Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Online
Chapter 9: Special and Environmental Land Development Regulations and Land-Use Incentives (endnotes)
[1 ] This commentary and the following model statute were drafted by John Bredin, Esq., Research Fellow, Stuart Meck, FAICP, Principal Investigator for Growing Smart, and Jon Witten, Esq., an attorney and a planning consultant in Sandwich, Massachusetts.
[2 ] This commentary and the following model statute were drafted by John Bredin, Esq., Research Fellow, Stuart Meck, FAICP, Principal Investigator for Growing Smart, and Jon Witten, Esq., an attorney and a planning consultant in Sandwich, Massachusetts.
[6 ] For a discussion of planning for disasters and of the regulations and other measures needed before, during, and after a disaster occurs, see Jim Schwab with Kenneth C. Topping, Charles C. Eadie, Robert E. Deyle, and Richard A. Smith, Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 483/484 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1998).
[7 ] This Section is adapted from Deborah L. Johnson, "Suggestions for Model Transportation Demand Management Legislation," Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1996) 133-146.
[8 ] See generally: Erik Ferguson, Transportation Demand Management, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 477 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1998); Mark E. Hanson, "Automobile Subsidies and Land Use: Estimates and Policy Responses," Journal of the American Planning Association 58, No. 1: 60-71; Peter Schauer, "Issues of Time and Space: Transportation Demand Management, A Solution For 21st Century Congestion," The Western Planner (April/May 1994): 5-8; Anthony Downs, Stuck In Traffic: Coping With Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion, (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1992).
[9 ] A total of 17 states were examined. Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. 49-581 et seq. (1998); California: Cal. Gov't Code 65088-65089.9 (1999), Cal Pub. Res. Code 25480-25486, Cal. Str.& H. Code 149.1; Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. 43-1-1101 et seq. (1998); Connecticut: Conn. Gen'l Stat. 13b-38a et seq. (1998); Delaware: Del. Code 1903-1905 (1999); Florida: Fla. Stat. 339.177, 341 (1999); Georgia: Ga. Code 32-9-4 et seq. (1998); Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. 226-17 et seq. (1999); Illinois: 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 32/1 et seq. (1999); Maine: 10 Me. Rev. Stat. 1461 et seq. (1998); Massachusetts: Mass. Gen'l Laws tit. 63, 31D, 31F (1998); New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. 27:26A-1 et seq. (1999); Oregon: Ore. Rev. Stat. 184.730 (1999); Pennsylvania: 35 Pa. Stat. 4007.10, 74 Pa. Comp. Stat. 1301-1302 (1999); Rhode Island: R.I. Gen'l Laws 37-5-7 (1999); Washington: Wash Rev. Code 46.16.023, 46.74, 47.06, 47.66, 47.80,& 70.94.521 (1998); Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. 144.3712 (1998).
[13 ] For example, Illinois' TDM legislation, the Employee Commute Options Act, is subject to automatic repeal upon the repeal of the Clean Air Act Amendments. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 32/75 (1999). This suggests that Illinois' predominant interest in adopting its Employee Commute Options Act was meeting the federal mandate rather than employing TDM.
[20 ] See generally Christopher J. Duerksen, "Historic Preservation," in Edward Ziegler, ed., Rathkopf's Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol. 1 (Eagan, Minn.: West Group, 1992 Supp.), Ch.15; and Gordon L. Ohlsson, "Aesthetic Zoning" in Eric Damian Kelly, gen. editor, Zoning and Land Use Controls, Vol. 2 (New York: Matthew Bender, 1991), Ch. 16.
[21 ] See generally Christopher J. Duerksen, ed., A Handbook on Historic Preservation Law (Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation, 1983); Richard J. Roddewig, Preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 374 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1983); Nancy Benzinger Brown, "Historic Preservation Legislation," in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 3 , Planning Advisory Service Report No. ___, (Chicago: American Planning Association, forthcoming).
[22 ] See generally Mark L. Hinshaw, Design Review, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 454 (Chicago: American Planning Association, February 1995); Peggy Glassford, Appearance Codes for Small Communities, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 379 (Chicago: American Planning Association, October 1983); Brenda Case Lightner, "Survey of Design Review Practices" PAS Memo (Chicago: American Planning Association, January 1993).
[23 ] The most important piece of federal legislation is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. 470a-470m. The act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of Historic Places, which includes historic areas, sites, and buildings. The act contains a review process that requires federal agencies to take into account the effect of federal "undertakings" on National Register properties. National Register designations often form the basis for local historic districts.
[25 ] Though a single board can be used for both historic preservation and design review, the expertise needed for each is distinct and therefore there may need to be two boards, each containing the experts needed for its respective task.
[26 ] The use of a board rather than a single officer addresses due process concerns. Preservation ordinances have been upheld against due process challenges because the review board was required to have members with expertise in history or architecture. See, e.g., A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1979).
[27 ] These guidelines are often adopted by the historic preservation or design review board. See, e.g., Sherman v. Dayton Board of Zoning Appeals, 84 OhioApp.3d 223, 515 N.E.2d 937(1993) (holding that mandatory standards adopted by the city's landmarks commission, as specific applications of more general federal guidelines for historic districts, had the force of law).
[29 ] See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. 9-462.01(A)(10) (1999); Ark. Stat. 14-172-201 et seq. (1999); Rev. Conn. Gen. Stat. Tit. 7, Ch. 97a (1997); Ga. Code Ann. 36-16-1 et seq.; Idaho Code 67-4601 to 67-4619 (1999); Ind. Stat. Ann. 36-7-11 et seq. (1999); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 40C (1999); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 399.172-.215 (1999); Nev. Rev. Stat. 384.005 (1999); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 674:45-674:50 (1999); N.M. Stat. Ann. Ch. 3, Art. 22 (1999); S.D. Code. Laws Ann. Ch. 1-19B (1999); Va. Code Ann. 15.2-2306 (1999); and W. Va. Code Ann. Art. 26A (1999). See generally Pamela Thurber and Robert Moyer, State Enabling Legislation for Local Preservation Commissions (Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Fall 1984).
[30 ] See, e.g., State ex rel. Saveland Park Holding Corp. v. Wieland, 269 Wis. 262, 69 N.W.2d 217, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 841 (1955); State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley, 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo. 1970); Reid v. Architectural Board of Review, 119 OhioApp. 67, 192 N.E.2d 74 (1963); Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, 9 OhioSt.3d 69, 458 N.E.2d 852 (1984), appeal dismissed, 467 U.S. 163 (1984).
[31 ] Donrey Communications Co. v. City of Fayetteville, 280 Ark. 408, 660 S.W.2d 900 (1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 959 (1984); Metromedia Inc. v. City of San Diego, 26 Cal.3d 848, 610 P.2d 407 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 453 U.S. 490 (1981); City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Adv. Ass'n, 414 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 1982); John Donnelly& Sons v. Outdoor Adv. Bd, 369 Mass. 206, 339 N.E.2d 709 (1975); Asselin v. Town of Conway, 137 N.H.368, 628 A.2d 247 (1993); Cromwell v. Ferrier, 19 N.Y.2d, 363, 225 N.E.2d 749; State v. Jones, 305 N.C. 520, 290 S.E.2d 675 (1982); Oregon City v. Hartke, 240 Or. 35, 400 P.2d 255 (1965); State v. Smith, 618 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn. 1981), Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer, 156 Vt. 77, 589 A.2d 1205 (1990).
[34 ] Id. at129. (Citations omitted). Other cases upholding historic preservation ordinances as proper uses of the police power include A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1979); Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1975); Bohannan v. City of San Diego, 30 Cal.App.3d 416 (1973); Figarsky v. Historic District Comm., 368 A.2d 163 (Conn. 1976); Rebman v. City of Springfield, 250 N.E.2d 282 (Ill. 1969); City of Santa Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 389 P.2d 13 (N.M. 1964); City of New Orleans v. Levy, 64 So.2d 798 (1953); and Opinion of the Justices, 128 N.E.2d. 557 (Mass. 1955).
[35 ] City of West Palm Beach v. State, 158 Fla. 863, 30 So.2d 491 (Fla. 1947); Piscitelli v. Twp. Comm., 103 N.J. Super. 589, 248 A.2d 274 (1968) Bd. of Supvrs. v. Rowe, 215 Va. 128, 216 S.E.2d 199 (1975); Waterfront Estates Dev., Inc. v. City of Palos Hills, 232 Ill.App.3d 367, 597 N.E.2d 641 (1992); Pacesetter Homes v. Village of Olympia Fields, 104 Ill.App.2d 218, 244 N.E.2d 369 (1968); Morristown Rd. Assoc. v. Mayor and Common Council, 163 N.J. Super. 58, 394 A.2d 157 (1978). Contra Novi v. City of Pacifica, 169 Cal.App.3d 678, 215 Cal.Rptr. 439 (1985).
[36 ] See generally, George Abney, "Florida's Local Historic Preservation Ordinances: Maintaining Flexibility While Avoiding Vagueness Claims," 25 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1017 (1998), which identifies an extensive body of state and federal court decisions upholding governmental decisions under historic preservation ordinances against claims of vagueness and unlawful designation of authority.
[42 ] See generally John J. Costonis, "The Chicago Plan: Incentive Zoning and the Preservation of Urban Landmarks," Harvard L. Rev. 85 (1972): 574, 578; Robert A. Johnston& Mary E. Madison, "From Landmarks to Landscapes: A Review of Current Practices in the Transfer of Development Rights," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 63, No. 3 (Summer 1997): 365-378; Rick Pruetz, Saved by Development: Preserving Environmental Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights (Burbank, Calif.: Arje Press, 1997); Frank Schnidman, "Transferable Development Rights," Ch. 23, in Donald Hagman and Dean Misczynski, Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1978); Sarah J. Stevenson, "Banking on TDRs: The Government's Role as a Banker of Transferable Development Rights," 1999 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1999), 419-478.
[71 ] Julian C. Juergensmeyer, James C. Nicholas, and Brian D. Leebrick, "Transferable Development Rights and Alternatives After Suitum," Urban Lawyer 30, No. 2 (Spring 1998): 441, 451 fn. 89; Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, 4th ed. (Charlottesville, Va.: Lexis Law Publishing Co., 1997), 12.13,, 494.
[74 ] Gardner v. New Jersey Pinelands Comm'n, 125 N.J. 193, 593 A.2d 251 (1991); Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Washington Cty., 282 Or. 591, 581 P.2d 50 (1978); Glisson v. Alachua Cty., 558 So.2d 1030 (Fla. App. 1990); Aptos Seascape Corp. v. Santa Cruz Cty., 138 Cal.App.3d 484, 188 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1983).
[80 ] Neuzil v. Iowa City, 451 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 1990); Finch v. City of Durham, 325 N.C. 352, 384 S.E.2d 8 (1989); Odabash v. Borough of Dumont, 65 N.J. 115, 319 A.2d 712 (1974); National Amusements, Inc. v. City of Boston, 29 Mass.App. 305, 560 N.E.2d 138 (1990).
[83 ] N.J. Stat. Ann. 13:18A-1 to —29 (1997), upheld in Matlack v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 191 N.J.Super. 236, 466 A.2d 83 (L. Div. 1983), aff'd 194 N.J.Super. 359, 476 A.2d 1262 (App. Div. 1984); Telephone interview, 10/12/98, with John Costonis.
[90 ] Pine Barrens Credit Clearinghouse information sheet; Brief of the National Trust For Historic Preservation in the United States et al. at 19, Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, No. 96-243 (U.S. 1997).
[116 ] Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 355 A.2d 550 (D.C. App. 1976); Matlack v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 466 A.2d 83 (N.J.L. Div. 1983), aff'd 476 A.2d 1262 (N.J. App. Div. 1984).
[117 ] See West Montgomery Cty. Citizens Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park& Planning Comm'n, 522 A.2d 1328 (Md. 1987) (TDR ordinance assigns power to designate receiving areas to planning board, ultra vires under zoning enabling act requiring rezoning to be approved by local legislature).
[160 ] Telephone interview, 10/12/98, with John Costonis; Juergensmeyer, Nicholas, and Leebrick at 447-448; Joseph Stinson and Michael Murphy, Transfer of Development Rights, ¶ 18, <www.law.pace.edu/landuse/tdr.html>.
[161 ] For more on TDR banking, see Sarah J. Stevenson, "Banking on TDRs: The Government's Role as a Banker of Transferable Development Rights," 1999 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1999): 419-478.
[162 ] See generally E. Thompson, Jr., "'Hybrid' Farmland Protection Programs: A New Paradigm for Growth Management?" William& Mary Envt'l L.& Pol. Review, Vol. 23 (Fall 1999): 831; Thomas S. Barrett& Stefan Nagel, Model Conservation Easement and Historic Preservation Easement, 1996 (Washington D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 1996); Janet Diehl& Thomas S. Barrett, The Conservation Easement Handbook: Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs (Washington D.C.: Land Trust Alliance, 1988); Marilyn Meder-Montgomery, Preservation Easements: A Legal Mechanism for Protecting Cultural Resources (Denver: Colorado Historical Society, 1984).
[164 ] American Farmland Trust, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/fic/tas/tafs-pacestate.html
[167 ] Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. 43-1021, 43-1081.02, 43-1121,& 43-1180; California: Cal. Pub. Res. Code 37000 et seq., Cal. Rev.& Tax Code 17039.1, 17053.30, 23036.1,& 23630; Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. 39-22-522; Connecticut: Conn. Gen'l Stat. 12-217dd; Delaware: Del. Code 30-1801 et seq.; Maryland: Md. Tax Code 10-218& 10-722; North Carolina: N.C. Gen'l Stat. 105-130.34& 105-151.12; South Carolina: S.C. Code 12-6-3515, 50-3-1110 et seq.,& 62-3-715; Virginia: Va. Code 58.1-510 et seq..
[168 ] Arizona: Ariz. Rev. Stat. 9-464 et seq.; Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. 31-25-201, 31-25-301 (authorizing PDR to preserve both open space and "vistas of scientific, historic, aesthetic, or other public interest"); Connecticut: Conn. Gen'l Stat. 7-131d; Iowa: Iowa Code 457A.1 et seq.; Massachusetts: 1998 Mass. Acts ch. 293 (Cape Cod Open Space Land Acquisition Program); Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. 67.880; New Hampshire: N.H. Rev. Stat. 79-C:1 et seq.; New Jersey: N.J. Stat. 13:8A-1 et seq. (New Jersey Green Acres Land Acquisition); New York: N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law 54-0301 et seq.; Pennsylvania: 32 Penn. Stat. 5001 et seq.; Virginia: Va. Code 15.2-2403.
[169 ] California: Cal. Gov't Code 10230 et seq.; Michigan: Mich. Comp. Laws 125.231 et seq., 125.301 et seq., and 125.593 et seq.; Rhode Island: R.I. Gen'l Laws 42-85-5 et seq.; Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. 91.01 et seq..
[172 ] It is not necessary to explain privity of estate or contract in detail, except to state that they make enforcement of easements in gross by or against successors to the original parties difficult and uncertain, and are considered by many attorneys and lawmakers to be archaic requirements.
[176 ] National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, "Uniform Conservation Easement Act," in Land Saving Action: A Written Symposium by 29 Experts on Private Land Conservation in the 1980s, Russell L. Brenneman and Sarah M. Bates, eds., pp. 111-116 (Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1984).
[177 ] Arkansas: Ark. Code 15-20-401 et seq.; Delaware: Del. Code 11-6901 et seq.; Florida: Fla. Stat. 704.06; Georgia: Ga. Code 44-10-1 et seq.; Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. 198-1 et seq.; Idaho: Idaho Code 55-2101 et seq.; Illinois: 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 120/0.01 et seq.; Kansas: Kan. Stat. 58-3810 et seq.; Maine: 33 Me. Rev. Stat. 476 et seq.; Minnesota: Minn. Stat. 84C.01 et seq.; Mississippi: Miss. Code 89-19-1 et seq.; Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat 76-2,111 et seq.; Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. 111.390 et seq.; North Carolina: N.C. Gen'l Stat. 121-34 et seq.; Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. 271.710 et seq.; South Carolina: S.C. Code 27-8-10 et seq.; South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws 1-19B-56 et seq.; Texas: Tex. Nat. Res. Code 183.001 et seq.; Utah: Utah Code 57-18-1 et seq.; Vermont: 10 Vt. Stat. 821 et seq.; Washington: Wash. Rev. Code 64.04.130 and 84.34.200 et seq..
[178 ] See generally Mark S. Dennison, Wetland Mitigation: Mitigation Banking and Other Strategies for Development and Compliance (Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, Inc., 1997); Megan Lewis, "Swamps for Sale: Wetlands Mitigation Banking," Environment and Development, Mar./Apr. 1996 (Chicago: APA Press); "Banking on Wetlands," Environmental Manager, February 1996 (John Wiley& Sons); Brian Blaesser, "New Federal Wetlands Policy: The Landowner's Perspective,"Land Use Law& Zoning Digest Vol. 46, No. 1: 3,6-8 (January 1994); Robert D. Sokolove& Pamela D. Huang, "Privatization of Wetland Mitigation Banking," Natural Resources& Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1: 36-38, 68-69 (Summer 1992) (Chicago: American Bar Association, Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law); Jon A. Kusler& Mary E. Kentula, eds., Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1990).
[186 ] Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Mitigation Banks, 60 Fed. Reg. 58605, 58611 (Nov. 28, 1995); Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Feb. 6, 1990).
[187 ] Dennison at 91-92. Oregon has not officially been delegated to enforce Section 404 and regulations, but since the Corps granted a five-year permit to the state for wetland restoration and enhancement, the Corps has effectively yielded the wetlands permitting field in Oregon to the state.
[215 ] This commentary is based on "Zoning Bonuses and Incentives" by Marya Morris, AICP, in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 3, Planning Advisory Service Report No. ____ (Chicago: American Planning Association, forthcoming, 2001).
[216 ] Telephone interview with Tom Smith, Assistant Commissioner, Chicago Department of Planning and Development, September 16, 1999. Interview conducted by Marya Morris, AICP, Senior Research Associate, American Planning Association Research Department.
[221 ] Cal. Govt. Code 65915. For an evaluation of the California statute, see Robert A. Johnston, Seymour I. Schwartz, Geoffey A. Wandesforde-Smith, and Michael Caplan, "Selling Zoning: Do Density Bonuses for Moderate-Cost Housing Work?" Land Use Law& Zoning Digest 42, no. 8 (August 1990): 3-9.
[223 ] Telephone interview with Linda Wheaton, Housing Specialist, California. Department. of Housing and Community Development, October 12, 1999. Interview conducted by Marya Morris, AICP, Senior Research Associate, APA Research Department.
[225 ] Cal. Govt. Code 14045(a). The demonstration program legislation indicates that local governments that participate must have an adopted land use plan and zoning ordinance that encourages development of high-density residential development near mass transit guideway stations and that are implementing state legislation regarding the following: development agreements Cal. Govt. Code 65864; redevelopment plans pursuant to Art. 4, 33330 of the state Health and Safety Code; and congestion management plan adopted pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code 65099.
[240 ] Telephone interview with Bonnie Gaebler, Housing Administrator, City of Petaluma, California, January 11, 2000. Interview conducted by Marya Morris, AICP, Senior Research Associate, APA Research Department.
[241 ] Telephone interview with Kent Edens, Deputy Director of Planning, San Jose, California, January 14, 2000. Interview conducted by Marya Morris, AICP, Senior Research Associate, APA Research Department.
[242 ] California communities offer density bonuses well in excess of 25 percent., in some cases as high as 150-175 percent. See Robert A. Johnston, Seymour I. Schwartz, Geoffey A. Wandesforde-Smith, and Michael Caplan, "Selling Zoning: Do Density Bonuses for Moderate-Cost Housing Work?" Land Use Law& Zoning Digest 42, no. 8 (August 1990): 3-9, at 8 (discussion of Santa Rosa, California, incentives program).