Citizen's Guide to Zoning

Herbert Smith

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781351177221
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

First published in 1983. An easy-to-read book about zoning that cuts the jargon out but leaves the wisdom in. Smith explains the fundamental principles of zoning, how to develop zoning regulations, and the nuts and bolts of a zoning ordinance. He examines variances, zoning hearings, and frequent zoning problems.

1

So You Want to Know About Zoning

There is no doubt of the presumptuousness of that chapter heading, and yet it is a most appropriate way to start. It might have been even better to have said, ‘You should want to know about zoning.” Although there are many reading this—and millions who never will read it— who may question that statement, I suggest that there is no single governmental function, other than taxation, that has a more direct bearing on our day-to-day lives than the thing called zoning. Don’t think you can stop reading here if you happen to live in a place without zoning, since the lack of such a process leaves you wide open to even more drastic and adverse effects. After some 30 years of being involved with communities and their development, I believe that any organized community in the United States that does not have zoning is shortchanging itself and that there is no town or city that has zoning that could not be doing a better job with it.

We Know All About It—Or Do We?

The interesting point is how much the word zoning is thrown around, how many more people know the term than did 16 years ago when I wrote the first edition of this book, and how few really understand what it is all about and how important it is. True, it has gotten to be one of the “in” words you hear bandied about, even at cocktail parties and church socials. Usually this occurs when a rumor has leaked out about someone proposing to ask for a zone change to permit apartments or a business in what has been thought of as a single-family residential area. The reaction then, unless you are the developer or stand to gain in some way from the change, is that “they” can’t do this to our neighborhood. Understanding the process and being concerned about its day-to-day administration in the total community is another matter. In this case, the attitude is usually that “they” can take care of it as long as I am not personally affected.

In a community having no zoning, the first rumor that lights the fire of discussion is the one that “they” are proposing some law that will tell us what we can do with our land or that someone is planning to build a drag strip or locate a junkyard in our neighborhood, and “they” aren’t doing anything to stop it. Both here and in places with zoning, it is evident that there is no middle ground of feeling about the idea. Usually, if the reaction is total opposition to the idea of zoning, it is based on the leftover pioneer mentality that believes that ownership of land carries with it the “right” to do anything that the possessor of a deed wants to do, that government has no right to interfere, and that the concept of an increasingly complex society requiring adjustment of this attitude is the fictitious creation of a communistic conspiracy. The necessity for changing this attitude is an important matter about which more will be said later.

In those who say that something should be done before disaster strikes, we see evidence of the prime reason we have difficulty with long-range planning in our communities. Over the years, we have developed psychologically into a re-active society and never accepted the necessity for, or durability of, a pre-active approach to problem prevention. Just let a proposal come along that we feel will adversely affect our space or our values, and we are all for governmental intervention and jump to criticize our elected officials for not having taken action to prevent this travesty. Even when this kind of situation develops, there are those not directly affected who still strongly oppose the idea of government regulation of land use. After all, if they should support this proposition just because an undesirable use may occur in another neighborhood, it might result in a regulation that would interfere with something they may want to do with their land at a later time.

We Know a Controversial Issue When We See It

This illustrates the point of zoning being a vibrant, often controversial issue with very few middle-ground or indifferent reactions, either in places considering undertaking it or in those where it has been around for years. This can be understood easily upon reflecting that it is the only readily identified governmental control of the speculative aspect of land ownership, although there are many other less visible ways that land development can be affected by government action. Nevertheless, the process of zoning, because of its required public hearings and the fact that we are directly confronted with it where it exists, is in the forefront of the attention given to local government functions.

During the time of my tenure as city manager of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the one thing we could always count on was that the City Commission Chamber would be packed with people any time there was a major rezoning proposal on the agenda. Unfortunately, the people attending, other than the applicant, were from the immediate neighborhood only and were usually aroused by inaccurate rumors and convinced that militant action was the only way to save their property values. Most had never attended any other zoning hearing or discussion (or for that matter, any commission meeting) and probably never would again. When the matter of their immediate personal concern had been concluded, they always left, angry or pleased, regardless of the remaining items on the agenda or the importance of any of them. I still remember a meeting that included discussion of a controversial zoning amendment, after which the adoption of a phase of the comprehensive master plan and the next year’s city budget of over $85 million was to be considered. Some 200 people left the room after “their” zoning issue had been settled, ignoring the larger issues.

In spite of this, it is my opinion that zoning, or some similar form of land-use regulation, is going to be with us for the foreseeable future. One need only to reflect on the increasing population, the sprawl of urbanization, and our dwindling resources and assets to accept the logic of that statement. We should not spend valuable time arguing about whether we will have zoned communities or whether the town without zoning should have it; rather, we should devote much more time to understanding it and the importance for the future of good zoning throughout our community. This understanding must come from knowledge, which, in spite of the broad prevalence of the zoning process, there is an amazing lack of by those most affected—the general public.

We May Not Know Why We Need to Know

Fully understanding zoning means knowing why it should be a tool of government at all. The next step is to learn and understand the purpose of good zoning: what it includes, how it is supposed to work, how it should be administered, and who is involved in its effective administration. Each day decisions are being made by elected representatives and appointed officials in numerous areas that have a bearing on the economic well being, the general welfare, and the character of the community in which we live. None of these surpasses in importance those decisions related to how land is to be used, how it is developed, and how that development relates to the interests of the community and its citizens. A few of the arguments in support of my conviction that zoning is vitally important to every citizen, whether they now live in a community with zoning or one without, are worthy of further exploration.

First of all, an irrefutable fact is that zoning, through its regulation of the private use of land, is a major factor in shaping community character. Building villages, towns, and cities is very much like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Separately, each piece has a unique shape. No piece will fit with another unless the maker of the puzzle has planned for it to do so, and, when all the parts are in the right place, you have an orderly, coordinated, attractive picture. So it is with land development. Each lot and its use, each individual structure, is a part of the total community, determining what it will look like, how it will work, and, most important of all, its character.

As we think about land development and its importance to the future, it is easy to see that, while property ownership by individuals is a freedom we enjoy, there is a community interest in how that property is used. This has become increasingly important as society and our urban structures have become more and more complex. You cannot reach the density of population of the state of New Jersey, Chicago, Philadelphia, Albuquerque, or even Durango, Colorado, for example, without being forced to accept the fact, if you are realistic, that collective society has a stake in and a responsibility for how those pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are going to fit together. This responsibility for determining the character and the quality of the sum of the parts is the proprietary interest society has that necessitates the establishment of reasonable and equitable controls over private land development. This common interest in how land is used is a long-standing principle of our legal system, yet one we seem to have forgotten, overlooked, or neglected.

Fundamental to the guidance zoning should provide the community is the necessity of having an organized scheme, understood and supported by the public, of the desirable future character and pattern of development. The basis for this is comprehensive, long-range planning, the results of which are included in a well-documented master plan. No zoning will successfully guide and direct the private development of land toward a desirable overall quality and character without just such a solid foundation. More will be said about this later.

We Know We Like Money and Profit

Long before the period of inflation present at the time of writing this, and long before the average price of a single-family home was approaching $80,000, it was a fact that the largest single investment most of us ever make is in a home. The great American dream has been to own a home, to own land, and to be able to invest in real estate. In so doing, we expect the value of that property to increase continuously, and, if we sell it, we expect to make a nice profit. It is astonishing how much we take for granted that this is the way it should be and this is the way it is going to be.

Not only do we want these tangible assets to increase in their marketability and worth, we expect someone to protect our private domain and make certain that nothing will happen to threaten or endanger it. Even more, we are ready to fight if a loss in value should result from anything that others do with their land or that the public sector undertakes that affects our land. It is then that we have a tendency to say, ‘They have got to do something about this.” Then, we forget how we listened to the rumor that zoning was undemocratic and how we joined the group that killed the idea of doing community planning and having a zoning ordinance. If any action that might adversely affect our property values happens in a city or town that has had zoning, most of us would not recall that we failed to attend all those public hearings on zoning changes or neglected to be involved enough to be sure that we have honest, effective administration of the ordinance.

The truth of the matter is that things can and do happen that will change our dream into a nightmare if no adequate protection is provided by the strength of collective community action expressed through the legal tool of zoning. A neighbor, following the philosophy of doing what you please with your land, could decide that it would be nice for extra income to dismantle and rebuild junk automobiles in the back yard. Someone else could decide to turn his or her first floor into a discotheque and apply for a liquor license. Farther away, the so-called business district has grown into a poorly arranged hodgepodge, with commercial and industrial uses allowed to string out in strip configuration along the main traffic arteries. Little attention is paid to the relationship of land development to the infrastructure of utilities, services, schools, and the general efficiency of traffic circulation.

Even though we take pride in our independence and self-sufficiency, we must recognize that, when it comes to the worth of the property we hold, we are interdependent. We are all dependent upon our neighbors, the people in the next block, the investors in apartments and businesses, and those elected to office who are the policy makers. When we buy a home or any piece of property, we are not just investing money in that lot or that building, we are investing in the community and its future. Even in inflationary times, the market value of property is determined more by the character of the area in which that property is located—and the overall public investment in and public policy for maintaining community quality—than in what we may do to improve an individual parcel of land.

I once heard a friend in real estate say that the market value of any property is determined by three things. These are: location, location, location! When we look at why this is so, we find that we are dependent upon all elements of our community structure working together to make every parcel of land “a good location.” We begin to understand that public investment in streets’, parks, libraries, utilities, and services is one major factor in determining the value of any property in a given jurisdiction. We see that attitude and concern for the future on the part of the people we elect, and the effectiveness of their administration of government is another factor. And, finally, we recognize that the presence or lack of standards of quality of the built environment, resulting from the investment of the private sector, can determine whether our investment in any community is a wise one.

We Know We Don’t Like Taxes

As much as we are concerned about our individual property values, there is another aspect of societal living to which we assign almost equal importance. I refer, of course, to the cost of government and to taxes. We may yell about these, about “big government,” and applaud those who advocate “getting government off our backs”; however, the fact remains that, in a collective society, some organized system of government is necessary. The only alternative is anarchy. What we really need to turn our attention to, particularly at the local level, is the economy and efficiency of the delivery of necessary services by government. Most people readily agree with this, even though they may have trouble agreeing on what these necessary services are. But they show a frightening lack of understanding of the relationship between the cost-effectiveness of the delivery of services and the land-use patterns that are permitted to evolve.

Regardless of where we live or work, whether we are property owners or not, we take for granted the delivery of what has come to be thought of as essential governmental services. When we turn on a water faucet, we expect an ample supply of water to come gushing forth, pure enough to drink. When we feel the call of nature, in urban society, we assume it to be a “right” that we don’t have to go outside to a privy and that sewage is going to go somewhere and be taken care of once a toilet is flushed. In most areas, we expect the city to provide the means for picking up and disposing of our tons of solid waste. We don’t want our kids to have to be bused to school at all, but, if they are, it shouldn’t be far. If we are told the costs of providing these services are going up, we become convinced that someone is just trying to “rip us off” and immediately determine that we had better work to see that “they” don’t get reelected.

The interesting, and somewhat alarming, point is that the same people who agree completely with the idea of economy and efficiency of government have never considered how much effect good or bad zoning has on both of these. After all these years of zoning controls, there is little understanding that the patterns of permitted land use determine the demand for services, the efficiency of those services, and the economy of the costs of delivering those services, as well as the economic base that will pay for them. Each time commercial development is permitted to line the edges of a major traffic arterial in an extended strip pattern, each time a housing development leapfrogs over vacant land, and each time a more intensive development is allowed by ordinance change or variance, a servicing cost factor is built in that can only be met by public subsidy.

Scattered development, as exemplified in most of our urban sprawl, is inefficient and uneconomical, so much so that it could not happen without all of us who pay taxes subsidizing it with public funds. The most expensive and least cost-efficient development of all is the leapfrogging subdivision. Whether it be residential, commercial, or industrial, land development permitted to locate in areas without existing service delivery systems will be a drain on the public purse. So, too, is the commercial strip that adds miles to utility lines and increases the need for police and fire protection. As a city manager in a city whose policy makers were enamored with the idea of growth at all cost- resulting in a horizontal, spread-out city—I saw the effects of this first hand. For every new low-density subdivision approved, the city provided a goodly proportion of the cost of the new infrastructure. Expensive miles of streets were added, to be swept and maintained. Additional refuse trucks and school buses were needed, and the public had to pay the cost of getting them from one place to another.

Any place that bases zoning on good comprehensive planning can avoid this. If we recall the comparison of community building to putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together and if we recognize that underneath that total picture must be an elaborate system of utilities and on top must be a circulation pattern that is the means of providing additional essential services, we can begin to understand the importance of guiding and shaping land use through zoning to relate to the capability to deliver those services and the cost of doing so. Zoning is important because it is the only legal means we have of seeking economy and efficiency in this vital function of local government.

We Know We Like to Breathe

As much as we are interested in and concerned about finances and costs—and, logically, we should be—there is yet another area in which zoning can play an important role. In spite of political trends, it is my belief that the vast majority of our people recognize the need for us to do more to protect our environment and preserve our natural resources. If this recognition were not already expanding—and I believe it is—there is little question that the circumstances around us would soon force an awareness of our situation. We cannot continue degrading our natural environment at the rate we have been and depleting or exploiting irreplaceable natural resources as if there were no tomorrow.

Collective society and organized government have a responsibility to future generations that demands a much greater sense of stewardship of our land, resources, and environment than we have yet shown in this country. In addition, we are beginning to be held accountable by the rest of the world for our abusive misuse of resources and our contribution to the despoliation of environment.

We need to think in terms of two types of environments as we look at our communities and our own lives. First, there is the environment of nature—the air we breathe, the land, tree, water, and wildlife. If we look around at what we have done to this type of environment, it would be easy to conclude that we have been relentlessly carrying out a death wish. One of our biggest environmental problems is air pollution. No major metropolitan area and few urban places of any size in the country is without a serious problem with air quality. The major cause of air pollution has been proven to be the automobile, but the excessiv...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• 1. So You Want to Know About Zoning
• 2. The Changing Philosophy of Land Ownership
• 3. Fundamental Principles of Zoning
• 4. The Process of Developing Zoning Regulations
• 5. The Nuts and Bolts of a Zoning Ordinance
• 6. Zoning Administration
• 7. Understanding the Zoning Variance….
• 8. Zoning Hearings and the Citizen’s Role
• 9. The Relationship of Zoning to Other Planning Tools
• 10. Frequent Zoning Problems
• 11. Recent Development and Emerging Techniques
• 12. Is Zoning Here to Stay?
• Appendix A. Glossary of Terms
• Appendix B. Bibliography
• Index