October 2000

By James Lawlor

New Jersey: Crossing borders. Two proposals currently before the legislature seek to deal with development impacts that cross municipal borders. In the view of the chapter's legislative committee, A. 850 is clearly superior.

A. 850 would permit county planning boards to designate "areas of intermunicipal impact." A cross-acceptance procedure would be put in place to ensure fairness. As part of that process, certain development applications would be reviewed by an intermunicipal review board representing both the affected municipalities and the county. The review board would have the power to grant both municipal and county approvals.

The other bill, A. 414, takes a somewhat different approach. It affects proposed developments of five acres or more that are within 1,000 feet of a municipal border. Approval must be granted by an intermunicipal board. The bill also provides for a 15-member advisory board composed of land-use professionals and local government representatives. The board would promulgate guidelines to determine what constitutes an intermunicipal concern.

The legislative committee notes that the chapter has consistently supported efforts to improve regional planning and cooperation. A. 850 would foster communication between adjoining municipalities and counties, and would allow local governments to make their master plans and zoning ordinances more consistent before a development application creates conflict.

The committee has concerns about A. 414's seemingly arbitrary adoption of a 1,000-foot impact zone and the cost to municipalities involved in the intermunicipal review process. It believes that A. 850 represents a more comprehensive approach.

The chapter is also busy on other fronts. The legislative committee has drafted a model ordinance that could help municipalities to developing cellular communications tower regulations. Finally, the chapter and the New Jersey County Planners Association are working together on legislation to update county planning enabling laws. A bill has been introduced in the general assembly three times but has not yet been reported out of committee.

Oregon: Concerns about initiatives. A recent letter to members from chapter president Sumner Sharpe, FAICP, warns of damaging ballot measures that will come before the state's voters in November. Many individuals and groups, including APA, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and the Sierra Club, have banded together to defeat these proposals.

Measure 7 would amend the state constitution to require compensation to land owners if a law or regulation reduces the value of their land. In his letter, Sharpe noted that a similar initiative concerning regulatory takings was defeated in 1995 in Washington, but at a high price. The campaign to stop the initiative cost more than $1 million.

Measure 2 would amend the constitution to permit voters to petition the legislature to review and ratify administrative rules. Sharpe notes it would take only 10,000 signatures to compel review.

Virginia: Gearing up for new session. In May, former chapter president Elizabeth Via, AICP, and legislative director David Kovacs, AICP, briefed the House Committee on Cities, Counties, and Towns on a variety of growth management tools. The committee has four carry-over bills from the 2000 session on its plate, with other bills likely to be filed next year.

In June, Via, Kovacs, and current chapter president Glenn Larson, AICP, gave a presentation on growth issues to a panel of writers and editors from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. They tried to impress on the panel that long-term solutions to problems associated with growth are complex and not susceptible to easy fixes, Via said.