February 2000

By James Lawlor

North Carolina: Disaster recovery. The floods spawned by Hurricane Floyd last September were an unprecedented disaster for the state, even those parts not directly affected by flood waters. But, as legislative liaison David Knight pointed out to chapter members in November, the necessity of immediate assistance to flood victims should not obscure the need for planning to mitigate the effects of future natural disasters.

A special session of the legislature seemed to recognize that need in the "Hurricane Floyd Recovery Act," passed on December 16. The act appropriates more than $800 million for a special reserve fund to assist recovery efforts in the 66 federally declared disaster counties. It also provides $4.5 million to manage solid waste generated by natural disasters and for remediation of high-risk waste disposal sites.

Residential development is also affected. The act forbids spending authorized funds for new housing within the floodplain unless the site is covered by a local floodplain management ordinance. Homeowners who receive assistance are required to have federal flood insurance if it is available in their area. The act also directs the state's environmental review commission to study the benefits of amending the state flood insurance rate map in areas where the map is more than five years old.

A newly appointed 21-member disaster relief commission has been charged with studying the adequacy of the state's disaster response and the need to modify state policies to mitigate damages in future disasters.

Before Hurricane Floyd, the chapter had hoped that the 2000 regular session, opening in May, would consider smart growth legislation. A legislative commission appointed to study growth management issues has been authorized to make an interim report during the session, although, in theory at least, the even-year "short session" is supposed to confine its deliberations to budgetary matters.

Virginia: Trying again. Last year's elections were historic, putting Republicans in charge of the legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. The big GOP gains were in the northern Virginia suburbs of the District of Columbia, where planning is a hot issue, and many of the new legislators were elected on pro-growth control platforms. So chapter members have reason to hope that their positions will get a friendlier hearing than in past years, according to legislative chair Debrarae Karnes.

After reviewing existing growth management tools, the chapter has outlined a program to improve local governments' ability to control growth. Number one on the list, says Karnes, is to require zoning codes to be consistent with local comprehensive plans. Other recommendations concern conditional zoning and impact fees. The chapter also recommends that the legislature designate an agency or office to coordinate growth management efforts.

Colorado: Smart growth outlook dim. The election of a conservative legislature devoted to local control and a governor with a similar philosophy makes it unlikely that comprehensive growth management legislation will pass this year, says chapter legislative committee cochair David White.

Gov. Bill Owens is offering a smart growth package that includes proposals offered by the Colorado Municipal League and county governments. But, according to White, none of the proposals deals with growth in a comprehensive way. Nor do they require intergovernmental cooperation.

The chapter is working with other interest groups, including the home builders and business organizations, to create a more comprehensive growth management bill similar to the Responsible Growth Act, which failed to pass last session. The chapter also has been working with the Sierra Club and other groups on a citizen initiative addressing growth issues, which it hopes will appear on the November 2000 ballot.

Massachusetts: Cell tower siting. Negotiations are under way between the Massachusetts Municipal Association and telecommunications providers to draft new siting legislation for cellular towers. Under the proposed legislation, reports legislative committee chair Lyn Billman-Golemme, AICP, the state Department of Telecommunications and Energy would no longer be able to overrule siting decisions made by local governments.

The legislation would also offer streamlined permitting for "minor facilities" such as new antennas on existing structures. In contrast, new towers would be considered "major facilities" and would require a special permit.