Assessing and Interpreting Non-conformance in Land-use Planning Implementation

Abstract

Planners studying implementation continue to search for better ways to determine whether and how well plans have been implemented. Even when we can identify areas of non-conformance between plans and outcomes, it can be unclear how to interpret them. This paper presents a conformance-based framework for evaluating plan implementation based on a GIS comparison of planned versus actual land use. This method is especially useful for making distinctions between instances of non-conformance that are benign artifacts of the development process and those that suggest the presence of breakdowns in the planning process.

Notes

1. In Raabe v. City of Walker, the Michigan Supreme Court held that ‘the absence of a formally adopted municipal plan, whether mandated by statute or not, does not, of course, invalidate municipal zoning or rezoning. But it does, as in Biske, supra., weaken substantially the well known presumption which, ordinarily, attends any regular-on-its-face municipal zoning ordinance or amendment thereof’ (174 N.W.2d at 796). In other words, zoning decisions not supported by an adopted master plan do not enjoy the same ‘presumption of validity’ that zoning decisions based on a master plan do (Judkins, 1990).

2. The data for this study were collected just as the recession was starting to affect housing starts, so even the fast growing townships later experienced significant drop-offs in building activity.

3. From Ordinance Definitions: ‘Gross Acre: The land area used to calculate density shall be based on gross acres and shall include all existing and proposed state and county road and street rights of way and all easements both public and private’ (Macomb Township, 2008, sec. 10.0704).

4. For example, a recently built subdivision was developed on what appears to be about 20.62 acres. This figure includes the internal road right-of-way, a natural gas line easement, and strips to the south and west of the subdivision that are planted with pine tree buffers. This figure, divided by the 58 units in the sub, works out to a density of 0.35 units per acre, or just over the minimum of 0.33.

5. Grand/Sakwa Macomb Airport L.L.C. v. Township of Macomb, Unpublished decision, State of Michigan Court of Appeals, Docket No. 256013, 7 June 2005.