 |
Page last modified 11:50, 17 Feb 2011 by James Judd
Conditional ZoningFrom $1Table of contents This page is currently under development, therefore the content and its accuracy should be closely scrutinized. Contributions to improve content, accuracy, and provide references are always welcome. Summary
|
| Pro CZ | Con CZ |
|---|---|
| City Council is not prevented from discussing / communicating outside of public hearing as is the case with "quasi-judicial" public hearings. Quasi-judicial zoning hearings include Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Quasi-judicial variance hearings include BOA, or Council acting as BOA. | CZ process requires no specific findings. [It appears to allow Council members to vote for or against a project simply because, e.g., they like or dislike the developer. Is this true?] |
| Does not require proving hardship to obtain variance. [How does 7-7-8 (c) 3 allow variance] | |
| Cannot be easily appealed unless prove CZ unconstitutional. [Clarify per 7-7-8 (d)(10) "Conditional zoning ordinances are legislative in nature, and judicial review of conditional zoning ordinances shall be as provided by law for zoning ordinances.”] | |
| Because NC law allows historic-preservation standards & protections only for "designated local landmark buildings" and "local historic districts," CZ is the only way to protect other historic buildings (such as Jackson Building) from demolition. Level III projects in Asheville's "historic downtown core" are CZ. | Most CZ zones are not easy to identify through public records as their is no centralized listing / map available online. [Need to clarify as their is a requirement to change zoning maps etc.] This affects the ability of real estate brokers, neighbors, etc. to understand the impact of non-standard zoning in their decision processes. |
| Citizens are more likely to be aware of Variances heard at City Council than variances heard at the BOA due to better notice of meetings and generally higher profile. | Awareness of BOA can be improved while underlying process advantages of BOA vs. Council are static. |
| CZ allows Councilmembers to exercise oversight citizens expect of them by giving them grounds to vote against a project because it violates one of the broad "conditional use standards" listed in UDO (see below), which include environmental (no. 2) and neighborhood (no. 4) protections as well as overall strategic direction (no. 5). | This is a possibly weaker standard than Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which requires Council vote to affirm that the project meets all 7 standards. With CZ, they only vote against if it violates a standard (though this may be a distinction without a difference in practice). |
| City Council more directly accountable through elections to public than city council commissions, board of adjustment, or technical review committee (staff). | Tough to hold City Council accountable for specific cases through elections. Accountability of commissions and boards can be improved through City Council oversight and should not be used as an excuse to reject a non CZ process. |
| CZ must go through City Council for decision. | CZ must go through City Council for decision. [!] |
| CZ process allows for public input at TRC, P&Z, and City Council and final decision by Council. Level I & II projects only require TRC approval while Level III require same process as CZ. | Major concern is variances. Normal BOA process includes public hearing and appeal process. CC has no appeal process. |
THE SEVEN STANDARDS [Need to update to clarify that City Council does not have to present any findings nor agree that all seven standards are met to accept a Conditional Zoning (CZ) request unlike in a Conditional Use District (CUD) where it was required. The CUD was repealed when the CZ was adopted. Staff is required to provide an analysis of the seven standards in their report. Refer to UDO Text specifically sections 7-7-8 (d)(2),(5), and (7). Would recommend making a note in the pro/con table and adding the 7-16-2 and other sections referenced in the CZ UDO text to the UDO Text sub page. ]
Section 7-16-2(c) of the UDO
c) Conditional use standards. The Asheville City Council shall not approve the conditional use application and site plan unless and until it makes the following findings, based on the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing or otherwise appearing in the record of the case:
(1) That the proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public health or safety;
(2) That the proposed use or development of the land is reasonably compatible with significant natural and topographic features on the site and within the immediate vicinity of the site given the proposed site design and any mitigation techniques or measures proposed by the applicant;
(3) That the proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property;
(4) That the proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located;
(5) That the proposed use or development of the land will generally conform with the comprehensive plan, smart growth policies, sustainable economic development strategic plan, and other official plans adopted by the city;
(6) That the proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities; and
(7) That the proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard.