|
<br />
<br />ally articulate whether or not they are willing
<br />to treat all units arising from' upzonings as
<br />bonus units and therefore subject to a tDR
<br />requirement. If so, the CAC can develop recom-
<br />mendations on all the components outlined
<br />above-what areas should qualify as sending
<br />sites, what should constitute preservation,
<br />how many TORs should be granted to pre-
<br />served land, how many bonus units should be
<br />awarded perTDR, and if developers should be
<br />given a choice of compliance though cash-in-
<br />lieu payments as well as TDRs. These aren't
<br />snap decisions by any means. But they are
<br />considerably easier than those needed when a
<br />
<br />Cover photo: West Hempfield Township,
<br />Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, uses
<br />TOR to save prime agricultural land,
<br />sensitive environmental areas, and
<br />community character, as represented by
<br />this covered bridge over Chickies Creek.
<br />(g,Copyright 2006 by Rick Pruetz;
<br />design concept by Lisa Barton.
<br />
<br />community embarks on a plan-amending TOR
<br />program like the one described for Chester-
<br />field, New Jersey.
<br />Again, plan-consistentTDR is not neces-
<br />sarily right for all communities. But it can cre-
<br />ate a workable preservation tool, in one year
<br />or less, in communities that are TOR-ready.
<br />
<br />RESOURCES
<br />
<br />www.BeyondTakingsAndGivings.com.
<br />
<br />Daniels, Tom. 2007. "Zoning for Successful
<br />Transferable Development Rights
<br />Programs." Zoning Practice, December.
<br />
<br />McConnell, Virginia, Margaret Walls"
<br />and Francis Kelly. 2007. Mar.kets for
<br />Preserving Farmland in Maryland:
<br />Making TOR Programs Work Better.
<br />Queenstown: Maryland Center for
<br />Agroecology.
<br />
<br />Pruetz, Rick. 2003. Beyond Takings
<br />and Givings: Saving Natural Areas,
<br />Farmland and Historic Landmarks with
<br />Transfer of Development Rights and
<br />Density Transfer Charges. Marina Del
<br />Rey, Calif.: Arje Press.
<br />
<br />Pruetz, Rick, and Noah Standridge. 2009.
<br />"What Makes Transfer of Development
<br />Rights Work? Success Factors from
<br />Research and Practice." Journal of the
<br />American Planning Association, 75(1):
<br />78-87.
<br />
<br />Roddewig, Richard J., and Cheryl
<br />A. Inghram. 1987. Transferable
<br />Development Rights. Planning Advisory
<br />Service Report no. 401. Chicago:
<br />American Planning Association.
<br />
<br />Walls, Margaret, and Virginia McConnell,
<br />2007. Transfer of Development Rights
<br />in U.s. Communities: Evaluating
<br />Program Design, Implementation,. and
<br />Outcomes. Washington, DC: Resources
<br />forthe Future.
<br />
<br />
<br />ZONING REVIEWS
<br />
<br />ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND
<br />HOUSING COSTS
<br />
<br />ArthurC. Nelson, FAlcP,)ohn Randolph,
<br />Joseph M. Schilling, Jonathan Logan, James
<br />M. McElfish Jr., and Newport Partners, LLC
<br />(2009; Island Press; 262 pp.; $35)
<br />
<br />The effects of traditional zoning and subdivi-
<br />sion controls on housing costs have been well
<br />documented in recent decades, but until now,
<br />relatively little was known about what impact
<br />environmental regulations have on housing
<br />afford ability. According to the authors of En-
<br />vironmental Regulations and Housing Costs,
<br />the effect of environmental regulations on the
<br />cost of residential development has changed
<br />little in the past 30 years, despite assump-
<br />tions to the contrary. While the authors do not
<br />deny the reality that all regulations add cost
<br />to the development process, they use data
<br />gathered from a case study of Metropolitan
<br />Washington, D.C., and focus groups in Dallas,
<br />Denver, and Tucson to make the case that 'the
<br />magnitud'e and nature of these costs as they
<br />relate to stormwater controls, site remedia-
<br />tion, wetlands permitting, habitat protection,
<br />and open space set asides has been mischarac-
<br />terized and misunderstood. Nelson et at. offer
<br />some much-needed ammunition for local
<br />planners on the front lines of the fight over
<br />, land-use controls, but the authors punt on
<br />the issue of how to increase efficiencies in
<br />the development review process as a means
<br />to decrease the overall costs of regulatory
<br />compliance.
<br />
<br />VOL. 26, NO.9
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $75 (U.S.) and $100 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, FAICP, Executive Director; William R. Klein, AICP,
<br />Director of Research
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley, AICP, Editors;
<br />Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production.
<br />
<br />Copyright@2oo9 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago,
<br />IL 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.,
<br />Washington, D.C. 20036; www.planning.org.
<br />
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any
<br />means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
<br />retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 9.09
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 7
<br />
<br />101
<br />
|