Zoning, in general and more specifically
Aug. 14th, 2011 11:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutI've been reading comments threads in odd places lately. The Mount Laurel decisions and COAH appear to be the New Jersey equivalent of Massachusetts' 40B and Connecticut's Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act or 8-30g. Anyone know of further instances?
Roughly: a town is generally allowed to decide what can and cannot be built within it, however, the state provides some constraints on "home rule". While wetland and other environmental regulation is really obvious, some states require towns to not block all affordable housing; towns which have too little affordable housing are might find themselves forced by courts to permit a development they had said no to. The details, obviously, matter a lot.
The wikipedia entry on "Inclusionary Zoning" mentions the NJ and MA laws, as well as other ordinances (not seeing any more at the state level, however), altho it does not provide the name of CT's law (anyone know of a book? Probably published by ULI or APA and horrifically overpriced, of course.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusionary_zoning
Darien has now crossed the horizon of my attention a few too many times for doing things at the town level that I Do Not Approve Of.
The original Avalon incident:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/07/realestate/in-the-region-connecticut-developer-uses-state-law-to-fight-local-resistance.html
More recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/realestate/09wczo.html
There's lots of coverage if you feeling like sifting through it; I don't.
R. mentioned some story about Don Henley and a parcel in Concord that avoided getting turned into multi-family. Here is contemporary coverage of it, naming the developer (who I will attempt to track next):
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-14/news/mn-550_1_historic-walden-woods
One of the better bits in Lucy's books was the remark about how liberals can sound incredibly conservative when you get into a zoning conversation. Before South Lake Union became, er, South Lake Union, there was a proposal to turn it into a massive park with some residential.
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=8252
I remember some big arguments with N. a couple years later when I joined a little bookstore on the internet; he couldn't understand why Seattle had voted it down. The history link article in no way captures why _I_ was opposed to it: I'd read Jane Jacobs and I Did Not Approve of Big Parks as a result (yes, I did buy a condo across 15th from Volunteer Park, but I also recognize problems with that park and saw no reason to create more of the same).
I think I must just not understand why people are for or against various things. Henley rescuing Walden Woods -- at least for the various adulatory reasons given -- does not strike me as heroic. But then, my feelings about the literary movement centered on Concord are net negative and my capacity to desire to preserve anything statically is profoundly limited, so maybe that's just my bias.
ETA: Wow. People around here really don't like DeNormandie.
ETAYA:
Actually, they just don't like development.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/31/whos_profiting/
That's astonishingly silly coverage. 3 bedroom units for quite reasonable prices, and people think this is abusing 40B? What, because doing anything this complex happens in stages and requires different participants with different skill sets? A local developer had to assemble the parcel (non-trivial) and get it through. Then he sells to a _big_ developer (they're doing Pier 4 currently with New England Development), and it gets built (but they actually added to the scope of the project anyway). Once it's done, it needs someone to manage it, so Hanover can lather rinse repeat: hence, UBS. _This is how it works._ Acting like this is somehow weird does not reassure observers that governance is competent; it sounds like the adults are not doing a good job of communicating reality.
ETA Still More, on the 40B Alexan Concord/Longview Meadow development on Powdermill Road:
http://concord.patch.com/articles/government-wrap-up-whats-new-in-town-offices
From earlier this year:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-27/realestate/29337961_1_affordable-housing-chapter-40b-projects-housing-stock
The developers seem to be a bunch of guys that left when Trammell Crow was, um, I don't have a good way to describe it. Went private and was disassembled?
I'm still trying to track down the proposal to build a bunch of affordable housing units on DOC land in Concord.
Roughly: a town is generally allowed to decide what can and cannot be built within it, however, the state provides some constraints on "home rule". While wetland and other environmental regulation is really obvious, some states require towns to not block all affordable housing; towns which have too little affordable housing are might find themselves forced by courts to permit a development they had said no to. The details, obviously, matter a lot.
The wikipedia entry on "Inclusionary Zoning" mentions the NJ and MA laws, as well as other ordinances (not seeing any more at the state level, however), altho it does not provide the name of CT's law (anyone know of a book? Probably published by ULI or APA and horrifically overpriced, of course.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusionary_zoning
Darien has now crossed the horizon of my attention a few too many times for doing things at the town level that I Do Not Approve Of.
The original Avalon incident:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/07/realestate/in-the-region-connecticut-developer-uses-state-law-to-fight-local-resistance.html
More recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/realestate/09wczo.html
There's lots of coverage if you feeling like sifting through it; I don't.
R. mentioned some story about Don Henley and a parcel in Concord that avoided getting turned into multi-family. Here is contemporary coverage of it, naming the developer (who I will attempt to track next):
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-14/news/mn-550_1_historic-walden-woods
One of the better bits in Lucy's books was the remark about how liberals can sound incredibly conservative when you get into a zoning conversation. Before South Lake Union became, er, South Lake Union, there was a proposal to turn it into a massive park with some residential.
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=8252
I remember some big arguments with N. a couple years later when I joined a little bookstore on the internet; he couldn't understand why Seattle had voted it down. The history link article in no way captures why _I_ was opposed to it: I'd read Jane Jacobs and I Did Not Approve of Big Parks as a result (yes, I did buy a condo across 15th from Volunteer Park, but I also recognize problems with that park and saw no reason to create more of the same).
I think I must just not understand why people are for or against various things. Henley rescuing Walden Woods -- at least for the various adulatory reasons given -- does not strike me as heroic. But then, my feelings about the literary movement centered on Concord are net negative and my capacity to desire to preserve anything statically is profoundly limited, so maybe that's just my bias.
ETA: Wow. People around here really don't like DeNormandie.
ETAYA:
Actually, they just don't like development.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/05/31/whos_profiting/
That's astonishingly silly coverage. 3 bedroom units for quite reasonable prices, and people think this is abusing 40B? What, because doing anything this complex happens in stages and requires different participants with different skill sets? A local developer had to assemble the parcel (non-trivial) and get it through. Then he sells to a _big_ developer (they're doing Pier 4 currently with New England Development), and it gets built (but they actually added to the scope of the project anyway). Once it's done, it needs someone to manage it, so Hanover can lather rinse repeat: hence, UBS. _This is how it works._ Acting like this is somehow weird does not reassure observers that governance is competent; it sounds like the adults are not doing a good job of communicating reality.
ETA Still More, on the 40B Alexan Concord/Longview Meadow development on Powdermill Road:
http://concord.patch.com/articles/government-wrap-up-whats-new-in-town-offices
From earlier this year:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-27/realestate/29337961_1_affordable-housing-chapter-40b-projects-housing-stock
The developers seem to be a bunch of guys that left when Trammell Crow was, um, I don't have a good way to describe it. Went private and was disassembled?
I'm still trying to track down the proposal to build a bunch of affordable housing units on DOC land in Concord.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
NH
Date: 2011-08-16 03:27 pm (UTC)The relavant RSA is 674.
I see a lot of references to sections numbered in the high 50's and low 60's.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-LXIV-674.htm
674 is Local Land Use Planing and Regulatory Powers.
Section 59 is Workforce Housing.
The devil is in the regulations.
The statute leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
And it leaves a lot of the decisions to the town (including
participation at all).
TITLE LXIV
PLANNING AND ZONING
CHAPTER 674
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING AND REGULATORY POWERS
Workforce Housing
Section 674:59
674:59 Workforce Housing Opportunities. –
I. In every municipality that exercises the power to adopt land use ordinances and regulations, such ordinances and regulations shall provide reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of workforce housing, including rental multi-family housing. In order to provide such opportunities, lot size and overall density requirements for workforce housing shall be reasonable. A municipality that adopts land use ordinances and regulations shall allow workforce housing to be located in a majority, but not necessarily all, of the land area that is zoned to permit residential uses within the municipality. Such a municipality shall have the discretion to determine what land areas are appropriate to meet this obligation. This obligation may be satisfied by the adoption of inclusionary zoning as defined in RSA 674:21, IV(a). This paragraph shall not be construed to require a municipality to allow for the development of multifamily housing in a majority of its land zoned to permit residential uses.
II. A municipality shall not fulfill the requirements of this section by adopting voluntary inclusionary zoning provisions that rely on inducements that render workforce housing developments economically unviable.
III. A municipality's existing housing stock shall be taken into consideration in determining its compliance with this section. If a municipality's existing housing stock is sufficient to accommodate its fair share of the current and reasonably foreseeable regional need for such housing, the municipality shall be deemed to be in compliance with this subdivision and RSA 672:1, III-e.
IV. Paragraph I shall not be construed to require municipalities to allow workforce housing that does not meet reasonable standards or conditions of approval related to environmental protection, water supply, sanitary disposal, traffic safety, and fire and life safety protection.
Source. 2008, 299:2, eff. Jan. 1, 2010.