|
two or more meetings a month. The heavyweights top the list:
<br />New York City with weekly meetings, followed by Indianapolis-
<br />Marion County, indiana, and Waukesha County, Wisconsin,
<br />with four meetings a month.
<br /> The average number of cases per year is a slippery number.
<br />Overall, the average was 153, but the range was broad, running
<br />from 12 in Springfield, Missouri, to 600 in both Milwaukee and
<br />Pittsburgh. Dividing the survey group yields a dearer picture.
<br />The 29 jurisdictions that fall in the 100,000 to 199,000
<br />population range average 92 cases per year. The 21 jurisdictions
<br />at or above 200,000 average 237 cases. Only 11 of the 50
<br />respondents had fewer than 50. Twenty-nine of the
<br />communities had more than 100 cases per year; 13 had more
<br />than 200. Despite the broad range, it is clear that most ZBAs
<br />are very busy.
<br />
<br />Child Care Rules
<br />Overturned
<br />
<br /> A newly arrived resident of Flossmoor, Illinois, has
<br /> successfully challenged rhe village zoning regulations
<br /> regarding home day care. Denise Rheams, a state-licensed
<br /> day Care provider with 12 years of experience, applied for a
<br /> variance because local zoning prohibits child care (which is
<br /> regulated as a home occupation) in single-family districts.
<br /> Her application was denied, and she successfully sued in
<br /> Cook County Circuit Court. Her attorneys argued that the
<br /> Illinois Child Care Act preempts any regulations for home
<br /> day care in non-home rule communities. The judge agreed
<br /> and forbade Flossmoor to regulate day care homes "in any
<br /> manner whatsoever." Village authorirles have chosen not to
<br /> appeal the ruling, but local residents still fear noise, traffic,
<br /> and a possible threat to property values.
<br /> Many Illinois municipalities impose more stringent
<br />regulations on home day-care providers than those of the
<br />state Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS),
<br />which licenses such services. DCFS permits eight children
<br />(including th6se of the caretaker) in a home, but many
<br />communities allow only six. Rheams is licensed to care for up
<br />to 12 children including her own. The message from the
<br />court, however, is that these standards in other non-home
<br />rule communities can be overruled. Home rule communities,
<br />which enjoy more autonomy under the state constitution,
<br />will be less vulnerable but may also find their restrictions
<br />challenged as the need for home child care increases because
<br />of growing numbers of single-parent families and families
<br />with two full-time working parents.
<br /> Critics say DCFS standards do not adequately protect
<br />either children's safety or property values. However, rigid
<br />local regulations (as in specifications for carpet quality and
<br />kinds of soap allowed) and excessive fees (upwards of $2,000
<br />in one community) can reduce the availability of good care.
<br />The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
<br />Law took the R.heams case precisely because it argued that
<br />municipalities were exceeding their power. Abby Cohen,
<br />managing attorney of the Child Care Law Center in San
<br />Francisco, says most villages either fail to address the issue of
<br />child care at all or lump it with other home occupations, as
<br />in this case. Fiossmoor planning director Patrick Finn says
<br />no one had previously resisted the village's prohibition.
<br /> flay Dolnick
<br />
<br />Heighborhoods
<br />See Visions
<br />
<br /> As part ora cirywide planning effort, Seattle now has 14
<br /> neighborhoods involved in the first part ora two-phase effort to
<br /> develop vision statements for the city's comprehensive urban
<br /> growth plan. Last summer, three pilot neighborhoods plunged
<br /> into the process..They are now well on their way to completing
<br /> their own plans.
<br /> Phase I concentrates on public outreach. Using potlucks,
<br /> holiday gatherings, and other social events, residents attend
<br /> workshops and brainstorming sessions to identify issues,
<br /> problems, and opportunities for their neighborhoods.
<br /> Organizing committees are elected to lead each neighborhood
<br /> through Phase I. Despite some difficulty in interesting
<br /> newcomers in the project, attendance has steadily increased.
<br /> Karma Ruder, director of Seattle's neighborhood planning
<br /> office, says 90 different neighborhood events in October drew a
<br /> total of 1,400 people.
<br /> Rudet's office was created to assist neighborhoods in
<br /> organizing and conducting their own planning processes. Its 10
<br /> project managers are assigned geographically and work with
<br /> community organizations and individuals to form coalitions to
<br /> do planning.
<br /> The city provides grants to qualifying neighborhoods to
<br /> cover the cost of mailings, printing, and administrative costs.
<br /> Many neighborhoods also have allocated funds to hire
<br /> professional consultants to organize the planning process and
<br /> facilitate collaboration. Originally, the city anticipated 30 plans
<br /> over the next four years, but the number of interested
<br /> neighborhoods is expected to grow. Some groups must postpone
<br /> planning sessions until the city allocates more money to
<br /> organize outreach and administration.
<br /> The goal of Phase I is to establish a common community
<br />vision for each neighborhood that enhances its existing
<br />character but remains consistent with the goals of the
<br />comprehensive plan. The resulting agenda identifies the major
<br />issues on which detailed planning is to occur during Phase II,
<br />which involves the development ora written plan. Pilot groups
<br />have included visioning events as a way to "check in" and
<br />involve latecomers. The planning committee, elected at the end
<br />of Phase I to supersede the organizing committee, uses help
<br />from city staff'and consultants to turn its vision into an
<br />adoptable plan, which is then reviewed by the city council. The
<br />comprehensive plan recommends guidelines that provide a
<br />formula for adoption when followed. In some instances,
<br />amendments to the city's comprehensive plan, adopted in 1994
<br />in accordance with the state's Growth Management Act of
<br />1990, will allow for individual neighborhood needs. As required
<br />by that act, the new comprehensive plan aims to contain sprawl
<br />by concentrating growth into urbanized areas.
<br /> The city wants to encourage and stimulate growth in
<br />preexisting urban villages--conglomerates of mixed-use centers
<br />and mixed-density residential neighborhoods, zoned for growth
<br />and deemed physically capable of sustaining it. Three of these--
<br />the University Community Urban Center, Fremont/North
<br />Queen 'Anne, and Georgetown--became pilot areas and will
<br />serve as models for the other neighborhood planning
<br />committees.
<br /> The University District has gone the furthest. The
<br />community includes several neighborhoods surrounding the
<br />University of Washington and is one of the city's largest urban
<br />
<br />
<br />
|