|
neighborhood. It wil
<br />at least prove that it
<br /> Employ extensive
<br />than minor projects.'
<br />will signal the need fG
<br />don't do impact asses~
<br />mom and pop stores,
<br />area," says Burby. Plal
<br />analysis for those imp
<br />and that the commun
<br /> Robert Burchell,
<br />Urban Policy Researcl
<br />Fiscal Impact Handbo
<br />Assessment Handbook
<br />use a scoping process
<br />and allocate resources
<br />
<br />hopefully find that it is good for them, or
<br />~; not bad for them."
<br />[impact analysis for significant rather
<br />The checklist approach described above
<br />r more formal assessment techniques. "You
<br />:ment for four- or five-lot subdivisions or
<br />unless the project is in a very sensitive
<br />mers should "undertake an in-depth
<br />~cts that are important to the community
<br />ty is particularly sensitive to."
<br />ofessor at Rutgers University's Center for
<br />i and coauthor of the planning classic, The
<br />ik, and the more recent Development Impact
<br />i;ee "Resources") similarly urges planners to
<br />Io "determine what the important issues are
<br />tccordingly." Communities need to
<br />
<br />anticipate what the irr ~act study's ultimate use will be and
<br />decide what level of fi~ ancial commitment will be necessary to
<br />produce the report. "T/oo many communities," he cautions,
<br />"perform 'back of the natchbook' studies, and these studies may
<br />
<br />eventually have to be
<br />not survive against a
<br /> Develop an in-ho~
<br />prescribe the proced~
<br />Where a consultant
<br />either choose the corn
<br />
<br />sed in court cases. A $10,000 study will
<br />[50,000 study."
<br />~e capacity to do impact analysis or
<br />res and techniques consultants employ.
<br />rforms the analysis, local planners should
<br />titans or approve the procedures used. "A
<br />
<br />big mistake," Burby ol)serves, "is [for local planners] to let
<br />consultants do impact tssessments without adequate guidance as
<br />to the procedures to b, used or standards to be employed. Most
<br />of these techniques recluire a number of judgments and
<br />assumptions that can lJ, roduce different results. If planners aren't
<br />on top of it, they'll getiresults that make projects look better
<br />than they actually are.'~ Without a clear agreement on the
<br />procedures and technic~ues, Says Gray Smith, you get a
<br />consultant-prepared re~ort "that is weak and that avoids the bad
<br />newsportions," especi_4.yll where there is a lot of political
<br />pressure on elected of~i:[als to approve the development.
<br /> Recognize the imp.~t of delay on the development approval
<br />process, and try to rai~imlz~ it by estabBshlng deadlines for
<br />reviews and local dec4i'ons. The development community is
<br />likely to resist impact a{~alysis because of&lay, and this is
<br />certainly understandablj:. Planners should work with dOelopers
<br />to ensure a reasonable 14rocess that does not result in aa hoc
<br />procedures. A selling pdint, s,,ays Burby, is that a clearly defined
<br />procedure allows develo~pers to anticipate costs and what the
<br />community is looking ~r rather than being jerked around."
<br />Impact assessment c~an "slow things down," which is often
<br />the intent, concedes R4n Bass, a planning consultant with Jones
<br /> t
<br />
<br /> ZoningNews is a monthly new,[letter published by the American Planning
<br /> Association. Subscriptions are~{,,ailable for $'t5 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign}.
<br /> Frank S. So, Acting Executive Director; William R. Klein, Director of Research.
<br />
<br />· ZoningNews is produced at AP[8. Jim Schwab, Editor; Fay Dolnick, Scott Dvorak,
<br /> Michelle Gregory, Sanjay Jeer, [Megan Lewis, Doug Martin, Marya Morris, Marry
<br /> Roupe, Laura Thompson, Rep4tter~; Cynthia Cheski, Asfistant Editor; Liza Barton,
<br /> Design and Production.
<br /> Copyright ©1995 by American[Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave.. Suite
<br /> 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The [~merican Planning Association has headquarters
<br /> offices at 1776 Massachusetts Alee., N.W., Wa*hlngton, DC 20036.
<br /> All rights reserved. No part oft~is publication may be reproduced or utilized in any
<br /> form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
<br /> or by any information storage a[~d retrieval system, without permission in writing
<br /> from the American Planning As~oclation.
<br /> Printed on recycled paper, includ!ng 50-70% recycled fiber
<br /> and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />& Stokes Associates, Inc., in Sacramento. B3ss practices both in
<br />California, which has a SEQA, and in Oregon, which does not.
<br />In California, where impact analysis is required for certain types
<br />of private projects, following the state procedures "changes the
<br />whole perspective of time," he notes. "What takes 60 to 90 days
<br />in Oregon may take six months to a year in California."
<br />Communities that initiate impact assessment processes on their
<br />own, says Bass, should "be aware of the changes impact analysis
<br />will have on your current time frame."
<br /> Bass acknowledges that impact analysis can be "cumbersome,"
<br />but he points out, as does Smith, that it has the advantage of
<br />engaging the public in planning by publicly disclosing the impacts
<br />of a development and actually attempting to address them.
<br />
<br />1995 Zoning News Index
<br />
<br />Adult Uses
<br />Adult Uses Neither Die nor Fade Away September
<br />Annexation
<br />Annexation Primer for Planners February
<br />Big Box Retail
<br />Lancaster County and the Big Box Dilemma September
<br />Cemeteries
<br />Zoning for Eternity May
<br />Commercial Zoning
<br />Baltimore County Limits Pawnshops May
<br />St. Paul Restricts Currency Exchanges May
<br />Environmental Protection
<br />Zoning for Wellhead Protection August
<br />Group Homes
<br />Judge Upholds Limits on Group Homes January
<br />Denver Acts on Group Homes April
<br />Occupancy Restrictions and the Fair Housing Act July
<br />impact Assessments
<br />Impact Analysis: From Sharp Tools Come
<br />Sharp Assessments December
<br />Legal Issues
<br />Presumption-Shifting: A Legal Theory that May Tilt
<br />the Planner's Playing Field March
<br />Lighting
<br />Shedding Light on the Urban Landscape October
<br />Manufactured Hc)using
<br />New Mobile Home Ordinance for Mississippi County March
<br />Outdoor Sales
<br />Regulating Outdoor Sales April
<br />Residential'2~onlng
<br />Statistical Analysis of Lot Size January
<br />L.A. Rewrites Home Business Rules January
<br />Rezoning
<br />Supermajority Rules Get Mixed Support September
<br />San Joaquin River Runs Through It November
<br />Sign Regulations
<br />Regulating Billboards in Baltimore March
<br />Telecommunications
<br />Communication Towers Take High Road May
<br />Local Planning Issues in Siting Cellular Towers June
<br />Urban Waterfronts
<br />Rapid Response Tools for Waterfront Change November
<br />
<br />/3/
<br />
<br />
<br />
|