|
AUGUST 1998
<br />
<br />AMERICAN
<br />PLANNING
<br />ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br /> Zombi: ::. ' nities
<br />
<br /> Few ~- c,~,:s v,~c such sudden, jarring changes in the urban
<br /> land~,;cape as ::atural dia~ters. But few other even;s ~so
<br />produce t!:e same longing gr a return to the securiW of the
<br />~iliar, which often m~ns returning to existing land-use
<br />patterns. In that contrast lies ~e source of the pattern of
<br />~epetitive damage that a~icts many communities, whether the
<br />danger be from flooding, fires, violent storms, or the trembling
<br />of the earth.
<br />But ~ a forthcoming PAS Repo~, P~nning~r PosoDh~ter
<br />Recove~ andRecons~ction, points out, communities that fail to
<br />seize the opportuniW to reshape ~eir patterns of development
<br />in the akermath of natur~ dis~ters are prone to repeat the
<br />mist~es of the p~t. While it is seldom possible to address eve~
<br />problem created by the dis~ter, it is possible to target strategic
<br />opportunities through the creative ~e of planning and zoning.
<br />~is issue of Zoning News, drawing on that report, which is
<br />Wonsored by the Feder4 Emergen~ M~agement ~en~
<br />~E~), discusses SFeCific zoning techniques that can be used
<br />~ the a~ermath of namrat disasters to redress obvious
<br />~inerabilities in the communiw ~ well ~ to help rebuild a
<br />more vibrant and dis-~ter-resistant loc~ economy.
<br />
<br /> Defining Pos}~Distaster Objectives
<br />Planning in the aftermath of a disaster often has the same focus
<br />that everyday planning has in normal times, but, after a disaster,
<br />there is a special urgency to that planning. Time is of the
<br />essence because people and businesses understandably want to
<br />resume normal lives and operations as soon as possible. This
<br />~ense of urgency tends to stifle discussion of new and creative
<br />options for rebuilding the community, including the
<br />consideration of needed zoning changes, which often require
<br />precious time for deliberation and enactment by the local
<br />~-ounciI. That is what makes predisaster planning so important.
<br />It can be done before that sense of urgency and its emotional
<br />and political force rule out deliberation.
<br /> With tl~ose realities in mind, planners can identify a handful
<br />of major objectives that should be considered as the impetus for
<br />zoning i.)o!icies either enacted following, or taking effect because
<br />of, a hart:c;-.[ disaster. Each of these dictates the use of specific
<br />zoning toc:s that will be highlighted below,
<br /> The n:ost obvious it the need to use land-use policy to steer
<br />developme_nt away from hazardous areas or at least to minimize
<br />the threat posed by natural hazards to any development or
<br />redevelopmcnc that docs occur in those areas. Planners can
<br />achieve this most easil>, ::' l~e community has made hazard
<br />mitigation ar: o:~going ::: ':: ::'.,¢ rather than waiting for a
<br />disaster to t.,';gt c:~ ::<: .... :d:asis. The zoning needed to deal
<br />with the irnpac:$:: r : : : :: can then take effect as a result of
<br />the disaster i:sc'.:.. ::k.:, thc use of'devices such as
<br />floating zo~cs :,: - ::h:,n of existing policy on
<br />
<br />nonconforming uses, or through preestablished policies that
<br />mandate a review of land uses in disaster-stricken areas. This last
<br />approach can be incorporated into a local comprehensive plan
<br />element on natural hazards by including a section outlining how
<br />planners will make practical use of new land-use lessons learned
<br />from each disaster. For instance, it may turn out that particular
<br />evacuation routes prove either more or less vulnerable than they
<br />were thought to be and that planned density in affected areas
<br />should be adjusted accordingly.
<br />
<br />On March 1, 19)7, a powerjkt tornado touched down in southwest
<br />Arkaddphia, Arkansas, aMs'wept through the heart of doumtown.
<br />
<br /> It should be noted that land-use policy thaf addresses hazard
<br />reduction issues may also serve environmental, recreational, and
<br />other purposes. The 1991 floo.dplain management plan
<br />developed for Arnold, Missouri, envisioned a greenway along
<br />the Meramec River while aiming to reduce the number of
<br />residential properties in the floodplain through acquisition.
<br />After the 1993 Midwest floods, Arnold accelerated irs
<br />realization of this plan with the use of federal hazard mitigation
<br />funds, which not only reduced its vulnerability to future
<br />flooding but created valuable public open space in the bargain.
<br />Flossmoor, Illinois, achieves both flood mitigation and
<br />recreational objectives with baseball diamonds along Butterfield
<br />Creek that also serve as catch basins for flood water. Salt Lake
<br />City's Faultline Park provides an urban playground while
<br />preventing development along a known earthquake fault line.
<br /> Hazard mitigation is not, however, the only policy objective
<br />that may merit attention from planners after a disaster occurs.
<br />Economic recovery is more likely to be the paramount concern.
<br />From a short-term perspective, this may amount simply to
<br />
<br />
<br />
|