And to be clear, they don’t do much more than code compliance review and making design “suggestions” that aren’t enforceable.

2

burritoace t1_jd77hi3 wrote

The process needs to be expedited and simplified but it is still important, and the developers don't deserve the benefit of the doubt here. I think it also makes sense for them to be a large funding source for the department. This fee may well be too high but I think the proper number is closer to the new fee than the old. And the fact that the city is again going to be subject to onerous legal proceedings over something like this is bullshit - another case of developers overpowering the city through sheer wealth. If it's so onerous the city should feel those effects in declining development, not bullshit legal wrangling. That's an additional cost for everyone, but the developers don't give a shit about that!

The review is also more complex than that, often requiring ZBA and CDAP review/approval outside of the normal staff review (which also includes cross-referencing with existing city plans, not just reviewing the zoning code).

5

YIMBYYay t1_jd82o5u wrote

It’s a self created problem for city planning. They have made such a complicated, convoluted, and often arbitrary review process that they need double the staff time to review projects than previously required. What did they expect when nearly every project had to go to ZBA, design review, planning commission, multiple community meetings, reviews by non governmental entities like GBA and Riverlife (how is that even legal?)…

Goodness forbid they streamline the process and lighten their work load.

1

[deleted] t1_jd41zrb wrote

[deleted]

1

pittlawyer t1_jd45n1p wrote

The bureaucratic red tap in Pittsburgh is truly absurd. I already have clients that are reticent to develop in the City because of development review reputation, and its only going to get worse. None of the City departments effectively communicate with each other, and they all have their own little fiefdoms. I can't really complain, because it keeps me employed, but its definitely going to hurt investment in the City in the long run.

2