Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

THE ZONING REPORT For Planning and Zoning Professionals ISSN 0748-0083 VOL 13, NO 8 -- JULY gl, 1995 -- Charles Reed, AICP, Editor/Publisher -- $58/year/subscription A CO~ LETE CH]DCKLIST OF PROVISIONS FOR RSb~JIATING SHORELINES TO BE INCLUDED IN ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODES (Part One of two parts) Pay attention to recent takings case law when writing your shoreline regulations. This case law was decided by ghe US Supreme Court in four major land-use cases. For most other de- velopment code provisions, most localities seem to be aware of avoiding what these cases sug- gest as' excessive local regulatory zeal at the expense of property owners. Note that all fou~ cases somehow involve shorelines. Be prepared for your public counsel to advise you to scale back ambitious draft shoreline regulations that are believed to ex- ceed this case law. But it might be OK to be ambitious in writ- a few agencies regulate or preempt your zon- ing code provisions regulating shorelines. Set up contact persons in these agencies. They should review each of your shoreline code drafts so you are assured that their provisions dovetail with state and federal rules. We take two issues of The Zoning Report to discuss this topic. In this issue, Part One, we cover: purposes and intents, definitions, regula- tory classification of shorelines, regulation of site preparation for resource protection along shorelines, and shoreline land uses. In Part Two, which you receive in two weeks ing shoreline regulations. It's whose property, on August 4th, we conclude with: zoning devel- the regulations apply~ to that could invoke a '"6~'fiT~$f~,~.~{andards along shorelines, types of takings claim--whose~ property is mapped for what shoreline regUlations. The four cases are: :First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of G~endale v. County of Los Angeles (1987); Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992); and Dolan v. City of Tigard [Oregon] (1994). You may first want to request your public at- torney or COG/RPC or state planning office counsel to research a~pplicable state and fed- eral statutes and agepc¥ rules that might af- fect what you write' in your local shoreline development code. Give the attorney ample time to do this research. In most states, quite shoreline regulatory areas; and subdivision code f..~;$eg~la'tzo~i for shoreline development. ~- / %3 · ' will not fit your specific situa- tion. Moreover, our terminology may differ from yours. The checklist includes more items than you would ever need in your community's shoreline provisions. Zoning offices often regu- late many of our checklist items as office rules r~her than as provisions within codes. When you read the checklist, you'll notice that we duplicate many items throughout it. We repeat them in a different context in dif- ferent subject categories. We prefer to do this, to offer complete listings for all items in each category. © 1995 by Charles Reed ........ 1404 N. State Road 7, Suite 269; Margate, Florida 33{)63 -- Mailing address: PO Box 6529; Margate, Florida .33093 --