Laserfiche WebLink
Metropolitan Land Planning Act's prohibition of official controls in conflict <br />with a comprehensive plan is a weaker mandate than a requirement of consistency. <br /> <br />Within the Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) <br />requires every local governmental unit to prepare a comprehensive plan. <br />Further: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />Each local governmental unit must adopt official controls as described <br />in its comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />A local governmental unit may not adopt official controls in conflict <br />with its comprehensive plan or permit activity in conflict with <br />metropolitan system plans. <br /> <br />Where an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the <br />result of an amendment to the plan, the official control must be <br />amended within nine months so as not to conflict with the amended <br />plan. <br /> <br />The MLPA contains both a local and regional perspective. The local goal <br />reflected in the act is planned, orderly and staged development. The regional <br />goal is the creation of local comprehensive~plans and official controls <br />consistent with metropolitan system plans, and the development of a coordinated <br />approach towards planning among interdependent local governmental units. <br /> <br />Although the MLPA clearly requires that prospective official controls not be in <br />conflict with local comprehensive plans, the 1985 amendment raises a number of <br />issues regarding the consistency requirement, most notably: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />Will local governmental units have less incentive to make their <br />zoning ordinances (and other official controls) and comprehensive <br />plans consistent,when they can defer to the zoning ordinance as the <br />prevailing document? <br /> <br />What are the implications for planning for regional systems <br />(transportation, airports, sewers, and parks and open space) where the <br />Council bases local need for such systems on a comprehensive plan that <br />may allow a lesser scale or density of development than the official <br />controls? <br /> <br />LOCAL EXPERIENCE WITH INCONSISTENCY IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA <br /> <br />Planning/ZoninE Consistency Survey <br /> <br />In an attempt to address these issues precipitated by the 1985 amendment, a <br />mail-back survey was sent in April 1986 to each city, township and county in <br />the seven-county Metropolitan Area. The survey was dire0ted to the person <br />responsible for implementing each community's zoning ordinance and <br />comprehensive plan. For cities and counties, this person was most often the <br />planner or director of planning; for towns, this person was usually the town <br />clerk. <br /> <br />The purpose of the survey was twofold: 1) to determine the extent and nature <br />of inconsistency between zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans in the <br />Metropolitan Area; and 2) to determine what, if anything, communities have done <br />or anticipate doing to reconcile inconsistencies. Communities were asked 11 <br /> <br /> <br />