Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Rural residents are known for their skepticism toward govern- <br />ment and rules that limit what they can do with the,ir land. Many <br />rural residents are ca?li-poo[ and land"rich. Their land is often <br />their retirement account, insurance policy, and collateral for bank <br />loans. The idea that they should be able to do what they want <br />with their land is ingrained in rural culture. <br />Federal law has dealt with rural zoning obliquely rather than <br />head-on. Rrst, there is a well-established legal principle from <br />common law that a person cannot use his or her land in ways <br />that harm others. Second, the Village of Euclid, Ohio. v. Ambler <br />Realty case (272 U.S. 365 (1926)), in whiCh the U.S. Supreme <br />Court upheld zoning as a legitimate use ofthe police power, <br />applies to. rural areas as well as to urban and suburban pla'ces. <br />Third, in Agins v. City ofT/buron, 447 U.s: 255 (1980), the Aginses <br />were allowed to build five houses on their five acres, put they <br />charged thatthis was a taking because of the high value ~ftheir <br />property. The U.S. Supreme C;ourt ruled that, "although the [local] <br />ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use <br />of the . . . land, nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of owner- <br />ship." In other words, a reasonable and beneficial economic use <br />of the property remained, and no taking had occurred. <br />Nonetheless, the most common problem with rural zoning. <br />is the delicacy of the takings issue. And as justice Lewis Powell <br /> <br />rallands can be combined with village zoning <br />. that encourages growth to help implement a <br />transfer of development rights (rDR) program. <br />Chesterfield Township, a. rural community in <br />northern Burljngton County, New jersey, <br />adopted a TOR program in 1997 and then <br />made zoning changes to create a 560-acre <br />"receiving. area" that would be developed as a <br />neotraditional settlement.calledOld York <br />Villar;e. Architectural design standards were <br />!'ldded to the township's zoning ordinance to <br />ensure that the residential and commercial <br />buildings are consonant with the architectural <br />styles and details, building materials, and col- <br />ors found in Chesterfield's historic villages. <br />At build out, Old York Village will have <br />1,200 housing units in a variety of attached <br />(duplexes and quads) and detached single- <br />family holisingtypes, a new eiementary <br />school, parks and recreation facilities, and a <br />mixed use village centerwith retail, office, <br />and convenience uses to serve local market <br />neelis. The village will contain affordable <br />. housing to meetthe township'sstate-man- <br />dated Council on Affordable Housing fair- <br />share requirement. Also, the New jersey State <br />Pian calls for groWth within "rural plarming <br /> <br />wrote in the Agins case, "[N]o precise rule determines when <br />property has beentaken." <br />State laws and legal rulings abou.t rural zoningvary consid- <br />erably, although zoning is generally legitimate if it advances a <br />state .legislative purpose. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state <br />supreme court recently ruled that farmland is "developed land" <br />and not vacant land (petition of Dolington Land Group and Toll <br />Brothers from the Decision of the ZHB of Upper Makefield <br />Township, 839 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Dec. 30, 2003)). Pennsylvania <br />courts have also upheld agricultural zoning (see Boundary Drive. <br />Associates v. Shrewsbury Township Board of Supervisors, 507 Pa. <br />481,491 A.2d 86 (PA 1985)); By contrast; Connecticut does not <br />allow agricultural zoning. The point is that zoning that might be <br />considered a taking in one state may not be in another. <br />A further complication arises from the compensation laws <br />that have been passed in 26 states. These laws require a govern- <br />ment agency to pay compensation to landowners. if a government <br />regulation reduces the value of the landowners'"property beyond <br />a certain percentage. Although very few compensation caSeS <br />have occurred, the effect of these laws has been to deter local <br />g~vemments from downzoning private property. As a result, rural <br />residential sprawl continues to be a threat in many places, to the <br />c;letriment of village-so <br /> <br /> <br />llonkoIoWn " <br />T~ <br /> <br />~~~~J ~.~ <br />~~~ij~rid. U$e a ~o!ling <br />c~~eltiTowrisl1ip " <br />Burllnglon Coimly. NJ <br /> <br />~.c.-mJN.Jm,r,"'TZ <br /> <br />f <br />EO <br />0' <br />[ <br />-6" <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />ZONING PRACTICE 11.08 <br />AMERICAN PIJINNING ASSOCIATION I page 5 7 9 <br />