Ordinances are the legislative tools used to implement the policies set out in plans. They contain the specific standards governing the location and design of development and describe the review processes necessary to gain approval. Jurisdictions can require the
individual or group seeking approval to provide detailed information about the existing conditions of the site, proposed construction, how the development will adhere to development standards, and the possible impact on the surrounding area.
Similar to plan quality, the hypothesized link between ordinance quality and development is that better quality ordinances will be associated with better quality
development. Unfortunately, few studies explore the role of ordinances in implementation. This linkage, however, is a key intervening step between comprehensive plans and
development applications.
A study of 15 Sacramento parking lots for compliance with a parking lot shading ordinance found average shading levels of 22%, which is below the 50% level stipulated in the ordinance (McPherson, 2001). Content analysis of zoning codes for a census of cities, towns, and townships in a single Michigan county found a division between urban and rural jurisdictions with urban areas focusing more on land use and form, infrastructure, housing, community character/environment than rural jurisdictions (Norton, 2008). Hill, Dorfman, and Kramer investigated the impact of land use policies (including a tree ordinance) on tree canopy coverage in the Atlanta MSA using a survey of key informants (2010). The existence of a tree ordinance did not have a statistical significance effect on tree canopy at the 0.05 level, but each additional ordinance clause resulted in a 1.03% increase in county land area covered with tree canopy at the end of the ten-year period. Stevens and Hanschka’s recent study found that despite government guidelines encouraging the adoption of flood bylaws, roughly 66% of the jurisdictions failed to adopt a flood bylaw or include flood risk
management provisions within their zoning bylaws (Stevens & Hanschka, 2014). These studies suggest government guidance does not necessarily result in local ordinance adoption;
compliance with ordinances is not consistent; the content of codes can differ based on spatial characteristics; and content can be associated with different implementation outcomes. These findings support my investigation of compliance with ordinance provisions in different geographic locations with a focus on implementation and the influences of mandates.
This study uses a set of eight principles developed from the planning research literature, the concept of street-level bureaucracy, and planning practitioner resources (Alterman & Hill, 1978; Kelly, 1988; Lerable, 1995; Lipsky, 1980; Stevens & Berke, 2008). The ordinance quality principles are Goals, Fact Base, Policy Description, Policy
Restrictions, Policy Flexibility, Monitoring and Enforcement, Complexity, and Discretion. The first three principles are corollaries to the direction-setting plan quality principles. The ordinance Goals principle runs parallel to the plan quality goal principle as it reaffirms the goals set out by the comprehensive plan. The Fact Base principle focuses on the type and specificity of the information required of the development applicant and differentiates between different levels of information using the research literature and model ordinances. The Policy Description principle outlines the ordinance policies and under what
circumstances policies are applicable. The fourth principle, Policy Restrictions, draws on professional reports aimed at improving ordinances and their enforcement. It incorporates the necessity of clear communication of the constraints placed on policy actions (Kelly, 1988; Lerable, 1995). These four principles make up the Policy Content conceptual framework. Policy Content ordinance quality principles
1) Goals reaffirm the comprehensive plan’s goals to capture the important linkage the
plan and the ordinance and includes objectives for key administrative actions necessary for implementation.
2) Fact Base identifies the informational inputs required by the policy including acceptable sources of data and processes to resolve disputes over data interpretation.
3) Policy Description explains the provisions and regulations of a policy including the specific circumstances under which particular parameters are applicable.
4) Policy Restrictions described the conditions under which there are constraints or specific limitations placed on the policy.
The next four ordinance quality principles focus on the review process: Policy Flexibility, Complexity, Monitoring and Enforcement, and Discretion. These four ordinance quality principles make up the Administrative Framework. In an early contribution to the plan implementation literature, Alterman and Hill included the degree of flexibility and the rationale, if any, provided for changes in the permits prior to final approval. They found deviations from the land use plan were affected by the complexity of the development review process, the degree of flexibility, the political influence of the developer, and market
influences (1978).
Policy Flexibility covers how ordinances account for circumstances leading to departures from ordinance provisions and/or allow for unique solutions. This principle reflects the necessary inclusion of flexibility advocated for by a number of planning scholars (Alexander & Faludi, 1989; Baer, 1997; Mastop & Faludi, 1997). The Complexity principle focuses on the intricacies of policy administration that arise from the provisions included under Fact Base, Policy Description, and Policy Restrictions and is a concept explored by Brotherton in his study of permit quality (1992). The Monitoring and Enforcement principle outlines the ongoing process to oversee and manage the actions and practices stipulated by the ordinance and is a concept at the core of plan implementation and evaluation literature (Baer, 1997; Calkins, 1979).
Administration ordinance quality principles
5) Policy Flexibility refers to deviations from policy provisions that allow for adaptation to different circumstances including variances or incentive policies.
6) Complexity is a measure of the difficulty of administering a particular policy by gauging the effort necessary to navigate overlapping provisions and intensive data demands.
7) Monitoring and Enforcement includes the on-going process to oversee and manage the actions and practices stipulated by a policy.
The remaining Administration principle is based on the theory of street-level bureaucracy, a framework examining the actions of the public agencies and employees charged with the implementation of policy (Lipsky, 1980). Street-level bureaucrats are public agency employees who often possess specialized knowledge, interpret imprecise provisions, and actually perform the actions that implement laws. As a result, street-level bureaucrats have discretion in how policies are implemented. This framework informed the inclusion of the ordinance quality principle Discretion, which refers to the level of control staff members retain in interpreting and altering ordinance provisions.
8) Discretion refers to instances where staff charged with policy implementation can make an interpretation or judgment.