DOCSLIB.ORG

Zoning and Land Use: Charlottesville Community Discussion Related to Planning Futures and Citizen Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Zoning and Land Use: Charlottesville Community Discussion Related to Planning Futures and Citizen Impacts ZONING AND LAND USE: CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION RELATED TO PLANNING FUTURES AND CITIZEN IMPACTS Session Leaders Kim Rolla, Esq. William M. Harris, Sr., FAICP, PhD • Introductions • Goals for tonight • Roadmap – Charlottesville context – Intro to zoning and land use – Gentrification and form-based code: what are they and are they related? – Toolbox and action steps CHARLOTTESVILLE CONTEXT Strategic Investment Area • Plan adopted by Council as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan on February 3, 2014. • Purpose: “provide guidance for future redevelopment and investment in the area” – Mixed-income and mixed use without displacement • Massive: 271 pages • Recent demographic shifts (2000-2012) – Black residents: 51% 38% – White residents: 45% 54% – Average household income: $30k $40k SIA (with subsidized housing) SIA: infill properties Form-based code & the SIA • Tool to implement recommendations of SIA – Catalyst project – 3 phases • RFP for consultants to write FBC already out – FBC must be written within 12 months of contract – Proposals must contain only two public meetings City: “The SIA Plan is a guide. It is not a prescriptive document meant to be followed to the letter. The implementation depends on feedback from the public, especially owners in the study area.” ROLES OF PLANNERS: AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct Professional planners (AICP) pledge: (f) We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs. (April 2016) ZONING DEFINED: PEOPLE TALK • Zoning is LAW (formally since 1926) and sanctioned under the POLICE POWERS. • Zoning is used to specify land use. • Zoning is used to protect the health, welfare and safety, and morals of a community. • Zoning, ideally seeks to ensure the highest and best use of land and welfare of residents. • Zoning exists in many forms. TYPICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ZONING • Residential segregation/integration (by race and income): exclusionary/inclusionary zoning • Performance zoning: provide flexibility, rationality, transparency and accountability • Incentive zoning: provide a reward-based system to encourage development that meets established urban development • Form-Based Codes: allows maximum, laissez faire government toward development FAMILIAR APPARATUS OF ZONING • Subdivision Regulations • Housing Codes • Planned Unit Developments • Transfer Development Rights • Capital Improvement (Budget) Program • Form-Based Codes FORM-BASED CODES Form-Based Codes (FBC) are NOT zoning. They are tools that may be used within the context of zoning to achieve certain development goals. • FBCs rely upon a vision for broad-based development in a sector of the city or more. • FBCs seek to simplify zoning language. • FBCs are weighed toward design (aesthetics) and limited governmental involvement. FORM-BASED CODES Advantages v. Disadvantages Impacts Upon the Poor • ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES • “Granny flats” for the poor Displacement to outer fringe • Cheap labor in lowest service Increased gentrification • Attractive physical settings Lack employment advancement • Greater ease for development Social/economic segregation • Less government intervention Increase racial tensions IMAGES OF FBC DEVELOPMENTS WHAT IS FORM-BASED CODE? WHAT IS GENTRIFICATION? Form-Based Code • Design based (aesthetics) – “transects” • “Charrettes” instead of planner driven – Simplified? (Nashville >100 pages to 5 pages) • Prescriptive: follow code approved! – Expedited Staff Review (public?) • Broader context: New Urbanism Gentrification • “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents” • Zoning’s role? – Communitarian (“taking”) v. elitist (NIMBY) – History of racism: explicit and then less so Are the two related? 1. Accelerated development and growth – Case study: Nashville 2. Decreased public process – Case study: New Orleans – Flip: NIMBY block? 3. Who participates in and controls charrettes? 4. Downzoning – Case study: Charlottesville (Free Enterprise Forum) – Who gets downzoned and why? 5. Interaction with Affordable Housing Ordinance – Proffers and SUPs TOOLBOX & ACTION STEPS Remember: “The SIA Plan is a guide. It is not a prescriptive document meant to be followed to the letter. The implementation depends on feedback from the public, especially owners in the study area.” Who is John Forrest Dillon & why should I care? Toolbox: a Sampling 1. Inclusionary zoning A. Mandatory (GA required) B. Proffer I. Current AHO II. FBC: Arlington Columbia Pike (GA unclear) 2. Property tax exemptions (GA yes) 3. Source of income protection (GA unclear) Tl;dr 1. We need you involved NOW! A. The process is moving quickly B. FBC may mean less opportunities for input later 2. The city needs tools specifically designed for preserving and expanding affordable housing A. FBC is not sufficient B. It’s up to you to determine whether it even belongs in the box… .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inclusionary Zoning Primer Updated August 2019
    Inclusionary Zoning Primer Updated August 2019 1201 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 T 800 368 5242 nahb.org Table of Contents Executive Summary and Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….3 Research on Inclusionary Zoning……………………………………………………………………………………………7 Price and Production Effects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Statutory, Implementation, and Effectiveness Issues……………………………………………………………………………….……10 Latest Reports……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 The Role of Incentives in Closing the Affordability Gap in Inclusionary Zoning………………………………………………25 Promising State and Local Alternatives for Providing Affordable Housing ……………………………27 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..32 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………44 Cover photo of Luminaira at Parasol Park, photo courtesy of Tsutumida Pictures 2 Executive Summary and Introduction Millions of American families struggle to find housing at a price they can afford as the gap between incomes and the cost of housing grows larger every year. Many families are forced to commute long distances, pay a disproportionate share of their incomes on housing, or live in housing that does not meet their needs. The reasons for this gap are many. Local governments have developed plans that foster job growth but do not provide sufficient housing for workers, and some discourage or limit multifamily housing. Elaborate planning and zoning schemes, or outdated ones, make it difficult to develop land and a variety of housing types, especially the affordable housing needed to keep up with demand. Complex, lengthy, and uncertain development approval processes, fees imposed on new housing and environmental requirements constrain the availability of developable land and drive up the cost of housing. Those resisting higher density development (often referred to as NIMBY groups) have become more sophisticated and organized over time to deter growth and development.
    [Show full text]
  • City Housing Trust Fund Revenues 2021
    Housing Trust Fund Project housingtrustfundproject.org City Housing Trust Fund Revenues 2021 City Housing Trust Fund Revenue Sources Notes Juneau, Alaska Housing Trust Fund General Fund and State Capital Budget MF rental conversion fee; Tucson, Arizona Housing Trust Fund Unexpended funds from Utility Services LI Assitance Program Anaheim, California Housing Trust Fund Transient occupany tax Residential impact fees; Berkeley, California Housing Trust Fund Developer impact fees; real estate Other transfer tax; General Obligation Bond Campbell, California Housing Trust Fund Inclusionary in-lieu fees Developer impact fees; Citrus Heights, California Affordable Housing Trust Fund Other Inclusionary in-lieu fees Cupertino, California Affordable Housing Fund Developer impact fees Elk Grove, California Affordable Housing Fund Developer impact fees Developer impact fees; Emeryville, California Affordable Housing Fund Inclusionary in-lieu fees Affordable Housing Development Fremont, California Develop impact fees Fund Livermore, California Housing Trust Fund Inclusionary in-lieu fees Program income Long Beach, California Housing Trust Fund Transient occupancy tax Tax increment financing; Los Angeles, California Affordable Housing Trust Fund Federal funds General Fund (DWP) Affordable Housing Impact Trust Linkage Fee Los Angeles, California Fund Mammoth Lakes, California Housing Trust Fund Transient occupancy tax State and Federal funds Below Market Rate Housing Menlo Park, California Developer impact fees Loan repayments Program Morgan Hill, California
    [Show full text]
  • Simplifed Planning Zones and Equivalent Mechanisms Outwith
    Research on the Use of Simplified Planning ZZones and Equivalent Mechanisms Used Outwith Scotland August 2017 Report prepared by: Mark Robertson Ryden LLP 7 Exchange Crescent Conference Square Edinburgh EH3 8AN Details of additional assistance: Neil Collar, Brodies LLP The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author. Report commissioned by: Planning and Architecture Division Area 2H South Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Tel: 0131 244 7091 e-mail: [email protected] web: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Built-Environment/planning © Crown Copyright 2017 Applications for reproduction of any part of this publication should be addressed to: Planning and Architecture Division, Directorate for Local Government and Communities, Area 2H (South) Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, EH6 6QQ This report is published electronically to limit the use of paper, but photocopies will be provided on request to Planning and Architecture Division. 2 Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 14 Research Study Brief Simplified Planning Zones Research Context Research Report Structure 2. Policy and Research Review 17 Introduction SPZs in Scotland (inc Figure 1: Current SPZ Process, Scotland) SPZs (and equivalent upfront consenting mechanisms) outwith Scotland Summary 3. Consultations 27 Introduction Places, Planning & People: Public Consultation Research Project Consultations Summary 4. Case Studies and Examples 37 Introduction Simplified Planning Zones, Scotland Case Study 1: Hillington Park SPZ, Renfrewshire Council & Glasgow City Council Case Study 2:
    [Show full text]
  • An Act Concerning the Zoning Enabling Act, Accessory
    House of Representatives File No. 716 General Assembly January Session, 2021 (Reprint of File No. 541) Substitute House Bill No. 6107 As Amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" Approved by the Legislative Commissioner May 24, 2021 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ZONING ENABLING ACT, ACCESSORY APARTMENTS, TRAINING FOR CERTAIN LAND USE OFFICIALS, MUNICIPAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANS AND A COMMISSION ON CONNECTICUT’S DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: 1 Section 1. Section 8-1a of the general statutes is repealed and the 2 following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2021): 3 (a) "Municipality" as used in this chapter shall include a district 4 establishing a zoning commission under section 7-326. Wherever the 5 words "town" and "selectmen" appear in this chapter, they shall be 6 deemed to include "district" and "officers of such district", respectively. 7 (b) As used in this chapter and section 6 of this act: 8 (1) "Accessory apartment" means a separate dwelling unit that (A) is 9 located on the same lot as a principal dwelling unit of greater square 10 footage, (B) has cooking facilities, and (C) complies with or is otherwise sHB6107 / File No. 716 1 sHB6107 File No. 716 11 exempt from any applicable building code, fire code and health and 12 safety regulations; 13 (2) "Affordable accessory apartment" means an accessory apartment 14 that is subject to binding recorded deeds which contain covenants or 15 restrictions that require such accessory apartment be
    [Show full text]
  • The Persistence of Exclusionary Zoning in New Jersey
    The Persistence of Exclusionary Zoning in New Jersey by Noelle van Baaren, Center for Law in Metropolitan Equity Fellow Introduction: Since 1975, the Mount Laurel doctrine has required that New Jersey municipalities provide their fair share of the regional need for low and moderate-income housing.[1] Yet despite this landmark decision, New Jersey is still one of the top ten most racially and economically segregated states.[2] In this paper, I will provide a working definition of exclusionary zoning in the both the economic and racial contexts. I will argue that despite the powerful efforts of the judiciary to position New Jersey’s at the forefront of inclusionary land use policy, the practice of exclusionary zoning is both persistent and widespread. In Part I of this paper, I will provide a definition of exclusionary zoning in the context of both economics and race. In Part II, I will examine the types of ordinances that municipalities use as subterfuge to create the same exclusionary effect that existed before the Mount Laurel cases. In Part III, I will argue that exclusionary zoning is not legally permissible in New Jersey under the New Jersey Fair Housing Act NJFHA. In Part IV, I will examine census data to see to what degree exclusionary zoning still exists in New Jersey, despite the Mount Laurel Doctrine, NJFHA and Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and demonstrate that where exclusionary zoning does exist, it disproportionately impacts minorities. Finally in Part V, I will look at the practice of inclusionary zoning – and the impact that implementing these type of land use policies could have in the greater context of regional equity.
    [Show full text]
  • Demolition Ordinance
    TOWN OF MORRISTOWN ORDINANCE O-12-2019 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 12 SECTION 4 “DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS” AND AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING CHAPTER 30 “LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE” WHEREAS, the intent of this ordinance is to protect the historic character of Morristown by limiting the detrimental effect of demolition; and WHEREAS, significant structures within Morristown that contribute to the architectural, cultural, economic, political, or social history of the town should be preserved when possible; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is not to permanently prevent all demolition, but to provide an opportunity to evaluate options for preservation, restoration, relocation, and rehabilitation, or when necessary, to document historic or architecturally important resources prior to demolition; and WHEREAS, as part of the adoption of this Ordinance the Town of Morristown desires to repeal Chapter 12 Section 4 of the Morristown Town Code entitled “Demolition of Buildings” as this new ordinance will now govern the process for applying and obtaining a demolition permit; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Morristown, County of Morris, State of New Jersey, being the governing body thereof, that Chapter 12 Section 4 of the Morristown Town Code entitled “Demolition of Buildings” be and hereby is repealed it its entity; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Chapter 30 of the Morristown Town Code entitled “Land Development Ordinance” be and hereby is amended to read as follows: 30-8.A.3. Demolition of Buildings 1. Permit Required. No person shall remove or demolish or commence the removal or demolition of any building or structure in the Town of Morristown without first filing with the Zoning Officer an application in writing and obtaining a permit thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Affordability: Inclusionary Zoning and Displacement in East New York James Shelton
    The Cost of Affordability: Inclusionary Zoning and Displacement in East New York James Shelton What are the impacts of New York City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program upon low- income communities of color? James Shelton offers new insights in a consideration of the recent East New York rezoning. Population growth and a steady increase in housing costs since the mid-1990s has led to a crisis of housing affordability and access in New York City. To address this, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration has embarked on an ambitious campaign1 to generate 300,000 units of affordable housing by 2026. A key strategy to achieve this goal involved the adoption of the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program, a zoning tool which allows for substantial increases in residential density in exchange for affordable housing. However, the application of MIH in largely low-income, majority non-white areas has heightened the risk of residential displacement in these communities, with the affordability requirements doing little to mitigate this threat for many of the city’s lowest-income residents. New York City’s MIH program has included rezoning proposals for the low-income neighborhoods of East New York, East Harlem, Inwood, Downtown Far Rockaway, Flushing West, and the Jerome Avenue corridor, while avoiding proposals for low-density, transit-rich areas like Forest Hills, which appear to be good candidates for MIH but are largely white and middle- to upper-class. In 2016, the first MIH rezoning was approved in East New York, located at the eastern edge of Brooklyn. The city contends that the upzoning will be a cost-effective means of building much needed affordable housing and fostering income diversity in the neighborhood.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Racist Planning Practices in Portland
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) Primary Author Jena Hughes, Planning Assistant Contributors Tom Armstrong, Supervising Planner Ryan Curren, Management Analyst Eric Engstrom, Principal Planner Love Jonson, Planning Assistant (former) Nick Kobel, Associate Planner Neil Loehlein, GIS Leslie Lum, East District Planner Deborah Stein, Principal Planner (former) Sandra Wood, Principal Planner Joe Zehnder, Chief Planner Communications Eden Dabbs Cover Design Krista Gust, Graphic Designer Bureau Partners Avel Gordly, Former Oregon State Senator Cameron Herrington (Living Cully) Allan Lazo (Fair Housing Council of Oregon) Kim McCarty (Portland Housing Bureau) Felicia Tripp (Portland Leadership Foundation) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4 EARLY PLANNING AND THE BEGINNING OF EXCLUSIONARY ZONING ........................................ 5 1900-1930: Early zoning ..................................................................................................................... 5 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s: Expansion of single-family zoning ................................................... 8 1960s and 1970s: Increased neighborhood power in land use decisions ............................ 11 CONTEMPORARY PLANNING, 1980 TO EARLY 2000s ..................................................................... 11 1980 Comprehensive Plan: More single-family zoning ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Zoning Permit Is Required Any Time a Single-Family Resident
    Zoning Permit FAQs What types of projects require a Zoning Permit? A zoning permit is required any time a single‐family residential building or associated structure is erected, constructed, altered, repaired, or moved and are also required for temporary uses and parking lots. Basically, a zoning permit is required for projects as large as the construction of a new house to projects as small as putting up a fence. In the case of a temporary use, a zoning permit can cover a broad range of applications and is necessary whenever a short‐term, seasonal or intermittent use is proposed. Common temporary uses include Christmas tree lots and other seasonal merchandise sales. How do I apply for a Zoning Permit? Zoning permit applications are available online and in our office a 120 W. Dougherty. Fill out as much of the application as you can and bring the form, along with all other necessary information, to our office and a member of our staff will initiate the review. What kinds of information do I need to provide along with my application? The required information varies depending on the scope of your proposed project, but you can always count on needing to provide a site plan drawn to scale. The site plan should show anything that exists on the property, from structures and driveways to streams and ponds, and what is proposed to be constructed, altered, repaired etc. on the site. A staff member can assist you in the creation of your site plan, though it may require additional time and can incur additional cost for copies.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Rowlett Zoning District Descriptions | Page 1 CITY OF
    CITY OF ROWLETT DESCRIPTIONS OF ZONING DISTRICTS AND EXAMPLES OF USES PERMITTED This document is provided as a courtesy and shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish permitted uses. Permitted uses should be verified with the Rowlett Development Code or Rowlett Form Based Code. ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE ZONING DISTRICTS The City of Rowlett is primary divided into traditional residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts where land uses are segregated based on their type and intensity. The full Rowlett Development Code is available online through Municode, the City’s code publisher, at https://www.municode.com/library/tx/rowlett/codes/code_of_ordinances SF-40 Single-Family Residential-40/24 – This district is intended to accommodate single-family residential development and appropriate accessory uses on lots with a minimum size of 40,000 square feet. Churches are allowed in this zoning district. SF-20 Single-Family Residential-20/24 – This district is intended to accommodate single-family residential development and appropriate accessory uses on lots with a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. Churches are allowed in this zoning district. SF-15 Single-Family Residential-15/21 – This district is intended to accommodate single-family residential development and appropriate accessory uses on lots with a minimum size of 15,000 square feet. Churches are allowed in this zoning district. SF-10 Single-Family Residential-10/21 – This district is intended to accommodate single-family residential development and appropriate accessory uses on lots with a minimum size of 10,000 square feet. Churches are allowed in this zoning district. SF-9 Single-Family Residential-9/18 – This district is intended to accommodate single-family residential development and appropriate accessory uses on lots with a minimum size of 9,000 square feet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development
    TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration LEGAL RESEARCH DIGEST January 1999--Number 12 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Subject Areas: IA Planning and Administration, IC Transportation Law, VI Public Transit, and VII Rail The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development This report was prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation Programs, "for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report was prepared by S. Mark White. James B. McDaniel, TRB Counsel for Legal Research Projects, was the principal investigator and content editor. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION transit-equipment and operations guidelines, FTA financing initiatives, private-sector programs, and The nation's transit agencies need to have access labor or environmental standards relating to transit to a program that can provide authoritatively operations. Emphasis is placed on research of current researched, specific, limited-scope studies of legal importance and applicability to transit and intermodal issues and problems having national significance and operations and programs. application to their businesses. The TCRP Project J-5 is designed to provide insight into the operating APPLICATIONS practices and legal elements of specific problems in transportation agencies. Local government officials, including attorneys, The intermodal approach to surface planners, and urban design professionals, are seeking transportation requires a partnership between transit new approaches to land use and development that and other transportation modes. To make the will address environmental impacts of increased partnership work well, attorneys for each mode need automobile traffic and loss of open space around to be familiar with the legal framework and processes cities and towns, and alleviate financial pressures on of the other modes.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance of the City of Jersey City, N.J
    Ordinance of the City of Jersey City, N.J. File No. Ord. 20-089 Agenda No. 3.1 (1st Reading) Agenda No. 4.1 (2nd Reading and Final Passage) AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 187 (INCLUSIONARY ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THE INCLUSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH RESIDENTIAL WHICH HAVE RECEIVED USE VARIANCES OR INCREASED DENSITY OR HEIGHT. COUNCIL AS A WHOLE offered and moved adoption of the following ordinance: WHEREAS, a purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law (hereinafter “the M.L.U.L.”), at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2.a, is to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, a purpose of the M.L.U.L., at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2.e, is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment; and WHEREAS, the City of Jersey City has adopted a Housing Element, as per N.J.S.A. 52:27D-311, the “municipality may provide for its fair share and low and moderate income housing by means of any technique or combination of techniques which provide a realistic opportunity for the provision of the fair share”; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City wishes to ensure that as the City grows and attracts market-rate residential development that it also provides opportunity for the City to meet its resident’s, current and future, affordable housing needs; and WHEREAS, an inclusionary ordinance with incentives and requiring a mandatory set-aside of affordable housing on- site is an effective and fair means of encouraging and ensuring the production of affordable housing by private sector developers recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court inSo.
    [Show full text]