Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

stories of crowded schools and gridlocked roads, while develop- ers waited to celebrate the expected reversal of the ordinance as a result of their intense lobbying efforts. After the commission's vote, however, it was the homeowners who celebrated. The Las Vegas, Nevada, city council rejected a proposal that would have required at least a two-thirds vote to approve zoning changes and changes to the city's general plan. The proposal was part of a neighborhood preservation package of four rule changes designed to protect homeowners who feel besieged by growth and by developers seeking to build apartments and commercial complexes in areas zoned for low-density, residential building. The other three rule changes were approved, affecting billboard placement, fees for boarding up vacant buildings, and the waiting period for zoning appeals. District Judge Donald Mosley, commenting as a private citizen and supporter of all the rule changes, said he was disappointed the supermajority was eliminated. He called it "the most important single issue." On the other hand, Mark Fiorentino, an attorney representing a development company, argued that the supermajority would hamper progress and slow decision making on the five-member council. He feels that a supermajority vote is not workable in such a small council and that land-use decisions should not be given such special treatment. Scott Dvorak Daniels, director of the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board, points out that approvals are thus heavily dependent on differing circumstances in the individual townships. For example, he notes, Wal-Mart won its only final approval so far in East Land Township, which already has a number of strip malls and retail shops. On the other hand, the one rejection occurred in West Hemfield Township, where village officials deemed a proposed 200,000-square-foot store incompatible with existing development and denied a proposed rezoning. Proposed big box retail stores in three other townships are now pending. In Mount Joy Township, local zoning imposes a limit of l 0,000 square feet per store. However, the township, which owns the site of the proposed Wal-Mart, rezoned the land to allow big box retail uses prior to the Wal-Mart proposal, for which the township issued a special exception. Now, according to township attorney Josele Cleary, a local landowner is challenging that rezoning before the zoning board of appeals. Despite Lancaster County's seeming resistance to big retail establishments, other retailers have jumped into the fray, Warwick Township now has two proposals pending--one for Wal-Mart, and another for Sam's Club, which wants to build a 200,000-square-foot store. In addition, Ephrata Township is considering its final decision on a Wal-Mart proposal and has been approached about expanding its zoning ordinances to support big retailers. Christopher Smith .4 Lancaster County and the Big Box Dilemma A spate of proposals from big box retailers has left some municipalities in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, scrambling to cope with their potential impacts. Of five Wal-Marts proposed in Lancaster County---each exceeding 100,000 square feet---one has been approved and one riehl.ed. The county planning commission, whose role is purely advisory, has been asked to address the remaining proposals. The municipalities in which Wal-Mart would locate have their own land development and subdivision regulations. Lancaster County has a management growth plan that stipulates where large retail operations should be located. However, the burden of planning for large establishments is on the local municipality even though the ramifications, such as increased traffic and loss of retail activity, could spread beyond their own borders. In each case, because of existing limits on retail development, Wal-Mart must seek a conditional use permit. Thomas L. Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by thc American Planning A~sociation. Subscriptions are available for $45 (U.S,) and $54 (foreign}. Michael B, Barker, Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director; William R. Klein, Director of Research. Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette, Fay Dolnick, Scott Dvorak, Michclle Gregory, Sanjay Jeer, Beth McGuire, Marya Morris, Chris Smith, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski, Assistant EditOr; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright ©1995 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. Tbe American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W,, Washington, DC 20036. All rights re~erved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, wlrhout permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% posrconsumer waste. ~ Doing Deals: A Guide to Buying Land for Conservation The Trust for Public Land. Land Trust Alliance, 1319 PSt. N. W., Washington, DC20004. 19)5. 184pp. $18.95 for LTA members; $25 for non-members plus $4 shipping and handling. Written primarily for the benefit of land trust officers, this volume offers practical advice concerning the acquisition of interests in land for open-space and conservation purposes. Inasmuch as many land trusts and conservancies acquire lands with conservation value with the intent or plan to transfer these to some public agency, however, the book also has value for those planners and agency officials involved in land banking or conservation activities. No Homeless People Allowed National Law Center on Homelessness and I~overty, 9J 8 ? St. N. W., Suite 412, Washington, DC20004. December 1994. 14ff pp. $25. The problems of the homeless neither begin nor end with zoning that potentially or intentionally discriminates against low-income housing or emergency shelters. This report offers a wider perspective on the legal problems of the homeless by cataloguing the discriminatory impact of anti-homeless legislation in 49 cities across the U.S., ranging from anti- panhandling measures to unnecessary restrictions on shelters. Some of the material, becomes tedious and repetitive, but that may be part of the point. Too many cities, the report seems to say, engage in anti-homeless activities that are clearly unconstitutional, almost as if they were unaware these issues had already been tested elsewhere.