|
~danninv, policies as expressed in the compre-
<br /> hensive .~lan. Fhe permitted uses should sup-
<br /> i~ort dod reinforce the districting policies
<br /> established m a future land-use element and
<br /> ~ther elements of the plan.
<br />
<br /> Finally, the list of permitted uses must be
<br />consistent with state and federal law. For
<br />example, ,:onstitutional law, federal teg!sla-
<br />lion, and sometimes state [egis[aden require
<br />t~at adult uses, cell towers, churches, and sim-
<br />ilar ,JSeS be permitted somewhere in nearly all
<br />iurisdictif;ns. Failing to recognize these uses
<br />in the permitted uses list or elsewhere in the
<br />znning ordinance could result in their outright
<br />exclusion from the jurisdiction or failure to
<br />accommodate them in a sufficient number of
<br />locations. Fhe result may be an unwinnab[e
<br />lawsuit, alon§ with potential liti§adon
<br />expenses, dnma§es, and attorneys fees.
<br />
<br /> LAND-USE TAXONOMY:
<br /> EVOLUTION AND APPLICATIONS
<br /> Industrial cl~ssi~cation systems. Perhaps
<br /> ~he earliest ~)',/stem of land-use taxonomy
<br /> in the United States was the List of Industries
<br /> for Manutocturing and List of Industries
<br /> for Nonmanufacturing industries, completed
<br /> in tg]8-t,)39 by the Interdepartmental Com-
<br /> mittee on Industrial Statistics established by
<br /> Central Statistical Board of the United States.
<br /> This was tater replaced by the Standard
<br /> Industrial Classification (SIC) developed by
<br /> thn United States Office of Budget and
<br /> Mana~'ement in [957. In older zoning ordi-
<br /> na~]ces, SIC ,Mas used to organize and define
<br /> uses. Many zonin§ ordinances still use it as
<br /> a c?oss~reference for permitted uses.
<br />
<br /> In ~997, The United States 0epartment of
<br />Commerce updated the industrial classifica-
<br />tion system in the North American Industrial
<br />Clas$ificadnn System (NAICS). The system
<br />inc!udes nearly every economic classification
<br />,)r .-~ctivib/ in existence on the North American
<br />,:or~tinent, and is updated periodically.
<br /> [ndusrriat classification systems have
<br />several si]or[comings as applied to zonin§
<br />re§uia[ions. First, they are overspecialized
<br />~'or ~s~inzomn§ordinancesandcomprehen-
<br />~iw plans. Listin§ every use in [he classifi-
<br />,:orion system ,:an result in a zonin§ ordinance
<br />chat ts excessively long and difficult to or§an-
<br />ize u]d uflderstand. Second, the purpose of
<br />~:[as~ifh:arion '~ys~ems is to cate§prize indus-
<br />mm; rail]er d~an address lalld-use impacts.
<br />',cc ~rdii~r;Iy, Yses within the same industry
<br />
<br />can have widel~ different impacts. Fqr example,
<br />service sector uses such as nail solo}Is are
<br />classified,in the same category as tattoo par-
<br />lors. However, many local ~overnments are
<br />interested in restricting tattoo parlors because
<br />of their perceived neighborhood impacts. By
<br />focusing on similar market characteristics, the
<br />industrial classification system ignores the
<br />differences between these two very different
<br />uses. SiC and NAICS are comprehensive,
<br />but their classifications are sometimes incon-
<br />gruent with zoning.
<br />
<br /> Transportation models. Transportation
<br />professionals have also developed classifica-
<br />tion systems to predict trip generation for
<br />various uses. An older version of this model
<br />is the Standard Land Use Classification
<br />Model (SLUCM). In ~965, the Urban Renewal
<br />Administration of the Housing and Home
<br />Finance Agency (now HUD) and the Bureau of
<br />Public Roads of the Department of Commerce
<br />(now the Department of Transportation, Federal
<br />Highway Administration) developed SLUCM to
<br />establish an extensive system of land-use
<br />activities for the purpose of providing unifur-
<br />mity tn collection and analysis of planning
<br />information. It contains four levels of land-use
<br />activity categories, each higher level providing
<br />pro§ressively greater specificity. SLUCM is still
<br />used by the United States Air Force and
<br />Federal Aviation Administration for airport
<br />compatibility planning.
<br /> SLUCM refined the nomenclature origi-
<br />nally developed in [957 in .SIC, which was
<br />developed to provide a classification system
<br />for economic activity. SLUCM land-use cate-
<br />§pries have no particular relationship to noise
<br />sensitivity, aircraft accident considerations, or
<br />
<br /> any particular planning consideration. They are
<br /> merely intended to provide a uniform and com-
<br /> prehensive cate§orizat!on of land-use activity.
<br /> An up-to-date classification system is
<br /> included in ITE's Trip Generation. The manual
<br /> uses broad land-use categories to assemble
<br /> data on observed tdp characteristics. Because
<br /> it is a comprehensive empirical database of
<br /> trip gene~ation--a key indicator of land-use
<br /> impacts-i~ is typically used in impact fee stud-
<br /> ies. However, the breadth and limited scope of
<br /> the manual limit iI;s effectiveness for use in a
<br /> list of permitted uses in zoning districts.
<br /> APA's Lc~zd-8osed Classi~coEon
<br />Stonderds, The Land-Based Classification
<br />Standards (LBCS) meiges the-different forms
<br />of lah'cl-use classification into a single model
<br />that can be used fora variety of applications.
<br />Originally conceived as an upda!e to SLUCM,
<br />LBCS consists of five classification systems:
<br />activity, function, structure, site, and owner-
<br />ship. The function classification wbrks as an
<br />industry classification, aKhough at a much
<br />less detailed scale than NAICS. The structure
<br />classification is best for design-based codes
<br />in communities or situations where the con-
<br />cern is more about the form and massing of a
<br />building and not its use. In practice, most
<br />communities prefer a combination of the func-
<br />tion and structure classifications. The activity,
<br />site, and ownership classifications are gener-
<br />ally more adaptable to mapping than to
<br />in§ regulation. Most states prohibit regulation
<br />of forms of ownership through zoning, elimi-
<br />nating this classification for zoning.
<br /> APA developed LBCS in collaboration
<br />~vith numerous public and. professional agen-
<br />cies. APA maintains an extensive collection of
<br />land-use descriptions under each category,
<br />color-coding systems for mapping, working
<br />papers, photographs, and other useful infor-
<br />mation at www. planning.org/Ibcs/index.html.
<br />
<br />APPLYING LBC5
<br />The application ora land;use coding system
<br />such as LBCS to a zoning ordinance involves
<br />several key steps.
<br /> Organiz¢ti°nal framework. First, the
<br />jurisdiction must determine how it wants to
<br />re§ulate land.use. Is it interested in maintain-
<br />ins both a tight separation of [and uses and
<br />the relative simplicity of conventional zoning?
<br />Or does it want to maintain flexibility between
<br />uses to achieve better desiB'n? Answering this
<br />key question will go a ton§ way in determining
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE 9,os 71
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I pose 5
<br />
<br />
<br />
|