Agenda - 11-25-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

:2 ' . . • . ' 1 8.01[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-2 • § 8.01 Introduction I • • [1]—Background . Traditional zoning ordinances are essentially prohibitory in na- • ture.Their purposes are: to prevent the intermingling of incompati- • • ble uses;l to protect against invasions of light and air caused by urban '• congestion;= to curb development where public services are insuf- ficient;3 and to limit the density and scale of neighborhoods." The ...R." I See Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 US 365,47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed • 303 (1926). . See also Toll, "Zoning for Amenities."20 Law& Contemp Prob 266(1955). •. z•" United Stater Gorieb v. Fox, 274 US 693, 47 S Ct 675, 71 L Ed 1228(1927). New York Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241'Nnt.•288, 150 NE 120(1925). 3 See: `. .. . Connecricue Bartram v. Zoning,Comni'n, 136 Conn 89, 63 A2d 308(1949). • Massaehosertr Town of Marblehead v.Rosenthal, 316 Mass 124, 55'NE2d 13 • (1944). • a Traditional devices for controlling density are limits on building height(Welch v.Swasey, 193 Mass 364,79 NE 745(1907),aff d 214 US 91,29 S Ct 567,214 L Ed 923(1909)),and regulation of courts,front,side and rear yards.Also important are.techniques which are based on the relationship between lot area and some other • - _ unit,such as a dwelling,family,living room or bedroom.See e.g..,Carey v.C'9ssidy, 103 A2d 793(RI 1954).Also,see Toll,'"Zoning for Amenities,"20 Law&Con- � tempt Prob 268,272-273(1955)where the author discusses minimum lot regula- . tions as follows: Spa ' "The controls give the planner a virtually immediate and quite accurate idea , of allowable density levels. All that he must know is readily available.lot area - sizes and family sizes or average number of persons per room in question.Note, however,that the techniques are applied to residential areas and not to commer- cial districts. •• "These • methods of density regulation have been criticized for the economic V inequities they encourage by putting a premium on homes principally for the large or affluent family,thus allowing a zoning ordinance to exercise less than direct • • influence over building development. At bottom is the vexed question of"snob • zoning" and the earlier inquiry as to what it is our communities desire as a • ' physical setting.Probably the most readily identified and intelligible answer today comes from the wealthier dormitory suburbs whose residents quite clearly and . , ' understandably prefer economic class homogeneity with its attendant symbols. The ample house on a spacious lot is such a mark.The proof of reasonableness . sought by the courts here is a test of fact.Beyond this are rhallenging problems in social philosophy which cut across class lines and through many other areas t r of zoning controls." (Footnotes omitted.) : k : — is ;.; . . <; ; • + ,,,,,....".C.40.7----....�°—tee .J}AM1G'c-',