|
and proteo environmentally sensitive areas. The pot,c~' document
<br /> roms to target new development into existing urban and suburban
<br /> centers and revises the 1990 interim plan based on a review of
<br /> coun .ty recommendations and an update of quadrangle maps and
<br /> growth figures. The state plan is redone ever).' three years, but
<br /> municipalities ma)' petition for amendments.
<br /> Counties have been responding tn misconceptions aNmt the
<br />plan and concerns that thc state wnuld produce a ntandator)' zoning
<br />scheme. Residents of smaller towns have expressed fears that.
<br />without mort' designated "growth centers." rhea' will not qualify for
<br />necessary infrastructure intprovements. Some rural Ctnlnties were
<br />reluctant tn participate in thc intcrint plan because they viewed
<br />some elements as not beneficial for economic development or
<br />agriculture. The state avoided a major snag in the process by
<br />agreeing to compensate farmers for loss of equity, or future value, of
<br />their property. It also passed right-to-farm legislation.
<br /> Finally, m December, the commission sent the revised resource
<br />and planning management maps to the counties. The).' designate
<br />appropriate levels of growth using a tier system of urban, older
<br />suburban, urban fringe, rural, and environmentalh, sensitive areas.
<br />These designa6oos will be used tn determine state infrastructure
<br />priorities but will affect only the funding of"growth-accommoda~-
<br />lng infrastructure," says Chuck Newcomb, the commission's
<br />assistant director. The state is still obligated to provide public
<br />facilities that support public health and safer),, as well as to maintain
<br />existing infrastructure. Fringe areas can expand as long as thU, do
<br />not disturb aquifers, slopes and streams, or wildlife habitats.
<br /> Most count), planners have welcomed the dialogue used to
<br />achieve cross-acceptance. Hunterdon Count), planning director
<br />John Kellogg says the "grueling process" has given ever)' municipal-
<br />ity the opportunity to talk about the same issues. Kcllogg's staffhas
<br />met with each of the coun .ty's 26 municipalities numerous times to
<br />revima, state proposals for designations, to help them develop their
<br />own policies, and to discuss the impact of growth decisions on
<br />neighboring communities. By dispelling misinformation, the
<br />count3, "was better able to deal with the real issues of regional
<br />impacts," he says. The state plan also allows enough flexibilit),' for
<br />local governments to take their own approaches to the process.
<br /> But others still have concerns. Sussex Count), senior planner
<br />Donna Traylor say~ that, after the farmers' equity statement was in
<br />place, Sussex County concentrated on convincing municipalities
<br />that it had their best interests in mind. "We still don't know how
<br />it's going to be played out" or where the money to compensate
<br />farmers will come from. Under the interim plan, the county "found
<br />no a~eement between planning areas proposed by the state and the
<br />municipalities," she says. Its growth figures also differed from the
<br />
<br />state's buildout assumptions. When thc new planning maps arnved,
<br />the designations did not conform with expected adjustments.
<br />Although the count5' has not vet received the state's final report,
<br />Travlor anticipates more negotiations with the state.
<br /> Kellogg admits the state can be rigid in the designation process.
<br />His counn"has experienced frustrations in negotiations with the
<br />state much a.~ Sussex Counn' did. Counties are striving for consis-
<br />tenc'v statewidc, he sa~5. but "the state is losing credibilin." because
<br />of thc d,screpancie~ bcd,eon changes agreed upon and thc planning
<br />maps received in I)ccembet. Newcontb says some changes were lost
<br />because nne state cartographer died unexpecwdly.
<br /> Final authorin' for the plau rests with the state planoing com-
<br />mission, says special assistant Thomas Dallessio, though "we have
<br />been yen, careful to say that this is an open process and that we will
<br />listen as much as possible." Newcomb says thc state plan oudinms
<br />policies for state departments to follow when determining priority
<br />projects. The plan depends on these departments and local
<br />governments for implementation. Tools available to municipalities
<br />for implementing the state plan include subdivision ordinance
<br />changes, site plan review, land acquisition, flexible zoning tech-
<br />niques, or clustering. Despite budget constraints, the commission
<br />intends to offer assistance, such as reference documents, so commu-
<br />nities can choose what works best.
<br /> The state plan recognizes one central fact, says Ken Blanc,
<br />former planning and economic development director ofdensely
<br />urban Hudson Count-5.,. When resources are limited, rehabilitating
<br />existing urban centers is less expensive than sprawl. Am), Van Doren
<br />
<br />Demographic and Land Use
<br />Profile; Culture and
<br />History Profile; Housing
<br />and Neighborhoods Prafile
<br />Department of Planning and Development, City of Houston, P.O. Box'
<br />1562, Houston, TX 27251. Re~oectivel); June 1992; September ]992;
<br />FebruaU' 1993. ]60pp.; 68pp.; 80pp. $9.50; $5.50; $7.75. Price of
<br />each volume includes postage.
<br /> These three documents constitute the first round of technical
<br />support for Houston's new comprehensive planning process and
<br />zoning effort as described in this month's lead story. Forthcoming
<br />in the next foa, months are the fourth and f~th documents,
<br />Economic Development and )~arks and Oven Space.
<br />
<br />Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association.
<br />Subscriptions ate available for $45 {U.S.) and $54 (foreign}.
<br />Israel Stollman, Executive Director; Frank S. So. DepuD' Executive Director.
<br />
<br />Zoning New~ is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette, Mark Booczko,
<br />Fay Dolnick, Sarah Dunn, Michelle Gregory, Becky Maroot, Matya Morris. Amy Van
<br />Doren, Keporrer~; Cynthia Chctki, Asfistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Production.
<br />Copyright ©1993 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL
<br />60637. The American Planning Association has headquarters offices as 1776
<br />Mass-achu,erts Avc., N.W., '~athingxon, DC 20036.
<br />Alt rights rcterved. No parr oft&is publication may be reproduced or utilized in any
<br />form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or
<br />by any information storage and retrieva] system, without permission in writing from the
<br />American Planning A~ociation.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, inducting 50-70% recycled fiber ~
<br />~nd 10% postcomumer waste.
<br />
<br />The Liveable Metropolis,
<br />Draft Official Plan
<br />Metropolitan Planning Department, The Munidpati9, of Metropolitan
<br />Toronto, Station 1224, 22nd ]:loor, Metro Hal~ 55 Se. John St.,
<br />Toronto, ONT;, C, ar~d,~. M5V3C6. September ]992. ] 13 pp. ~rree.
<br /> Aiming for an effective blend of environmental, economic,
<br />and quality-of-life considerations in a metropolitan plan, this
<br />document demonstrates notable foresight in anticipating the
<br />future problems' ora large North American city. One of its
<br />more interesting features is a discussion of opportunities for
<br />"reurbanisation" of the center city. Supporting documents are
<br />also available for various modest charges.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|