|
<br />RESOURCES
<br />
<br />PUBLICATIONS
<br />. BabcDck, Richard. 1966. The Zoninff Game: Municipal
<br />Practices and Policies.
<br />. Delaney, JDhn J., Charles M. Haar, and TheDdDre C. Taub.
<br />2DD8. "Maryland's Highest CDUrt Opines Dn the
<br />RelatiDnship between Plans and DevelDpment DecisiDns."
<br />Planning & Environmenta1 Law, July.
<br />. DiMentD, JDseph F. 198D. The Consistency Doctrine and the
<br />Limits of Planninff. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager,
<br />Gunn, and Hain.
<br />. Haar, Charles M. 1955. "In AccDrdance with a
<br />CDmprehensive Plan." Harvard Law Review.
<br />. LincDln, RDbert. 1996. "Implementing the CDnsistency
<br />DDctrine," The Growinff Smart Working Papers, VDI. 1, PAS
<br />RepDrt ND. 462/463. ChicagD: American Planning AssDciatiDn.
<br />. Mandelker, Daniel R. 2DD2. A Report on Planning in New
<br />Orleans. Prepared fDr the New Orleans MasterPlan
<br />CDalition Oanuary 14,2DD2). Available at
<br />http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/newDrl.htm.
<br />. _' "The RDle Dfthe LDcal CDmprehensive Plan in Land
<br />Use RegulatiDn." 1976. Michigan Law Review.
<br />. Mandelker, Daniel R., and A. Dan TarlDck. 1992. "Shifting
<br />the Presumption Df ConstitutiDnality in Land Use Law,"
<br />Urban Lawyer, January.
<br />,. Meck, Stuart. 20DD. "The Legislative Requirement that
<br />ZDning and Land Use Controls Be CDnsistentwith an
<br />Independently AdDpted LDcal CDm'prehensive Plan: A
<br />MDdel Statute." Washington University Law and Policy
<br />journal, March.
<br />. Netter, Edith M., and JDhn Vranicar. 1981. Linking Plans
<br />and Regulations: Local Responses to Consistency Laws in
<br />California and Aorida, Planning Advisory Report ND. 363.
<br />ChicagD: American Planning As'sDciatiDn.
<br />. SiemDn, Charles L. 1987. "The ParadDx Df 'In Accmdance With
<br />a CDmprehensive Plan' and PDSt HDC RatiDnalizatiDns: The
<br />Need fDr Efficient and Effective Judicial Review Df Land Use
<br />RegulatiDns," Stetson Law Review.
<br />
<br />STATES
<br />. New Jersey's crDss-acceptance planning prDcess: See'
<br />www.state.nj.us/dep/Dpsc/envcbp.html.
<br />. CalifDrnia: FDr additiDnal infDrmatiDn Dn CD'UrtS' decisiDns
<br />tcidefer tD a city's interpretatiDn and decisiDns regarding
<br />cDnsistency, see Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County
<br />of Mo'nterey, 87 Cal.App~ 4th 99; 142 (2DD1) (citing Walnut
<br />Creek v. County of Contra Costa, lDl Cal. App. 3d 1012, '
<br />1021 (1980)), discussed in Curtin's California Land Use and
<br />Planning Law, 2004, 24th Ed.)
<br />
<br />112
<br />
<br />regarding cDnsistency "because the body which adopted the general plan
<br />policies in its legislative capacity has unique cDmpetence tD interpret
<br />those pDlicies when applying them in an adjudicatory capacity." The CDn-
<br />sistency requirement addresses future growth. A city is nDt required tD
<br />bring existing public works projects, including neighborhoods and streets,
<br />into cDmpliance with the general plan.
<br />CDncerned about g;reenhDuse gas emissiDns, CalifDrnia legislatDrs are
<br />now cDnsidering new legislatiDn tD require regiDnal transpDrtatiDn plans tD
<br />include a "preferred grDwth scenariD" that must be cDnsistent with state
<br />planning priDrities. After January 2D09, prDjects tD be funded from the
<br />regiDnal transpDrtatiDn improvement prDgrams must be cDnsistent with th~
<br />regiDnal transpDrtatiDn plan. SB 375 includes a definition Df cDnsistency tD
<br />mean that the "capacity DftranspDrtatiDn projects and imprDvements dDes
<br />nDt exceed thatwhich is necessary to prDvide reasDnable service levels tD
<br />the preferred growth scenariD."
<br />Beginning Dn January 1, 201D, WiscDnsin will require the fDllDwing lDcal
<br />land-use actiDns tD be cDnsistent with the cDmprehensive plan:
<br />
<br />. municipal incorppratiDns
<br />· annexatiDns
<br />. cDDperative bDundary agreements
<br />· transpDrtatiDn facilities
<br />· DfficiaLmapping
<br />. impact fees (new Dr amended)
<br />· subdivisiDn regulatiDns
<br />. extraterritorial plat review
<br />. zDning (new Dr amended)
<br />. agricultural preservatiDn plans
<br />. any Dther land-use' Drdinance, plan, Dr regulatiDn.
<br />
<br />Recognizing the difficult discDnnectiDn between water planning and
<br />lan'd-use planning, MinnesDta requires IDcal gDvernments to submit existing
<br />water and related land resources plans and Dfficial cDntrDls tD the cDunty
<br />bDard fDr review when exercising water and related land reSDurces planning
<br />and regulatDry respDnsibility. If the bDard finds incDnsistencies, the IDcal
<br />gDvernment must revise its plans and regulations tD cDnfDrm them tD the
<br />cDunty bDard's recDmmendatiDns.
<br />CDunties in Pennsylvania must prepare cDmprehensive plans (munici-
<br />palities may prepare plans), but a troublesDme provisiDn in the
<br />Municipalities Planning CDde (MPC Sec. 303C) renders comprehensive plans
<br />legally pDwerless.That provisiDn states, "[n]Dtwithstanding any other prDvi~
<br />siDn Dfthis act, nD actiDn by a governing body Df a municipality shall be
<br />invalid nDr shall the same be subject tD challenge Dr appeal Dn the basis that
<br />such actiDn is incDnsistent with, Dr fails tD cDmply with, the provisiDn of the
<br />cDmprehensive plan." Although it was Driginally included in the statute tD
<br />preventfrivDlDus lawsuits, this prDvisiDn has been interpreted tD mean that
<br />CDUrtS and hearing bDards cannot cDnsider the cDmprehensive plan in any
<br />zDning matter.
<br />Other prDvisions Dfthe MPC now require general consistency between
<br />cDunty and IDcal plans and between plans and Drdinances, but SectiDn 3D3C
<br />undercuts thDse requirements. In a repDrt to GovernDr Rendell in May 20D6,
<br />the Pennsylvania State Planning BDard recDmmended that SectiDn 3D3C be
<br />amended by adding a provisiDn that any challenge tD the cDnsistency Df a
<br />zDning Drdinance Dr decisiDn with a cDmprehensive plan and with the cDnsis-
<br />tency Df a multimunicipal Dr cDunty cDmprehensive plan be limited tD man-
<br />damus' and that such challenge Dnly be brDught after a reasDnable time is
<br />allDwed,to make the plans cDnsistent.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 8.08
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6
<br />
|