Recently, one forward thinking Pennsylvania grocery retailer opened a new Ecommerce hub facility at the site of one of its former, traditional grocery store buildings in a mixed-use neighborhood. Rather than demolishing the existing “brick and mortar” building, it is adaptively reusing the building by converting it to a new “click and mortar” facility.

For many retailers, the traditional retail approach includes a commercial building with a significant retail display and sales area directly accessible by customers selecting and purchasing their goods onsite.  But new approaches are popping up every day.  The new approach referenced above allows customers to place orders online using their electronic devices or onsite using tablets located in the building’s vestibule area.  Orders are processed and fulfilled onsite and either picked up by customers or delivered to customers via a delivery service.

This local retailer is just one example of an emerging business trend whereby “shopping fulfillment centers” are occupying vacant, former retail store buildings located in close proximity to customers.
Continue Reading

Late last spring we discussed how the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) negatively affected development by increasing the costs incurred by developers to install water and wastewater infrastructure (Part I and Part II). Effective January 1, 2018, the TCJA required that water companies include advances for construction (“Advances”) and Contributions in Aid of Construction (“CIAC”) in taxable income. Of course, water companies do not want to incur the tax directly, so it is passed on to developers thereby making their cost to install water and wastewater infrastructure even higher.

On February 28, 2019 the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) granted Pennsylvania American Water’s (“PAW”) Petition for Reconsideration of its order in Docket Nos. R-2018-3002502/R-2018-3002504. The order requires developers or builders to pay for the TCJA-imposed tax on CIAC and Advances. As a result of the PUC’s grant of reconsideration, there was a cautiously optimistic sigh of relief that the PUC might take a broader and deeper look at the positive impact of new development on the entire base of customers and spread the tax to all customers, not just the developer that installed the improvements.
Continue Reading

In our first two posts (Part 1 and Part 2), we discussed current approaches used by many communities to regulate parking, factors contributing to those approaches, and how those approaches are not sustainable because they consume large amounts of space and money.  Great anecdotal evidence of what we described is provided annually in a post from “Strong Towns” titled “The Best of #BlackFridayParking.”  It is worth a look.

In this, our third and final post, we discuss a few solutions communities, especially those seeking to encourage and support mixed use reuse, infill and redevelopment projects, may wish to consider when “right-sizing” their parking regulations.  In order to gauge impacts and determine the success of the parking solutions, we suggest limiting the following solutions by area (e.g., parcels, blocks or neighborhoods) or zoning district:
Continue Reading

In our first post of this three-post series on parking (available here) we discussed Richard Florida’s informative, but not surprising, article which states “American cities devote far too much space and far too many resources to parking.”  Location, ownership and management of existing parking spaces are significant issues impacting parking in communities, and our first post focused on their impacts based on the current approach to parking regulations taken by most communities.  The current approach is unsustainable, as it contributes to sprawl and increases costs.  In this post, we will explore some of the factors causing and impacting the current general approach to parking regulations – specifically with respect to urban reuse and mixed-use projects.

More often than not, communities’ parking requirements, located in zoning ordinances, are onerous enough to derail desirable urban reuse and mixed-use projects.  Most communities’ requirements generally reflect a more suburban approach to parking that is reflective of planning and development trends of the 1950s and 1960s (i.e., separation of uses with an emphasis on accommodating automobiles).

In reviewing several Pennsylvania “urban” municipal zoning ordinances, a few common parking concepts and provisions become evident.
Continue Reading

Most of us have heard the “Big Yellow Taxi” song that includes the memorable line “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”  But what if that paradise is not completely lost and communities started reclaiming their paradise by taking a different approach to their parking regulations?  This is the first in a three-post series discussing the current approach to parking regulations and solutions communities, especially urban communities, should consider to “right-size” their parking requirements to reflect a more sustainable approach.

Richard Florida, a well-respected expert in urban studies, recently posted an interesting article entitled Parking Has Eaten American Cities.  In his post, Florida discusses a recent study by Eric Scharnhorst of the Research Institute for Housing America confirming the findings of previous studies “that American cities devote far too much space and far too many resources to parking.” 
Continue Reading

In today’s Legal Intelligencer, Scott Gould and Steve Mazura discuss the most recent round of permits for small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in Pennsylvania, related potential impacts on development, and creative approaches to stormwater management.  The full article is available at the link provided above and excerpts are below.  The article is definitely worth a read for all developers, municipal officials and staff, and land use professionals.

“The most recent round of permits for small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in Pennsylvania requires municipalities with MS4s to regulate stormwater in a manner that will impact development. MS4 municipalities with stormwater systems that discharge into ‘impaired’ waters must develop and implement pollution reduction plans (PRPs) to demonstrate measurable reductions in pollutant discharges, including those impaired waters with total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), or ‘pollution budgets,’ established for them. For the first time, the permit scheme
Continue Reading

This is the second post in a two-post series on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), with which developers and water companies see the return of a tax policy with negative consequences for development.  Effective this year, advances for construction (“Advances”) and Contributions in Aid of Construction (“CIAC”) for water systems are treated as taxable income.  Essentially, water companies must include in taxable income the contributed property or cash needed to connect a development to a water system.  This tax adds significant costs to developers when water companies pass the tax to developers.  At the same time, more work is created for water companies which must gross up Advances and CIAC (together, “A/CIAC”) and later recalculate those costs based on the actual cost of construction and gross up refunds.  This post provides insight on ways to mitigate the negative effects of the TCJA on development in Pennsylvania.
Continue Reading

With the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), developers and water and wastewater companies see the return of a tax policy that has significant consequences for both groups.  This is the first post in a two-post series discussing the history of “Advances” and “CIAC” and the practical effect of the TCJA on construction, dedication and utilization of water lines in Pennsylvania.  In short, the cost of doing business just increased for developers, while water companies once again are saddled with additional work.  This post provides background and history while a second post will provide insight on working through the issues.
Continue Reading