2007 is upon us. Happy New Year fellow planners, in this era of global warming and global dimming! Today’s topic: land use controls, a subject sweet and dear to us all.

Let me be succinct in my own opinion on this: New Jersey’s system of land use controls is a mess. Every time I open up a municipal code, I cringe. What delectable goodies will I find? What quaint reminiscences of 1950s planning thinking? How tortured, convoluted and opaque will the language be? Most local codes resemble a cross between a slug and a porcupine. This is as much the fault of land use attorneys and local officials, of course, as it is of planners. Nevertheless, I believe it is incumbent upon the planning profession to stake out a leadership role in helping to clean up the slimy mess it helped create.

Our zoning mess has many dimensions: zoning districts with bulk standards that do not recognize pre-existing conditions (uses, lot sizes, setbacks) and create an unnecessary (and often socially inequitable) number of non-conformities (75% of lots, in one case I am familiar with), seriously outdated parking standards, poorly conceived lists of permitted uses, and so forth. To be clear, part of the problem has to do with our clearly outdated enabling legislation, the Municipal Land Use Law (see the President’s Corner in the July/August 2005 issue of Plan This! for more commentary on the MLUL) The other part is just good housekeeping.

We have all grown up (grown old) hearing that sacred dictum: Jersey is a “home rule” state. Home rule is the planner’s “third rail.” As a practical matter for planners, this means every municipality is free to set its own land development standards: not just the ubiquitous zoning districts (“low density single-family residential,” “highway commercial,” etc.), but everything else as well, from the size of parking stalls and driveway aisles to zoning definitions. Are parking stall dimensions really an appropriate expression of a community’s unique identity? (Do the dimensions of cars and trucks vary from North Jersey to South Jersey, or from urban to rural? I think not). Should every New Jersey municipality’s zoning and land development codes have their own, widely divergent list of definitions? Would a unified set of definitions compromise home rule? I think not. You get the picture.

The Residential Site Improvement Standards – of which I am not a great fan, by the way, and which could significantly benefit from a 21st century reality check – at least had the merit of bringing some level of standardization to the field. We can (and should) debate whether a particular standard is appropriate to a particular condition, and whether a “waiver,” “special area standard,” or other solution should be sought. But there is, at least, a common base for discussion.

No such common ground exists with respect to zoning and other land development controls. “High-density” development in one community equals “low-density” development in another. (The difference, purely

ideological, nevertheless has powerful emotional implications in people’s minds). How many definitions of building height are there out there? Why is one use classified as “retail” in one zoning ordinance and as a “service” in another, with varying parking requirements? And why not adopt a unified set of empirically based statewide parking requirements, sensitive to the land use context (urban vs. suburban vs. rural, transit-rich vs. transit-poor, etc) rather than submit to obsolete traffic engineering standards driven only by “land use”? Let’s not forget, by the way, that we have no minimum standards for sidewalk width, regardless of the number of pedestrians that might be anticipated; and we have no standards for bicycle parking, regardless of how many cyclists might be anticipated. Lets face it: we are truly a carcentric culture. Is this how we expect to march confidently into the 21st century? Is this how we expect to compete with the rest of the world?

Let me suggest a few areas where reform of our land use controls might be of considerable benefit to New Jersey as a whole, and all of us at the same time:

• Specifically authorize form-based codes and specific plans. These concepts, which are increasingly popular elsewhere in the country, can only way be implemented in New Jersey through subterfuges, by way of overlay districts that rely on incentives, or by way of the redevelopment statutes. This should not be the rule. Why not authorize these concepts outright? There would be no requirement to adopt these new formats, but if a municipality should wish to, the enabling legislation (and case law) should not stand in the way.
   
• Reduce the minimum threshold for General Development Plans from 100 acres to 5. This greenfieldsinspired provision designed to facilitate larger, low-density projects is virtually obsolete, given the scarcity of large parcels in the state. Yet, the rationale behind it – that it is widely beneficial to allow developers to obtain entitlements on large, complex projects without having to submit fully engineered site plans– is increasingly relevant. Yet those types of projects now tend to increasingly occur in previously urbanized areas, often brownfields, and only rarely on cornfields. The same number of housing units or square feet of non-residential space that would occupy 500 acres of green fields are now commonly found in 5 or 10 acres of brown fields. In the absence of a designation of an “area in need of redevelopment” – which as we are all painfully aware is under considerable, misguided attack in the Legislature – large, complex redevelopment projects in previously urbanized locations are treated by the MLUL in exactly the same way as a proposed deck on a nonconforming single-family lot.
   
• Create a uniform set of definitions. Municipal land development ordinances would not be required to adopt definitions for terms that are not relevant to their jurisdictions, but why not have a common set of references? Bulk standards and other provisions specific to individual codes could be adjusted to handle whatever differences may result, as a consequence of adopting a unified set of definitions. This would not materially change local standards – the advantage is that we would all be speaking the same language, instead of 566 dialects.
   
• Specifically authorize the official map to be adopted without the need for the expensive site surveys, now virtually required by case law. The official map should be a planning tool, not an engineering tool. Municipalities should be allowed to map out future streets, public spaces and school sites without having to incur the unnecessary expense of a topographical survey.
   
• Specifically authorize some measure of administrative approvals. If we are to take the planning process seriously, we should imbue it with a measure of authority. If a plan satisfies a pre-approved set of bulk, density, uses, design guidelines and other parameters why should it not be subject to administrative review and approval? The builders floated a wildly excessive, misguided legislative proposal some years ago that soured many in New Jersey on the concept of administrative review and approvals. Yet, this has been the norm in European countries for decades, with excellent results. It recognizes and empowers the planning profession – unlike the builders’ proposal I am not suggesting that this authority be vested in the zoning official, but rather in a planner with actual academic qualifications – and removes the crutch of the planning board, a politically motivated body. This does not mean that public input is curtailed. There would continue to be plenty of opportunities for pubic input. But at the appropriate time, which is during the planning process. To wait for public input at the site plan stage, and to allow it to question basic assumptions, is misleading and unfair to both the development community and the planning community.
   
• Specifically authorize the concept of “neighborhood conservation districts” as a way to establish and enforce smart public policy regarding neighborhood preservation and transformation, without the restrictions or encumbrances that ensue from the far more restrictive and elusive concept of historic district designation. The widespread, but scattershot and generally poorly informed discussions over“MacMansions” currently taking place around the state would have a far more solid basis and a far better set of options than simply tinkering with the bulk standards, which seems to be the current M.O. After all, individual single-family homes are and will continue to be exempt from site plan review in New Jersey, unless they trigger variances that send them to the zoning board -- which typically finds no guidance in the municipal master plan or zoning code. Neighborhood Conservation Districts would be a significant step forward in the public discourse over these issues.

These are just a few ideas of how we might all benefit from a 21st century update of our land development controls. Others no doubt are also possible. As always, I welcome your thoughts. Please contact me at pres@njapa.org.

The President’s Corner reflects the President’s opinion and not necessarily that of the NJAPA Executive Committee or NJAPA membership.