February 2002

By James Lawlor

Michigan: Planning laws amended. In December 2001, the legislature passed a package of bills designed to provide better coordination of planning among local government bodies. H.B. 5038, H.B. 5252, and H.B. 5267 address planning by townships, counties, and municipalities, respectively. David Downey, the chapter's executive director, says the new laws are not everything the chapter hoped for, but are a significant first step toward reforming Michigan's planning laws, which have not seen much change since their enactment in 1931.

The bills that passed in December owe much to the Coordinated Planning Act, H.B. 4571 through H.B. 4575, introduced by Rep. Patricia Birkholz (R-Allegan County) in March of last year (see The Statehouse, June 2001). The enacted package, however, is considerably less ambitious than that legislation. All three of the bills require the planning commission of the township, county, or municipality to notify planning commissions or legislative bodies of adjoining municipalities, townships, or counties that a plan is being prepared and to request their cooperation and comments. However, the planning commission is under no obligation to modify its plan in response to those comments.

Because the bills amend the planning laws of three different types of local government, and had input from organizations representing each of these governmental bodies, there are detail differences among them. For example, H.B. 5038, covering township planning, requires that site plans for property located within the planning area comply with the comprehensive plan adopted by the township. The other bills do not have such language. Only the municipal planning bill, H.B. 5267, states explicitly that comments from adjoining government bodies are advisory only. The other two bills use different language to indicate that the planning commission is under no compulsion to change plans in response to comments.

As its title suggested, the original Coordinated Planning Act took a more integrated approach to planning law reform, Downey notes. It also covered topics not touched in the enacted bills. In addition to the notice provisions, the act would have authorized adjoining governments to voluntarily create a joint planning commission. The act would have established minimum contents for comprehensive plans and a menu of different types of plans ranging from basic land use plans to sophisticated growth management plans. The act also would have required local government bodies to adopt and annually update a six-year capital improvements program based on the land use plan's requirements for public facilities and services. Existing zoning commissions and boards would have been eliminated, and their functions transferred to the planning commission.

The process of getting the planning law amendments and a separate package of bills addressing cluster development and zoning for open space enacted marked the return of the chapter to a more active role in crafting legislation, Downey observed. One lesson the staff and members of the chapter's law and government relations committees took away from the experience was that planning law reform in Michigan will be an incremental process, he said. The number of stakeholders coming to the table with variant objectives suggests that enactment of comprehensive reform probably is not practical. Contact David T. Downey, 248-533-7526, ddowney@planningmi.org.

Virginia: Taking back the night sky. Among the 60-odd planning-related bills the chapter intends to track this year is one concerning regulation of outdoor lighting. S.B. 100 states, "In addition to any other authority granted to localities by law, any locality may, by ordinance, establish outdoor lighting standards and regulations for the purpose of controlling exterior illumination levels, incidence of glare, light trespass or urban sky-glow, or for the purpose of conserving energy."

A similar bill was introduced in the house last year, but did not make it out of committee. Although some Virginia counties and cities have enacted outdoor lighting ordinances, most have been reluctant to act without specific authorization from the state legislature. The legal theory governing municipal powers in Virginia holds that municipalities and counties have only those governing powers specifically delegated to them by the legislature. Implied power to regulate is frowned upon by the courts.

The chapter also will be tracking bills relating to cluster zoning and the authority of certain "high-growth" communities to impose impact fees and enact adequate public facilities ordinances. David Kovacs, the chapter's director for policy and legislation, commented in an update to members that the APF proposals submitted so far fall well short of what the chapter considers adequate enabling legislation. Other matters before the legislature include parking of trucks in residential zones, revocation of special exceptions, land valuation after downzoning, and tree conservation. Contact David Kovacs, 804-786-1518, vapalegs@aol.com.

Outdoor lighting control — on a roll? The Virginia bill mentioned above is only one of a number of laws and ordinances relating to outdoor lighting proposed or enacted in recent years. The website of the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) lists eight states that have enacted either comprehensive lighting rules or laws pertaining to some aspect of outdoor lighting. Legislation has been proposed or studies undertaken in 10 states, including Virginia.

Some of the more notable recent developments in this field include legislation enacted in May 2001 placing control of outdoor lighting in California in the hands of the state's energy commission. The commission is now developing outdoor lighting standards. New Mexico enacted the Night Sky Protection Act in 2000, and last year Colorado passed legislation establishing energy efficiency standards for lighting fixtures funded by the state. In New York, legislation has passed both the assembly and the senate, but Gov. George Pataki is under considerable pressure from a variety of interests, including the City of New York, to veto the bill.

Many cities, towns, and counties across the country have enacted outdoor lighting control ordinances. The IDA's website has links to those ordinances known to it, as well as state statutes. The IDA also has established a task force to develop a model lighting ordinance that municipalities could use as a guide to enacting their own regulations.