One of the most frustrating aspects of many zoning systems is that it takes so long to get applications approved.  While developers and builders often voice this complaint the loudest, it is important to remember that builders are not “those other guys” — it includes each of us when we want to remodel our homes or build an addition.  But even neighbors who are not applying for approval often complain that zoning decisions take too long and that they are required to attend to attend too many meetings and hearings to ensure that their concerns or opposition are taken into account.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.

The major reasons why zoning decisions take so long include:

• The need for multiple reviews – first by staff, then often by a planning commission, sometimes by a specialized (industrial, or historic, or loft) review group, and then by the city or county council;
• The opportunity for multiple appeals on controversial projects;
• Failure of applicants to submit a complete and accurate application, which results in failure of the government to start its review or slows down the process when the shortcomings are discovered later in the process;
• The desire of surrounding neighbors to review even projects that meet the city’s zoning standards before a building permit is issued.

While longer and repeated reviews sometimes result in a better project, often it does not – instead, the expense and delay involved burn money that could better be spent to improve the project itself, or result in projects being postponed until the applicant can round up more money.

Recently, the American Bar Association adopted a Model Statute on Local Land Use Procedure that addresses some of these delays.  The model statute calls for each significant development application to be the subject of one (but only one) substantive hearing and one (but only) one administrative appeal.  Local governments can decide whether they want the hearing to be before a hearing officer, a planning commission, or the city council – but not more than one of them.  For example, the planning commission could hold an informal meeting on the project (without following rules of evidence or creating a record) and then make a recommendation to be considered when the hearing is held at city council – but only the latter would be a formal hearing or subject to appeal.  Similarly, an administrative decision made by planning staff could be appealed to a board of appeals, but that decision could not be appealed again to city council or another city board – the next appeal would be to the courts.  These two recommendations alone would dramatically simplify and speed up zoning decisions.

A second solution is outlined in A Better Way to Zone – depoliticizing final approvals.  The American system of planning and zoning invites heavy public involvement in comprehensive planning for the city, and in neighborhood planning – in fact, all types of planning.  It also invites the public to be deeply involved in drafting the zoning rules – what kind of uses are allowed, how big can the buildings be, where is landscaping required, do existing trees need to be preserved, and where should the parking and driveways be located.  But it does not invite the public to be involved in individual review of how the property owner complies with those rules.  Once the rules are set, property owners design to meet the rules and if they succeed they are supposed to get approvals without additional discretionary review of each final site plan.  Land use decision making in America is participatory – but it is not designed and should not be used to create a popularity contest around each application.  Allowing staff to make final approval decisions as to whether the applicant has met the city’s zoning and quality rules, and to avoid discretionary hearings about how those rules have been met, would go a long way towards simplifying and streamlining development applications.

While these steps would be helpful in general, they are particularly important in our current economic climate.  Cities need reinvestment, and they need efficient decision-making systems to ensure that applications that meet city standards do not get held up by unnecessary bureaucracy.  That is one essential component of A Better Way to Zone.