Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

should not make such decisions in a vacuum. As Professor Charles M. Haar noted more than half a century ago, "in the press of day-to-day determinations in the field of land use, it is vital that there be some concrete unifying fac- tor providing scope and perspective." The comprehensive plan provides that unifying factor. Despite the words of ca. uti on from the drafters.ofthe Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA) arid the Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA) that zoning ordinances should be prepared "in accordance with a com- ., prehensive plan:' a number of preeminent land- use law commentators have pointed out that the connection between the two was called into question from the beginning. This zoning-plan- ning enigma might have resulted from the I.mfor- tun ate fact that the authority to zone contained in the SZEA (i926) preceded the authority to plan in the SCPEA (1928). Many communities enacted zoning ordinances before they ever pre- pared and adopted a comprehensive plan, cre- atingthe analytical disconnection that has spawned a large body of litigation and corre- sponding commentary and analysis on the ql!estion of regulatory consistency. Inconsistencies are the Challenge A dysfunctional planning system has evolved-not by design, but by default-due in large measure to the timing of zoning versus planning enabling legislation and Americans' great deference to local home rule powers. Consider the following inconsistencies: · Outcomes not connected to the plan. Federal, state, regional, and local govern- ments have adopted a multitude of plans, but thousands of incremental decisions directly contradict those plans. . Development regulations (such as zoning, subdivision, and impact fees) not connected to the plan. Many reasons are offered to explain this disconnection, but none are logical in the 21St century: Many communities never prepared a plan and simply adopted regulations in the absence of a plan. Other communities have adopted a plan, but the plan itself does not pro- vide enough clarity or specificity, merely restat- ingthe "feel good" desires of the community iri wishy-washy goals and policies that provide very little guidance when it comes time to write the regulations. . Development decisions and budget expen- ditures inconsistent with the plan. Develop- ment decisions and public expenditures are 110 often uncoordinated, but they need to be linked to the plan. lfthe link is not made, development decisions most likely reflect the short-term expedient response rather than the long-term public interest. · Conflicting plans and regulations within the same jurisdiction. This is the age-old problem of the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing." Particularly in larger metropolitan areas, planning and regulatory functions are so compartmentalized that the DEFINITION OF "CONSISTENCY" A Planner's Dictionary (PAS Report Number 521/522, April 2004) provides three definitions of "consistency." . All regulations that are used to imple- ment the local comprehensive plans must be consistent with the recom- mendations and policies of the plan, and state and local funding decisions must be consistent with the local plan. [Rhode Island Statutes] . Free from variation or contradiction. Programs in the general plan are to be consistent, not contradictory or prefer- ential. State law requires consistency between a general plan.and implemen- tation measures such as the zoning ordinance. [California Planning Roundtable] . Compatibility and agreement with the general plan of the [municipality]. Consistency exists when the standards and criteria of the city general plan are met or exceeded. [Moorpark, California] planning department might be preparing the comprehensive plan and the downtown revi- talization plan while the economic develop- mehtdepartment is preparing the economic development plan and the utility division is preparing the water utility extension plan. One plan advocates infill and limiting sprawl on the ed~e of the community, while the other anticipates where the new water and sewer lines will be extended to accommodate growth on the edge. . Gaps and conflicts between jurisdictions. There are vertical gaps (federal-state- regiOJial-Iocal) and horizontal gaps between different jurisdictions within the same region. One example of a vertical gap occurs when a . state agency issues domestic well permits to owners of substandard-sized lots over the objections of the local government attempting to prevent development on these antiquated parcels. A horizontal gap is often noticeable in regions where local development decisions have tremendous regional impacts that can- not be addressed at the local level or where each community is competing forthe tax rata- bles, zoning for the big box retail develop- ments but not for the affordable housing units. MERGING INTENTION WITH AalONS Robert Lincoln notes that requiring that land- use decisions to be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan serves two com- peting purposes. Rrst, from the macro level, consistency "is seen as a way of improving the results of land-use regulations and public infrastructure investments," focusing on the need for efficiency and environmental protec- tion. At the micro level, consistency"deals with the fairness accorderllandowners and neighbors in the regulatory process" because connecting development decisions to the comprehensive plan is considered a "touch- stone for judicial review and a means of guar- anteeing that political influence is not allowed to run roughshod over the individual or com- munity interests." How should the decision maker, and later the court u.pon appeal, determine whether the requisite connection between the comprehensive plan and the board's land-use decision exists? There are various degrees of consistency. At one end of the spectrum we might ask: Is the land-use decision compatible with the goals and poli- cies in the comprehensive plan? If they are compatible, there is no reason why the land- use decision cannot coexist with those goals arid policies. Continuin.g along the spec- trum, does the land-use decision furtherthe goals and policies in the comprehensive plan? In other words, does the decision make it more likely that the goals and poli- cies will be achieved? They are not just com- patible; one reinforces the other. Rnally, the most stringent inquiry would be to determine whether the land-use deci- sion would by necessity achieve the goals and policies, or implementthe plan. In other words, the decision must not only be compati- ZONINGPRACTICE 8.08 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4