Planning Commissioners Journal

Wendy Grey Talks About Her PCJ Article on the Relationship Between Plans & Implementing Regulations

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville. Our just published Spring issue features an article by PCJ contributing writer (and long-time Florida planner) Wendy Grey about a topic that virtually every planning commissioner will face -- the relationship of the local comprehensive plan and implementing regulations, such as zoning ordinances.

I asked Wendy some questions to further explore what she covers in her article.

Wayne Senville: In your article in our Spring issue ("The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations: Putting Words Into Action"') you focus on ways of making the comprehensive plan and local land development regulations work better together. But in some communities, plans seem of distinctly secondary importance to land use regulations, since it's the regulations that have direct consequences for developers, businesses, and residents. This can be frustrating to members of local planning commissions, especially if they've invested a lot of time on working on the comp plan.

Are there suggestions you have for how comp plans can become more valuable in actually shaping land use policy and not just sit there on the proverbial shelf?

Wendy Grey: Since the land development regulations are intended to implement the plan, it is probably not practical, or helpful, to have every land use decision tied directly back to the comprehensive plan. But there are instances when relying on the plan can benefit the decision making process and remind folks why the plan is there.

Take rezonings as an example. Often, rezoning decisions revolve around whether the adjoining property owners object to the request. From a long range planning perspective, rezonings tie back directly to the future land use map, which depicts the desired relationships of land uses to each other. In reviewing rezoning requests, a significant part of the planning commission’s analysis should be based on whether the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, not just whether or not there are objections from neighbors.

Another way to keep the plan relevant is to spend some time reviewing it. Consider having an agenda item every few months that reviews some key objectives of the plan and how they are (or are not) being achieved. Based on these discussions, the planning commission may wish to recommend changes either to the plan or the regulations.

Wayne Senville: In many places, comprehensive plans seem replete with words like “may,” or “to the extent possible,” or “should consider,” instead of outlining what “shall” be done. In your article you discuss the difference between prescriptive plans (where language in the plan can almost be copied and pasted into land use regulations) and plans that build in more flexibility. How do planners and planning commissioners determine which approach would work best in their community’s comp plan?

Wendy Grey: The plan may have both types of policies, depending on the result you want to achieve. In the article, I use the example of comprehensive plan policies intended to promote downtown redevelopment. The plan could contain policies that specify exactly how tall buildings should be, the size of ground floor windows, and sidewalks widths. But that regulatory approach won’t necessarily encourage redevelopment and may actually impede reinvestment. In this example, the intent of the policy, as a guide to developing regulations, is more relevant than the specific standard. So, the plan directs the City to develop codes that address design features to create a safe and welcoming environment, but does not specify the precise standards.

On the other hand, prescriptive language is appropriate when the community value is very explicit. I recently reviewed major changes to the comprehensive plan in a coastal county in Florida. Many of the proposed changes moved the more regulatory language to the land development code. When it came to building heights along the coast, however, it was quickly decided that the four story height limit in the plan would not be removed. The control of building heights along the coast was such a strong community value that it was retained in as a requirement in the comprehensive plan, and, subsequently, the land development code.

Wayne Senville: It has often seemed to me that local zoning regulations face issues not addressed in the comprehensive plan, or not addressed very clearly, especially once the plan is five or ten years old. Zoning regulations then seem to be based more on ad hoc considerations or policy preferences of the governing body. What you almost end up with is the regulations leading the plan. Are there any ways of dealing with this?

The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations: Putting Words Into Action

Strategies for improving how your planning and regulatory documents work together. by Wendy Grey, AICP; from PCJ #82 (Spring 2011); 4 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. See also our interview with Wendy Grey about this article

Read excerpt from start of article: In this article, we'll explore the relationship between the comprehensive plan and its implementing regulations and some strategies for improving how these documents work together. We'll also discuss the local planning process as a "feedback loop" -- that is, the need for the plan and regulations to be refined and improved on a regular basis as a result of practical experience and ongoing evaluation. The Comprehensive Plan 1. Sections of the Plan As its name implies, the comprehensive plan is the broadest document guiding development. The plan typically contains sections (sometimes called "elements") that address the major subjects influencing the community's development. The sections will generally include land use, transportation, environmental resource protection, infrastructure, housing, and economic development. Other sections may include sustainability, historic preservation, community character, and public safety (e.g., disaster preparedness). Taken together, the sections of the plan should provide a picture of what the community will look like at the end of the selected planning horizon. Some plans contain a vision statement or pictures that provide a succinct summary of what the comprehensive plan is intending to achieve. The benefit of such an overview is that it shows how the key objectives within each section fit together to achieve the community vision. 2. "Mini" Comprehensive Plans While the comprehensive plan addresses the community as a whole, some planning departments also prepare plans that apply only to a specific geographic area. These "mini" comprehensive plans (often called "special area" plans) are usually prepared in response to a condition or need within an area that is not adequately addressed by the comprehensive plan. Consider a city that has recently annexed a large amount of vacant land under single ownership. The city wants to encourage the use of innovative planning techniques such as transit-oriented development, but there are policies throughout the comprehensive plan that impede this. The city does not want to make wholesale changes to the plan since current policies work well for the rest of the city, which is largely built out. In this situation, a more focused mini plan that applies only to the newly annexed area would likely be a good solution. Similar to special area plans are neighborhood and district plans. A neighborhood plan addresses the needs of a particular neighborhood and typically is adopted either to protect its existing character or promote sensitive revitalization. A district plan usually addresses a commercial area or several neighborhoods and has the same purpose as a neighborhood plan. Since the conditions that the plan addresses are unique to the area in question, it is appropriate to have a set of policies that apply only to it. 3. Providing a Vision for the Community's Future The comprehensive plan is the overarching policy document for the community. It should establish a long-term vision, set priorities, and provide direction for how the vision will be achieved. While the plan should be specific enough to accomplish these objectives, it should not be so detailed that it needs frequent amending. If the plan is constantly being revised, it can devalue the perception of the plan as the guide to the long-term development of the community. Let's take some examples. ... article then continues, and in Part II covers: Translating the Comprehensive Plan Into Implementing Regulations: 1. The Plan as a Policy Document; 2. Consistency Between the Plan and the Implementing Regulations; 3. Going Beyond the Planning Department; and 4. Keeping the Plan's Overall Objectives in Mind. Part III of the article covers: The Feedback Loop: 1. What Does the Data Show; 2. Evaluating Approved Projects; and 3. Looking at Your Development Review Process.

order & download full article $4.00 (single copy license)
order & download full article $16.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Billboards: The Case for Control

Why cities and towns benefit when they just say “no” to the continued proliferation of billboards. by Edward McMahon; from PCJ #81 (Winter 2011) Download this article (pdf format); no charge for download. See our interview with Ed McMahon about this article | see response from Outdoor Advertising Association of America | see perspectives from PCJ Editor We welcome you to weigh in. Join the discussion on the Planning Commissioners Journal Linkedin group page (you need to be a Linkedin user to view our group page; if you're not using Linkedin, I encourage you to try it out). For information on other articles by McMahon published in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

Come see America the beautiful, if you can. Amber waves of grain? It is more like a ride through the yellow pages: a windshield vista of 50-foot beer cans and towering casino signs. Many thought billboards were an endangered species in 1965 when Congress passed the Highway Beautification Act. But the law was so riddled with loopholes and enforcement so lax that in recent years, billboard companies have put up thousands of new, bigger, more obtrusive billboards. In a relatively short time, outdoor advertising has gone from Burma Shave to Blade Runner: from small and folksy to huge and intrusive. We've now entered the era of digital billboards -- giant outdoor TV screens wasting energy while degrading the landscape and distracting drivers. Billboards are the definition of a roadside distraction. Their entire purpose is to take your eyes off the road and put them on giant outdoor advertisements. Safety is just one of the reasons why many communities have been trying to regulate billboards for decades. Curbing billboards is not easy, but it can be done. This article lays out the case for billboard control. It discusses the reasons beyond safety for why we need to halt construction of new billboards and strictly regulate those that remain. 1. Billboards are a form of pollution -- visual pollution Over the years, billboards have been described as the "junk mail of the highway," "litter on a stick," "visual kudzu," "urban blight," and more, but in their simplest form billboards are a form of visual pollution. Regulating billboards is no different from regulating noxious fumes, sewage discharges, or excessive noise. The U.S. Supreme Court has said: "Pollution is not limited to the air we breathe and the water we drink; it can equally offend the eye and ear." While the messages on a billboard can be ugly or ordinary when they are enlarged to the size of a house, placed on poles 50-100 feet high, randomly strewn along every street, even covering entire buildings, they become a visual and environmental hazard. Like overly loud noise -- strictly regulated in many communities -- billboards thrust a discordant commercial note into our environment. They deprive us of visual access to scenic vistas and create a strident, hectic atmosphere in cities. 2. Billboards are out of place in most locations Our landscape is one of America's greatest resources. Its value is economic as well as aesthetic, psychological as well as recreational, spiritual as well as physical. Every landscape, rural or urban, has its own kind of beauty and uniqueness. In every kind of landscape billboards are a disturbing alien intrusion. Like empty beer cans in a mountain stream, they simply don't belong because they commercialize, homogenize, and degrade our natural landscape. Visual clutter may be appropriate in a few limited locations, such as a city's entertainment district (e.g., Times Square or the Las Vegas Strip). In most cases, however, billboards obliterate architectural character and ruin natural beauty. They also undermine community livability and sustainability. Doug Kelbaugh, of the University of Michigan, School of Architecture put it this way: "If a building, a landscape, or a city is not beautiful, it will not be loved, if it is not loved, it will not be maintained. In short it won't be sustained." 3. Billboards destroy distinctiveness Billboards look the same whether they are in Mississippi, Montana, or Malaysia. As a result, billboards homogenize our communities. They help turn unique places into "Anyplace." In fact, almost nothing will destroy the distinctive character of a place faster than uncontrolled signs and billboards. This has negative economic consequences. "Community differentiation" is a key concept in economic development today. If you can't differentiate your community from any other community you have no competitive advantage. Put another way, the "image of a community is fundamentally important to its economic well being." Every day, people make decisions about where to live, invest, or vacation based on what communities look like. Attractive, well-ordered communities have an advantage over ugly, chaotic ones. Take tourism: the more one community comes to look like every other community, the less reason there is to visit. On the other hand, the more a community does to protect and enhance its distinctive character, whether natural or architectural, the more reason there is to visit. Billboards destroy distinctiveness and undermine our sense of place while they commercialize our neighborhoods. ... article continues with: 4. Billboards are the only form of advertising that you can't turn off or avoid 5. Billboard companies sell something they don't own -- our field of vision 6. Billboards are ineffective and unnecessary 7. Billboard companies exercise almost no restraint in the placement of outdoor ads 8. Billboards are both a cause and a symptom of urban blight 9. Billboards are bad for business 10. Digital billboards, use huge amounts of energy contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

Z is for Zoning

Note from Planning Commissioners Journal Editor Wayne Senville:

This marks the conclusion of our weekly installments of Laurence Gerckens' Planning ABC's, previously published in the PCJ. The entire publication, from Automobiles to Zoning, -- including all of Paul Hoffman's letter illustrations -- is available to order & download.

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-Rated Land Uses | Youth | Zoning

---

The first modern American public land use zoning restriction was enacted in San Francisco in 1867 to constrain the location of obnoxious uses. Los Angeles, in 1909, applied land use controls to an immense area it had annexed, sparking a series of lawsuits that culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1915 ruling in Hadacheck v. Sebastian. The Court upheld the City's prohibition of brickyards in a residentially zoned district, despite the fact that the brickyard in question predated the residential development.

While California cities explored land use controls, in the East the focus was on control of building height, bulk, and yards. Actions to limit the height of buildings and to vary these heights by zones taken in Massachusetts were found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Welch v. Swasey in 1909. This was followed three years later by the Court's clearly implied approval of building setback controls in Eubank v. Richmond.

In the early decades of the 20th century, New York City was faced with construction of tall buildings that cut off light and air to the streets below and to surrounding buildings. It also experienced an invasion of manufacturing uses into areas that were predominantly residential and business in character.

In response, in 1916, New York enacted the first "comprehensive zoning code." It utilized the three geographically zoned elements that the U.S. Supreme Court previously acted on (building height, setbacks and yards, and land use) and combined them in a single ordinance that included the entire area of jurisdiction. This combination of factors still defines "comprehensive zoning."

Most communities hesitated to follow New York's lead in adopting comprehensive zoning because the circumstances of the Hadacheck case included an immediate threat to public health as well as the land use zoning issue. Would the Court have approved the Los Angeles zoning if the brickyard in question had not also been a direct threat to the health of neighbors? 

In 1926, in Euclid v. Ambler, a case without a direct health threat issue, the Supreme Court supported comprehensive zoning, including the creation of single-family residential districts. With the Court's ruling, comprehensive zoning spread across America, and single-family-only districts became the preferred zoning for new residential development. See also T is for Takings.

Spatial segregation of uses over ever-increasing distances became a major characteristic of zoning. This often resulted in rings of increasingly low density single-family residential zones as one moved outward from the city center, along with widely separated retail and employment areas. See U is for Urban Sprawl.

In the past decade (as noted in Y is for Youth) a countercurrent has emerged. Zoning codes are increasingly being redesigned to foster development of neighborhoods of mixed land uses and varied life styles and income, often at higher densities.

Also of note, a sort of "parallel universe" of land use controls (that actually predate zoning) has expanded in the form of private covenants and restrictions applied to properties in most new developments. What these rules prohibit may be of greater consequence to many Americans than what is set out in the local zoning ordinance.

---

See this listing of articles on zoning topics published in the Planning Commissioners Journal -- most are available to order & download.

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

Dollars and Sense

Editor’s Note: 

We are reprinting this article from our just published Summer issue. Obviously, given space constraints, Carolyn Braun is condensing a complex topic. 

What Are the Economic Impacts of Your Regulations?

by Carolyn Braun, AICP

For most of you, zoning regulations for your community were already in place when you became a planning commissioner. Over time, you’ve become more and more familiar with them. At any point, however, have you thought about or questioned their purpose and economic impacts?

This article isn’t intended to provide you with the “correct” answer in designing the best regulations. Instead, it is intended to give you pause to think. Should you wish to get deeper into economic or financial analysis, there are many technical studies readily available. 

Impact on the Market

Regulations are developed and adopted for a variety of reasons, often for the general public good, sometimes primarily to meet the interests of a segment of the population. One of the “selling points” of zoning has long been that it can enhance property values community-wide. Yet, whatever the reasons for it, the regulation of land use does constrain market interactions and individual property rights. As such, there are costs associated with zoning regulations. 

As we know, for example, regulations limit choices of where we live, the kinds of houses that may be available to buy in various neighborhoods (and what their price ranges are likely to be), where businesses can locate, and even how businesses can promote themselves through signage. These are all reasons why communities need to think long and hard about their regulations and their desired effects, and side effects.

1. Scarcity Effects of Regulations

Land use regulations may affect market prices, in particular where a regulation limits the types of uses that are allowed in a zoning district. For example, the value of  land for single-family residential development is likely to be higher in an area that is zoned exclusively for single-family residential, as opposed to a zoning district that allows a mixture of uses and types of residential development.

In some cases, land not subject to regulations may see an increase in value because of the scarcity effect. For example, in parts of the country some rural areas adjacent to cities still have no zoning and very limited land use regulation (often just subdivision controls). This essentially unregulated land may see an increase in value because the supply of regulated land in the city does not allow for certain uses, or provides very limited areas where they are permitted.

2. Amenity Effects of Regulations

Amenity effects include regulations that protect environmental quality, open space, groundwater quality, agricultural land, and land or property of historical significance. Regulations that address nuisance issues such as noise, congestion, or pollution, also can provide an amenity effect.

These types of regulations are intended to require actions that create a perceived positive effect -- or limit actions that have an alleged negative one. The regulations impose costs on individuals because they limit options. But they also may confer shared benefits resulting in increased property values because those who are regulated benefit from the restrictions that are placed on others. 

One example: environmental regulations may limit development near wetlands. This can have the effect of both enhancing the appeal of an area and limiting the supply of developable land. The outcome may cause land prices in the area to rise.

What to Do?

There is no doubt that regulations can impact the financial well-being of your community. It is up to you to determine how best to create standards that help you keep or achieve your desired community image. But you must also consider both the short and long-term economic viability of those choices and how your regulations work toward that end.

If you are seeing signs of disinvestment or the lack of new investment, it may be time to review your regulations and determine if changes are needed to promote -- yet regulate -- your desired community character. Consider having conversations with developers and realtors about the current market. They can give you a very good idea of what may happen in the market -- at least in the short term. It may also provide insight that will help you decide if you are willing to wait for what you want regardless of the market.

There is also always the question of balance -- do you have a sustainable mix of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and open space uses? Each has a very definite purpose. However, the amount of land allocated to each use can have a major long-term economic affect on your community.

Summing Up:

Planning commissioners have a role in evaluating their community’s land use regulations -- both new provisions being considered, as well as existing regulations. Part of any thoughtful analysis should include consideration of the regulations’ likely economic impacts, even if there are not always clear cut answers.

Carolyn Braun, AICP, is Planning Director for the City of Anoka, Minnesota, and past President of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association. Her most recent articles for the PCJ have been: Drafting Clear Ordinances: Do's and Don'ts (Spring 2010) and What Planners Do (Summer 2004).

Additional Resources:

For readers wanting to further explore what I only have room to briefly touch on in this article:

-- Glaeser, Edward L. and Bryce A. Ward. The Causes and Consequences of Land Use Regulations: Evidence from Greater Boston. Discussion Paper Number 2124. Harvard Institute of Economic Research. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. October 2006. 

-- Michael, Jeffrey and Raymond Palmquist. Environmental Land Use Restriction and Property Values. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. Vol. 11: 437.

-- Pendall, Rolf, Robert Puentes, and Jonathan Martin. From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s largest Metropolitan Areas. Research. The Brookings Institute. August 2006.

-- Quigley, John M. and Larry A Rosenthal. The Effect of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do You Know? What Can We Learn? Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. Volume 8, Number 1, 2005. pp. 69 – 137.

T is for Takings

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
-- The Constitution of the United States, Fifth Amendment

State and local governments have long been empowered to acquire private property for public purposes so long as compensation is paid. However, in the 1920s, cities and towns began using land subdivision controls to require the "dedication" (giving) of streets to the public -- without compensation -- when land was subdivided.

Courts uniformly found no "taking" requiring compensation in such situations. They pointed out that there was no public coercion since it was the landowner who initiated the request to subdivide. They also stressed that the dedication involved only a portion of a landowner's property and did not deprive the owner of substantially all its value. This rationale was followed in the 1930s to uphold subdivision requirements for the dedication of parkland.

The courts also upheld a broad array of land use regulations designed to protect public health and safety. While these regulations did not involve the direct public use of private property, they did have significant impacts by limiting the extent and density of development -- and precluding potentially more lucrative land uses. Among the early restrictions upheld by the Supreme Court: building height limits; bans on locating certain uses in or near residential areas; and building setback lines. Most notably, the Court upheld comprehensive zoning -- laying the way for the explosive growth in local zoning across the country. Euclid v. Ambler (1926).

After more than four decades of silence, the Supreme Court returned to the land use arena in 1978. At issue was New York City's historic designation of Grand Central Terminal, which prevented Penn Central from constructing an office tower over the Terminal. 

The Court held there was no "taking," as Penn Central could earn a reasonable return on the existing Terminal, and from development rights the city made transferable to nearby sites. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City.

Since Penn Central, the Supreme Court has become actively engaged in the review of state and local land use regulations. In general, the Court's rulings have cut back on the land use regulatory powers of state and local governments by:

finding a taking unless the government demonstrates an "essential nexus" (i.e., close link) between the purpose stated in the legislation authorizing the government's action and the particular constraint on private property. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987.

finding the remedy for a taking caused by government regulation to include the award of damages to the property owner, not just rescission of the law or ordinance. First English Evangelical Church v. County of Los Angeles, 1987.

finding that any dedication of land (i.e., for parkland or green space) required of a property owner through an administrative process, such as the granting of a permit (as opposed to through a legislative process affecting many properties) must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts specifically caused by the new development. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994.

However, the Supreme Court has held that a moratorium on development pending completion of a long-range plan does not necessarily result in a taking, especially if the moratorium is of limited duration. Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2002.

In the past decade, efforts (mostly unsuccessful) have been made in state legislatures and in Congress to define a "taking" as any public action that reduces property value beyond a specified low percentage, and to require payment by the public for "lost" value above this level. The potential impact of such legislation on the ability of governments to regulate land use is enormous.

---

For more on takings-related issues, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Taking Aim at Takings Claims

How Far is Too Far?

A Question of Balance

The Supreme Court's Kelo Decision: Good News or Bad News for Downtowns?

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

In Our Spring Issue: "No Certification, No Money"

Recent legal developments have put a spotlight on exclusionary zoning practices. On the revival of Civil Rights obligations in HUD funding programs, and the role of the local "analysis of impediments." by Michael Allen, Esq.; from PCJ #78 (Spring 2010); 2 pages Read an excerpt from the article below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post.

Read first part of article: Since the late 1960s, states and municipalities receiving federal housing and community development funds -- under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and similar programs -- have been required to certify that they will comply with federal civil right laws. Many have done so without understanding what is required by these certifications, assuming that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would not challenge their validity. Until recently, this assumption was largely correct, as HUD rarely questioned recipients on these issues and virtually never terminated or threatened to terminate funding. HUD simply did not press recipients to comply with their civil rights fair housing certifications. Consequently, from 1995 through 2009, hundreds of recipients bowed to NIMBY pressures, ignored their certifications, and spent billions of dollars in federal funds to segregate affordable housing by placing most of it in already disadvantaged neighborhoods or communities. In just the past year, however, this situation has begun to rapidly change -- the result of a ground-breaking lawsuit against Westchester County, New York ) and the Obama Administration's interest in reviving civil rights enforcement. Under emerging HUD guidelines and a stepped-up agency enforcement policy, recipients of federal housing funds will be required to take a hard look at impediments to fair housing choice in their jurisdictions and propose robust actions to overcome them. This new environment will have a dramatic impact on communities across the country, whether they are one of the 1200+ "entitlement jurisdictions" receiving federal funds directly from HUD, or small cities or rural counties whose federal funds are channeled through a state community development agency. Civil Rights Certifications in Federal Housing and Community Development Programs To be eligible for CDBG and related funds, state and local governments must certify that they will comply with a range of federal civil rights laws and "affirmatively further fair housing." Since at least 1995, this last obligation, sometimes referred to as "AFFH," has required recipients to conduct an Analysis of Impediments (AI), in which they identify and analyze impediments to fair housing choice within their jurisdictions, and outline appropriate actions to overcome those impediments. HUD also requires recipients to maintain records supporting the analysis and the actions taken to overcome impediments. HUD requires state and local governments to use their AIs to list impediments experienced by members of all seven protected classes, whether caused by intentional discrimination or by policies and practices that have a harsher effect on members of a protected class than on those not in a protected class. Recipients, in their AI, must make an honest assessment of their own zoning, land use, building, and other ordinances that may decrease housing choice, and must design approaches that will counteract those negative effects. An AI is also required to look at impediments caused by private sector actors, including steering in the sales and rental markets, discriminatory lending practices, insurance redlining, and similar practices. While recipients are encouraged to provide affordable housing, HUD makes clear that doing so does not fully satisfy the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, where the focus is on eliminating discrimination on the basis of protected class and expanding housing opportunity regardless of income. ...the article then continues with a discussion of the Westchester County litigation and its broader national implications.

order & download full article $3.25 (single copy license)
order & download full article $10.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

P is for Public Health & Safety

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

The belief that health and quality of life are shaped by the physical environment brought together public sanitation advocates, settlement house workers, architects, and landscape architects at the first American national conferences on city planning in 1909 and 1910. Public health advocates focused on improving waste disposal, assuring light and air to homes, providing clean food and water, and making available safe play areas. Supporters of the "City Beautiful" idea promoted construction of wide tree-lined boulevards and urban parks and plazas.

Common ground was found on key issues such as limiting building height. Public health advocates saw this as a way of assuring light and air to buildings and to the streets below, while City Beautiful proponents viewed height limits as a way of lending visual unity and human scale to the city.

Public health was at the heart of efforts by reformers in the mid-to-late 19th century to improve conditions in tenement housing. As a result of their advocacy, New York State and City passed a series of increasingly strict tenement house laws. The first of these, enacted in 1867, required that at least one toilet or privy be provided for every 20 people, to be connected to sewers where available. Subsequent laws set minimum standards for lot width, room size, and amount of light and ventilation.

The advent of the small electric motor made it possible for many structures originally built as warehouses or residences to be put to industrial use. This greatly increased the number of people in buildings with inadequate fire escapes. The consequences were tragically illustrated by the 1911 Triangle Fire in New York City, in which over 100 working women perished. 

In response, New York and other cities established building occupancy and land use controls. Within just a few years, New York integrated its various building and land use regulations (including restrictions on building height, setbacks, and yards) into a single citywide ordinance, the Zoning Resolution of 1916.

Mass ownership of the automobile in the 1920s brought with it dangers as well as benefits. As auto accidents and pedestrian fatalities increased, emphasis on keeping through-traffic out of residential neighborhoods, separating pedestrian and auto traffic, and accommodating projected future traffic came to dominate American planning (and continue to dominate planning agendas to this day).

Air quality as a factor in community planning was of little concern until an air inversion in St. Louis in October 1939 created a major public health hazard. In response, St. Louis added an element to its zoning that restricted industrial air emissions. Another infamous killer smog occurred in the steel town of Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948. View video from the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette below.

The most effective effort to improve air quality occurred in Pittsburgh. Indeed, Pittsburgh's progress in cleaning its air triggered the city's renaissance, allowing it to attract investment and broaden its economic base.

The Environmental Protection Agency, created in 1970, implemented broad-scale federal programs to improve air and water quality, and spawned state and local environmental protection efforts. Large-scale regional threats to public health and safety, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes led to creation of the Federal Emergency Management Administration to coordinate relief and reconstruction. The terrorist strikes of September 11, 2001, have lent a new urgency for planners (among others) to take into account public safety concerns.

---

For more on related topics, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Community Aesthetics and Planning (by Gerckens)

What Do We Mean By "Safe"

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Safewalks

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

In Our Spring Issue: "Drafting Clear Ordinances: Do's and Don'ts"

Your job as a planning commissioner is to address your community’s future, but the decisions you make can have wider impacts. by Carolyn Braun, AICP; from PCJ #78 (Spring 2010); 2 pages -- see our conversation with Carolyn Braun, one of our new contributing writers Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post.

Read first half of article: One of a planner’s most important jobs is drafting clear and understandable ordinances. It’s also a task on which planning commissioners can offer valuable assistance. Tips on Developing Ordinance Content 1. Be Able to Explain the Need Elected officials often suggest consideration of an ordinance based on what a neighboring community has adopted. Reviewing other community ordinances can be very helpful. Be cautious, however, particularly if you are adopting a small section of that ordinance. Also, be aware if the ordinance language you are "borrowing" includes terms not defined in your ordinance. Most importantly, be sure the ordinance you are drafting is tailored to meet your own community's concerns. You should be able to explain the need for the ordinance. That understanding will also will lead to clearer interpretation and enforcement and help ensure that your ordinance is legally defensible. 2. Make Sure You Have the Authority Before you go too far in drafting an ordinance, make sure you have the authority to enact it. Does it conform to state and federal law? Communities cannot adopt local ordinances that contradict explicit provisions of state or federal law. For example, in Minnesota there are specific provisions in state law requiring communities to allow state licensed residential facilities. In some cases, the applicable 'field of law' has been preempted by state law. For example, a state-adopted building code preempts adoption of a local building code. In such cases, you do not have the authority to adopt regulations. Always check with your attorney. Adoption of an ordinance by another community does not guarantee that a similar ordinance will be legally defensible in yours. In some instances, state laws and rules can be adopted by reference, but there is a question whether any future amendments to the state law are then automatically incorporated into your previously adopted ordinance. One way to deal with this is to include the phrase "as may be amended from time to time" when you adopt an ordinance that references a state law or rule. 3. Discuss the Draft It's good practice to discuss draft ordinance provisions in a work session (in most places, these must be noticed and open to the public). Planning commissioners can offer valuable insights and assistance, and should be involved in reviewing the draft. The meaning of the ordinance should be clear to them, not just to staff. Planning board members can also be asked to play devil's advocate and thoroughly explore various possible interpretations of the draft. This extra time and work often pays off. If you know of any interested individuals or groups, ask them to participate. Consider how application of the ordinance will affect them. Are there any unintended consequences that may result from adoption of the ordinance? Get input from your town, city, or county attorneys' office as early as possible. At a minimum they need to review the draft before it is scheduled or warned for public hearing. Finally, don't bring the draft to a public hearing before your local governing body unless its members have been briefed in advance and have had a chance to provide their feedback. 4. Use a Check List Create a check list to review each draft. The check list should include tips from this article and the procedural requirements of your ordinance. 5. Proofread, and Proofread Again After reading several drafts of an ordinance, it becomes difficult to see errors in typing, numbering, or other items. It can be very helpful to have someone proofread who hasn't been involved in the drafting. 6. Keep Good Records Communities often have a wide range of discretion in adopting local ordinances. However, the community must also comply with procedural due process requirements. Often litigants will allege violations of due process when they challenge the resulting ordinance. Documentation of compliance can reduce the likelihood of such litigation. It is also very helpful to record minutes from ordinance discussions that are held prior to the public hearing. This information can provide the basis for the ordinance and should be included as background information in the public hearing staff report. ... second half of article continues with Tips on the Mechanics of Drafting an Ordinance

order & download full article $3.25 (single copy license)
order & download full article $10.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

A Conversation With Carolyn Braun

We've already introduced you to several of our new contributing writers: Beth Humstone, Dave Stauffer, Wendy Grey, and Gwendolyn Hallsmith. We're concluding today with a conversation with Carolyn Braun who is also joining us. Carolyn has been the long-time Planning Director for the City of Anoka, Minnesota, in the Twin Cities area. Earlier, she served as a project planner with the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota. 

Like Beth and Dave, Carolyn has also served as a planning commissioner, in her case for thirteen years, including eight as chair. She's also past President of the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association. Carolyn's article in the just published Spring issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal is "Drafting Clear Ordinances: Dos and Don’ts" -- more about that in a minute. She's also previously written for the PCJ, with "What Planners Do" in our Summer 2004 issue, and "Planning from Different Perspectives" in the Fall 1996 PCJ. 

Wayne: As I just noted, you started your career in planning by serving on a planning commission. How did that happen?

Carolyn: I first became interested when by brother-in-law would tell stories of his experiences on the planning commission. Some of his stories made me frustrated -- a few of them had me outraged. So, I volunteered to be on the Planning Commission. After I was put on the commission, I realized that my brother-in-law has a tendency to exaggerate. However, by then, I was "hooked on land use."

Serving as a planning commissioner is a very good way to learn about your community, to impact development in your community, to help shape policy, and to make connections with community members.

Wayne: You're planning director for the City of Anoka, Minnesota. Can you tell us a little about Anoka and the kinds of planning and land use issues you're dealing with?

Carolyn: Anoka is a historic developed community that was once a free-standing community and is now a third-ring suburb. The city is located at the confluence of the Mississippi and Rum Rivers, which served as the original reason for development -- water transportation and commerce.

Today Anoka is a microcosm of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolis. We deal mostly with redevelopment issues: eminent domain, brownfields, aging infrastructure, and changing land uses. The city owns 265 acres of vacant, undeveloped land next to the Rum River, 200 acres of which was preserved through a conservation easement. 

Planning for the remaining 65 acres is in the early stages. We also spend a lot of time on transportation, including the need for an interchange that will impact a developed commercial and residential area, and our new commuter rail station. 

And finally, as an older community, we spend a lot of time on code enforcement -- property maintenance, rental licensing and, to a lesser extent, zoning. Compliance issues are often exacerbated by outdated and vague regulations so we spend a lot of time revising codes for everything from A (animals) to Z (zoning regulations). 

Wayne: Well that provides a good segue into talking about your Spring article for the Planning Commissioners Journal, "Drafting Clear Ordinances: Dos and Don’ts." What sort of role can planning commissioners play in ordinance drafting, or should they just leave it to their staff?

Carolyn: Planning commissioners can play a very important role in creating clear ordinances. Commissioners are the sounding board for the general public. If the commission can’t understand the ordinance, it is likely the public won’t understand it either. Commissioners can also help the staff think through the purpose of the ordinance: What are we trying to accomplish? Will this regulation work? Will it achieve our desired outcome? 

Wayne: You also write about the importance of avoiding gender-specific language. You suggest, for example, changing the word "draftsman" to "drafter" or "manpower" to "personnel" or "workforce." Why is it worth taking the time to switch from more traditional terminology to these gender-neutral words?

Carolyn: Gender-neutral language is intended to include everyone, male and female. Since ordinances apply to everyone, gender-neutral language seems more appropriate. The same intent can be achieved by using him/her, he/she, etc. However, if there is one word that describes everyone in a particular situation, for example, "workforce," why not use it and make your ordinance clearer? 

Wayne: From your experience both as a planning commissioner and as a planning director, is there any particular piece of advice you'd care to share with commissioners?

Carolyn: Sit back, relax and listen. It takes a while to understand the process and the jargon. The best way to learn is to read the information and ask questions. In particular, the staff is there to help you so take advantage of that resource.

Wayne: Are there ways in which planning commissions can best position themselves to take a productive leadership role in their community?

Carolyn: First, commissioners need to do their homework and become the land use "experts" for their council [elected officials]. Over time, the council may come to rely on them. Also, participate in other community programs, activities of other boards, and so on, to understand the pulse of the community and how the regulations that you create affect citizens. Finally, be fair -- set a standard of fairness and the equal application of  rules and laws. 

Wayne: Let me close by asking you another question I've posed to our other new contributing writers. Is there a book you've read in the past year or two that you'd particularly recommend to planning commissioners?

Carolyn: I read a lot of books about “change” because change and dealing with change is at the core of planning. My recent favorite is the new Chip and Dan Heath book Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard.

Take a Density Quiz

Dan Zack, the Downtown Coordinator for Redwood City, California, has put together a quite interesting photo quiz on the density of various residential buildings -- primarily in Redwood City and Palo Alto. It's the type of quiz you might want to try in your own city or region. See if there are lessons you can draw from Zack's 11-minute long presentation. At the very least, you'll get a tour of parts of these two communities (with a few stops elsewhere).

I emailed Dan Zack and asked him what reaction he's received to the density quiz. Here's his reply:

I'm really happy to say that the presentation has changed the conversation among the people who have seen it. One of my main goals was to reset people's density "scale." I've seen people protest a project that was only 4 units per acre as being too dense. Sorry, but that's not dense. I'll show you dense! Also, it has given the people who have seen it a clear understanding that ugly might be low in density, and really attractive stuff might be unbelievably dense. Likewise, they understand that tall doesn't necessarily equal dense.

Zack also went on to provide four very useful tips if you're interested in putting together a similar density quiz for your community:

1. Try to use as many local examples as possible. This diffuses the "sure it works in (insert any city other than your own here), but we are sooooo different and it won't work for us" argument.

2. Don't be afraid to show REALLY dense projects in the quiz. Give people a sense of the actual spectrum of density that exists out there. If you limit the high end of your spectrum to 30 du/ac because you're afraid of freaking people out, then later when a nice townhouse project just off of the Main Street comes in at 40 du/ac, it will look psychotically dense to them. In reality, 40 du/ac is pretty moderate, when you look at the range of things on the ground in our country. So if your quiz includes a few nice projects that are over 100 or 200 (or 300) du/ac, then 40 can be seen for what it really is: not too radical, and possibly just right depending on the situation.

3. Stick with net du/ac figures. That is how projects are measured for zoning/development application purposes, and that is what is on public hearing notices that people will receive, so that is what they need to understand. Don't muddy the waters by mixing gross du/ac or persons per square mile figures into our quiz.

4. Don't try to be slick and come up with a fancy new word for density. That dang word is in every zoning ordinance in the country, and we can't get away from it. We need to redefine it and take it back, rather than hiding from it and calling it something like "compactness." People figure it out pretty quickly when you're hiding something, and then they won't trust you. Deal with it head on, and clear away the myths and misconceptions.

Take a look also at Dan Zack's complete 50 minute video presentation, "Delightful Density: the case for housing density."

For those of you taking the time to read this, we also invite you to download a complimentary pdf of an article we recently published in the Planning Commissioners Journal,  "Getting the Density You Want," by Beth Humstone (who will also be joining us as a regular contributing writer).

Finally, take a look at the "Density Resources" page posted here on the PlannersWeb.

J is for Justice

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

 "Justice" implies the execution of public policy through due process of law and in accord with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the American system of justice, the ultimate arbiter is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Undoubtedly the most significant Supreme Court decision of the 19th century for planning was Munn v. Illinois, decided in 1877. Ira Munn, a Chicago grain warehouse owner, challenged the State of Illinois' setting of maximum rates for the storage of grain. Munn argued that the law deprived him of his property rights in violation of the 14th Amendment. In finding in favor of Illinois, the Court, however, ruled that:

"When one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created."

This ruling provided the legal foundation for all land-use and zoning controls that followed. It answered the query still heard in public meetings throughout the country, "What right does the government have to tell me what I can do with my property!"

Clearly, the Supreme Court decision of the 20th century that had the greatest impact on planned community development was the 1926 Euclid v. Ambler ruling. In Euclid, the Court supported comprehensive zoning -– the public control of land uses, heights of buildings, and setbacks and yards all in a single ordinance and for the entire area of jurisdiction. This ruling opened the door for communities across the country to engage in zoning and use it as the primary tool for plan implementation.

The term "justice," however, involves more than just an examination of whether an action is Constitutional. It also involves consideration of whether an action is fair.

In the decades preceding the 1960s, land use and development policies did not commonly address the question of fairness. Few questions were asked as to biases and inequities in the exercise of community development practices. But the mass dislocation of citizens of color -- and the poor of all colors -- precipitated by the Urban Renewal clearance projects and Interstate Highway construction programs of the late 1950s and early 1960s (coupled with zoning practices that severely curtailed alternative housing options for those dislocated) generated a movement among planners that called into question the "justice" of community planning and its practices.

The link between regional development and justice came to a head in Cleveland, Ohio. During the 1970s, Cleveland lost over 400,000 people, as well-to-do residents streamed to surrounding suburban communities. This left the city with a high percentage of its population at or below the poverty level. The Cleveland City Planning Commission and its staff, headed by then Planning Director Norman Krumholz, positioned themselves as advocates of "equity planning."

Cleveland's planners used information concerning the city and region to publicize inequities and to support regional and central city strategies designed to address impediments to the attainment of a more just society. As the Commission put it in its 1975 Cleveland Policy Planning Report: "Equity requires that locally-responsible government institutions give priority attention to the goal of promoting a wider range of choices for those Cleveland residents who have few, if any, choices. ... The Commission merely affirms what has been advocated consistently throughout history: that equity in the social, economic and political relationships among men is a requisite condition for a just and lasting society."

---

For more on zoning and property rights issues, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

A Question of Balance

The Property Rights Challenge: What's A Planner to Do?

What's So Bad About Zoning?

American Zoning & the Physical Isolation of Uses

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

F is for Farmland

Automobile | Budget | Comp Plan | Design | Ecology | Farmland | Growth Management | Historic Preservation | Inclusionary | Justice | Knowledge | Land Subdivision | Maps | Neighborhood | Open Space | Public Health & Safety | Quiet | Regional Planning | Sustainable | Takings | Urban Sprawl | Vision | Water | X-rated Uses | Zoning

order & download the complete Planning ABC's

---

Maintaining productive agricultural soils has been the basis for the economic and cultural growth of most nation states. In America, however, farmland preservation efforts have gained momentum only fairly recently. For years, the accepted practice was to show agricultural fields and woodlands on land use maps as "white -- undeveloped." The plain message was that these properties were blank slates waiting to be filled with higher and better uses.

Another significant cause of the loss of farmland has been our property tax system, which views farmland in close proximity to new residential and commercial development as the natural extension of the expanding city. It assigns a speculative future value to those sites -- and then taxes that speculative increase before it is realized. This tax burden falls on the farm owner. As a result, farmers are often driven to sell their land to speculators.

The all-too-common result has been that as metropolitan centers expand, they not only chew away the farmland, but surround and destroy the life of small farm villages in their regional hinterland. 

As regional planning pioneer Benton MacKaye showed as far back as the 1920s, this does not have to be the case. Through effective regional planning, this smothering suburban development can be directed to the spaces beyond and between existing rural villages, maintaining their economy and character.

While farmland is still being lost at too rapid a pace in most metropolitan areas, agricultural land preservation is increasingly being recognized as a major component of state, regional, and local planning policy. Among the techniques planners are using to preserve farmland:

Large-lot zoning. Where the urban center is still remote, where farms are still large, where the land is superior in its productivity, where there is consensus in support of maintaining the rural life style (and where state law permits), land can be zoned for agriculture use, with subdivision limited through the use of large minimum lot sizes (sometimes, 160 acres or more).

Urban service limits. The path of future development can be redirected, relocating the pressure to develop to areas less destructive of farm life. This can be done by limiting the prime growth-supporting facilities, such as road access and utilities, to other areas. Lexington, Kentucky, used this device as long ago as 1958 to direct city expansion away from the famous "blue grass" horse farms. An urban service limit was established that denied improved roads, utilities, and other services to areas near the horse farms, but assured them in other sectors.

Purchase of development rights. A public agency (or a non-profit) can purchase a farm parcel's development rights. This leaves the property privately owned and in farm use. Purchase of development rights, while expensive, can be effective when used to preserve critical farm parcels.

Transfer of development rights (TDRs). In this approach, farm land is zoned for very low density development, but farm owners can transfer (and receive payment for) valuable development rights to their property. These development rights, in turn, are acquired by landowners in other parts of the jurisdiction. This permits the farmer to reap the benefits of land speculation and still continue farming on land now taxed only on its value for agriculture. The most widespread use of TDRs has been in Montgomery County, Maryland, and the New Jersey Pinelands (pdf file).

---

For more on agricultural land preservation, see the following articles from the Planning Commissioners Journal:

Farmland Protection: What's Behind the Growing Interest?

Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Farmland and Open Space

Putting Growth In Its Place With Transfer of Development Rights

Building Your Planning Process from the Ground Up

---

Text by Laurence C. Gerckens, FAICP. Illustration by Paul Hoffman.
Text & illustration copyright Champlain Planning Press, Inc. | contact: pcjoffice@gmail.com

Farmland Protection - What's Behind the Growing Interest?

Why more towns, cities, and counties are recognizing the benefits of farmland protection, and some of the strategies being used to keep land in agricultural use. by Keith Schneider; from PCJ #63 (Summer 2006); 8 pages

A farm in Leelanau, Michigan. Purchase of development rights programs have grown increasingly popular in Michigan, and across the country, as part of local efforts to preserve farmland. Read first part of article: to order & download complete article, scroll to end of post LOWELL, MI - As it happened, the rain stopped on May 15, 2006, the morning that a caravan of late model vehicles dropped a swirl of local dignitaries, including a state senator, one of Michigan's wealthiest philanthropists, and two TV reporters on Lloyd Flanagan's farm in the green countryside 25 miles from Grand Rapids. Mr. Flanagan, a sturdy man whose family raised crops and livestock since 1947 on the corner of 4 Mile Road and Lake Murray Avenue, greeted his guests with a smile and a hearty handshake. In this part of West Michigan modesty is a virtue. Mr. Flanagan listened quietly, shifting his weight and fingering the bill of his worn baseball cap as speakers extolled the farm's natural beauty, the family's good work, and the $580,000 that Kent County raised to buy the development rights and make sure 145 acres of good Flanagan ground would be forever used solely for agriculture. At the program's end, Mr. Flanagan and his wife, Kathleen, who have two sons and a daughter, received a handsome sign commemorating the occasion. "It's been in the family all these years," Mr. Flanagan said afterwards. "I want it preserved. I want to see it stay a farm and see it set up so my son can take over." The ceremony, gracious in its simplicity, marked the second farm permanently protected by Kent County's four-year-old Farmland Preservation Program. But what was most significant was the event's location in a county that not only is among the largest farm producers in Michigan, but also is among the state's fastest growing and most politically conservative. Here in a region where mixing the basic ingredients of farmland preservation -- open ground, government oversight, and public spending -- often arouses considerable ire, a new and much more supportive attitude about the value of farms, farmers, and farmland is quickly developing. The switch in allegiance is as evident in this part of Michigan as it is in countless other regions of the nation where local and state campaigns to protect farmland have surmounted partisan, class, race, and political impediments to become a powerful, though little noticed economic and political movement in the United States. From New England to southern California, Florida to Washington state, and countless places in between, local planning officials are teaming up with elected leaders, non-profit conservancies, and the farm community to spend nearly $500 million annually to preserve more than 400,000 acres of orchard and crop land, according to farmland conservancies. Though the nation's farmland protection efforts also include enacting new zoning rules, taking steps to enhance farm profitability, and enforcing state right-to-farm laws in order to help farmers stay in business, paying farmers to permanently set aside land solely for agriculture is seen as far and away the most effective solution to farmland loss. The reason? "It's voluntary," says Eric Larson, executive director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau, who's working to establish a farmland protection program in southern California, in one of the nation's largest farm counties. "The other important element is it doesn't cost much. It's much less expensive than building roads and sewers and all the other costs that come out of land development." ... article continues over next seven pages with discussion of farmland conservation strategies.

order & download full article $5.25 (single copy license)
order & download full article $23.25 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

It's a Wonderful City!

 You've got to see this video to believe it. It's a wacky takeoff of "It's a Wonderful Life" that only planners from Beverly Hills could create. Yes, it's a bit longer than most of our Friday video shorts, but it's a video I think you'll find entertaining -- especially if you're a planner or planning commissioner!

You'll meet George Buildley, Harry, Mary, and, of course, Clarence. It starts when George learns he needs to have a planned addition reviewed by the Planning Department. In response, George cries out: "I wish there was no planning department ... I wish the gosh darn Planning Department never existed." And his wish comes true. Then see what George discovers. Written & directed by Richard Gale.

TransForm Baltimore

 Interesting zoning proposals under consideration in Baltimore, Maryland. This following article from the Baltimore Sun provides some background; for more details, go to the Transform Baltimore web site.

Read full article: New zoning would protect views of iconic buildings, by  Lorraine Mirabella (Baltimore Sun, Jan. 8, 2010)

Excerpts: "Baltimore's downtown would include designated districts that are defined by unique building structures, and regulations would prohibit blocking views of the city's iconic structures under a proposed vision for future development.

City planners offered preliminary ideas on Thursday for new rules and guidelines to replace downtown's zoning regulations, which haven't been updated in nearly 40 years. The new zoning also would prohibit any new surface parking lots. The proposals will be incorporated into a new zoning code for the entire city through the Transform Baltimore initiative.

'This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity ... to not be bound by the current rules and to improve urban design quality of the region,' said Thomas J. Stosur, the city's planning director. 'We need to address what is on the ground, but we can heighten the quality of the end product. This is a critical moment.' "

"It's Time to Build a Snowman ... Well, Not So Fast"

 We'll be taking some time off till January 3rd -- so we need to get you our Friday video short early this week. But actually that works out well since the video is a Holiday Greeting card. It's from Ned Ledbetter, a senior zoning enforcement officer. I think after you see it you'll want to share the link with other planners AND anyone on your staff who handles zoning enforcement. Take a look at the short video, then read about it below.

The video is the work of Gontram Architecture, Inc., of Raleigh, North Carolina. I asked Eddie Gontram, a principal of the firm, what was behind this unique holiday greeting. His reply: "We came up with the idea to produce the video this past Fall. In years past, we sent out custom-designed greeting cards for the Holidays that featured a project from that year. This year, we wanted to do something a bit more fun, creative, and unique. We also saw the waste created by greeting cards, and the relatively short lifespan associated with them. We decided to do a video. Then, while brainstorming for ideas, we decided to look at the simple winter activity of building a snowman, and what would happen if the Zoning Code applied to building a snowman."

Gontram adds, "The response has been truly amazing  While we sort of adopted a 'duck and cover' posture once we sent it out, we were hopeful that any zoning or inspections staff that viewed it would have a sense of humor. The very first comment came from a plans examiner, 'If it weren't so close to the truth, I'd have been offended rather than amused.' Several others viewed it, then forwarded it to their entire organization."

To share this video with others, use the Share This link below.

Backyard Burials

Can you be buried in your backyard? What does your local zoning ordinance say? My guess is that most planning commissioners have never given it a thought. But as noted land use lawyer Dwight Merriam observes in a recent posting on the International Municipal Lawyers Association blog, " 'Natural burial' is emerging – sustainability, if you will, when life is no longer sustainable." It's a short blog posting worth reading -- and be sure you read the great quote from town attorney John S. Bennet at the end (who says attorneys don't have a sense of humor).

Also, fyi, I co-authored an article a few years ago in the Planning Commissioners Journal, "Planning for Cemeteries" (read excerpts; article can be ordered & downloaded). 

Backyard Burials (use link to read full blog posting) 

I am prompted to report on this issue by a news item last week. A Baptist minister in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, buried his 18-year-old son, who died three days after a car crash on July 12, in the backyard of the pastor’s church.  While state law doesn’t prohibit this, some county and local ordinances do, and this county, Fayette County, only allows burials on large parcels zoned for agricultural use.  The church has only five acres and is in a residential zone. ...

The question really is what is an appropriate standard for small, informal burial grounds?  When was the last time you looked at your burial regulations and had a discussion about them?  Do they prohibit scattering of cremated remains and memorial gardens for such remains?  If so, why? 

Individual Article Downloads From Our Fall Issue Now Available

Subscribe to the Planning Commissioners Journal, and start with our Fall issue. Order online, or call our office: 802-864-9083. Note: government orders can call and request to be invoiced. OR order a print copy of the issue for $17.75 -- delivered by first-class mail OR download a copy of this issue for $16.75 (or $75.00 for license to print up to 20 copies) OR download individual articles from our Fall issue -- click on article titles below, and then use the download article button
Contents of our Fall 2009 issue
	Zoning for Religious Institutions by Eric Damian Kelly, Esq., FAICP The impact of zoning regulations on religious institutions is a complex and evolving area of law. A primer on key issues citizen and professional planners should be familiar with.
Planning for Public Transportation in Rural Communities by Hannah Twaddell There's a strong need for public transportation in rural communities -- with benefits both for individuals and local economies.
	Stand by Your Plan by Jim Segedy, FAICP, and Lisa Hollingsworth-Segedy, AICP Ten tips to help you better prepare and implement your community's long-range plan.
The Role for Planning in Sustainable Communities by Elaine Cogan Communities throughout the country are see growing interest in sustainable development. Some ideas on how to take sustainability into account.
	Where's Art in Planning? (free download; use link to download article as pdf file) by Ric Stephens It's rare that art is considered relevant to planning -- and that's unfortunate.
Considering the Regional Impacts of Local Actions by C. Gregory Dale, FAICP Do we have an ethical responsibility to take into account the regional impacts of local land use decisions?
	CircleTheUSA Three reports from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville's travels: -- are Cleveland, Ohio, planners' new strategies for the reuse of vacant land realistic? -- how a Detroit, Michigan, suburb is seeking to reshape its future. -- why regional planners in northwest Indiana are focusing on 46 miles of lakeshore.

Recent Back Issues:	Special Focus Issues:
Summer 2009: Libraries at the Heart of Our Communities | Learn to Speak So People Will Listen | Are We There Yet? | Circle the USA Reports | and more	Winter 2006: Bright Ideas: 21 creative planning-related ideas & programs you should know about
Spring 2009: Getting the Density You Want | Growing Safer: Improving Roadways for Everyone | Dialing for Citizens | Learning to Enjoy Your Service on the Commission | and more	Fall 2005: This Land Is Your Land: on "takings" and property rights, and how planners can respond
Winter 2009: Managing Stormwater Runoff: A Green Infrastructure Approach | Taking Low Impact Development from Research to Regulations | The ABC's of Transit-Oriented Development | and more	Fall 2004: Back to School for Planners: on the impacts of school location, and the relationship between planning and school boards
Fall 2008: Pattern Books: A Planning Tool | GIS & Planning | Where Do We Want to Go? | and more	Spring 2004: Sphere of Influence: water and its impacts
Summer 2008: Greenways | Developing at the Edge | An Introduction to Charrettes | and more	Fall 2003: Planning for Historic Preservation: an introduction to historic preservation planning
Spring 2008: Car Sharing | Revisiting Ex Parte Contacts | Chairing the Commission | and more	Winter 2002: Opening the Door: planning for affordable housing
Winter 2008: Downtown Futures: continuing a series of reports from planners across the U.S., focusing on downtown issues	Spring 2000: The Promise of America: an historical look at 10 successes & 10 failures that having affected America's cities

Reports from Leg 2 of "Circle The USA"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

I'm back from the second segment of my planned "Circle the USA" travels, covering Detroit; Troy and Flint, Michigan; and Elkhart County and northwestern Indiana.

 

I've filed the following reports. Take a look, and sign up for our Circle the USA blog feed and/or email updates.

 

-- When Rouge Turned Green

-- Preservation or Demolition?

-- Campus Martius Park in Downtown Detroit

-- A Suburb Plans for Change

-- Not Giving Up on Flint, I

-- Not Giving Up on Flint, II

-- Good or Bad Signs in Indiana?

-- A Main Street Succeeds in Tough Times

-- Planning for 46 Miles of Lakeshore

My next segment will include several days in the Chicago area, followed by stops in Kankakee County, Illinois; Dubuque, Iowa; and southern Wisconsin.

 

Again, check out our Circle the USA web site where announcements and reports will be posted.