Organization:Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
An Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO, also known as a Concurrency Regulation) is an American legislative method to tie public infrastructure to growth for a region.[1] APFOs take into account the availability of infrastructure. They can manage growth, but are considered separate from growth controls such as building moratoria.[2][3]
History
Ramapo, New York (see Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo); Petaluma, California; and Boulder, Colorado were some of the early adopters of this tool in America.[4] The state of Florida uses the term "concurrency" in its growth management act.[5]
Scope
APFO regulations are typically applied to a jurisdiction which has legislative control of a given area. In America, this can be at a state, county, or city level. A conflict can occur when APFO regulations differ in scope between jurisdictions where there is shared funding and legislative authority (such as a city located inside a county that funds schools).[6] While APFOs are intended to mitigate infrastructure shortcomings for a particular area, the mitigation may apply to areas offsite of the development project.[7] APFO regulations usually apply to individual projects on a case-by-case basis.[8]
APFO regulations take into account some or all of a jurisdiction's infrastructure requirements, including:[9]
- Transportation
- School facilities
- Water supply
- Water treatment
- Roads
Other elements include:
- CIP – Capitol Improvement Programs
- Service Level Standards
Criticism
Traditional opponents of APFO legislation include industries affected by moratoria or fees, including realtors, developers, and some Smart Growth advocates.[10] Home costs for some locations that have enacted APFO have experienced increases in housing prices affecting affordable housing, in conjunction with positive effects of relief from school capacity shortcomings.[11]
See also
- Ecistics
- Activity centre
- Context theory
- Exclusionary zoning
- Form-based codes
- Inclusionary zoning
- Mixed use development
- New urbanism
- Non-conforming use
- Planning permission
- Principles of Intelligent Urbanism
- Reverse sensitivity
- Spot zoning
- Statutory planning
- NIMBY
References
- ↑ Dustin Cole Read. The Cost of Concurrency: A Legal and Empirical Analysis of Adequate Public. p. 40.
- ↑ Eric D. Kelly. Managing Community Growth. p. 60.
- ↑ Sherry Greenfield (10 January 2008). "Gardner says moratorium will not hurt building industry". The Gazette.
- ↑ Lewis D. Hopkins. Urban Development: The Logic Of Making Plans. p. 138.
- ↑ American Planning Association; Frederick R. Steiner; Kent Butler. Planning and Urban Design Standards. p. 377.
- ↑ Sara Newman (1 January 2015). "Calvert County finds northern school populations inadequate Multiple schools closed to future district development". The Gazette.
- ↑ Kristine Williams. Driveway Regulation Practices. p. 58.
- ↑ Daniel R. Mandelker (1982). Land Use Law. Michie Company. ISBN 9780872155251. https://archive.org/details/landuselaw0000mand.
- ↑ S. Mark White. Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances and Transportation Management. p. 17.
- ↑ "The National Center for Smart Growth". http://smartgrowth.umd.edu/APFOMaryland.html. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
- ↑ Dustin Cole Read. The Cost of Concurrency: A Legal and Empirical Analysis of Adequate Public. p. 123.
External links
- An example of a Florida APFO regulation
- Dolan v. City of Tigard – property rights
 |  |
