|M.Sc Student||Tsubary Aviva|
|Subject||Development Agreements Between Developers and Planning|
|Department||Department of Architecture and Town Planning||Supervisor||Professor Emeritus Rachelle Alterman|
Agreements made between developers and planning authorities are being use for obtaining various obligations.
The questions which arise from these agreements are: Which the projects involved? What do they include? How is the public involved in these agreements and what are their advantages and disadvantages. Other questions are related to the developer obligations: What do they include? What is the connection between the project and the obligations? How are they given? How are they anchored and what is the relation between these obligations and the law, to obtain public needs?
In order to answer these questions, we have checked five case studies, involving such agreements. These agreements were made by the Tel-Aviv Municipality for various projects: Dwelling, offices and employment. Our research showed various obligations which included payments to the municipality, erection of building, development of open spaces, preservation of buildings ect. The foundations of the obligations varied from case to case. The obligations were anchored both in legal regulations and in separate documents. Most of the obligations were in the project area and those of the benefited consequently were the dwellers of the project and those of the neighborhood. On the whole, the obligations contributed to minimize the negative impacts of the project. In dwelling projects they were adapted to the project requirements and in non-dwelling projects they were meant to meet with the requirements of the city.
In order that these agreements will be just and efficient, the following recommendations should be considered: Determination of obligations to minimize negative impacts of the project, as regards the environment. Determination of unified procedures for the obligations. In order to protect the public, it would be advisable to anchor the obligations in the planning regulations and not in separate documents. On the other hand an alternate legal frame should be considered. It is recommended to form clear procedures for the range of the obligations and the relation of the obligations to the existing tools of the law.
The agreements studied contributed to secure the parties commitments and clearly contributed to promote various urban prospects. We recommend to expand the use of non-dwelling projects or, on the other hand, impose impact fees and use these funds for the promotion and development of urban prospects.