I’ve been pushing some of the sessions coming up this fall in land use conferences that are dealing with topics I’ve been addressing in some of my blog posts. Let me do so for another one.
I’ve been ranting a bit about the role of the public in land use processes (see May 9, 10, 12, and July 12). It continues to amaze me the arguments that normally rational citizens bring up in land use hearings. This one from a recent hearing in a Wisconsin town, where a proposed senior and workforce housing project (only a total of 50 units on what appears to be a pretty good sized property) was being reviewed for compliance with local development standards. The argument made to turn it down, in addition to overburdening the roads, schools, law enforcement and hospitals, was this one:
The petition states that a high concentration of year-round residents within 200 feet of a retention pond built by and maintained by the city presents problems for all parties, including drowning, toxic algae, wildlife feces, mosquitos and rodents, expensive maintenance liabilities relating to to storm water infrastructure repairs, ground water contamination due to the high water table conditions at this site, and a high incidence of cancer in the community. The housing project will hasten the demise of the retention pond with the added runoff and pollutants, opponents claim.
With this having been an administrative item, the board reviewing the project could very well have dealt with these claims by asking, “where’s the evidence?” Such incidents point toward the concept of perhaps stipulating rules of procedure for administrative land use hearings.
It’s a little different for legislative land use actions, such as general plan amendments and rezones. For these, opinion is fair game. Still, there needs to be some rational basis for the arguments being made. Here’s a comment from a citizen in a rezone hearing recently in a Utah community where the proposal was for rezoning a property from agricultural to residential allowing lots down to 14,000 square feet (not high density by any means!), in an area that featured mostly half-acre lot size zoning:
“I’m steadfastly opposed rezoning 5 units onto the property. First, because the density is far greater than the rest of the neighborhood, and second – it cracks the door to eventually giving me 100 new next-door neighbors. When you carve-up this tract, it sets a precedent for the cow pasture to be carved into 50 or 100 units. Please preserve the character of the neighborhood dozens and dozens of families have invested in financially and personally.”
Now look, I know this is a legislative, opinion-based hearing, but… really? “…density far greater than the rest of the neighborhood…”? I guess it is about twice as dense, but going from 2 units to 4 units per acre… Wow.
If this topic tickles your interest, be sure to attend both the APA Utah Conference and/or the ULUI Land Use Conference, where each will have a session on public input in land use processes, and possible standardization of such hearings.