George Sheetz was required to pay a $23,420 traffic-impact fee as a condition of receiving a residential building permit. The fee was calculated under a countywide schedule based on the type and location of development rather than on an individualized assessment of the traffic attributable to his project. Sheetz claimed that the fee was an unconstitutional property exaction under the Takings Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the constitutional standards governing permit conditions do not distinguish between conditions imposed administratively and those imposed through legislation. A legislative enactment therefore cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny merely because it applies a generally applicable formula. The Court left open whether the county’s formula satisfied the required connection and proportionality standards and remanded for further proceedings.