ADMINISTRATION OF THE REZONING PROCESS

The rezoning of property is a prelude to relatively perma-nent alteration of a community’s physical and economic structure. In view of its importance, and due to the re-sponsibilities and obligations prescribed by local and state legislation, analysis of a rezoning application requires an intense commitment on the part of local government. The governing body must be assured that the zoning change is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of the general public and is consistent with the guidance adopted in the community’s comprehensive plan. The gov-erning body must be satisfied that development proposals accommodate the concerns raised by its constituency and resolve the issues outlined by its professional staff. In many cases, constituent concern outweighs issues identified by staff.

Due to the level of analysis required, zoning applications present urbanizing communities with a tremendous work-load. This is true not only for the staff, but also for the elected and appointed officials who must review and render recommendations and decisions on the proposal. To man-age this workload, jurisdictions often limit the time frame within which rezoning applications can be received and heard, which facilitates the allocation of review time and scheduling of meetings. Applicants who fail to meet a pre-scribed deadline are forced to wait for the next period to file applications. In addition, many jurisdictions establish a waiting period before previously denied rezoning applica-tions that have since been amended can be refiled. This prevents the jurisdiction from being burdened by the need to conduct frequent reviews of projects submitted for the purpose of testing the waters and finding the right formula to win approval. This limitation on refiling also forestalls the submission of frivolous applications.

The development team may have only one opportunity at presenting its proposal. Further, typically a year or more can pass between the time of the applicant’s filing of the rezoning request and the governing body’s decision. In view of the time and expense involved in the rezoning process, the development team must take maximum advantage of the singular importance of this opportunity. This mandates overcoming potential obstacles and using all available re-sources in formulating and justifying the development pro-gram. Those who will review submission materials, those who approve the rezoning, and those who live near the project are perhaps the three most important resources

11 䡲 T^HER^EZONINGP^ROCESS 173 available to the development team. The approach that has

proven to be most effective in project development is the early involvement of these groups in determining a site’s development potential and the issues, problems, and op-portunities for resolving conflicts. As stated earlier, proc-essing of a rezoning application without the early inclusion of these three groups invites opposition and increases the likelihood of failure.

The Professional Staff: Decision Influencers

Typically, in a growing jurisdiction the governing body will delegate the responsibility for performing the rezoning ap-plications to the professional planning staff. The staff also manages the application review process, which involves dis-tributing of applications to other government agencies and assembling responses for presentation to the advisory (plan-ning commission) and approving (gover(plan-ning body) author-ities. In some cases, the planning staff is in a position to resolve conflicts among agency reviews. In addition, the staff will frequently engage in preliminary negotiations with the development team.

As is often the case in larger communities and in those broken into smaller planning areas, staff members are as-signed to each of the community’s geographic areas. Each may play a specialized role as coordinator for all planning and development activity. These individuals frequently oversee dissemination of information and respond to public inquiry on land use, zoning, and development issues in the assigned area. These activities place the staff in a unique position and establish them as an important resource in project formulation.

The staff offers a critical communication link between the development team and the other important process par-ticipants, and consequently the team must take advantage of this valuable resource. Staff members have access to the historic records concerning prior zoning and / or develop-ment actions. Further, these professionals are often in direct communication with elected officials whose constituency is affected or concerned about development proposals. Seen as advocates for private citizen issues, staff members are frequently sought after by community residents and other civic groups. Many such groups have become diligent in monitoring development proposals and equally diligent in attempting to build allies as a first line of defense in pro-tecting their neighborhood. Lastly, the staff is responsible for administering and interpreting comprehensive plans and regulatory policies and ordinances as they relate to each development proposal.

The staff can be either a powerful advocate or a difficult adversary. A staff member who becomes enthusiastic about a proposal will often press that support in meetings with the planning commission, governing body, and even civic groups and influence the incorporation of his ideas into the plan. The opposite is also true in that the professional opin-ion of the staff is often made without the influence, or bur-den, of political and economic needs. The commitment to

uphold that opinion can be strong. In addition, it might be axiomatic to suggest that the lower-ranking public staff, those likely to be directly involved in coordination and plan review, often assume the greatest control over development submissions. Although there are ample opportunities to have decisions of these professionals overruled, with both administrative and legislative actions this can be counter-productive. The relationships established among staff mem-bers, the land developer, and the land design team extend well beyond the geographic and calendar boundaries of a single project. Through development of strong relationships with the staff, information is more readily obtainable con-cerning the attitudes and desires of community residents and elected officials. In addition, the staff is usually more receptive to proposals when members of the development team are perceived as forthright, knowledgeable, coopera-tive, accommodating, and understanding.

In working with the professional planning staff, the fol-lowing questions should be asked early in the project design phase, preferably as part of the project feasibility study:

䡲 Have there been recent rezoning or development proposals concerning the subject property?

䡲 Has the property been considered during recent comprehensive plan reviews?

䡲 In either case, what issues have been raised by civic leaders, elected officials, or government agencies?

䡲 Are the community’s residents organized and united in their concern and consideration of develop-ment proposals in their neighborhood. More specifi-cally, who or what organization appears to take the lead?

䡲 Does the governing body or planning commission have members who are elected or appointed by dis-trict; have those members established a formal or in-formal network for receiving input from community residents? Have these individuals been in contact with the planning staff to discuss the subject or nearby property?

䡲 What constituent issues or complaints relative to land development in general appear to be commanding the attention of elected or appointed officials?

䡲 What specific recommendations does the staff member have for the future development of the prop-erty?

䡲 What are the most critical issues that must be re-solved by the rezoning application and development proposal?

䡲 Is the staff member aware of other development proposals being considered or reviewed in the vicinity of the subject property?

The answers to these questions will provide the critical historical perspective needed in considering the develop-ment potential and design of the property, help focus atten-tion on those issues that could terminate or delay a project and provide important clues concerning the local leadership and decision-makers in the community. Finally, by directly involving the planning staff in the project, the staff becomes part of the team, whose opinion is important and assistance valuable. To the extent that those opinions are addressed in project design, the professional planning staff may feel ob-ligated to help in the support of the proposal in subsequent public forums.

Staff, other than the professional planners, are also in-volved in application review. In each agency that comes in contact with the plan, individuals familiar with specific is-sues relative to their expertise and program also are impor-tant sources of information and potential support.

The Political Leaders: Decision-Makers

The community’s governing body is responsible for devising and implementing policies and strategies to manage the ec-onomic, demographic, social, and environmental resources.

With respect to land use and development issues, the gov-erning body must distinguish between development pro-posals that provide the greatest benefit to the community and those that impose the greatest costs. At the same time, unique relationships exist between the community’s elected leadership and its citizens and those in the business and development community. The governing body and those whom it appoints to advise and implement policy, such as the planning commission, have a responsibility to consider the needs and attitudes of both of these groups. The fact that they are elected and their terms in office determined by the satisfaction of the electorate, often poses a significant dilemma in making land use decisions. However, many take their leadership role seriously and are willing to use that role to build support for development proposals they be-lieve to be in the community’s best interests.

The timing of local legislators’ formal involvement in the rezoning process varies among jurisdictions. However, the development team should seek informal opportunities to meet with members of the governing body early in the feas-ibility analysis, particularly for large and potentially contro-versial projects. Elected officials do not like surprises, therefore, the earlier they are informed of a development proposal the better.

When such opportunities become available, the team’s primary objectives are twofold. The first is to provide the official with information on the project and opportunities for the community. The second is to learn from the official about outstanding concerns he or she may have, as well as to attempt to identify any predisposition towards the use of the property. Such meetings can become useful in deter-mining if the official is likely to take an advocacy role in the process or, conversely, to oppose the rezoning for what-ever reason.

Assessing the Community

Public hearings that have community residents and the de-velopment team standing shoulder to shoulder in support offer the greatest potential for successful rezoning applica-tions. The most skillfully designed and economically sound plan can fail if the jurisdiction’s elected leaders see that community support is lacking. The support or opposition of neighbors and residents is frequently a measure of how well the team communicates throughout the project design and application review process. As with the staff relation-ships, the communication links and established levels of trust will extend far beyond the current project’s bounda-ries. Establishing this relationship of trust is particularly im-portant where projects are multiphased or where the development team expects to undertake additional activity in the vicinity.

Initially, community fact-finding must be undertaken.

The first step in this activity is to determine the dynamics of local community leadership to identify those community leaders whose opinions are sought after, both by other res-idents and by the jurisdiction’s elected leadership. These community leaders are the people whose actions have im-pact on the opinions of their neighbors. Ultimately, these will be the people with whom the development team must work to establish clear lines of communication. These com-munity representatives will almost certainly become in-volved in the development process, whether or not their participation is at the urging of the development team.

Therefore, it falls to the team to seek out these individuals, with the goal of aligning favorable attitudes towards the development program. This is most successfully accom-plished by involving the community early in the design pro-cess.

How community leaders share information, opinions, and attitudes with other residents, and how residents com-municate with each other, must also be determined.

Whether the residents are organized under formal home-owners or community associations or are unstructured, with various individuals taking active roles on ad hoc is-sues, should be determined. Homeowner associations are organizations formed by developers of new subdivisions to enable residents to manage community open space or main-tain a community’s amenities and common elements. As these communities become fully operational, the developer’s input in the organization lessens and ultimately is elimi-nated. These associations soon become forums for the exchange of opinion on a myriad of internal and external issues that may affect the community. This is particularly true in jurisdictions encompassing broad geographic area, such as counties, where community identity is not tied to incorporated political boundaries. Smaller associations may be linked in a hierarchical network of larger umbrella as-sociations formed for the express purpose of monitoring development activity and government actions. In addition to organizations representing community residents living

11 䡲 T^HER^EZONINGP^ROCESS 175 within a single development, they may also represent

broader geographic subareas of the jurisdiction. This is of-ten the case in incorporated towns or cities.

If the development team is not already familiar with the active community groups and outspoken community lead-ers, the planning staff can usually provide assistance in the identification of these key players in the development pro-cess. This knowledge is based on their experience from prior contacts during previous comprehensive plan reviews or nearby zoning or subdivision activities. In addition, the planning office or jurisdiction’s office of community affairs often maintains a listing of formal community associations.

These groups often request to be notified about pending development applications or proposed legislation that may affect their community.

Members of the governing body or planning commission may also be approached for information about community leaders. Sometimes council, board, or commission members are elected or appointed to represent specific wards or dis-tricts within the community. If this is the case, they often have established a formal organization that advises them on development or legislative matters.

The files of previous development applications, not only for the specific property but also in its general vicinity, are a valuable resource for the development team. Given the freedom of information, or ‘‘sunrise’’ laws, these files are generally open for public inspection. They often contain transcripts from previous public hearings, lists of those who have provided testimony, and letters from neighbors and groups who felt moved to comment about the proposal. File records may also contain staff memos concerning meetings with interested parties. All potential sources of community interest must be identified. Residents often are not satisfied with the answers they may receive from their local elected leaders. It is not uncommon for them to approach their elected state and even federal legislators to ask for inter-vention in a local issue. Members of the development team may wish to contact the offices of these individuals to learn more about opinion leaders and their concerns.

Such research takes time, a luxury not always available to the development team, which often must act quickly during the feasibility phase of a project due to land pur-chase contract or other time constraints. The land design team will find it helpful to compile and maintain permanent office records about neighborhood and community leaders.

This list should include their geographic area of interest and typical concerns expressed about development and govern-ment administration. However, the team must understand that the location of residents in support or opposition of a development proposal is not always predictable. Attitudes towards protection and progress vary, as do concerns re-garding enhanced or diminished property value.

Business operators often become extensively involved in attempting to influence development decisions. It cannot be assumed, however, that employers and owners of busi-nesses will be supportive of development projects, whether

they are commercial or residential ventures. This faction is frequently concerned about competition from new business, compatibility, access, or other conflicts in operation. The word ‘‘residents’’ is used liberally throughout this text. How-ever, a business owner, even one in a business closely aligned with the building industry, becomes a ‘‘resident’’

when a development proposal attempts to become a neigh-bor. As with other residents, attitudes towards a specific project will reflect the way in which that proposal addresses local issues. Decision-makers are often very sympathetic to the concerns of the community’s business interests, reason-ing that they have made a long-term financial commitment to the community. The recognition of their contribution to the community’s tax base is also an important factor in con-sidering their comments about a proposal.

Identifying the Issues: Working with the Community The focus and intensity of public reaction to any develop-ment proposal largely depend upon several factors that are often beyond the immediate control of the land develop-ment team. These factors include the level of frustration with quality-of-life issues experienced by residents, their dissatisfaction with the responsiveness and policies of local government, and even the workmanship of their homes and experience with its builder. Important quality of life issues include traffic congestion, quality of schools, parks, recre-ation facilities, environmental health, and aesthetics. Of the resources already identified, such as political leaders and staff, rezoning files often prove to be the most easily acces-sible in identifying concerns with a development proposal that are likely to be raised during the review process.

After the development team identifies the appropriate community organizations and leaders, it must determine how best to approach the residents of the community in which a development project is located. The development team must understand that in general, the public has very little concern about project economics or the role of the economic factors in designing the project. The issue of pri-vate property rights become secondary to perceptions about the personal impact and the welfare of not only the im-mediate community. This is often true even when a devel-opment proposal is supported by the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan as a way of fulfilling its goals. Even if the project has the support of the community’s elected of-ficials, they will be hard pressed to justify approval when

After the development team identifies the appropriate community organizations and leaders, it must determine how best to approach the residents of the community in which a development project is located. The development team must understand that in general, the public has very little concern about project economics or the role of the economic factors in designing the project. The issue of pri-vate property rights become secondary to perceptions about the personal impact and the welfare of not only the im-mediate community. This is often true even when a devel-opment proposal is supported by the jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan as a way of fulfilling its goals. Even if the project has the support of the community’s elected of-ficials, they will be hard pressed to justify approval when