|
document organization issue may fade (more
<br />pages may be easier to use) (see Zoning
<br />Practice, October2o17: planning.org/media/
<br />document/9oo6882).
<br />CHALLENGES: IT'S NOT ALWAYS
<br />ZONING'S FAULT!
<br />There are a variety of reasons why we don't
<br />seem to be able to simplify zoning. It's almost
<br />always easier to just add a new layer on top,
<br />without rethinking the layers below, and
<br />so often this is just what we do. Of course,
<br />any planning and zoning exercise is subject
<br />to the political system that must "own" the
<br />results. In many communities, the issue is
<br />complicated by fiscal woes that seldom place
<br />planning at the top of the funding list.
<br />Politics
<br />Always a contender. Sound planning policy
<br />is always subject to approval by the political
<br />system, and if your community does not have
<br />a rational way to discuss land -use policy,
<br />then simplifying your zoning will remain a
<br />huge challenge. In addition, if short time
<br />horizons are all your community is willing to
<br />discuss, you will never achieve truly sound
<br />planning practices (because they consis-
<br />tently require looking to the longer term).
<br />It takes bold leadership to truly change
<br />a community's planning and zoning system,
<br />which makes complete reform projects a
<br />rarity (often created by the combination of a
<br />strong mayor and a great planning director).
<br />Only with this willingness to hold strong to
<br />an ideal of reform can the various layers of
<br />zoning be stripped away, and their essence
<br />as plan implementation tools reemerge.
<br />Bad Planning
<br />All too often, it's not bad zoning that creates
<br />equity and fairness issues, it is the planning
<br />implemented by the regulations that is to
<br />blame. If planning is inequitable or overly
<br />complex, then the toolkit used to implement
<br />it will follow suit. Good, simple, strategic
<br />planning is likely to lead to simplified zoning.
<br />Clarity and community buy -in for plan-
<br />ning policy means regulations are welcomed
<br />as the tools to achieve the plan, not threats
<br />to ownership rights. Not allowing hot -button
<br />issues to consume all of the air in your com-
<br />munity is also a challenge. A tradition of
<br />successful planning will allow the community
<br />to get beyond the one squeaky wheel of the
<br />month to handle larger issues.
<br />Blunt Tools
<br />We all too often only see part of the toolkit avail-
<br />able for plan implementation. Since zoning
<br />is often the most powerful tool that planners
<br />have control over, it is frequently applied in
<br />too broad a fashion, even though other tools
<br />(financial or regulatory, but not land -use
<br />driven) will better serve the community.
<br />Inadequate Staffing
<br />Without enough planners to implement your
<br />new, simpler regulations, the community will
<br />still be challenged to produce swift, effective
<br />development review. And in many cases, it
<br />is not the planning review that occurs too
<br />slowly, but engineering and other internal or
<br />external reviews. And yet zoning often takes
<br />the hit for these other entities and their work
<br />(one solution for this issue is an online per-
<br />mit review system that helps folks see where
<br />their permit is stuck).
<br />Keep it Legal
<br />Some places simply do not have the author-
<br />ity to operate in a manner consistent with
<br />best practice. In places with restrictions on
<br />taxation authority, such as California, the
<br />exaction process has stepped up to take '
<br />over something most states believe should
<br />be handled through property taxes. Until
<br />improved regulatory authority exists in those
<br />settings, some of the reforms described in
<br />this piece will not be allowed.
<br />IN SUMMARY
<br />Most practitioners believe the most impor-
<br />tant issues to be resolved by zoning relate
<br />to the externalities generated by a specific
<br />development in a specific location. These
<br />range from glare and noise to traffic and
<br />stormwater runoff. Of course, these issues
<br />differ from place to place and site to site.
<br />A community with no room for green -
<br />field development often has a higher
<br />tolerance for the impacts associated with
<br />infill than a location on the fringe with room
<br />to spare. And a community with high market
<br />demand can afford stricter controls than one
<br />with little economic activity.
<br />Clearly, every community's approach
<br />must be customized to the situation at
<br />hand —not every simplification technique
<br />makes sense in every community. But
<br />remember, every community has the option
<br />to simplify its zoning, whether through piece-
<br />meal changes or an entire zoning reform
<br />project. Tying zoning to sound planning is the
<br />most important of all (even more important
<br />than a simple code with no policy basis).
<br />It has all been said before ... but here's
<br />your chance to take the time and energy
<br />required to improve and simplify your zoning.
<br />Point out the advantages ofa simpler code (in
<br />ease of use and administration). Clarify your
<br />community's desired limits on market inter-
<br />vention. Hey —take a risk! It's only zoning.
<br />ABOUT THE AUTHOR
<br />Lee D. Einsweiler is principal and cofounder
<br />of Code Studio, a planning and plan
<br />implementation firm in Austin, Texas. His
<br />zoning work began with early redevelopment
<br />efforts in South Florida, and has since grown
<br />to include projects in almost every state in
<br />the U.S., ranging in scale from small area
<br />and corridor planning and zoning to citywide
<br />zoning update projects. He has taught plan
<br />implementation at the University of Texas at
<br />Austin, and spoken on zoning at conferences
<br />across the U.S. and in Australia.
<br />Cover: Chattanooga Illustrative Plan, courtesy Code Studio
<br />VOL. 35, NO. 1
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN i548—o135) is a
<br />monthly publication of the American
<br />Planning Association. James M. Drinan, Jo,
<br />Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, FAICP,
<br />Managing Director of Research and Advisory
<br />Services; Joseph DeAngelis and David Morley,
<br />AICP, Editors.
<br />Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and
<br />$120 (foreign). Missing and damaged print
<br />issues: Contact APA Customer Service (312-
<br />431-9100 orsubscriptions@planning.org)
<br />within 90 days of the publication date.
<br />©zo18 by the American Planning Association,
<br />which has offices at 205 N. Michigan Ave.,
<br />Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 6o6oi-5927, and 1030
<br />15th St., NW, Suite 75o West, Washington, DC
<br />20005-1503; planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form or
<br />by any means without permission in writing
<br />from APA.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70%
<br />recycled fiber and io% postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 1.18
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page?
<br />
|