Local Planners and Limits on Local Residential Development

Factors influencing zoning ordinance adoption in rural and exurban townships

“…Township zoning adoption generally occurred in areas with more land in urban uses, a finding consistent with prior studies showing the adoption of growth management policy to be reactionary (Howell-Moroney, 2008;Neiman & Fernandez, 2000). Zoning was particularly reactionary in townships that had adopted county comprehensive plans, which tended to zone at higher levels of development than those with township-level plans or no plans.…”

“…Allen, Moorman, Peterson, Hess, and Moore, (2013), Feiock et al (2008), Hawkins (2014), Heimlich and Anderson (2001), Howell-Moroney (2008), Neiman and Fernandez (2000), Stedman (2003), Theobald (2005), Tilt et al (2007) U. S.…”

“…However, communities and government officials typically express interest in land-use controls only after developers act (Rudel, 1989). Legalistic planning procedures and "forceful leadership" are more characteristic of towns experiencing rapid versus slow growth (King & Harris, 1989), and adoption of planning and zoning to direct growth are more likely to occur in times of economic prosperity after development is already underway (Neiman & Fernandez, 2000). Hawkins (2014) found the extent of low-density development in Massachusetts towns to be correlated with the adoption of specific subdivision bylaws, but thresholds of development associated with zoning adoption have not been well documented.…”

Policy Instrument Choices for Growth Management and Land Use Regulation

“…Most studies treat growth management policies as explanatory variables rather than investigating why communities adopt these programs in the first place. Exceptions include earlier work on growth controls (Bollens, 1990; Connerly & Frank, 1986; Johnston, 1980; Neiman & Fernandez, 2000), and more recent analyses of impact fees adoptions (Jeong, 2006; Sagalyn, 1997; Wiewel, Persky, & Sendzik, 1999).…”

Planners’ experiences in managing growth using transferable development rights (TDR) in the United States

“…The literature reports mail survey use in a variety of circumstances with professional planners as respondentsto address a gap in knowledge concerning the opinions of city planning directors towards regional governments (Baldassare et al, 1996); to examine the extent of planners' attitudes and perceptions as factors accounting for variations in restrictions on local residential development (Neiman and Fernandez, 2000); to explore differences and commonalities of the attitudes of residents, planners, and homebuilders towards alternative types of development (Ryan, 2006); to measure the extent to which the opinions and values held by US planners comport with an ecological definition of sustainable development (Jepson, 2003); as well as to survey of ''small town'' and ''rural planning'' planners' perceptions of their role in socially responsive neighborhood designs (Lawhon, 2003). Therefore, this study builds on the demonstrated utility and appropriateness of self-administered, mail surveys to collect and analyze information from planners concerning implementation and success of TDR programs.…”