Many development activities in the United States are regulated by local governments. Developers wishing to gain local government approval for subdivision projects (such as the NUDs under study) must successfully navigate the local government site plan review process, the mechanism by which local governments and citizens review development proposals to ensure compliance with official regulations as well as unofficial concerns and desires of the local populace. Official regulations are implemented via development management programs; unofficial concerns are expressed through public participation.
This study uses two sets of variables to measure the local government site plan review process. The first set relates to public participation, which is measured by variables labeled Environmental and Issues, respectively. The Environmental variable measures whether or not environmental groups (e.g. land trust, Sierra Club chapter) were involved in reviewing the project. Responses are coded such that “1” equals “Yes” and “0” equals “No.” The Issues variable measures whether or not citizens raised issues or concerns with respect to flood hazards during project review. Responses are coded such that “1” equals “Yes” and “0” equals “No.”
The second set of variables used to measure site plan review relates to the local government development management program, which is measured by a variable labeled Management. The Management variable measures the strength of local development management programs with respect to direct land uses away from the floodplain and using environmentally sensitive area protection techniques. Respondents were provided a 10-item list of development management practices, and were asked to indicate whether or not each practice had been adopted by the local government at the time of site plan review. Responses are coded such that “1” equals “Adopted” and “0” equals “Not Adopted.” Responses for all items are combined to form a single score ranging from a potential low of zero to a potential high of 10, with higher scores representing stronger development management programs.
Tables 4.21 and 4.22 shows descriptive statistics for public participation and development management, respectively.
Table 4.21 Descriptive Statistics for Public Participation Variables
Environmental Issues
Response Percent Response Percent
Yes 37.9 Yes 25.4
No 62.1 No 74.6
n 66 n 67
Table 4.22 Descriptive Statistics for Development Management
Number Percent
0-3 31.8
4 22.7
5 21.3
6-10 24.2
Prohibition of all development in floodways 60.6 Prohibition of residential development in floodplains 45.5 Low-density zoning in floodplain areas 22.7 Prohibition of extending water and sewer to serve development in floodplain areas 9.1 Land bank program for floodplain areas 7.6 Require river, stream, floodway, wetland, and/or floodplain buffers 71.2 Require greenways 51.5 Require setbacks 92.4 Use of overlay districts for floodplain areas 31.8 Government policy not to locate public facilities in floodplain areas 31.8
Mean 4.2
Standard Deviation 1.8
Minimum 1
Maximum 9
n 66
Response frequencies for Environmental and Issues suggest that environmental groups typically did not participate in the review process for the NUDs under study, and that citizens typically did not raise issues with respect to natural hazards during project review. While it is not impossible for a low level of public participation to have a significant positive influence on hazard mitigation, greater levels (of the types measured in this study) are likely to promote more effective mitigation. The low levels of public participation in site plan review for projects in this study give rise to the possibility that citizens generally did not
advocate for flood hazard mitigation, and that it may have been up to planners (especially those with a strong commitment to hazard mitigation) to pick up the slack.
From the standpoint of fostering successful flood hazard mitigation, development management programs appear to have room for enhancement. The average development management program for communities in this study had adopted just more than four of the 10 specified development management practices. The strongest program adopted nine practices, and was the only program with more than seven. More than three-fourths of the programs included five or fewer practices, and over one-half used five or fewer. Majorities of projects are located in communities that required setbacks, buffers, and/or greenways, and/or that prohibited development in floodways. Less than one-half are located in
communities that prohibited residential development in floodplains and/or that had policies against located public facilities in floodplains. Less than 10% are located in communities that prohibited extending water and sewer into floodplains. These findings suggest that local governments may not be consistently requiring that flood hazard mitigation features be incorporated into development projects, in which case it may sometimes be up to planners themselves to ensure that projects are designed so as to protect people and property from flood damages. That being said, it is possible that some communities may nevertheless successfully promote hazard mitigation through the use of relatively few development management practices.
Table 4.23 summarizes the site plan review process variables used in this study. The first column in the table lists the name of the variable; the second column provides a
definition of the variable; the third column indicates the level of measurement of the variable; the fourth column identifies the source from which the variable was gathered.
Table 4.23 Site Plan Review Process Variables
Variable Definition Measurement Source
Environmental Whether or not environmental groups (e.g. and trust, Sierra Club chapter) were involved in reviewing the project Dichotomous (1=Yes, 0=No) Survey Issues Whether or not citizens raised issues with respect to flood hazards during site plan review Dichotomous (1=Yes, 0=No) Survey
Management
Additive index of extent to which community had adopted 10 specific development management practices that relate to flood hazard mitigation and environmental protection. The 10 practices include: 1. Prohibition of all development in floodways, 2. Prohibition of residential development in floodplains, 3. Low-density zoning in floodplain areas, 4. Prohibition on extending water and sewer to serve development in floodplain areas, 5. Land bank program for floodplain areas, 6. Require river, stream, floodway, wetland, and/or floodplain buffers, 7. Require greenways, 8. Require setbacks, 9. Use of overlay districts for floodplain areas, 10. Government policy not to locate public facilities in floodplain areas.
Interval
(Range: 0-10) Survey