Zoning Goes Micro
The latest A2 NIMBY tactic: “microzoning.” Writes a poster to the Cyburbia forums:
I live in an older residential area of Ann Arbor, Michigan, which contains a mix of single-family homes, duplexes, and multi-unit buildings. The entire area is currently zoned for duplex or multi-unit, but in order to preserve the current, diverse character of the neighborhood, we would like to protect against pressures to replace single-family homes with multi-unit dwellings or to subdivide single-family homes into multiple units.
Our neighborhood association has proposed allowing small clusters of properties — as small as a few lots — to be changed to single-family zoning, at the property owners’ request. Needless to say, this wouldn’t change anything immediately or stop all redevelopment, but it might provide some stability in the long term, as properties get bought and sold.
The city has said that they are not aware of this being done in other places. Has anyone heard of this sort of zoning?
We are calling this “micro-zoning,” though clearly that isn’t a generally used term for this.
Naturally, though, our concerned resident doesn’t “want to stop all change, but rather make sure that happens in a way that allows input from the community.”
“Has anyone heard of this sort of zoning?”
Isn’t that called redlining?
posted by ryan on April 25th, 2007 at 10:03 amThey *wish* homes were being bought and sold.
posted by Alex(andra) on April 25th, 2007 at 10:20 amour concerned resident doesn’t “want to stop all change, but rather make sure that happens in a way that allows input from the community.”
Yes. If only there were a way for members of the community to have some kind of input regarding what laws were passed and who was responsible for appointing members of the zoning board…
posted by Constantine on April 25th, 2007 at 11:08 amAlex stole my post! Mom, make her stop taking my ideas!
posted by Chris on April 25th, 2007 at 11:10 am“Microzoning” or something like it (they were calling it something like “special development zones”) was struck down recently in New Haven, CT. I never paid much attention, but what I sort of got from the whole thing was that you can’t go in and change zoning on individual properties on an ad-hoc basis.
posted by Anna on April 25th, 2007 at 1:35 pmoh the urge of all (esp 1st gen) annarborites: stop change! keep a2 the way it is! don’t move forward! my god! john smith lived for 3 days in house number2 on oak street! we MUST preserve this monument to history at all costs! property owers and tax payers? who are they? the sanctity of our illusions of what we think ann arbor should be is always more important than moving this place forward! keep ann arbor in the 19th century! does your neighboorhood assoc also reg doors, knobs and appropriate window sills based on the bad taste of wanna be historical architects? yeah, i knew it.
posted by pam on April 25th, 2007 at 3:09 pmSounds kinda like “spot zoning,” which tends not to be legal.
posted by Brandon on April 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pmI was gonna say what Brandon said. Sounds like spot zoning, and the courts don’t like it - zoning is supposed to be applied over areas, and applying it over a few lots at a time tends to smell like political favoritism or special treatment. In this case, it might stand if challenged, as the “spots” wouldn’t be that much different than the area they’re embedded in, but it would take a Master Plan amendment to explain why these are necessary as part of a well-considered plan for the area, and it still begs a lawsuit.
A few commenters on Cyburbia said, “Hey, why don’t you try to figure out just how much of a problem this tear-down bogeyman is?” A lot of lots in zoning districts that allow higher-density development don’t meet the lot area requirements for that development, so they’re stuck as single-units even under the higher-density zoning - if that still allows “too much” for your tastes, push for an increase in minimum lot size. Say, “Okay, we’re fine with the 4500 sf min for single-family, but we want 6000 sf for a 3-4 unit,” or whatever the threshold is. Don’t just jump to the blunt instrument of ill-considered and haphazard downzonings.
In the meantime, though, another Cyburbia commenter is even more spot-on: if the development pressure remains, it will find a way, spot zoning or no. If no reasonable outlet is provided for the demand, it’ll burst out destructively in random splotches. Saying, “We don’t want development here, this way,” means you also have to say, “We *do* want development there, that way,” and the “there and that way” have to be reasonable and realistic.
Set unreasonable standards, get unreasonable development. (And then whine about it, because there’s nothing else you can do…)
posted by Murph on April 25th, 2007 at 8:18 pmMost rezoning requests in AA are “spot zoning”, coming from developers.
posted by David Cahill on April 26th, 2007 at 8:40 amWhat this town needs is a great fire.
posted by js on April 26th, 2007 at 10:31 am‘Most rezoning requests in AA are “spot zoning”, coming from developers.’
I think developers are mostly pushed into doing PUD’s (not quite spot zoning) by the city who like them because they can micro-manage the process.
posted by abc on April 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amToo late. Ann Arbor is a lost cause. Just ask someone who lived there 20-35 years ago.
Go condos, go upscale shops, tear down the old, build the new, try to find a soul. Good luck.
posted by A-Squared Ex on May 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pm>Olivia Mojica Sex Tape - the latest scandal that hit an American Idol former contestant. Move over Antonella Barba, Olivia Mojica is hotter in the Olivia Mojica Sex Tape. See Olivia Mojica Sex Tape at http://www.oliviamojicasextapes.org/
posted by Olivia Mojica Sex Tape on May 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pmOlivia Mojica is overra…
Never mind.
posted by David Boyle on May 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm