1. The Law Court’s Frustration with Municipal Land Use Ordinances – Where Do We Go From Here?
Elizabeth Della Valle, AICP
Director of Planning & Development, Sanford
2017 Maine Municipal Association Convention
October 5, 2017

2. Home Rule – allows municipalities considerable latitude in structure and approach to managing Land Use decisions

3. Results in multiple approaches to LU regulation
Reasoning
Spreads authority so no one body has too much power
Appeals are cheaper if they go to ZBA
Freestanding ordinances are easier for applicants to understand
Results in multiple approaches to LU regulation
Split PB/ZBA reviews and permitting
Multiple freestanding ordinances

4. Creates problems As identified by the Courts Example:
PB approved subdivision
Appealed by abutter to ZBA and overturned
Applicant appealed ZBA decision to court
City had to pay for 2 attorneys – 1 to represent PB, other to represent ZBA
Court upheld PB decision
ZBA generally handles appeals and has less knowledge and understanding about land use impacts, simply because it deals with them on a far less frequent basis

5. Recommendations
Direct reviews to PB and administrative appeals and variances to ZBA
Direct appeals of site plans, subdivisions, and other permits directly to Court (generally does not save money/time and avoids unnecessary conflict among Boards)
Make many special exception/conditional uses permitted with specific standards that are generally required for those land uses
Clarify standards so that they reflect local policy and applicant does not have to “guess” at what the community wants/expects; build in flexibility for situations that waivers that reflect common sense
Where possible, use consistent procedures, so that more processes use the same or similar procedures and time frames

6. Recommendations
Create a unified land use ordinance which includes zoning, subdivision, shoreland zoning, flood plain, subdivision, other LU regulations to replace multiple freestanding ordinances
provide 1-stop shopping
create standardized, understandable and comprehensive rules for appellate review, consistent terminology and section headings, and reduce duplication of procedural requirements
result in smaller number of pages than cumulative number of pages contained in freestanding ordinances – don’t need to repeat various administrative sections

7. Recommendations
easier to administer and keep up to date (example: only 1 amendment for definitions) and reduces likelihood of internal inconsistencies, which create uncertainty, delay, and missteps in reviews
allows for concurrent review of various permit requirements by Planning Board
if conditions are right in your community, adopt innovative codes, like form based codes, if you have a clear sense of what you want versus what you will allow
work with Legislature to adjust mandatory time frames, notice requirements, etc. to be more consistent (for example, 12 day notice for zone change but 7 day notice for subdivision), then make changes in local regulations that use the same time frames/requirements, as much as possible

8. Thank you Elizabeth A. Della Valle, AICP
Director of Planning & Development
Sanford