Bad Zoning Codes Cause Sprawl
Connecticut's cities' zoning codes -- many based on MuniCode's bolierplate code -- make sprawl ineveitable.
"...[T]he reality is that many of Connecticut's developers and designers would love to create sociable, dense urban communities with open space set aside in perpetuity, a practice generally known as New Urbanism.
Unfortunately, there are many obstacles -- the biggest, baddest and most entrenched of which are the state's antiquated zoning codes, which make sprawl all but inevitable.
Writing zoning codes from scratch would have been a daunting undertaking for town volunteers at that time, so the codes were purchased lock, stock and barrel from supplier companies eager to make money distributing zoning boiler plate.
One of the largest such is the perfectly respectable company MuniCode, which since 1961 has supplied zoning codes to 23 Connecticut towns and cities. Not bad for a company located in Tallahassee, Fla. You might ask what an outfit in Tallahassee knows about the special character of the New England village of Westbrook? Answer: probably not much. So, over time, Westbrook gradually has taken on the suburban look of MuniCode's 1,600 other client communities across the United States.
...Zoning codes have failed to evolve with planning philosophies, because volunteer boards tend to be so impressed by the authoritative look and sheer weight of their codes that they believe them to have come down from the Mount."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Plenty Green But Too Tall? - Nov 10, 2008
Adaptively Reusing Brooklyn's Industrial Spaces - Oct 30, 2008
Rebuilding Underway in Sichuan Province - Oct 23, 2008
The Experts' Picks for Prettiest Towns in America - Oct 22, 2008
D.C. Ponders Density - Oct 16, 2008
congratulations
Chad Floyd… you should be congratulated for this analysis of zoning codes. Current State planning and development assessment legislation creates precisely the prescriptive ‘codes’ that you mention.
There are many difficulties encountered by applicants in obtaining approvals for sometimes quite routine developments and the ease with which even relatively straight forward developments can become derailed in a myriad of overlapping and duplicated procedures.
I agree, a top down approach from the State Government to change the system is required. `There is no other way to change the complex issues involved in the planning, development and building process.
The author highlighted the problem with City government; however, many County governments and State agencies also use outdated prescriptive ‘codes’. (I think the word code is too complementary. I would rather use the words “prescriptive regulation”).
There are planning systems that use models based on concepts of integrated and streamlined development assessment and integrated whole of government approach to land use and infrastructure planning.
For example for designers and architects the concept of ‘Private Building Certification’ would create a streamline approach to acquiring building permits. New State legislation would create a general head of power for private certification of development requiring code assessment, ie, the assessment of development against standards prescribed in a code.
Think what it can do for planning! An integrated development assessment system for land use could improve the speed and quality of decision-making on development proposals by streamlining decision-making processes; creating a single integrated development assessment system for State and local government approval processes; and establishing a central role for the impact assessment process. Wow.
Another example take a code for ‘General Land Uses and Development’ related to environmental management, called ‘Code for Nature Conservation Management and Biodiversity Protection’, then create a ‘Preamble’, a ‘Purpose’, ‘Applicability’ and then, ‘Performance Criteria’ and ‘Acceptable Measures’.
Performance Criteria would be a statement of the outcomes to be achieved in satisfying the stated Purpose of the code. It could provide an opportunity for a variety of responses to the design of the development. Whereas, Acceptable Measures could be the City’s preferred means of meeting the Performance Criteria. Acceptable Measures would offer a degree of certainty to the applicant, developer, or designer. Whereas Performance Criteria offer another means of achieving the ‘Purpose’ of the Code.
What we are seeking is a performance based planning method outlining the Council's intent for a planning area or even parcel of land. If a developer or designer knows this intent up front, think how efficient the planning and development process could become.