|
You Asked. We Answered. At the Inquiry Answer Service, we answer, on average, more than 300 questions for our subscribers each month. We consult a variety of sources to create a custom research packet — which may include APA publications, sample ordinances and plans, articles and literature from partner organizations, and the most current information available online — for each question. Each month, we choose one question to feature here, so you can see what your peers around the country are asking and how we answered.
Are cities allowed to regulate paint colors? Do you have any information concerning the regulation of paint schemes and color palettes for both residential and non-residential structures in non-historic areas of a city? Are there cities that have enacted citywide "aesthetic" regulations, and do they enforce such regulations through an "architectural review board" or by some other mechanism?
In general the regulation of paint schemes and color palettes is the domain of private homeowner associations. However, general legal precedents do not preclude local regulations targeted at controlling colors or building materials. In reality, many local governments use aesthetic zoning regulations to control the appearance of development within their jurisdiction. In the first half of the 20th Century courts regularly struck down aesthetic controls because they failed to see how these regulations promoted public health, safety, welfare, morals, and general welfare. Eventually, general welfare became a stand alone concept, and courts became more comfortable with using the police power solely for the basis of aesthetics. According to Rohan's Zoning and Land Use Controls, by the early 21st century a majority of jurisdictions that have ruled on the issue have upheld the position that aesthetic objectives are sufficient by themselves to justify the exercise of police power. Consequently, a number of communities have enacted detailed regulations that require the use of a specific building materials, landscaping designs, and (less commonly) paint schemes. Because proponents of aesthetic zoning have difficulty precisely defining the interest the controls protect and the evils the controls seek to redress, these proponents defend the regulations based on property values, tourism trade, historic preservation, and scenic protection. Meanwhile, opponents of aesthetic control point out that taste is highly subjective, and that giving governments power over matters of taste threatens free speech and expression. In Rohan's opinion, courts definitely favor architectural controls tied to historic preservation and tourism. Regulations that impose a historically recognized architectural style are easier to understand than those requiring compatibility with existing development or those that require distinctiveness. Outside of historic districts, courts often rely on a common-sense test to evaluate contested provisions. If the criterion for approval is sufficiently clear enough for a person of "ordinary intelligence" to understand it, then it will probably withstand legal challenge in those states permitting aesthetic controls. Design review programs that dictate paint schemes outside of historic districts usually survive takings claims because they do not prevent development or greatly reduce its size. Rarely do aesthetic controls create an absolute economic deprivation. Most communities that address paint schemes within their codes offer general guidance but do not provide a detailed list of acceptable or prohibited colors. These guidance statements may apply only to certain areas, such as an historic district, or they may apply community-wide. However, some communities do require specific paint schemes or restrict specific colors in their guidelines for design review.
Related PAS Products
Current subscribers login to PAS Subscribers Only to use the online inquiry request form. Not a PAS Subscriber? Click here to find out how PAS can work for you.
Current subscribers: Log in to PAS Subscribers Only to access these previous editions. July 2008: Tree Protection June 2008: Murals May 2008: Master Planned Communities April 2008: Environmentally Sensitive Lands March 2008: Transit-Oriented Development February 2008: Developing Small Area Plans January 2008: Lot Line adjustments December 2007: Aging Commercial Corridor November 2007: Managing Commercial Development October 2007: Curbing Rural Sprawl September 2007: ADA Transition Plan August 2007: Animal Care Facilities July 2007: Megachurches June 2007: Managing Teardowns May 2007: Formula Businesses April 2007: Form-based Coding March 2007: Traffic Impact Studies February 2007: Open Space Planning January 2007: Group Homes December 2006: Agricultural Business November 2006: Fence Regulation October 2006: Inclusionary Housing Resources September 2006: University Student Housing | |
Printer-Friendly Format
