|
very strong correlation
<br />shown in Table 4. Apl
<br />uniformity among the
<br />greater uniformity am~
<br /> There are two messa
<br />lot area and the numbel
<br />
<br />=between area and the number of sides
<br />~rently, the community demands less
<br />.argest of the estates, but increasingly
<br />ng smaller lots.
<br />;es in the correlation between average
<br />of lot sides. The analysis here indicates
<br />
<br />that larger lots, on aver~ Re, have more sides than smaller lots.
<br />Therefore, if the shape ~[haracteristic of lots in the village is to be
<br />preserved, proposed splits should be expected to produce much
<br />simpler shapes than tho~.e of the parent lots. Minimally
<br />sufficient splits of the ki~d described above almost always go in
<br />the other direction, thatiis, a simpler piece is cut into complex
<br />pieces. Too many such~lits have the potential of turning some
<br />vulnerable spots in the v~llage into interlocking pieces of a
<br />jigsaw puzzle in the nea~ future. The most vulnerable
<br />
<br />classification is the R1
<br />twice that required by
<br />districts. (Districts are
<br />of lots with the same cl
<br />RI district but only
<br />are the RL, R2, R3, and
<br />potentially vulnerable
<br />
<br />rhich has 97 lots with areas greater than
<br />e zoning ordinance for lots in R1
<br />~ed here to describe contiguous groups
<br />;slfication. There can be more than one
<br />R1 classification.) Following behind RI
<br />RE with 18, 10, two, and no
<br />rcels.
<br />
<br /> The second message ii a technical one. Since larger lots on the
<br />average have a greater nt{mber of sides, would it not be more
<br />appropriate to use a measure of complexity that is adjusted for
<br />the size differences amon~ lots? The answer is a definite yes in
<br />communities where area~ of lots are part of au electronic
<br />database. Unfortunately;,~ treas were not indicated for all lots
<br />
<br />within Franklin Village i
<br />the problem was the fact
<br />and are designated by lol
<br />were not available other
<br />task would overwhelm al
<br />lot areas is being prepare
<br />
<br />. the county's electronic files. Adding to
<br />that many lots are within subdivisions
<br />numbers, so even metes and bounds
<br />hah from original deeds. The size of'this
<br />y researcher. A less precise measure of
<br />for the lots within Franklin Village
<br />
<br />and will be reported on it becomes available. For now, we have
<br />to assume that lots withifi a zoning classification are sufficiently
<br />close in area to lend vali~ty to our analysis.
<br /> Case 1. Figure 1 on [~a[ ge 1 depicts a lot split proposed in
<br />1992. The side that is n4t perpendicular to the others is a
<br />natural stream. The ~eari" in the proposed cut serve only to
<br />provide minimally sufficient square footage for the bottom lot.
<br />If the village had approvid the split, it would have traded one
<br />four-sided lot for two si~sided ones and would have gone the
<br />wrong way on the complexity scale. Table 3 indicates that,
<br />am6ng all lots with RL c~assification, 76.7 percent are four-
<br />sided, only six percent a~e six-sided, and two percent have more
<br />than six sides. The obvi6~us question presented to the planning
<br />commissione?s was whet,her they wanted to take one of the most
<br />regular lots in the villageiand turn it into two lots, each of which
<br />quite out of character wiih the rest of the RL lots. In the
<br />bargain, the village woul8 end up gaining density, contradicting.
<br />the goals in the master p~an. It seems obvious that the village
<br />needed to be shown a co~npelling reason beyond mere
<br />commercial advantage bSfore it would accept a bundle of
<br />negatives. It rejected the ~plit.
<br /> Case2. This is a 199~proposed split in an R1 district.
<br />Figure 2 depicts the und{vided lot, and the two lots resulting
<br />from the split. Once agar, the strange shape of the lot with the
<br />handle is the product of~he desire to carve a minimum of
<br />30,000 square feet and le[aving the residence already on the
<br />property undisturbed. In~ this particular example, it was
<br />determined that the average width of lot requirement was not
<br />met due to the existence~ofthe~' long narrow strip. Note that it is
<br />
<br />quite difficult to identify a dimension as the width of such
<br />irregular lots.
<br /> This split would have made two eight-sided lots out of one
<br />nine-sided lot. Table 3 indicates that the resultant lots would
<br />rank in the top one percen.t of all R1 lots in complexity of
<br />shape. Needless to say, the proposed split was denied due to not
<br />meeting the average width requirement as well as the
<br />unnecessarily complex shape that would result.
<br />
<br />The Cure of Prevention
<br />The best way to prevent unwanted splits is through legislation
<br />that clearly delineates and prohibits the class of splits where
<br />shape is sacrificed in artificially forcing two lots to be created
<br />when there is not enough land to split along a straight line.
<br />Such an amendment to the zoning ordinance is strongly
<br />recommended for Franklin Village and similarly situated
<br />communities. A prohibition against the creation of excessively
<br />complex lots would be based on the reasonable grounds that it:
<br />· reduces the probability of boundary.disputes;
<br />· ' reduces the length of metes and bounds de. scription~, which
<br /> further reduces chances for clerical error;
<br />· reduces the probability of metes and bounds descripiions
<br /> that fail to produce a closed lot;
<br />· prevent~ unsightly fences if they are allowed and installed; and
<br />· within communities without fences, reduces future claims of
<br /> adverse possession by neighbors.
<br />
<br /> On the last point, note how the handle in figure 2 is buried
<br />deep into the territory of the neighbors to the east and west.
<br />Note that, in the absence offences, this will be used openly by
<br />the neighbors or, as it was in this case, be a more natural part of
<br />the wetlands situated on the lands of the easterly and westerly
<br />neighbors. More interesting still was the fact that a natural
<br />stream cut offthe main potion of the proposed second lot from
<br />access to the handle, making it a case with particular potential
<br />for future strife.
<br /> Especially in Michigan, under Bevan v. Township of
<br />Brandon, there is no chance for a taking challenge to succeed.
<br />Such legislation would meet the test of reasonableness and
<br />would be related to the interest being furthered by the
<br />municipality. Communities with databases that indicate the
<br />area of each lot and its perimeter and/or digitized values of
<br />corners of lots, can engage in much more sophisticated analyses
<br />of shapes and areas'. Such a database is being constructed for the
<br />lots within Franklin Village.
<br />
<br />L.A. Rewrites Home
<br />Business Rules .
<br />
<br />After some nine years of delays, the 'Los Angeles city planning
<br />commission has finally approved a home occupations ordinance
<br />that will allow 26 kinds of businesses to be conducted in single-
<br />family residential and agricultural districts. The Ordinance must
<br />still be vetted by city attorneys and by the three-member
<br />planning and land-use management committee before going to
<br />the city council for final approval. Planners, however, feel
<br />confident that the ordinance will win approval in some form.
<br /> City officials recognize that many home-based businesses
<br />already exist illegally and that normally lav(-abiding citizens are
<br />being forced to break the law. In any case, enforcing the
<br />
<br />
<br />
|