-
1
-
-
70349704291
-
-
Model legislation for planning and zoning has a long history, detailed in Stuart Meck, Modern Planning and Zoning Legislation: A Short History in Modernizing State Planning Statutes; The Growing Smart Working Paper, Vol. 1, at 1 (American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report Nos. 462/463 (1996). Two of the model statutes proposed for planned unit developments that are discussed here were prepared as part of major efforts at a comprehensive revision of all land use legislation
-
Model legislation for planning and zoning has a long history, detailed in Stuart Meck, Modern Planning and Zoning Legislation: A Short History in Modernizing State Planning Statutes; The Growing Smart Working Paper, Vol. 1, at 1 (American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report Nos. 462/463 (1996). Two of the model statutes proposed for planned unit developments that are discussed here were prepared as part of major efforts at a comprehensive revision of all land use legislation.
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
70349704293
-
-
This may be a new zoning district or a zoning district that overlays the existing zoning district
-
This may be a new zoning district or a zoning district that overlays the existing zoning district.
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
70349725922
-
-
note
-
Density of use refers to the number of housing units allowed in a residential project. Intensity of use is defined as "The number of dwelling units per acre for residential development and the floor area ratio (FAR) for nonresidential development, such as commercial, office and industrial," or "[t]he number of square feet of development per acre by land use type with respect to non-residential land uses." Michael Davidson & Faye Dolnick, eds., A Planners Dictionary 234, Planning Advisory Report Nos. 521/522 (American Planning Association, 2004). When the term "density" is used alone it is also meant to refer to intensity of use.
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
70349722772
-
-
A master-planned community may require the approval of a master plan for the entire community followed by the approval of individual subarea plans
-
A master-planned community may require the approval of a master plan for the entire community followed by the approval of individual subarea plans.
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
84869621628
-
-
The Standard Zoning Enabling Act can be viewed at law, in the "Statutes" section
-
The Standard Zoning Enabling Act can be viewed at http://law.wustl.edu/ landuse law, in the "Statutes" section.
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
70349721337
-
-
note
-
Extensive discussion of land use regulations and how they are implemented is contained in commentary to the model legislation in American Planning Association, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and Management of Change (S. Meck ed. 2002) [hereinafter Legislative Guidebook]. Zoning is discussed in commentary for Section 8-201 at p. 8-45, subdivision control in commentary for Section 8-301 at p. 8-68. Growing Smart was the legislative revision project lasting over several years that produced the Legislative Guidebook. Stuart Meck was its Executive Director.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
84869636610
-
-
The Standard Planning Enabling Act can be viewed at, in the "Statutes" section
-
The Standard Planning Enabling Act can be viewed at http://law.wustl.edu/ landuse law, in the "Statutes" section.
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
70349710512
-
-
Density is increased in the area of the project in which housing was clustered, however, which can trigger objections by neighbors in lower-density housing
-
Density is increased in the area of the project in which housing was clustered, however, which can trigger objections by neighbors in lower-density housing.
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
70349691924
-
-
Developments would have to be approved as a conditional use, which is not advisable because the board of adjustment authorized to approve these uses does not have the expertise to review them
-
Developments would have to be approved as a conditional use, which is not advisable because the board of adjustment authorized to approve these uses does not have the expertise to review them.
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
70349699677
-
-
For discussion of planned communities, see Great Planned Communities (Jo Ellen Gause, ed. 2002) (planned communities in Europe and America); Ann Forsyth, Reforming Suburbia: The Planned Communities of Irvine, Columbia and The Woodlands (2005)
-
For discussion of planned communities, see Great Planned Communities (Jo Ellen Gause, ed. 2002) (planned communities in Europe and America); Ann Forsyth, Reforming Suburbia: The Planned Communities of Irvine, Columbia and The Woodlands (2005).
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
70349704277
-
-
For discussion of procedures for approving planned unit developments, see Man-delker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), Ch. 3.
-
For discussion of procedures for approving planned unit developments, see Man-delker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), Ch. 3.
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
70349704292
-
-
This body is sometimes called the zoning board of appeals or board of appeals. It is also delegated the authority to interpret the zoning ordinance
-
This body is sometimes called the zoning board of appeals or board of appeals. It is also delegated the authority to interpret the zoning ordinance.
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
70349713495
-
-
note
-
Though the special exception, or conditional use, would not seem appropriate for the review of planned unit developments, its use has been recommended by some model legislation and it has been authorized by some statutes. A special exception can be used only for planned unit developments where no legislative change is required and where the board of adjustment approves the special exception. Special exceptions could be used for planned unit developments that require a legislative change in jurisdictions that confer the power to approve them on the governing body. The special exception process is still not an appropriate process in which to review the many complex development problems raised by planned unit developments.
-
-
-
-
14
-
-
70349719666
-
-
United States Dep't of Commerce, 1928
-
United States Dep't of Commerce, 1928.
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
70349710510
-
-
For a discussion of the various bodies involved in the administration of zoning ordinances and their shortcomings in the regulation of planned unit developments, see Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., 241 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1968)
-
For a discussion of the various bodies involved in the administration of zoning ordinances and their shortcomings in the regulation of planned unit developments, see Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., 241 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1968).
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
84869636549
-
-
United States Dep't of Commerce, Standard State Zoning Enabling Act § 2 (rev. ed. 1926): "All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts." State zoning statutes are based on the Standard Act and include this provision
-
United States Dep't of Commerce, Standard State Zoning Enabling Act § 2 (rev. ed. 1926): "All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts." State zoning statutes are based on the Standard Act and include this provision.
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
70349708938
-
-
For discussion of vested rights, see infra text accompanying notes 119-126
-
For discussion of vested rights, see infra text accompanying notes 119-126.
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
70349691917
-
-
For discussion of statutory and home rule authority, see Daniel R. Mandelker et al., State and Local Government in a Federal System, Ch. 3 (6th ed. 2005)
-
For discussion of statutory and home rule authority, see Daniel R. Mandelker et al., State and Local Government in a Federal System, Ch. 3 (6th ed. 2005).
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
70349704279
-
-
note
-
"Any fair, reasonable doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied." John F. Dillon, Municipal Corporations § 55 (1st ed. 1872).
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
70349718162
-
-
note
-
E.g., Alaska Const, art. X, § 1 ("The purpose of this article is to provide for maximum local self-government.... A liberal construction shall be given to the powers of local government"); see Liberati v. Bristol Bay Borough, 584 P.2d 1115 (Alaska 1978) (reading provision as a repeal of Dillon's Rule).
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
70349725914
-
-
note
-
For discussion, see Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law §4.25 (5th ed. 2003), hereinafter Land Use Law. The first type of home rule is called imperium in imperio or a state within a state. The second type is called legislative home rule. A lack of conflict with state legislation is required under either type of home rule, but there is a tendency to find conflict less often under legislative home rule because it is a plenary delegation of legislative power.
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
70349704278
-
-
note
-
Board of Appeals of Hanover v. Housing Appeals Comm., 294 N.E.2d 393 (Mass. 1973) (zoning power within inherent constitutional home rule power).
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
84869624556
-
-
E.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.060 (2000) (30% protest required)
-
E.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.060 (2000) (30% protest required).
-
-
-
-
24
-
-
70349691925
-
-
S. Nev. Homebuilders Ass'n v. Clark County, 117 P.3d 171 (Nev. 2005)
-
S. Nev. Homebuilders Ass'n v. Clark County, 117 P.3d 171 (Nev. 2005).
-
-
-
-
25
-
-
70349708939
-
-
note
-
Accord Mossburg v. Montgomery County, 620 A.2d 886 (Md. 1993) (authority granted elsewhere in statutes precluded implied authority, and also holding requirement not authorized because denial was for lack of supermajority without findings, and failure to make findings precluded judicial review); Benderson Dev. Co. v. City of Utica, 781 N.Y. Supp. 2d 880 (N.Y. Misc. 2004) (statute authorizing supermajority vote to amend zoning ordinance only when there is neighbor protest and requiring only simple majority for amendment preempts local ordinance authorizing supermajority); Development Indus, v. City of Norman, 412 P.2d 953 (Okla. 1966) (quoting text of Dillon's Rule). But see Pan Am Health Org. v. Montgomery County, 657 A.2d 1163 (Md. 1995) (distinguishing Mossburg and holding county had implied authority to zone international organizations because Mossburg dealt with procedures and not scope of the zoning power). Some of these cases involved home rule governments for which the state statute supplied zoning authority.
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
70349719659
-
-
Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006); see also A.C.E. Equip. Co. v. Erickson, 152 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1967) (charter requirement of two-thirds vote to override mayor's veto takes precedence over state law)
-
Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of St. Pete Beach, 940 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006); see also A.C.E. Equip. Co. v. Erickson, 152 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1967) (charter requirement of two-thirds vote to override mayor's veto takes precedence over state law).
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
70349701228
-
-
940 So. 2d at 1149
-
940 So. 2d at 1149.
-
-
-
-
28
-
-
70349721332
-
-
note
-
City of Springfield v. Goff, 918 S.W.2d 786 (Mo. 1996); see also Gumprecht v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 661 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1983) (comprehensiveness of zoning legislation leaves no room for direct legislation by electors through an initiative election).
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
70349725916
-
-
note
-
Rispo Realty & Dev. Co. v. Parma, 564 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1990). The Ohio constitution gives noncharter municipalities the "authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws." Ohio Const. Art. XVIII, § 3.
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
70349718164
-
-
note
-
The court also held that by making referenda mandatory the ordinance also avoided the statutory requirements for referenda, which required a petition by at least ten percent of the electorate and contained mandatory time frames. The ordinance was also invalid because voters in one ward could veto an ordinance approved by the legislative body and the electorate.
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
70349711944
-
-
note
-
"A floating zone is a special detailed use district of undetermined location in which the proposed kind, size and form of structures must be preapproved. It is legislatively predeemed compatible with the area in which it eventually locates if specified criteria are met and the particular application is not unreasonable.... It differs from the traditional Euclidean zone in that it has no defined boundaries and is said to float over the entire area where it may eventually be established.... The legality of this type of zoning, when properly applied, has been recognized by this court." (citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Schwartz v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 357 A.2d 495,496 (Conn. 1975).
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
70349713486
-
-
note
-
For discussion, see Land Use Law § 6.61. This technique is helpful because it allows municipalities to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a proposed zoning amendment is consistent with planning and zoning policy, and avoids prezoning of land that may stand idle because it does not meet market needs.
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
70349704280
-
-
note
-
96 N.E.2d 731 (N.Y. 1951). The court rejected other objections to the floating zone procedure. It did not deprive the village of the power to adopt zoning in the future because the village had the discretion to decide when to map a floating zone. It was not spot zoning because it applied to the entire village and not a single landowner. The ordinance did not have to set boundaries for the floating zone because the ordinance prescribed specifications for the new zoning district.
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
70349725915
-
-
note
-
Sheridan v. Planning Bd., 266 A.2d 396 (Conn. 1969); Pleasant Valley Neighborhood Ass'n v. Planning & Zoning Com., 543 A.2d 296 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988); Bellemeade Co. v. Priddle, 503 S.W.2d 734 (Ky. 1974); Huff v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 133 A.2d 83 (Md. 1957) (light manufacturing zone).
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
70349718163
-
-
Treme v. St. Louis County, 609 S.W.2d 706 (Mo. App. 1980) (approving general standards and noting that zoning requires flexibility)
-
Treme v. St. Louis County, 609 S.W.2d 706 (Mo. App. 1980) (approving general standards and noting that zoning requires flexibility).
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
70349704281
-
-
note
-
Mayor & Council v. Rylyns Enters., 814 A.2d 469,484 (Md. 2002) ("[W]e consistently have held that the floating zone is subject to the same conditions that apply to safeguard the granting of special exceptions, i.e., the use must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, it must further the purposes of the proposed reclassification, and special precautions are to be applied to insure that there will be no discordance with existing uses"); see also Campion v. Board of Aldermen, 859 A.2d 586,601 (Conn. Ct. App. 2004) (planned unit development ordinance held unauthorized because it gave the municipality "nearly unlimited discretion if the site meets minimum size requirements"), rev'd, 899 A.2d 542 (Conn. 2006); Brunswick Smart Growth, Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Brunswick, 2008 WL 1902089 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. May 1,2008) (noting that the floating zone is the "common and preferred" way to create planned unit development districts).
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
84869624557
-
-
For discussion, see Brian W. Blaesser, Discretionary Land Use Controls: Avoiding Invitations to Abuse of Discretion § 6.6 (10th ed. 2007)
-
For discussion, see Brian W. Blaesser, Discretionary Land Use Controls: Avoiding Invitations to Abuse of Discretion § 6.6 (10th ed. 2007).
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
70349725917
-
-
note
-
Planned unit development regulations are also subject to challenge as invalid contract zoning, a process in which municipalities and developers agree to conditions to be attached to legislative rezonings. See Land Use Law §§ 6.62-6.65.
-
-
-
-
39
-
-
70349721330
-
-
Prince George's County v. M & B Constr. Corp., 297 A.2d 683 (Md. 1972) (approval under subdivision ordinance); Chrinko v. South Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd., 187 A.2d 221 (N.J.L. Div. 1963)
-
Prince George's County v. M & B Constr. Corp., 297 A.2d 683 (Md. 1972) (approval under subdivision ordinance); Chrinko v. South Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd., 187 A.2d 221 (N.J.L. Div. 1963).
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
70349710495
-
-
In re Moreland, 497 P.2d 1287 (Okla. 1972)
-
In re Moreland, 497 P.2d 1287 (Okla. 1972).
-
-
-
-
41
-
-
70349725921
-
-
Rutland Environmental Protection Assoc. v. Kane County, 334 N.E.2d 215 (111. App. Ct. 1975) (planned unit development zoning cannot be accomplished without negotiation)
-
Rutland Environmental Protection Assoc. v. Kane County, 334 N.E.2d 215 (111. App. Ct. 1975) (planned unit development zoning cannot be accomplished without negotiation).
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
70349721333
-
-
note
-
Campion v. Board of Aldermen, 899 A.2d 542 (Conn. 2006) (planned unit development on small tract of land to expand a catering business); see also Cere v. Natick, 309 N.E.2d 893 (Mass. App. Ct. 1974) (ordinance authorized cluster development as floating zone; court held it did not mandate zoning; validity not considered).
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
70349710511
-
-
899 A.2d at 552
-
899 A.2d at 552.
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
70349718175
-
-
Id. at 555
-
Id. at 555.
-
-
-
-
45
-
-
70349722771
-
-
Neither was the court concerned that a floating zone is approved in two steps while the adoption of the zone and development plan was approved in one step under the planned unit development ordinance. 899 A.2d at 555. This is not always the case with planned unit development ordinances
-
Neither was the court concerned that a floating zone is approved in two steps while the adoption of the zone and development plan was approved in one step under the planned unit development ordinance. 899 A.2d at 555. This is not always the case with planned unit development ordinances.
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
70349713493
-
-
241 A.2d81 (Pa. 1968)
-
241 A.2d81 (Pa. 1968).
-
-
-
-
47
-
-
70349699673
-
-
This is a typical procedure. Adoption of a planned unit development district and a rezone for the district are often done in response to a request from a developer who has a project she wants approved as a planned unit development. This happens frequently
-
This is a typical procedure. Adoption of a planned unit development district and a rezone for the district are often done in response to a request from a developer who has a project she wants approved as a planned unit development. This happens frequently.
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
70349699675
-
-
Accord on the uniformity issue Orinda Homeowners Comm. v. Board of Supervisors, 90 Cal. Rptr. 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (character of units need not be alike); Chrinko v. South Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd., 187 A.2d 221 (N.J.L. Div. 1963) (planned unit development option open to all developers)
-
Accord on the uniformity issue Orinda Homeowners Comm. v. Board of Supervisors, 90 Cal. Rptr. 88 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (character of units need not be alike); Chrinko v. South Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd., 187 A.2d 221 (N.J.L. Div. 1963) (planned unit development option open to all developers).
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
70349718176
-
-
note
-
The court noted that giving the authority to the legislative body would reduce flexibility because it would have to specify development details. The limited authority of the board of adjustment did not include planned unit developments, and it was not intended to handle large-scale planning and development decisions. Note, however, that much of the development detail was specified by ordinance in this case. Cheney, 247 A.2d at 87-88. 50. Sheridan Planning Ass'n v. Board of Sheridan County Comm'rs, 924 P.2d 988 (Wyo. 1996), holding that delegation of approval of a final planned unit development plan to the planning commission was not an improper delegation, when the plan could be approved only if it complied with a concept plan previously approved by the legislative body. A concept plan is a generalized plan that specifies the uses and densities allowable in the project.
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
70349710509
-
-
Lutz v. City of Longview, 520 P.2d 1374, 1379 (Wash. 1974)
-
Lutz v. City of Longview, 520 P.2d 1374, 1379 (Wash. 1974).
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
70349713494
-
-
Id. at 1377
-
Id. at 1377.
-
-
-
-
52
-
-
70349699679
-
-
note
-
The proposal, which was Section 12 of a proposed enabling act, was published in Edward M. Bassett, Laws of Planning Unbuilt Areas in VII Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs 309-316(1929). Bassett was assisted by attorney Frank B. Williams. Bassett later served on the committees that drafted the standard planning and zoning enabling acts and was a prominent land use attorney and author.
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
70349691923
-
-
note
-
N.Y. Gen. City Law § 37 (McKinney 2003 & Supp. 2008); N.Y. Town Law § 278 (McKinney 2004); N.Y. Village Law § 7-738 (McKinney Supp. 2008). New Jersey and Indiana later repealed their version of the model law. Hiscox v. Levine, 216 N.Y.S.2d 801, 806 (N.Y. Misc. 1961) held the statute was not an unconstitutional delegation of power but that "the power to make reasonable changes in the zoning ordinance does not confer the power to amend the zoning ordinance by rezoning large tracts of land." Id. at 806. For a discussion of changes in the law made by the legislature in 1963 to tighten its authority see Rouse v. O'Connell, 353 N.Y.S.2d 124 (N.Y. Misc. 1974).
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
70349710502
-
-
(National Ass'n of Homebuilders & Urban Land Inst., 1965) [hereinafter Babcock Model]. The publication included an illustrative ordinance based on the model law. For discussion of the model law by its authors
-
Richard F. Babcock, David N. McBride & Jan Krasnowiecki, Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Residential Development 57 (National Ass'n of Homebuilders & Urban Land Inst., 1965) [hereinafter Babcock Model]. The publication included an illustrative ordinance based on the model law. For discussion of the model law by its authors
-
Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Residential Development 57
-
-
Babcock, R.F.1
McBride, D.N.2
Krasnowiecki, J.3
-
59
-
-
70349699678
-
-
note
-
The model act is summarized in Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, at 8-76. Ten years later the now-defunct Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations published a model planned unit development law as part of its series of model laws for state legislatures. ACIR State Legislative Program, Vol.5: Environment, Land Use and Growth Policy 120 (1975). It was based principally on the Babcock model law. The Advisory Commission was a federally-supported agency that carried out research projects and provided statistical information for state and local governments.
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
84869636603
-
-
See Section 1, the purpose clause, which noted the growing demand for housing with "greater variety in type, design and layout" and for the "conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said dwellings."
-
See Section 1, the purpose clause, which noted the growing demand for housing with "greater variety in type, design and layout" and for the "conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said dwellings."
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
70349719658
-
-
Section 3(a) limited the ordinance to authorizing these uses. Authorization of nonresidential uses in a residential development by ordinance avoided the objection that approval of a planned unit development by a nonlegislative body would be an improper delegation of power
-
Section 3(a) limited the ordinance to authorizing these uses. Authorization of nonresidential uses in a residential development by ordinance avoided the objection that approval of a planned unit development by a nonlegislative body would be an improper delegation of power.
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
84869636605
-
-
§ 3(a)(1)
-
§ 3(a)(1).
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
70349710507
-
-
Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, at 8-76
-
Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, at 8-76.
-
-
-
-
64
-
-
84869621626
-
-
Interview with Mario Zaveralla, former planning director, Windsor, Connecticut, April 19, 2006; see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2d (West 2001) (savings clause for planned unit developments approved under prior statute)
-
Interview with Mario Zaveralla, former planning director, Windsor, Connecticut, April 19, 2006; see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-2d (West 2001) (savings clause for planned unit developments approved under prior statute).
-
-
-
-
65
-
-
84869612650
-
-
§ 2(c)
-
§ 2(c).
-
-
-
-
66
-
-
84869636601
-
-
§5(c)
-
§5(c).
-
-
-
-
67
-
-
70349699665
-
-
note
-
§§ 5(c), 5(11) (definition of "municipal authority" authorized to make decisions on planned unit developments). The simplified residential nature of the planned unit development contemplated by the model act made a two-stage approval process, in which the approval of a development plan follows a rezoning for a planned unit development district.
-
-
-
-
68
-
-
84869612649
-
-
§3
-
§3.
-
-
-
-
69
-
-
70349701223
-
-
note
-
The drafters acknowledged the act contained more detail than was usual on procedures, but stated that "[i]f it is the wish of developers to have greater flexibility in substantive standards, the only method for insuring against discrimination is detailed and mandatory procedure." Babcock Model, supra note 56, at 79.
-
-
-
-
70
-
-
84869621623
-
-
§ 3(b)(2)
-
§ 3(b)(2).
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
70349724448
-
-
note
-
§ 5(d). Not all of this information, such as the location and size of common open space, would necessarily be needed for every planned unit development. Other information that might be necessary, such as information about traffic circulation and pedestrian systems, was not required, probably because the act expected development to occur in relatively small residential communities.
-
-
-
-
72
-
-
70349718166
-
-
note
-
§ 7(a). These criteria require consideration of whether the plan is consistent with the statement of objectives of a planned unit development; the extent to which the plan departs from existing zoning and subdivision regulations; the purpose, location and amount of common open space; physical design and an adequate provision for public services, control over traffic, furtherance of amenities such as light and air; relationship to its neighborhood; and provisions to rotect the integrity of the public if the plan is to be carried out over a period of time.
-
-
-
-
73
-
-
84869636597
-
-
§§ 3(b)(3), 7(a)(6)
-
§§ 3(b)(3), 7(a)(6).
-
-
-
-
74
-
-
70349715081
-
-
note
-
§ 3(c). A municipality could accept conveyance of the common open space, but an ordinance could not provide that it would be dedicated to public use. Creation of a private organization was optional. This type of organization is known today as a homeowners' association.
-
-
-
-
75
-
-
84869609831
-
-
A Model Land Development Code, § 2-210, at 60-61. , supra note 6, at 8-77. For discussion of the Code see Meek, Modern Planning and Zoning Legislation, supra note 1, at 7-8
-
A Model Land Development Code, § 2-210, at 60-61. The model act is summarized in Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, at 8-77. For discussion of the Code see Meek, Modern Planning and Zoning Legislation, supra note 1, at 7-8.
-
The Model Act Is Summarized in Legislative Guidebook
-
-
-
76
-
-
1242279037
-
-
supra note 6, § 8-303. The Guidebook contains legislative proposals for planning at all government levels and for statutes authorizing all types of land use regulation. Commentary to the planned unit development model law discusses earlier proposed model laws for planned unit development and state legislation that presently authorizes its regulation. For discussion of the Growing Smart legislative project by its director see Stuart Meck, Present at the Creation: A Personal Account of the APA Growing Smart Project, 54 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest 3 (2002) [hereinafter Creation]
-
Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, § 8-303. The Guidebook contains legislative proposals for planning at all government levels and for statutes authorizing all types of land use regulation. Commentary to the planned unit development model law discusses earlier proposed model laws for planned unit development and state legislation that presently authorizes its regulation. For discussion of the Growing Smart legislative project by its director see Stuart Meck, Present at the Creation: A Personal Account of the APA Growing Smart Project, 54 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest 3 (2002) [hereinafter Creation].
-
Legislative Guidebook
-
-
-
77
-
-
84869636561
-
-
§ 8-303(6). The purpose clause, however, includes a number of detailed development objectives that planned unit developments must meet. § 8-303(1)
-
§ 8-303(6). The purpose clause, however, includes a number of detailed development objectives that planned unit developments must meet. § 8-303(1).
-
-
-
-
78
-
-
84869621579
-
-
§ 8-303(10). Some of this paragraph is borrowed from the Babcock model law
-
§ 8-303(10). Some of this paragraph is borrowed from the Babcock model law.
-
-
-
-
79
-
-
84869621581
-
-
§ 8-303(3)
-
§ 8-303(3).
-
-
-
-
80
-
-
70349718172
-
-
note
-
§ 8-303(12). Projects over ten acres would go through subdivision review. Another problem with the selection of conditional uses to approve planned unit developments is that the authority to approve these uses is given to the board of zoning adjustment, a lay board that does not have the expertise to review these projects. This is less of a problem when, as in some jurisdictions, the authority to approve conditional uses is given to the legislative body following a recommendation by the planning commission.
-
-
-
-
81
-
-
84869624516
-
-
§ 8-303(7)
-
§ 8-303(7).
-
-
-
-
82
-
-
70349713490
-
-
note
-
The model law authorizes the approval of planned unit developments as a "development permit," § 8-303(11), which triggers procedures recommended for administrative review in Chapter 10. This is helpful, but the two-step approval required for planned unit developments requires some modification of these procedures. Approval criteria are generally limited to compatibility with the surrounding area.
-
-
-
-
83
-
-
70349710508
-
-
note
-
A statute can have a statement of purpose, though this kind of provision may create ambiguity because it may not be clear whether the purpose clause provides substantive standards local governments must consider. This problem occurs at the local level in the administration of planned unit development ordinances. See DuPont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 426 A.2d 327 (D.C. App. 1981) (purpose clause treated as approval criteria). Some statutes have purpose clauses that serve the function of defining a planned unit development. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 278A.020 (LexisNexis 2000) (gives the reasons for approving planned unit developments, such as a demand for housing, a more efficient use of land, and greater flexibility in regulation). Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-4401 (2007) and Mich. Comp. L. § 3503(1) (West 2006), are similar.
-
-
-
-
84
-
-
70349724450
-
-
note
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 3(c). The statute requires an ordinance to set aside common open space for project residents, decide on its amount and location, and provide for improvement and maintenance. It may require the establishment of a homeowner's association for management and maintenance. It must authorize the local government to require maintenance and to assess the cost of maintenance against properties in the development.
-
-
-
-
85
-
-
70349704288
-
-
§ 24-67-105 (authorizing inclusion of common open space, formation of organization to own and maintain common open space and requiring maintenance)
-
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-105(b) (1999) (authorizing inclusion of common open space, formation of organization to own and maintain common open space and requiring maintenance); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 278A.040, 273A.130, 278A.170-278A.190 (LexisNexis 2000) (based on Babcock model law); N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:55D-45.2(c) (West 1991) ("An open space plan showing the proposed land area and general location of parks and any other land area to be set aside for conservation and recreational purposes and a general description of improvements proposed to be made thereon, including a plan for the operation and maintenance of parks and recreational lands"); Pa. Stat. Ann., tit. 53 §§ 10705(f) (West 1997) (based on Babcock model law). Some statutes authorize but do not specify requirements for common open space. E.g., Idaho Code Ann. § 67-6515 (2006). Laws authorizing cluster development provide for the designation and maintenance of common open space. E.g., N.Y. Town Law § 278 (McKinney 2004); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-47 (1999) (requires restrictions against development and management plan).
-
(1999)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.B
-
-
-
86
-
-
68549087643
-
-
§§ 278A.040, 273A.130, 278A.170-278A.190 (LexisNexis)
-
; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 278A.040, 273A.130, 278A.170-278A.190 (LexisNexis 2000)
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.
-
-
-
87
-
-
0344458787
-
-
§§ 40:55D-45.2(c) (West 1991) ("An open space plan showing the proposed land area and general location of parks and any other land area to be set aside for conservation and recreational purposes and a general description of improvements proposed to be made thereon, including a plan for the operation and maintenance of parks and recreational lands"); Pa. Stat. Ann., tit. 53 §§ 10705(f) (West 1997) (based on Babcock model law). Some statutes authorize but do not specify requirements for common open space. E.g., Idaho Code Ann. § 67-6515 (2006). Laws authorizing cluster development provide for the designation and maintenance of common open space. E.g., N.Y. Town Law § 278 (McKinney 2004); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-47 (1999) (requires restrictions against development and management plan)
-
(based on Babcock model law); N.J. Stat. Ann.§§ 40:55D-45.2(c) (West 1991) ("An open space plan showing the proposed land area and general location of parks and any other land area to be set aside for conservation and recreational purposes and a general description of improvements proposed to be made thereon, including a plan for the operation and maintenance of parks and recreational lands"); Pa. Stat. Ann., tit. 53 §§ 10705(f) (West 1997) (based on Babcock model law). Some statutes authorize but do not specify requirements for common open space. E.g., Idaho Code Ann. § 67-6515 (2006). Laws authorizing cluster development provide for the designation and maintenance of common open space. E.g., N.Y. Town Law § 278 (McKinney 2004); see also R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-47 (1999) (requires restrictions against development and management plan).
-
N.J. Stat. Ann.
-
-
-
88
-
-
70349708940
-
-
note
-
Stuart Meek, Highlights of the American Planning Association's Growing Smart Project: New Tools for Planning and Management of Development, 25 Zoning & Plan. Rep. 49,50-51 (2002).
-
-
-
-
89
-
-
70349711943
-
-
Summaries of many of these state statutes are in Chapter 6 of Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note (note containing author's biographical information)
-
Summaries of many of these state statutes are in Chapter 6 of Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note (note containing author's biographical information).
-
-
-
-
90
-
-
70349710498
-
-
note
-
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-416 (1998); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 163.3202 (West 2006); 65 111. Comp. Stat. 5/11-13-1.1 (2006) (authorizes approval of planned unit development as special use); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-755 (2001); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.203( 1 )(e) (Lexis-Nexis 2004) (authorizes planned business, industrial, neighborhood and group housing districts); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, § 9 (2006) (zoning ordinances can authorize cluster and planned unit developments as special uses); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 394.301 (West Supp. 2008) (as conditional use); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 674:21,674:21-a (Supp. 2007) ; Va. Code Ann. §§ 15.2-2201, 2286 (Supp. 2008); WVa. Code Ann. §§ 8A-3-1(a) (comprehensive plan may provide for planned unit developments), 8A-7-2(e)(14) (LexisNexis 2007) Wis. Stat. §§ 59.69(2)(bm) (2000) (zoning ordinance may authorize planned unit developments to achieve more efficient use of land and may set standards and regulations for these developments).
-
-
-
-
91
-
-
70349718165
-
-
note
-
3-509 (2007) (authorizing subdivision regulations that promote cluster development); Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2286.1 (Supp. 2007) (limited to certain counties). An identical group of New York laws authorizing cluster development are based on an early 1925 proposed act. N.Y. Gen. City Law § 37 (McKinney 2003 & Supp. 2008); N.Y. Town Law § 278 (McKinney 2004); N.Y. Village Law § 7-738 (McKinney Supp. 2008) . See text accompanying notes 52, supra.
-
-
-
-
92
-
-
70349699672
-
-
note
-
Idaho Code Ann. § 67-6515 (2006) (requires procedures and authorizes regulation of "requirements for minimum area, permitted uses, ownership, common open space, utilities, density, arrangements of land uses on a site, and permit processing"); Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-10 (2003) (authorizes development agreements to carry out master-planned communities); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 303.022, 303.023; 519.021, 529.022 (LexisNexis 2003) (authorizes approval of planned unit developments as conditional uses, adoption of individual regulations or rezoning, which may replace existing zoning or be an overlay zone); R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-47 (1999) (authorizes regulation of planned unit developments; ordinance must specify uses, ratio of residential to nonresidential use, densities, required public facilities and buffer areas); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 6-29-720 (Supp. 2007), 6-29-740 (2004); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4417 (2007) (lists very specific purposes for planned unit developments but is unclear about approval process); Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(b) (2000) ("Such regulations shall provide for a safe and efficient system for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, attractive recreation and landscaped open spaces, economic design and location of public and private utilities and community facilities and insure adequate standards of construction and planning").
-
-
-
-
93
-
-
84869621578
-
-
§ 24-67-107. Development for any use is authorized under a plan that does not correspond to existing land use regulations
-
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-107(3) (1999). Development for any use is authorized under a plan that does not correspond to existing land use regulations.
-
(1999)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.3
-
-
-
94
-
-
70349708941
-
-
Mich. Comp. L. § 3503(1) (West 2006).
-
(2006)
Mich. Comp. L.
, vol.3503
, Issue.1
-
-
-
95
-
-
70349708944
-
-
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278A.065(1) (LexisNexis 2000):
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, Issue.1
, pp. 065
-
-
-
96
-
-
70349713487
-
-
note
-
"Planned unit development" means an area of land controlled by a landowner, which is to be developed as a single entity for one or more planned unit residential developments, one or more public, quasi-public, commercial or industrial areas, or both. This definition would include a single lot and raises the question whether a local government could impose a minimum tract size;
-
-
-
-
97
-
-
84875076872
-
-
§ 24-67-105 (ordinance may specify "minimum number of units or acres which may constitute a planned unit development")
-
see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-105 (ordinance may specify "minimum number of units or acres which may constitute a planned unit development").
-
Colo. Rev. Stat.
-
-
-
98
-
-
70349704282
-
-
The definition of "Planned Residential Unit Development" requires development of a number of dwelling units under a plan that does not correspond to the regulations for the residential zoning district. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278A.070 (2000).
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, pp. 070
-
-
-
99
-
-
70349715080
-
-
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 4417(a) (2007).
-
(2007)
Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.24
, Issue.A
, pp. 4417
-
-
-
100
-
-
70349722769
-
-
note
-
This paragraph lists the purposes for which a planned unit development can be approved, which include "[t]o encourage compact, pedestrian-oriented development and redevelopment, and to promote a mix of residential uses or nonresidential uses, or both, especially in downtowns, village centers, new town centers, and associated neighborhoods," to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan, to encourage compatible development in the countryside, to allow flexibility in development, to provide for the conservation of open space features, to provide for the efficient use of public facilities, and to encourage energy-efficient development.
-
-
-
-
101
-
-
70349699668
-
-
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, § 10702 (West 1997).
-
(1997)
Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.53
, pp. 10702
-
-
-
102
-
-
70349691920
-
-
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278A.090 (LexisNexis 2000).
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, pp. 090
-
-
-
103
-
-
84869621575
-
-
Id. §278A. 100
-
Id. §278A. 100.
-
-
-
-
104
-
-
84869605178
-
-
Id. §278A.120
-
Id. §278A.120.
-
-
-
-
105
-
-
0348044256
-
-
§ 24-67-104 (similar to § 2 of the Babcock model law), § 24-67-105
-
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104 (similar to § 2 of the Babcock model law), § 24-67-105 (1999);
-
(1999)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
-
-
-
106
-
-
84869627454
-
-
§ 36-7-4-1503
-
Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 36-7-4-1503 (West 2006)
-
(2006)
Burns Ind. Code Ann.
-
-
-
107
-
-
70349713488
-
-
(planned unit development district ordinance shall specify "range of uses" and "requirements" for development); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-4401(3);
-
Neb. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.3
, pp. 19-4401
-
-
-
108
-
-
70349710499
-
-
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, §4451(4) (2007)
-
(2007)
Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.24
, Issue.4
, pp. 4451
-
-
-
109
-
-
84869605179
-
-
§ 45-24-47(minimum area, uses, densities, buffer areas)
-
("The location and physical characteristics of the proposed planned unit development; The location, design, type, and use of the lots and structures proposed; The amount, location, and proposed use of open space"); R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-24-47(c) (1999) (minimum area, uses, densities, buffer areas).
-
(1999)
R.I. Gen. Laws
, Issue.C
-
-
-
110
-
-
84869621571
-
-
§ 24-67-104
-
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-104(f) (1999);
-
(1999)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.F
-
-
-
111
-
-
70349719665
-
-
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-4401(2) (1997);
-
(1997)
Neb. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.2
, pp. 19-4401
-
-
-
112
-
-
70349715077
-
-
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, § 10709(b)(1) (West Supp. 2007).
-
(2007)
Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.53
, Issue.1 B
, pp. 10709
-
-
-
113
-
-
70349725918
-
-
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-4401(3).
-
Neb. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.3
, pp. 19-4401
-
-
-
114
-
-
70349711946
-
-
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278A.220 (LexisNexis 2000).
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, pp. 220
-
-
-
115
-
-
70349711945
-
-
RK Dev. Corp. v. City of Norwalk, 242 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1968); see also Wood-house v. Board of Comm'rs, 261 S.E.2d 882 (N.C. 1980)
-
RK Dev. Corp. v. City of Norwalk, 242 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1968); see also Wood-house v. Board of Comm'rs, 261 S.E.2d 882 (N.C. 1980).
-
-
-
-
116
-
-
84869624509
-
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 7(b)(1)
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 7(b)(1).
-
-
-
-
117
-
-
70349719662
-
-
N.J. Stat. § 40:55D-45 (West 1991)
-
(1991)
N.J. Stat.
, vol.40
, pp. 55
-
-
-
118
-
-
70349715077
-
-
(model act criteria modified); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, § 10709(b) (West Supp. 2007);
-
(2007)
Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.53
, Issue.B
, pp. 10709
-
-
-
119
-
-
70349704284
-
-
see also Neb. Rev. Stat. § 19-4401(2) (1997)
-
(1997)
Neb. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.2
, pp. 19-4401
-
-
-
120
-
-
70349710503
-
-
criteria similar to Babcock model law
-
(compatibility with adjacent uses; public service capacity; consistent with health, safety and general welfare; in accordance with comprehensive plan); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278A.500 (LexisNexis 2000) (criteria similar to Babcock model law).
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, pp. 500
-
-
-
122
-
-
70349718167
-
-
For discussion of these programs, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 5
-
For discussion of these programs, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 5.
-
-
-
-
123
-
-
84869607652
-
-
supra note 6, Chapter 10. The author was the principal consultant in the drafting of this Chapter. For discussion
-
Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, Chapter 10. The author was the principal consultant in the drafting of this Chapter. For discussion
-
Legislative Guidebook
-
-
-
126
-
-
84869621572
-
-
Id. § 10-208.
-
Id. § 10-208.
-
-
-
-
127
-
-
70349701225
-
-
440-278A.(LexisNexis)
-
Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 278A.440-278A.590 (LexisNexis 2000);
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, pp. 590
-
-
-
128
-
-
70349718171
-
-
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, §§ 10707-10711 (West 1997 & Supp. 2007).
-
(1997)
Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.53
, Issue.SUPP
, pp. 10707-10711
-
-
-
129
-
-
84869624510
-
-
§ 125.3503
-
Mich. Comp. L. § 125.3503(4)(c)(5) (West 2006);
-
(2006)
Mich. Comp. L.
, Issue.4-5
-
-
-
130
-
-
0348044256
-
-
§ 24-67-105 (ordinance to specify information to be submitted), § 24-67-105.5
-
see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-105 (ordinance to specify information to be submitted), § 24-67-105.5 (1999)
-
(1999)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
-
-
-
131
-
-
70349721334
-
-
55D-45.(submission and approval of general development plan)
-
(decision body may request redesign but must provide specific and objective criteria; time limit on hearing, which must be conducted expeditiously; deemed approval requirement); see also N.J. Stat. § 40:55D-45.3 (West 1991) (submission and approval of general development plan).
-
(1991)
N.J. Stat.
, vol.40
, pp. 3
-
-
-
132
-
-
70349704286
-
-
A state that adopts the review procedures in the APA model legislation may also need to specify how development plans for planned unit development should be handled under these procedures.
-
A state that adopts the review procedures in the APA model legislation may also need to specify how development plans for planned unit development should be handled under these procedures.
-
-
-
-
133
-
-
84869621498
-
-
§ 36-7-4-1509
-
Bums Ind. Code Ann. § 36-7-4-1509 (West 2006).
-
(2006)
Bums Ind. Code Ann.
-
-
-
134
-
-
84869621568
-
-
Additional development requirements may also be specified and "any plan documentation or supporting information" required before a permit can issue. Id. § 36-7-4-1509(d)(4)(5)
-
Additional development requirements may also be specified and "any plan documentation or supporting information" required before a permit can issue. Id. § 36-7-4-1509(d)(4)(5).
-
-
-
-
135
-
-
84869624501
-
-
Id. § 36-7-4- 1509(d)
-
Id. § 36-7-4- 1509(d).
-
-
-
-
136
-
-
70349704287
-
-
Local ordinances take a variety of approaches. See Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 68.
-
Local ordinances take a variety of approaches. See Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 68.
-
-
-
-
137
-
-
84869636552
-
-
§ 125.3503
-
Mich. Comp. L. § 125.3503(9) (West 2006).
-
(2006)
Mich. Comp. L.
, Issue.9
-
-
-
138
-
-
84869621566
-
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 7(b)(6)
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 7(b)(6).
-
-
-
-
139
-
-
70349716515
-
-
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, § 10709(b)(6) (West Supp.1997);
-
(1997)
Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit.
, vol.53
, Issue.6 B
, pp. 10709
-
-
-
140
-
-
84869624502
-
-
§ 24-67-105("Such resolution or ordinance may establish the sequence of development among the various types of uses")
-
see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-105(3) (1999) ("Such resolution or ordinance may establish the sequence of development among the various types of uses").
-
(1999)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
, Issue.3
-
-
-
141
-
-
84869605174
-
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 3(b)(3). To maintain flexibility in development, the law states that the reservation shall defer the precise location of the common open space as much as possible until an application for final approval is filed
-
Babcock Model, supra note 56, § 3(b)(3). To maintain flexibility in development, the law states that the reservation shall defer the precise location of the common open space as much as possible until an application for final approval is filed.
-
-
-
-
142
-
-
70349715078
-
-
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 278A. 110(3) (LexisNexis 2000).
-
(2000)
Nev. Rev. Stat.
, vol.278 A
, Issue.3
, pp. 110
-
-
-
143
-
-
70349710501
-
-
For more extensive discussion of this topic, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note (note containing author's biographical information), at 106-109. Zoning estoppel is a related doctrine that provides equivalent protection of a developer's right to continue when there is a change in land use regulations
-
For more extensive discussion of this topic, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note (note containing author's biographical information), at 106-109. Zoning estoppel is a related doctrine that provides equivalent protection of a developer's right to continue when there is a change in land use regulations.
-
-
-
-
144
-
-
70349719660
-
-
3 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 603
-
21. Land Use Law, §§6.12-6.22. A leading case is Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Comm'n, 553 P.2d 546 (Cal. 1976). But see Village of Palatine v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 445 N.E.2d 1277 (111. Ct. App. 1983) ("We regard Palatine's approval of the original site plan, the issuance of building permits for Phase I, and the continuing treatment of [the project] as a PUD 'in fact' as the type of affirmative acts of public officials upon which a landowner is entitled to rely"). The court in Rockshire Civic Assn., Inc. v. Mayor and Council of Rockville, 358 A.2d 570,579 (Md. 1976), noted the difficulties inherent in applying conventional vested rights law to planned unit developments. See also John J. Delaney, Vesting Verities and the Development Chronology: A Gaping Disconnect?, 3 Wash. U.J.L. & Pol'y 603 (2000).
-
(2000)
Vesting Verities and the Development Chronology: A Gaping Disconnect?
-
-
Delaney, J.J.1
-
145
-
-
70349710500
-
-
This issue is complicated by the frequent need of larger developments to secure amendments to their development plan as the project progresses because of changed market conditions or changes in project objectives. This would eliminate any early vested rights that might have accrued
-
This issue is complicated by the frequent need of larger developments to secure amendments to their development plan as the project progresses because of changed market conditions or changes in project objectives. This would eliminate any early vested rights that might have accrued.
-
-
-
-
146
-
-
70349725919
-
-
55D-45.1
-
The New Jersey statute allows the planning board to set the term of the development plan, not to exceed 20 years from the date the first section of the development was approved. N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:55D-45.1(b) (West 1991).
-
(1991)
N.J. Stat. Ann.
, vol.40
, Issue.B
-
-
-
147
-
-
0347306537
-
-
& Supp. 2007 11-1201 to 11-1206 (2001 & Supp. 2007)
-
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 9-1201 to 9-1205 (1996 & Supp. 2007); 11-1201 to 11-1206 (2001 & Supp. 2007)
-
(1996)
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
, pp. 91201-91205
-
-
-
148
-
-
0042598457
-
-
§§ 24-68-102 to 24-68-106
-
(defining protected development plan for a phased development); Colo. Rev. Stat., §§ 24-68-102 to 24-68-106 (2001);
-
(2001)
Colo. Rev. Stat.
-
-
-
149
-
-
68949185890
-
-
§ 153A-344.1 ; S.C. Code §§ 6-29-1510 to 6-29-1560 (Supp. 2007)
-
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-344.1 (2007); S.C. Code §§ 6-29-1510 to 6-29-1560 (Supp. 2007).
-
(2007)
N.C. Gen. Stat.
-
-
-
150
-
-
84869607652
-
-
supra note 6, at 8-98 to 8-106
-
For discussion of these statutes and statutes granting vested rights for other land use approvals, see Legislative Guidebook, supra note 6, at 8-98 to 8-106.
-
Legislative Guidebook
-
-
-
151
-
-
84869605176
-
-
§ 153A-344.1: "Site specific development plan" means a plan which has been submitted to a county by a landowner describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. Such plan may be in the form of, but not be limited to, any of the following plans or approvals: A planned unit development plan ..."
-
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-344.1(5): "Site specific development plan" means a plan which has been submitted to a county by a landowner describing with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific parcel or parcels of property. Such plan may be in the form of, but not be limited to, any of the following plans or approvals: A planned unit development plan ..."
-
N.C. Gen. Stat.
, Issue.5
-
-
-
152
-
-
70349716514
-
-
note
-
Development agreements between a developer and a local government are another alternative that is available to protect development rights in planned unit developments. They can provide the development will be carried out under regulations in effect when the agreement was signed. Development agreements are used in some areas to protect development rights in planned unit developments. For discussion, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 47-50.
-
-
-
-
153
-
-
70349724449
-
-
If the protected period is lengthened, some authority would be needed to allow local governments to change the regulations if required by changed conditions or health, safety, welfare or similar reasons. Provisions like this are included in statutes authorizing development agreements. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 163.3233(2) (West 2006).
-
(2006)
Fla. Stat. Ann.
, vol.163
, Issue.2
, pp. 3233
-
-
-
154
-
-
17144425881
-
-
§ 19-5-10
-
Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-10 (2003).
-
(2003)
Miss. Code Ann.
-
-
-
155
-
-
70349718170
-
-
note
-
The statute defines master-planned community as "a development by one or more developers of real estate consisting of residential, commercial, educational, health care, open space and recreational components that is developed pursuant to a long range, multi-phase master plan providing comprehensive land use planning and staged implementation and development." Id. § 19-5-10(2).
-
-
-
-
156
-
-
84869621561
-
-
The original owners may modify the master plan to meet "changing economic and market conditions," but the county must approve any material changes in regulations and restrictions or that significantly change the "concept" of the master plan. Id. § 19-5-10(a)(3)
-
The original owners may modify the master plan to meet "changing economic and market conditions," but the county must approve any material changes in regulations and restrictions or that significantly change the "concept" of the master plan. Id. § 19-5-10(a)(3).
-
-
-
-
157
-
-
17144425881
-
-
§ 19-5-10
-
Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-10 (2003).
-
(2003)
Miss. Code Ann.
-
-
-
158
-
-
84869621560
-
-
Id. § 19-5-10 (2003)(2)(a)
-
Id. § 19-5-10 (2003)(2)(a).
-
-
-
-
159
-
-
70349719663
-
-
For examples of ordinances that implement this concept, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 38-40
-
For examples of ordinances that implement this concept, see Mandelker, Planned Unit Developments, supra note * (note containing author's biographical information), at 38-40.
-
-
-
|