Laserfiche WebLink
JUNE ]996 <br /> <br />AMERICAN <br />PLANNING <br />ASSOCIATION <br /> <br />I I I <br /> <br />The Heed !for New Models <br />of Rural ZOning <br /> <br />By Joel Russell <br /> <br /> It is a familiar scene at, planning board meetings around the <br /> country. An ~out-of-t0wn developer" presents a plan to build <br /> 49 houses (or 249 condominiums) on a beautiful farm miles <br /> away from any village oi~ town center. The small town's <br /> volunteer board doesn't!like it. The developer says, "Look, your <br /> zoning calls for two-acre lots, and the average lot size in this <br /> subdivision is actually 2~8 acres. What more can you want?" <br /> Board members look do~wn and think to themselves, "We want <br /> you to go away and leave us alone." <br /> The board does not know what to do. Finally, one member <br />rescues the others by saying, "We need more information about <br />the effects on the water table and traffic and the school system." <br />They send the developer away to bring them more paperwork <br />when they would really prefer just to send him away. The <br />process cranks on, with r'he developer pushing the board and the <br />board stalling. Often litigation results. The only winners are the <br />lawyers and consultants.- <br /> Twenty or 30 years ago, developers largely got what they <br />wanted--quickly--from boards that viewed development as <br />progress, adding jobs arid tax ratables to their communities. <br />But the developments a~proved in the 1960s and 1970s have <br />generated traffic congestion, altered community character, <br />and added more costs in municipal services than they <br />brought in through increased tax revenues. Progress has <br />resulted in higher taxes and a deteriorating quality of life in <br />many places. <br /> The new residents are among the most vociferous about <br />controlling any more development. They want to keep what <br />remains of the bucolic character of their communities, and they <br />have begun to sit on the boards that make decisions about <br />development. Would-be developers say these residents want to <br />pull up the drawbridge now that they have their little piece of <br />the country. The resident~ say they want to protect the rural <br />character of their communities from the depredations of <br />developers who would ruin their idyllic paradise. <br /> This issue of Zoning N~ws explains how current zoning laws <br />are largely responsible for these development wars and looks at <br />how they might be changed to produce results that are more <br />appropriate for rural communities. <br /> <br />Failure in the Rural Context <br />The standoff between development and preservation is based on <br />a massive failure of local communities to regulate land 'use <br />effectively. Planning boards are usually helpless against <br />developers when they apply local zoning laws and subdivision <br />regulations because these regulations essentially give the <br />developers the right, if not the mandate, to turn the countryside <br />into a sprawling suburb. Legally, planning board~'cf6'n'6£ h-a',~8 3'i~. <br />the prerogative to reject projects simply because they are <br />inappropriate for the community. A developer w. ho complies <br /> <br />with the letter and spirit of the zoning law and other applicable <br />regulations has a right to develop. <br /> Planning boards have, however, become very adept at stalling <br />developers procedurally by constantly demanding more <br />information. They have learned to say "not yet" or "not until <br />you answer 45 more questions," until the developer wishes they <br />had just said no to begin with. A better system would allow <br />planning boards to "just say no" to projects that do not belong <br />in the countryside. <br /> <br />This light industrial building in a barn-like structure is located <br />in a rural area where such uses are usually not allowed. <br /> <br /> The problem lies with regulations that prescribe wall-to-wall <br /> suburban development. If you follow a recipe for beef stew, you <br /> will not end up with chocolate cake. The standard zoning laws <br /> and subdivision regulations are a recipe for suburbanization. <br /> They produce large-scale, monotonous residential subdivisions <br /> that obliterate the rural landscape, punctuated by sterile <br /> shopping malls and office parks, all connected by a massive <br /> network of pavement with immense parking lots. <br /> This is not surprising. When most zoning laws were adopted, <br /> any kind of development was viewed as desirable, and its <br /> consequences had not hit home. These laws were copied from <br /> those used as blueprints for places like Levittown. Their purpose <br /> is to encourage a standardized form of development as quickly <br /> and efficiently as possible, treating all land as identical. If there <br /> is unusual topography, vegetation, wetlands, or whatever, a <br /> bulldozer (or blasting) can solve the problem. Old-fashioned <br /> hamlet centers and villages, with their quaint mix of uses and <br /> postage stamp lots, give communities a center and a unique <br /> sense of place, yet they are illegal under most zoning laws, even <br /> though many master plans for these same communities enshrine <br /> the village center as the place to concentrate development. <br /> Many towns passed one-acre single-use residential zoning on <br /> the theory that one acre is about as much land as anyone needs <br /> for a house. That may be so, but one-acre zoning, as <br /> conventionally practiced, also means that every acre in town will <br /> eventually be developed in the familiar uniform cookie-cutter <br />'pattern. In an attempt to preserve rural character, towns have <br /> <br /> <br />