Over the past 18 months or so, I served on the steering committee for revisions to the land development code. The Lawrence City Commission approved the “new” code put before them on Nov. 12. The meeting brought out some pretty extensive and vocal opposition from residential neighborhood interests. 

As we’ve reached the finish line of that effort, now seems the appropriate time to offer a “high level” appraisal of the new code. Surely there will be tweaks coming through as arcane text amendments, but in the main, the overriding structural elements embedded in the code are unlikely to change. In the commission’s discussion of this project, Commissioner Brad Finkeldei rightly pointed out that the brouhaha over residential treatments within the code fails to acknowledge the product’s many positive features. 

To my mind, two features of this ilk deserve special notice. The first is the new specification of mixed-use zoning. It’s forward thinking intended to promote new development along more sustainable and fiscally responsible paths. Equally important, it opens up possibilities to adapt and reuse already built structures in our community — for shorthand, think grossly underused strip malls. The second positive aspect involves expanding the palette and potential to produce more income-qualified subsidized housing — think broadly of the efforts by Tenants to Homeowners and Habitat for Humanity. 

Much of the heartburn about the new code seems to come from its treatment of infill redevelopment in fairly low density established residential neighborhoods (R2 in “codespeak”). Structurally, the LDC is biased to achieve policy aims through both conversion of single-family homes into duplexes as well as new build duplex through 4-plex forms. The lion’s share of this activity likely will be geared to the rental market and likely will occur in older neighborhoods. To the extent that the code successfully encourages infill activity, it may actually discourage the retention of modest attainable housing (think small ranch homes, bungalows and the like) stock both for current neighborhood homeowners and for those seeking to get into a starter home. 

Fairly late in the game — say over the past four months or so — quite a few members of the community have become engaged in the code process, and after immersion in its complexities have concluded that the new code lacks adequate guardrails to protect the livability and viability of their neighborhoods. People see the relaxation of occupancy standards and the significant reductions in the number of off-street parking spots the code requires for denser forms, as development tools that won’t serve them well. Part of the concern likely involves the potential loss of financial equity under neighborhood redevelopment, but perhaps equally important, there is concern about losing social capital — the “neighboring effect.” As a fundamental aspect of strong and welcoming neighborhoods, it shouldn’t be given short shrift. 

The new code greatly expands what is known as “by right permitting.” It is a radical (though now in vogue nationally) administrative planning approach. It’s intended to reduce the time required to get new units on the ground. For a lot of the infill development forms, the new code combines by right permitting with no requirement to provide notice for permitted activity to surrounding neighbors. 

In effect, this privileges information to the development side — the entrepreneur and “the City” — to the potential detriment of affected neighbors. To my mind, this sort of privileging violates basic ethical principles. In the real world, it’s a practice ideally suited to promote further distrust of and cynicism toward local government. 

Regardless of how one might choose to characterize the new code — good, bad or ugly — the planning and city commissions determined that for the foreseeable future, it is the table-setting recipe for our community’s development. 

I share the concerns of many who spoke at the Nov. 12 city commission meeting. Frankly, my forecast is pretty pessimistic when it comes to the impacts of infill development on established residential neighborhoods. 

Discounting that gloomy outlook, my advice is to move forward with two general prescriptions. First, give the code a little breathing space, say a year or even 18 months, and let’s watch and see what the early returns are on residential infill. Perhaps neighborhood concerns will prove largely misplaced. Second, and this effort should begin immediately: urge the city commission and the city administration to put together a formal structured mechanism to allow citizens a real voice in putting forward code amendments. The clear goal should be to provide citizens a rung on the ladder of civic engagement — a vantage point that in my opinion will improve the code product and benefit our entire community. 

If you hung to the bitter end, thank you for your attention and courtesy.

— Phil J. Englehart, Pinkney 

More Community Voices:

MORE …