Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

*tenthainea the rbe,4W Z141411Tm ers seek because standards in the code do not permit a creative solution to laying out the development or result in the loss of lots or increased costs. A third class ofvari- ance applies to a whole series of controls in the zoning —none of which render a site unbuildable—that simply frustrate a devel- oper's attempt to build a different type of community. For example, in some communi- ties developers might have to obtain more than a dozen variances to build a cluster subdivision, planned unit development (PUD), or a rural hamlet. Yet another class of variances is attributable to code amend- ments that create a host of nonconforming uses. These last three classes are foolish, or idiotic, variances because good planning is frustrated by the ordinance. Unfortunately, the administration of variance requests in many communities can also be described as idiotic. It is not un- usual for communities to grant 7o to 95 per- cent of all variance requests. When nearly every variance for a larger sign, enclosed porch, or reduced setback is granted, then it is foolish to force owners to go through the variance process. This means zoning boards are either ignorant of or not following the local zoning code and variance criteria es- tablished by state statute. Leaving aside the possibility that zon- ing board members are incompetent, why is this happening? One reason is that zoning boards see themselves as problem solvers for the residents. In small communities this may be a "help your neighbor" attitude. In other cases zoning board members may not understand the role of their quasi- judicial body. In older cities it may simply be a desire not to impede reinvestment. Too few communities use a hearing officer to create a truly quasi-judicial process, and there is rarely a review of the zoning board's performance. Planners often share the blame. For example, some planners fail to strongly recommend denial in staff reports when an application fails to meet the criteria. There are many communities where staff never makes recommendations. In the absence of strong recommendations it is easy for zon- ing boards to grant variances. Furthermore, many variances are the result of poorly writ- ten or obsolete codes. Citizens are left to muddle through the zoning board instead of planners proposing code amendments to fix the code and eliminate the need for a vari- ance. If there are many approved variances to a specific provision, it is irresponsible not to amend the code. The last reason for the idiotic variance is rigidity. The first zoning codes used a min- imum lot size combined with setbacks from front, side, and rear property boundaries to control character. Over the last nearly ioo years, designers developed more creative approaches to development: cluster, PUD, mixed use, and traditional neighborhood design. Unfortunately, zoning has not kept up and Euclidean provisions remain the dominant form of ordinance. In an attempt to provide flexibility, communities introduced conditional ap- proval processes instead of writing flexible standards. In many codes there is a specific enumeration of variances required for clus- ter or planned development options. The problem with this approach is that it is pro- cedural and does not address the underlying inflexibility and rigidity. Worse, the approval process quickly became a battleground between developers seeking flexibility and NIMBYists who would prefer no develop- ment. While new urbanists decry the failure of Euclidean zoning to permit mixed use and traditional designs, form -based codes are rigid too in their street design, setbacks, requirements for porches and fences, and architectural detailing. THE SOLUTION The tongue-in-cheek solution is to permit "idiot variances" when the code is foolish as applied or if it stifles creativity. The real- ity is this would exacerbate the problem. It is unconscionable for a community to force its citizens to seek a variance (at considerable time, effort, and expense) when relief is nearly always granted. The solution is to reduce the need for variances to a few unique conditions. The discussion in the following sections details various approaches that eliminate the need for a variance to be requested. Annual Review One simple procedural means of eliminating improper variance approvals is an annual review. At the end of the year all approved variances would be submitted to the elected officials for review. The staff would pre- pare a report as to whether the approvals conformed to the required standards. In the case of the municipality that approved numerous sign -size variations, the elected officials could indicate to the zoning board that their actions were either improper— ZONINGPRACTICE 6.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 3