LAND CODE: Add up the confusion

Why is the proposed new zoning code 500 pages long while the old one is only 128 pages? Some say a “land-use code” needs to be longer than a “zoning code.” Is that like an automobile is longer than a car or bamboozle is longer than fib? No, there must be another reason. Both do the same thing — they control how owners use their land.

Is the difference caused by repetition? The four words permit(s), requirements), setback(s) and buffer(s) collectively appear nearly 1,800 times in the new code. And it uses new words village, hamlet, conservation and palette more than 300 times. The proposed code contains 80 illustrative drawings depicting how properties may or may not be used. The existing code is so simple and easy to understand it needs only two drawings.

Or is the reason a lack of organization? The old code has nine chapters of 2 to 5 pages each which concisely described each of the zoning districts. The new one scatters requirements for each district throughout the document. Nonconforming uses are addressed more than 200 times in 30 separate sections in six chapters. And still, the extent of nonconformity and the consequences of being nonconforming remain unclear. While the old one has nine districts, the new one has 20 districts and subdistricts, and that doesn’t count four or five design standards or the housing “palette” of 7 or 8 housing types and lot layouts. We can have up to 800 combinations.

Or could old-fashioned complexity and trickery be the reason for the length of the new zoning code? Vagueness exists in the new code and that creates uncertainty. Of course risk is bad for property owners as it reduces values. But vagueness and uncertainty may be good for empire builders in the courthouse. Phrases “Director may” and “Director shall” appear 91 times in the proposed code, but “owner may” appears only twice.

So what happens when a law is long, complicated, vague and restrictive? It is expensive to administer, treats people inconsistently and stifles innovation. This one will increase the cost of doing real estate business for owners, buyers, real estate professionals and, yes, the county. This cost will be shared by those inside the cities as well as those outside.

If the planners believe this comparison is inaccurate or unfair, perhaps they will make their own comparison of the existing and proposed documents. Up until now they have not done so.

JOHN McFADDIN

Medimont