|
<br />contradictions, and confusion resulting from
<br />the presence of development regulations in
<br />several different ordinances or different parts
<br />of the local code, or coritained in drafts written
<br />by different people at diff~rent times. For
<br />example, zoning and subdivision regulations
<br />often contain different definitions of basic
<br />terms such as "street," meaning the effect of
<br />the zoning ordinance may be to allow con.
<br />struction of a dwelling on a street that does
<br />not meet the subdivision standards. Although
<br />there may be logical reasons for such a provi-
<br />sion, it is importantto review all such apparent
<br />inconsistencies and eliminate or explain them.
<br />
<br />UDC EFFICIENCY
<br />The advantages of a development code are par~
<br />ticularly apparent when it comes to administra.
<br />tive and procedural provisions. Consolidation of
<br />all provisions related to zoning map amend.
<br />ments and the review and approval of proposed
<br />developments is inherently efficient and sensi.
<br />ble. Such an approach leads to consistent stan-
<br />dards and criteria governing such matters as
<br />public notices, hearing requirements, decision.
<br />,making criteria, and other factors common to
<br />nearly all development review processes.
<br />Planners can organize procedures in a way
<br />that tracks the "typical" development process,
<br />starting with basic land-use/intensity considera'
<br />tions (zoning classification) and proceeding
<br />through a series of more site- and project.spe-.
<br />ciftc issues, such as platting, site planning, the
<br />presence of conditional uses, and variances.
<br />
<br />LOOK FIRST TO A MODEL
<br />The model ordinance that follows establishes
<br />a unified development permit review'process.
<br />Author commentary is included throughout.
<br />The model ordinance in its entirety is avail-
<br />able as a web-based enhancement on the
<br />Zoning Practice webpages. The ordinance
<br />brings together the various types of develop-
<br />ment permissions and related approvals
<br />under a single procedural umbrella while
<br />retaining the authority of permit-approving
<br />officers and bodies. The model also groups in
<br />one place the application requirements, the
<br />schedule for action, and decision.making cri-
<br />teria for different types of land.use decisions.
<br />The unified development permit review
<br />process applies to allland.use decisions,
<br />whether by the legislative body, the planning
<br />commission, a hearing officer, or a spec!alized
<br />body (e~g., a historic preservation commis-
<br />sion). The permit review process has three ele-
<br />
<br />ments: (a) a completeness review for applica-
<br />tions; (b) action on the development applica-
<br />tion itself; and (c) an appeal process.
<br />Under the model, an applicant for a
<br />development permit, a preliminary approval
<br />(such as that for a preliminary subdivision),
<br />or a zoning district map amendment applies
<br />to the local government for approval. The
<br />local government, through the appropriate
<br />official, determines within a certain period
<br />of time whether the application is complete
<br />(I.e., all the mechanical requirements for
<br />submitting an application are present). If it
<br />is, the local government issues a complete-
<br />ness determination and processes the appli-
<br />cation according to the standards in the
<br />land development regulations. If the local
<br />
<br />The UDC model'
<br />also creates a
<br />consolidated permit
<br />review process for
<br />development
<br />projects that require
<br />multiple permits.
<br />
<br />government determines that the application
<br />is not complete, the applicant has a speci-
<br />fied period of time in which to respond with
<br />the needed information. If the applicant.
<br />does not respond the application is auto.
<br />matically rejected unless provisions for an
<br />extension are secured. If the local govern-
<br />ment fails to conduct a completeness review
<br />in the time established by the ordinance the
<br />application is deemed complete.
<br />Action on the development application
<br />takes two forms. The first is an administrative
<br />review, which is the traditional review for rou-
<br />tine building and zoning permits where no
<br />hearing is required and an a.dministrative offi-
<br />cer makes the decision. The second type of
<br />review requires a record hearing (e.g., an
<br />application for a conditional use permit)
<br />before the approving authority. In such a
<br />hearing, a complete record, including a tran-
<br />script of the hearing, is created. Afterward,
<br />the approving authority makes a written deci-
<br />si.on. With both application types. a decision
<br />must occur within certain time limits
<br />
<br />(although extensions are possible) o,r the
<br />application is automatically deemed
<br />approved.
<br />Any person aggrieved by the land-use
<br />decision may appeal ittoan appeals board,
<br />usually the board of zoning appeals in most
<br />communities (although it could be a hearing
<br />officer). For a land-use decision that was the
<br />result of a record hearing, the appeals board
<br />reviews only the written record and does not
<br />hold another hearing. For a land-use decision
<br />that is the result of an administrative review,
<br />the appeals board must hold a, record hearing.
<br />Not allland.use decisions are subject to
<br />appeal, however. For example, a city council's
<br />refusal to amend the text of the zoning ordi-
<br />nance-a legislative act!9r-could not be
<br />appealed. sirTiii~~ly, a preliminary subdivision
<br />denial could not be appealed because the
<br />decision is not final. Denial of a final subdivi.
<br />sion plat, however, could be appealed.
<br />The model also creates a consolidated
<br />permit review process for development proj.
<br />ects that require multiple permits. The zoning
<br />administrator or another designated official
<br />serves as the permit review coordinator and
<br />has discretion in scheduling hearings. Hear-
<br />ings may be combined in order to reduce their
<br />number. Under the consolidated permit review
<br />process, the zoning permit, which serves as
<br />the master permit, is the last permit issued
<br />and signifies that the developer has obtained
<br />all subordinate development permissions.
<br />The consolidated permit review process,
<br />however, only applies to development proj-
<br />ects for which the local government issues
<br />permits. It would not apply, for example, to
<br />projects that require state and local approval
<br />under separate application procedures (I.e., a
<br />project needing both building and zoning per-
<br />mits from the local government and a wetland
<br />permit from a state department). While it is
<br />possible to tailor a review process that would
<br />combine state and local approvals, such a
<br />process would of necessity call for action from
<br />both levels of government.
<br />The model authorizes the permit review
<br />coordinator to establish a technical review com.
<br />mittee of local govemment officials .;In,d officials
<br />from other goyernmental ag~J1cies, (e.g., health
<br />departments or the local soil and water-conser-
<br />. -
<br />vation district) ao_d nongovernmental agencies
<br />(e.g., the local utility company). Finally, Section
<br />106 of the model establishes a procedare for
<br />rendering written interpretations of the land
<br />development regulations upon request.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 6.D~ 03
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 3
<br />
|