By James Lawlor

California: Planning Law Update Enacted. On September 29, Gov. Gray Davis signed A.B. 857, a chapter-backed bill intended to update the state's planning law and tie state infrastructure spending to the state's planning priorities. Enactment of the bill may offer some solace for the disappointment of the governor's decision in August to drop legislation that would have linked preferences in local infrastructure grants to adoption of model planning practices to be drafted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.

The model planning practices bill, S.B. 1521, was a source of controversy from its introduction in February. Developers, real estate brokers, land surveyors, engineers, and local governments opposed the notion of tying state grants to planning priorities that had not been fully developed. The bill passed the senate by a slim two-vote margin in May. Eventually, the administration decided that even if the bill passed, it was likely to engender more lawsuits than planning. Officials in the Gray administration say the ideas in the bill may resurface next year as part of a long-range planning document.

A.B. 857 requires the governor's five-year infrastructure plan, part of the annual budget, to indicate the criteria and priorities used to identify and select the infrastructure to be funded. Those criteria must be consistent with state planning priorities that are also part of the enacted bill. Those priorities include promoting infill development; protecting environmental and agricultural resources; and encouraging efficient development by making sure infrastructure associated with development supports efficient use of land, is in proximity to existing developed areas, and is adequately served by transportation and other essential services.

On September 30, the governor vetoed S.B. 1828, a bill that would have given Native American tribes a significant voice in the environmental review process for projects that might impact sacred sites. In his veto message, Gov. Davis praised the goal of preserving sacred sites, but said the bill was the wrong way of going about it. He noted the bill did not address the conflict between keeping the location of sacred sites secret, in order to prevent their destruction, and informing persons planning projects in areas they should avoid. Under the bill the legislature passed, a person might invest large sums of money in a project before learning the development implicated a sacred site, the governor pointed out. The bill inspired considerable controversy, with advocates for the tribes and business organizations heavily lobbying both the legislature and the governor.

Contact Sande George, chapter legislative liaison, 916-443-5301; sglobby@pacbell.net.

West Virginia: Mustering Support for Planning Law Update. Chapter vice president Christopher Fletcher, AICP, reports the chapter is gaining support among legislative leaders for a proposal to reform the state's planning and enabling act. The law, West Virginia Code Sec. 8-24, has not seen a significant update since its enactment in 1957, Fletcher said.

The 2002 legislature adopted a concurrent resolution directing the Joint Committee on Government and Finance to carry out an interim study of county and municipal land-use planning, and to consider revisions of the state's planning and the zoning laws. The task has been delegated to the Committee on Government Organization, headed by Sen. Edwin Bowman. The committee has been holding hearings in various locations around the state. It will report its findings and conclusions and any draft legislation to the 2003 legislature. Meanwhile, Fletcher said, the chapter has been working to build support from groups interested in land-use regulation, including the state municipal league and the building industry.

It is likely that any proposed legislation will incorporate elements from Senate Bill 700, introduced by Sen. Bowman last February. The bill was a proposal for a comprehensive revision of the state's planning laws, drafted by the chapter. When it became apparent that the
legislature probably would not go along with a major overhaul of the planning laws without further study, the interim study resolution was adopted.

Some of the high points of the chapter's proposals include broadening the goals and elements of a comprehensive plan; improving public participation in the planning process; giving notice of proposed plans to contiguous municipalities and counties; clarifying that adoption of a comprehensive plan must precede adoption of a zoning ordinance; and expanding the variety of tools available to municipalities to regulate land use, such as planned unit developments, limits on development near airports, and design districts.

The proposal also incorporates procedural changes covering boards of zoning appeals, including requiring written decisions, filed within 45 days of the date of decision, with a copy of the board's findings to the applicant.

Contact Christopher Fletcher, 412-323-1950; chrisf@mandl.net.

Pennsylvania: Planning Law Changes. The legislature made some procedural changes and one substantive change to the Municipalities Planning Code last spring. And, a chapter task force studying the code is to deliver recommendations at the chapter's annual meeting in late October.

House Bill 411 adds a provision to the code requiring that local zoning ordinances permit "no-impact home-based businesses" as a matter of right in residential districts. The bill defines such businesses as a business or commercial activity conducted as an accessory use which is clearly secondary to the residential use of the property and involves no customer, client, or patient traffic; or pickup, delivery, or removal functions greater than those normally associated with residential uses. The bill also provides that a zoning ordinance provision permitting home-based businesses does not supersede any deed restriction, covenant, or common-interest ownership community document providing otherwise.

The bill also makes changes to procedures applicable to administrative proceedings, including zoning board hearings. The changes modify provisions enacted earlier in the legislative session. The bill deletes a provision allowing persons aggrieved by the schedule or progress of hearings an opportunity for judicial relief, and provides that hearings shall be equally allocated between the applicant and opponents of the application. It requires that each side complete presentation of its case within 100 days.

Contact Richard C. Bickel, AICP, legislative committee co-chair, 215-238-2830; rbickel@dvrpc.org.