Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

IV/Ai oil f APRIL 1997 :e AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION II ;,;: i:, The Problem of Antiquated Subdivisions By Jim Schwab, AlCP ~ ~T ime waits for no developer," the saying might go, and the proof lies in thousands of antiquated subdivisions dotting the national landscape. In recent decades, standards for evaluating sl,lbdivision proposals have evolved with regard to a wide range "f issues, including drainage, street width and design, and the preservation of natural features, such as slopes, wetlands, and forests. Zoning has also changed, even as development of many platted lands has stood still. The most fundamental solution to these problems is to replat the lands in question, bringing their density and lot configura- tions into conformity with current zoning. For various reasons, ranging from the administrative burdens replatting involves to the assumption that development is not imminent, local jurisdic- tionsdo not always choose this route. This issue of Zoning N(ws examines some alternative methods jurisdictions have used to control undesirable growth in antiquated subdivisions. Next month's issue will examine state and local laws and programs for replatting or reassembling land in such subdivisions. The Muddled Slate Planners are not always dealing with a blank slate in enforcing modern development standards. Particularly in high-growth states, millions of acres ofland were platted without adequate standards or under older standards bilt never developed. Today, they no longer conform to current zoning or standards for subdivision approval. Although they have come to be known as antiquated subdivisions, some are really not very old. For that reason, California planning consultant Paul Sedway has suggested that they might more accurately be termed "anachronistic." Whatever the label, communities confronted with development plans for such areas must decide whether to: . Let them be developed as originally planned, which may necessitate loosening zoning restrictions; . C?rant variances where they can be justified by the CIrcumstances; . Let them remain largely vacant until the developer replats the land to current standards, which may mean building around them for years to come; . Expedite development by requiring replatting or lot mergers; . Facilitate transfers' of development rights (TOR), which can entail significant administrative and marketing efforts; or . Vacate the plat and start over again. A current U.S. Supreme Court case demonstrates the legal challenges that some approaches may entail. On February 26, 1997, the Court heard oral arguments in the case of Suitum v. Taho( R(gional Planning Agmry (No. 96-243), which involves a landowner challenging the agency's requirement that she use its .5~ TOR program to regain some value from a platted lot in Incline Village, Nevada, on which she had planned to build a home before the T woe Regional Planning Agency (TRP A) reevaluated the site in 1989 and determined that it Was in a stream environment zone. Bernadine Suitum insisted on her right to build on the lot she owned as it had been envisioned in the original platting. Because other planning agencies have used TOR programs to deal with problems stemming from antiquated subdivisions, the case could have a significant impact on the use of this regulatory system. A decision is expected by June. P artieularly in high- growth states, millions of acres of/anc/.wer.e platted without adequate standards or under older standards but never developed. Today, they no longer conform to current zoning or standards for subdivision approval. History and Culture The history of American land speculation and development helped to foster the dilemma that antiquated subdivisions pose. Speculation in raw land dates back to the colonial era and involved leading citizens like Presidents Washington and Jefferson. It frequently involved poorly mapped lands of questionable quality, including wetlands that were often drained. The pivotal 'difference is that early land speculators were largely dividing vast tracts into farmlands for settlers moving west. In this century, tracts have been largely subdivided into house lots. The environmental impacts and the costs of extending infrastructure for residential development are almost always greater than they are for agricultural development. Today millions oflots are platted and may never be developed. Others appear on zoning maps as at least potentially buildable, though their planned density obviously relies on the extension of water and sewer lines. Many pose problems by not being developed (e.g., by causing new development to leapfrog problematic platting); others would pose problems if they were (e.g., by imposing excessive density in sensitive areas like wetlands or steep slopes). Florida and California, twO states widely recognized as having the most pervasive antiquated subdivision problems, saw hundreds of thousands o(lots platted prematurely as far'back as the 1920s. The process accelerated after World War II in a real estate boom that attracted millions of Ameticans to the Sun belt. That boom produced significant concentrations of antiquated subdivisions in other western and southern states whose populations swelled during that period, notably Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. The opportunity to sell land sometimes led developers to offer, on paper, plans that vastly exceeded their ability to build on the ground or could be developed and occupied under even the rosiest population projections. This premature platting foreclosed the opportunity to review subdivision plans for these .; ," '" , ~. t- ',\ ~~'f.