Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Persons Act (RLUIPA), require a carefut legal review and diagnosis of use regulations to ensure compliance with state and federal law. Zoning administrators are also con- cerned with use regulations because they are the ones involved in mediating competing concerns. They must be prepared to give applicants a clear answer on what is permit- ted in a district and the applicable procedures for zoning approve!. On the other hand, the regulations must be sufficiently dear to allow administrators to bring a zoning enforcement action if inappropriate uses are established [n a neighborhood. 8REAr)TH AND fl. EXlBILl'r'{ .Zoning district use regulations ~ypically require several modifications. First, zoning district use lists can be underinc!usive, often because today's uses were largely unknown when the regulations were drafted. While ic is impossible to contemplate every possible use in existence either today or in the future, it is pc~$sibte to develop a comprehensive list of uses by using several national classification systems for uses or industries, such as the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and the American P!annin§ Association's Land-Based Classification Standards (LBCS). Conversely, ovednc[usiveness creates a ri§id separation of uses based on their differ- ences rather than basing the uses on real-- even perceived--problems with ~ocating [hem in the same neighborhood. Not 0nly can this present a hardship to landowners, but it can also thwart comprehensive planning policies that foster more compact, pedestrian-friendLy neighborhoods. This result can be sprawling deveiopment patterns where otherwise com- plementary districts are beyond walking dis- tance from one another. Planners and code drafters can resolve this issue by focusing more on building forms than uses in the regu- lations. While most local governments are not prepared to completely abandon use controls, a greater emphasis on building design and a de-emphasis on use can permit the evolution of mixed*use, complete neighborhoods. The buildin§s classification in LCBS can be built into the matrix to substitute building form for conventional use restrictions. Finally, even zonin§ ordinances with com- prehensive use listin§s typically do not define all of the listed uses. Developing a complete list of definitions would take ,lears, consuming hundreds of pages. Fortunately, the use classi- ficatio'n systems described above contain defi- nitions of uses and industry classifications. Specific definitions should be provided where state or federal law, local policies, or other fac- tors require a unique definition. OBJECTIVES OF USE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS Zoning classification systems should focus on several objectives: usability, enforceability, · and consistency with local land-use policies. First, the Est of uses must be clenr and understandable, in other words, the list of permitted uses must be user.friendly. To achieve these goals, the following are required: (1) The terminology must be dear and as free as possible from interpretation. This makes the list of permitted uses easier for both the zoning' administrator and appli- cants to understand, Clear terminolog~t and definitions minimize the amount of time zoning staff needs to prepare inter- pretations and helps to avoid arguments with applicants. In addition, a clear use matrix explains the rules of the §ame to applicants before they approach the zon- ing admin!strator. (~) The uses must be well organized. Uses should be pieced under categories where peop(e expect to find them. The list of uses should be organized clearly and in a way that is consistent with professional practice. If uses are not wetl organized, staff and applicants lose time attempting to locate the use in the matdx, In addition, the liketi- hood.of uses being classified differently in · several places creates the potential for ~- inconsistencies and vagueness. Most zoning ordinances organize uses broadly into residential, commercial, and industrial land-use cate§odes. This has been the practice since the inception of zoning in the United States, and contin- ues under most ordinances today. (3) Uses should be clearly defined. If uses are not clearly defined, zoning staff is called upon to interpret the ordinance. If the applicant disagrees with the inter- pretation, courts could be called upon to inter- pret the ordinance. Because ambiguities in zoning re§ulations favor the property owner, the result could be an interpretation that undermines the integrity of the local govern- ment's zoning scheme. Further, from the appli- cant's perspective, it means an unnecessary delay in the development approval process'. Second, the list of permitted uses should be exhaustive. While this makes the list longer, it also minimizes the need for formal interpretations and potentially minimizes liti- gation. Under most zoning systems, omitting uses means either that the use is not permit- ted or that it fits within a broader use category. This creates the need for staff and administra- tive agencies (such as the boa'rd o.f adiust- mono to render a formal interpretation. If the applicant or landowners in surrouoding' neigh- borhoods disagree with this interpretation, the result could be litigation. This does not mean every particular use must be enumerated in the list of permitted uses. However, all potential uses should be covered to the extent possible. For example, a general use category for retail sales will encompass a number of potential sales estab- lishments, including some not in existence today. Again, it is not possible to contemplate every use that will become the subject of a zonin§ application. Third, the list of permitted uses should be consistent with the local government's 70 ZONINGPRACTICE 9.05 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION J/;age 4