21carysresponse.pdf

Cary's

Response

to

Rapid

Growth:

Reflections

Upon

Twenty

Years

of

Change

Robert

C.

Hinshaw

In

preparation for

thisissue

on

politics

and

planning,

Carolina

Planning

isswed

a

call

for

papers

from

practicing

planners

in

North

Carolina

who

hold

or

have

held

elective office.

In response,

Robert

Hinshaw, economic

development

section

chief

in

the

state

Division

_of

Community

Assistance

and

former

member

of

the

Cary

Town

Council

and

Cary Planning

and

Zoning

Board,

shares

his insightsin this article

on

the

role

of

the

planner

in

these positions.

What's the difference

between

a planner, a planning board

member

and

a

town

council

member?

This could

be

the

opening

lineofa partyjoke orriddle,butin

my

caseall

three charactersarethesame. Ihave

had

theopportunity

inrecent years toserveasapracticingplanner,a

member

of

a

town

planning board,

and

as an elected

town

council

member.

Thisarticlediscusses

some

of

my

experiences

and

offers suggestions for those expecting to serve in any of

these positions.

Planner—

A

Changing

Role

Afterseveral yearsasastate-employed

community

plan-nerwiththeDivision of

Community

Assistance

(now

apart

of the

North

Carolina

Department

of

Economic

and

Community

Development),I

was

transferredtotheRaleigh

areain1972.

My

planning experience

had

previously

been

as a consultant to municipalities

and

counties that

con-tractedwiththestateforplanning orpublicadministration

services,usuallyforaperiodof

up

to

two

years. This

was

the

"HUD

701"era,

when

much

local planning

was

partially

aidedfinanciallybyfederalfundssub-granted throughthe

state for specific local

government

plans

and

activities.

By

the early1970s

numerous

housing

and

otherfederalgrant

programs

thatdirectlyrelated toplanners

and

their

work

were

being discussedinCongress.

Many

programs

were

folded into the

Housing and

Community

Development Act

of 1974, initiating the

Community

Development

Block

Grant

(CDBG)

program which

stilllivestoday. This

back-ground

sensitized

me

tothe

need

toconductlocalplanning comprehensively,

and

to try to include in the process a

broad spectrum of input

from

citizensaswellasthe

land-owners and

developers

who

ultimately

"implement"

much

ofalocal

development

planthroughtheirprivatelyfunded

projectswithinthe

community.

Located

between

thestatecapitoland

Research

Triangle

Park,

Cary

was

beginningto experienceastonishing

resi-dential growth. Building permits for

new

single-family

housing

were

beingissued at

much

higher rates than for

most

othermunicipalitiesthe

same

sizeasCary.

In the late 1960s,

Cary

had

gained thereputation ofa

pleasant residential

community

forthose

who

couldafford

the

upper

middle-class

suburban

lifestyleof that day.

A

contractwith thecity of Raleigh forwater

and

sewerage

enabled

Cary

to offerthese services

beyond

the capacities

ofits

own

limited wells

and

treatmentfacilities.

The

town

had

extended water

and

sewerservicestoalarge-lot

subdi-vision that

was

developed within

and around

a

major

golf

course.

With

tree-lined,curvilinearstreets,freefrom overhead

electric wires, it

appeared

that local developers

and

the

town

were attemptingtoconstruct subdivisionsthat

meshed

withtherollinghillsofthe existinglandscape, ratherthan

the"bulldoze

and

replant" practice that

was

common

then.

Other

developers

were

executing their versions of

"up-scale" units

and

new

subdivisions

were opening

monthly.

Town

officials viewed the

growth

positively

and were

taking steps to

accommodate

it; however,

some

existing

residentsexpressedconcern overthe rapidpace of

develop-ment

Anti-commercial

and

industrialsentiment

was

voiced, indicatingthe preference of

many

residents thatCaryshould retainits

"bedroom"

community

character.

The

town had

a limited planning staff,but in 1971 had

already

adopted

an

abbreviated version ofaland

develop-ment

plan.

Although

some

ofthe review

and

meeting

RobertC.

Hinshaw

isthe

economic

developmentsectionchief

intheNorth CarolinaDivisionof

Community

Assistancein

Raleigh.

He

was

a

member

oftheCary

Town

Council

from

1981 to1989,

and

served

on

theCary Planning

and Zoning

procedures

were

scarcelyadequate,

town

officials

made

an

effort to tap the resourcefulness of interested citizens,

many

of

whom

were

connected withstateorfederal govern-ment, or

were

educatorsor otherhighlytrained technical

professionals. Inlessthanayear

from

thetimethatI

moved

there,I

was

askedtoserve

on

the

Town

Planning

and

Zon-ingBoard.

The Committee

of

Citizens

Since the 1920s,planningadvisoryboards

were

author-izedby enabling legislation in

numerous

statesto advise

localgovernment, oreventoconvincethe electedofficials

on

planningmatters.

As

aplanningboard

member,

I

was

now

involved inaprocess thatchooses

which

actionsare

bestforthe entire

community,

yetI

soon

realized that

de-cisions tiedtothese

recommendations

canaffectthe

every-daylives

and

investments of

my

neighbors.

For

example,

land

development

plansappearveryreasonable

and

neat

when

various uses arepresented

on

a colored

map;

how-ever,the dividingline

between

uses

becomes

verypersonal

tothe

homeowner whose

lifesavingsisinvestedina tract

adjacenttoland

proposed

forindustrialrezoning.

Such

ac-tions affectnot only"what's

on

theothersideofthefence"but can causedrasticchangesinthe patternofactivities inanentire

quadrant of thecommunity.

As

a plannerbyprofession,I

was

particularlyconcernedthatsuch

issues be given fair

and open

hearings,

and

that citizens

in-volved in

development

issues

be

made more

aware

oftheir rights

and

optionswithrespect

to the town's ordinances

and

planningprocess.

At

thistime, the elected

offi-cialsdidnot havetobe"sold"

on

the

major

benefitsof

plan-ning;

most

of

them

were

willing totake

what

helptheycould

get.

Most

ofCary'sgrowth duringthe1970s

was

residential

withlittlebusinessorindustrial

development

takingplace.

The

heavily

outnumbered "Old

Cary"residents

were

con-cerned with theeffects ofrapidgrowth,yet the

new

resi-dents

were

concerned withvirtually the

same

things: the

visual clutter, trafficcongestion,

poor

land-use

combina-tions,

and

poor development

practices. Their sentiment

was

later coined the "last-one-in syndrome",

when

rela-tively

new

residentsvoice

some

ofthe

same

concernsthat

everyonecontributesto;ineffect,urgingthat

we

"close the town'sdoors"

now

that theyareinside.

There

was

much

tobe addressed

and

learnedasa

plan-ning board

member

in such a growth situation.

As

an

experiencedplanner, I

had been

more

involvedwithsmall

townsin

which

rejuvenation or "growingold gracefully"

MinimalsetbacksandsmalllotsinCarysPlannedUnitDevelopments(PUDs)

areoffsetby rearservice drivesandopen spaceareas.

was

the order ofthe day rather than dealingwith rapid

growth.

Were

there

new

solutions toold

problems?

Did

the

"new

town"

concepts

on

displayinthe early 1970s,suchas

Reston,Virginia

and Columbia,

Maryland, hold promise

forCary?

Many

new

residents

and

some

developers

were

aware

ofsuch innovations

and began

tovoicetheir interest to

town

officials. Citizens

wanted

fewer drivewaycuts,less strip

development

and

lessofthe associated ugliness

and

traffic

problems

they

had

seen occurelsewhere.

Land

de-velopers

began

to lookfor

ways

to

do group

or advance

multi-usezoning oflargetracts,

hoping

tolessenthe

prob-lemsinobtaining

commercial

rezoningaftera residential

subdivision

was

inplace nearby.

By

1974,withthehelp of

a

committee

ofplanners,developers

and

builders,the

town

developed

one

ofthefirstfunctioningplannedunit

devel-opment

(PUD)

ordinancesinthestate.

PlannedUnit

Developments

The

initial

work

on

theordinance

was begun

primarilyat

therequestofthedeveloper ofa1000-acretractofland

who

wanted

the flexibilitytoreducesetbacks

and

street

rights-of-way.

He

wanted

to provide

PUD

featuressuchas

resi-dential units

grouped around

cul-de-sacswithinternal

com-mercialfacilitiesandlargeblocks

of

open

space.

The

PUD

ordi-nance

was adopted

about

fif-teen years ago,

and

still

func-tionsreasonablywellwithonly

relatively

minor

changes.

Inthisclimate of heavygrowth

pressure,otherland regulatory

tools

were

developed.

These

included subdivisionregulations

requiring thededicationof

rec-reation

and

open

space lands,

and

the additionsof

an

Indus-trial

Performance

District (IPD)

and

a Reservoir Water-shed ProtectionDistrict

(R

WPD)

tothezoningordinance.

Land

Dedication

Inthe early 1970s, largetractsofland

were

beingcleared

for houses.

Under

the authority granted by the

North

Carolina

General

Statutes,the

town adopted and

has

rigor-ouslyenforcedtherequirement of landdedicationtothe

publicaccordingto the

number

ofresidentialunits built.

Thisrequirementhasenabledthe

town

toassemblelandfor

a

major

park, severalsmallerparks,

and

landfora

greenway

and

trailsystemthatisgraduallyexpanding with eachyear's

new

budgetauthorization.

IndustrialPerformanceDistrict

when

town

council

members

in1978

grew

concernedthat a

taxbaseofprimarily residentialproperty

would

likely

re-sultinhighertaxesfor

homeowners. While

some

citizens

preferreda "residential only"

community, town

staff

and

the council

began

to see thatthis

was

not a

sound

fiscal

policy.

They

saw

arevision totheindustrialzoninginthe

form

ofa floatingdistrictasa

way

toprovide

more

poten-tial industrial land.

The IPD

establishes rigidbuffer

re-quirements

around

anindustrialsitethatdirectlyrelateto theintensityofuse

on

thesite.

The IPD

hasprovided

ad-ditionalindustriallandoptionsinlocations that

would

oth-erwise have

been

strongly

opposed

by nearbyresidentsor

other businesses.

The

council also formally

adopted

a

policy statingthetown's intentto

encourage

ataxbase

com-posed of

40

percentresidential

and

60 percent

nonresiden-tial. Thispubliclyinformsthe

community,

town

staff

and

stateindustrialdevelopersthat thispolicyis

an

economic

development

goal.

RegionalWaterQuality

Regional waterqualityplanning

and neighborhood

con-cernsforstreams gaverisetotheadoption oftheReservoir

Watershed

ProtectionDistrict regulations.

As

a

member

of the

Region

J Council of

Governments

multi-county

planningorganization,

town

staff

and

officialshave

partici-patedforyearsinfederally

and

statefunded waterquality

planningcoordinated byregionalstaff.

Region

J

made

rec-ommendations

to its

member

units that theyadoptlocal

regulations

aimed

atprotecting

and

improving water

re-sources in the six-countyarea.

These recommendations,

coupled with citizenconcerns about sediment

and

poten-tialrun-offpollution

from development

activities,ledCary

to adopt

and

update requirements that deal specifically

with imperviousarealimitations,streambuffers

and

street

construction indesignated watersheds.

Creditforsuchregulatory tools

and

their

implementa-tioncan beattributedto thetown'spoliticalclimateover

theyears. This has includedayoung,

open-minded

plan-ningstaff,developers

who

were

willing to

be

innovative,

con-cerned

and

informed citizens,

many

of

whom

are expert in

their

own

right as a result of

educationandemployment, and

town

councils that

were

willing

to listen to all of the partici-pants.

Homeowner

Organizations

Related to this political

cli-mate

isthe extensiveuse ofthe

PUD,

characterizedbythe

or-ganizationof

homeowner

asso-SitepUmandlandscaping requirementsinCoryrequirestreettreesandadequate screening,asshownaroundthisconveniencestore-gasoline station.

ciations

which

were

initially

founded

toprovideforthe

per-petual careof

common

lands,amenities

and

privatestreets.

As

aresult,

Cary

is

one

ofthe

most

organized

communities

in thestateorpossiblyinthesoutheastern

United

States.

The

ordinance requirementshavevirtuallyassuredthatthe

residentsare organized,providinga unified voice thatcan

berallied

whether

dealingwiththedeveloper or withthe

town

council

on

anissuerelated to a particular

PUD.

Such

organizationhasspreadto

some

older,conventional

subdi-visions

which

have

formed

similar

homeowner

groups in

recentyears.

During

thisperiod, the

Cary

Planning

and Zoning Board

setahighstandardin

promoting an

open

forum

for citizen

inputinthetown's planningprocess.

For

many

yearsthe

town

councilhas heldpublichearingsforrezoningrequests

and

other planning items jointly with the Planning

and

Zoning

Board.

Such

itemsarethen consideredatthe next

regularplanning

board

meeting,then reported

back

tothe

councilfor finalactionat

one

ofitstwice

monthly

meetings.

Thisthirty-day cycleintheprocess

makes

citizeninput

pos-sible.

Elected

Officialdom

After nineyears

on

thePlanning

and

Zoning

Board,I

was

electedtothe

Cary

Town

Councilin1981.

The

town

faced

severalphysicalplanningissues:expanding water

and

sewer

facilities,improving

growth

management

processes, updat-ingtheland

development

plan,addressingtraffic

and

thor-oughfare concerns,

and

improving the town's budgeting

process.

The

roleofthe elected

body

is

more

far-reaching

than that ofeither planner or planning board

member.

Certainlywithplanningissues,the practicingplannerhas

theadvantage.

However,

there are

more

issues

and

fronts

inthe role as apolicymaker.

The

generalist plannerhas

some

advantageshere,sincebytraining

and

experiencethe

planner

must

have

some

knowledge

about

government

re-latedissues

and

actorsintheeverydayworld.

For

example, the planneris familiarwithinformation,

numbers,

maps

and

thejargonthat arepresentedbystaffor

at

town

meetings. Similarly,

zoning ordinances, meeting procedures

and

otherfacetsof

local

government

operations

willnotbeas

new

toplanners

as to the layperson.

Yet

the

localbusinessperson or

home-owner

who

serves

on

the

town

board

may

overcome

a lackof

technical

knowledge

withtheir

familiaritywith the

community

and

itsresidents.

They

can be

effective incommunicatingwith

localresidentsoravisiting

ButIhavefounddifferences

be-tween the long-term view of the

planner

and

the shorter

term

view

thatmust beaddressedbytheelected official.

These

differencesareboth

public

and

internal to the town's

operation.

The

successfulelected

officialwillinclude boththe

long-term

and

the short-term views in

hisorher portfolioof concerns

and

activities.

In general,theelectedofficialhears

more

from

thecitizen

who

is

troub-ledwiththe anticipatedimpact ofa

rezoningaction orordinance

revi-sionthan

from

the planner or the

planning board

member.

Often, a projectwillalreadybe underconstruction

and

thecitizenisconcerned, ora rezon-ingprocedurehas nearlyrunitscourse

and

thecitizensees

the council

member

asalastresortto getthe action thatis

favorable to the citizen's pointofview. Developers

and

buildersare also

more

likelytowriteorcall

members

ofthe

council as their proposals are processed (although this

form

of the local political process is probably involving

planning board

members

more,particularlyinseveral

de-velopment

"hotspots" across

North

Carolina).

The

coun-cil

member

may

simplylistentothecitizen'sconcerns or

en-couragebetter

communications

among

conflictingparties. It isnotunusualforsuchinquiriestoleadtomeetings

be-tween developerrepresentatives

and

residentgroups

who

are willing to try to reach an agreeable solution.

One

instanceinvolved aproposalforashoppingcenter

expan-sion into land

zoned

for officeuses that

was

adjacent to

single-family residences.

Using

a conditionalzoning

proc-essavailableinthetown's ordinance,meetings

between

the

center

owner and

the residents resultedinthe solution that

the

owner

build

an

earth

berm

with landscaping

and

a

wooden

fence topermanentlyseparate the conflictinguses.

Internal Policy

Development

Inreference to the actual goals

and

policymaking items

forthetown,the elected

member

canhaveadirect role,

and

in

my

view, has adirect responsibility tothe

community.

The

plannerhas a rolein thisprocessalso,butitwillusually

be

more

inthe

form

of

recommendations,

stoppingshortof havingafinalvoiceinsuchmatters.

As

an

example

ofthisinternal policydevelopment, the

budgeting process for the

town

during earlier years

was

largelybased

on

an assignedpercentageincreasegivenby

themanager'sofficeto

department

heads.

The

department

heads then

proposed

theirrespectivebudgetstothe

man-ager,

who

inturn fine-tuned thebudget allotment based

on

the best estimatesforrevenues

from

thetaxbasealong with

anytaxincrease thatthe

mayor and

council

would

approve.

Cary'sWatershedProtectionOrdinance haspromotedlakesand

structuralmeasureswhichoftenbecomepermanentamenities.

While

thisprocessisnotunusual,

there

was

not really a conscious

goal-settingprocessbythe council

orkeystaffastowhere

thecommu-nity should

be headed and what

shouldbe accomplishedinthe fu-ture.

As

an electedofficial,I

was

abletoarguefor

and

obtain

agree-ment

bythe council that this

pro-cedure shouldbe improved.

More

recently,the council

and

keystaff

leaders have goal-setting sessions

early in the year, after

which

de-partment

heads

and

the

manager

then develop budget proposals whichareguidedbythe established

goals.Standing

committees

and

thefullcouncilhavean

op-portunity tofullyreviewfinalproposalspriortoadopting

the budget

and

related

program

of

work

for the

coming

year. This process has

won

awards for several years in

nationalcompetition.

Su

ggestions

To

Planners

Continue

toserve as the generalistinaworld of special-ists.

Be

thelong-term "eyes

and

ears" for the places

you

serve.

Assume

the role ofthe visionary, continuing to

remind

theplanning board,the council

and

the publicof

thelong-rangeplan,its

need

to

be

periodicallyupdated

and

how

itshouldreflectthe actionsoftoday.

Be

willingtoadd

innovativetools, yet limit the mystique

and

jargon

when

presentinginformation tothe public, theplanningboard,

and

electedofficials. Listenforchangesthat

may

need

tobe

made

inpolicies-fromcitizens,otherstaff

members,

elected

officials,developers

and

builders.

These

participants

may

have

good

suggestionsfor

implementation

atanytime.

Do

not putoff theiruseuntilnext year,

when

you

mightliketo

believe therewill

be

more

time or

money

to prepare an

ordinancerevisionora position paper. Finally,

do

nottry

to guess

what

the elected or

management

officials really

want

inreviewingprojects.

Ask

for theircurrent

and

long-rangegoals(ifgoalsarenotwell-defined,offertoassistin theirdevelopment).

To

Planning

Board

Members

The

basiccitizenroleisstilla

good

one; thinkof

how

the

proposed

activity willaffect

you

or yourneighbors. Listen

tothe professionals,but

make

your

own

assessment;

plan-ningisoften

"common

sense."

Think

of other examplesin

your

community

or in other places such as those being

proposed-common

mistakescan

be

prevented. Finally,let

Cary's greemvay system, constructed on land dedicated by private development,nowcontainsmorethan seven milesofpublictrails.

projectorthe process.

Changes

canbe

made

forthe

good

ofthewhole.

To

Elected

Officials

Be

objective

and

willing tolistentothestaff,the advisory

boards,

and

the public; there

may

be times

when

you

are the

onlystrengthforaweak-voicedcitizen.

Be

consistentinthe

exerciseofplanningmatters. Addressing itemsdifferently

from one

sitetoanotherwilloften

come

backtohauntyou. Set high standards for

your

community,

your staff

and

yourself. In particular, letyourstaff

and

advisoryboards

know

thestandards

and

goals

you

seek,

and

give

them

room

to attain these goals through the budget process,

ordi-nances

and

othertools availableto localgovernment.

Burns

(from

page

20)

tagesforallaffectedlanduses.

Only

a

thorough

knowledge

and

understanding ofthe evolvingcity can provide

ade-quatesolutions to

complex problems

ofsuitability.

Oftenthe issueofsuitabilityis

more

accuratelyassessed

and

solvedbythe inclusionof multipleplayers,each having

an important goal to satisfy.

When

cities, counties

and

privateindividuals

combine

forces,positive

and

unexpected

solutions

may

emerge.

An

opportunity for cooperation is illustrated by the

problem

counties encounter in finding suitable school

sites. Established residential areas dislike neighboring

schoolsbecause theygeneratetraffic. Cities facesimilar

difficulties providing parkland

and

recreational facilities,

and

boththe public

and

private sectorexperience

problems

finding sites suitable for affordable multifamily housing

withadequatetransportation access toschools

and

recrea-tional services.

A

jointventure

approach

to sharedland, facilities

and

planning couldresult ingreater

economy

and

improved

functionalfacilitiesforeveryone.

Because

of

economies

ofscale,planningforlarger multi-useventurescanoften

more

easilyaddressissuesof suita-bility. Relativelybenign

and

passive areas bufferintensity

and

provideflexibility

and

appropriatetransitions

between

surroundinguses. Infrastructure

and

transportationissues

canbe

more

adequately addressed

on

the larger scalethan

ispossiblewithintherestrictionsofseparated

and

uncoor-dinated smallerparcels.

Planning

Can

Effectively

Manage

Problems

of

Design

and Growth

It is unfortunate that

some

would

castthe regulatory

power

of

government

in asolelynegativelight. It is true

thatregulationcan be misused,

and

punitively restrictive,

shortsighted

and

misguided.

But

itisalsotrue thatlanduse

and

design-related regulationsformulatedinan

environ-ment

ofcivicconsensus, awareness ofcontext,

and

commit-ment

to suitability can offer clear guidance for creative

architects

and

developersin producing economically

suc-cessful projects enthusiastically accepted bythe

commu-nity. Several

emerging

regulatoryapproaches, including

impact fees

and

overlaydistricts, arebeing introduced in

theTrianglearea.

Judiciously applied, overlay ordinances canencourage

and

directpositive

change and

desirabledevelopment,as

well aspreserveexistingfeaturesof

an

area.

For

example,

inRaleigh,

development

ofa

Neighborhood

Conservation

Ordinance

Overlay

was

a long

and

hard-fought process.

Afteraseriesofinfillbattles

had

been

brought beforethe

city council, it

became

apparent that issues of context,

suitability,appropriateness

and

transition

were

outside the

realm ofexisting zoning.

The

overlay

was

developed to

provide

an

organizational vehicle forconsensus-building

inpreparation forinfill

development

in older, largely

de-veloped,stableneighborhoods.

At

issue

was

the

mainte-nance

of

neighborhood

appearance, scale, character

and

general qualityoflife.

Although

theordinance

was

resisted

by land

owners

and

developers- -seekingto

maximize

their

future

development

options-the ordinance

was an

effort

to

promote

compatible

development

in

ways

that

would

benefitthe entire

community.

Currently,theordinanceis

beingtested by application to its first

neighborhood

by

requestoftheresidents.

The

consensus ofindividuals

from

thebroadestpossible

backgrounds

withamutually

benefi-cial

community

visionisthekeytothe successofthe overlay

districtordinances.

All players participatingintheplanningprocessshould

understand that regulationbuilt

on

consensusserves the

greatestpublicgood. Regulationsaresystemscreatedout

of

human

need

and

the expertiseataparticular

moment

in

time.

As

lifechanges,soshouldourregulations.

Only

by

continualvigilantresponseto publicconsensus,contextual

influences

and

suitabilitycandesigners

and

publicofficials