Origen y expansión de la Igualdad de Género

In North America, several scholars such as (e.g.) Nolon (2001), Juergensmeyer et al., (2003), Salsich and Tryniechi (2003), Cullingworth and Caves (2009), Barnett (2011), have shown the relationship between SR, zoning, and planning. Land development and its land use are regulated by a portfolio of local codes that usually includes building, zoning, and subdivision codes (Nolon, 2001; Juergensmeyer et al., 2003; Barnett, 2011).

Building codes are concerned with the safety and habitability of individual structures, whereas zoning codes are the primary form of land-use regulation; they include the mapping of separate districts allowing different land uses or land-use mixes. They can also regulate a number of aspects such as development intensity, building and site density, height and placement in relation to neighbouring properties.

Local zoning ordinances contain two parts: the text, which defines each zone, and the map, which shows where each zone is located. The text also contains ‘bulk provisions’

for each zone, which directly shape buildings by setting limits to floor area, height, and such placement issues as setbacks. Most zoning codes contain three basic land-use categories: residential, commercial, and industrial/manufacturing. The three categories

are generally considered hierarchically, with residential being the most protected. Uses can be moved lower in the hierarchy by a single layer, but generally not higher. For example, sometimes residences are permitted in a commercial zone and offices in an industrial zone (Salsich and Tryniechi, 2003). Zoning codes arrange each of the three uses in a gradient, shifting from light to heavy uses or small- to large-scale uses.

Residential zones are usually written as a continuum based on density, or the number of families per plot, plot size and building type. At one end of the spectrum are single-family houses on large plots, and at the other end are high-density apartment buildings (Salsich and Tryniechi, 2003; Cullingworth and Caves, 2009).

Subdivision codes regulate how a property is subdivided into streets and plots in order to meet the zoning requirements. Regulation is especially important when farm or forest areas are urbanised for the first time. The codes set the standards for many aspects for street widths and gradients, pavement provision and streetscaping. The regulations also set grading requirements for the whole property, require storm water retention, and mandate public open space to be set aside (e.g. Cullingworth and Caves, 2009; Rohan and Kelly, 2013).

Zoning and subdivision codes are administered by the local planning department, with any amendments to the code made by the appropriate planning or planning and zoning commission. If approved by the commission, amendments must also be approved by the local legislature, either the city or county council. There is also a quasi-judicial board for appeals that can administer exceptions to all three codes (Nolon, 2001;

Juergensmeyer et al., 2003; Salsich and Tryniechi, 2003; Barnett, 2011).

A land developer’s application for construction, for instance, would require compliance with both zoning and subdivision controls, specifically during the approval process.

According to Juergensmeyer et al.:

It is usually necessary for a developer to comply with both zoning and subdivision regulations. Although the two types of controls are intended to complement each other within the development process, they are often administered by different agencies. They are also often subject to separate enabling statutes each with its own particular requirements. As a consequence, subdivision regulations and zoning are often administered so as to appear to be working at cross-purposes. Some jurisdictions have integrated the two types of controls into a local development code which provides a

Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework of Subdivision Control: Impacts on Residential Built Environment

consolidated procedure for considering both the zoning change and the subdivision proposal (2003:259).

Although there is a clear distinction between zoning and SR, their use and administration is closely interrelated.

2.3.5.1 Relationship to Planning

Historically, the relationship between SR and planning has been viewed as closer than that with zoning. However, planning represents the policy foundation for both zoning and SR. So, to see planning as closer to either zoning or SR is a misperception (Juergensmeyer et al., 2003).

One of the early model acts of SR was included in the Standard City Planning Enabling Act (Juergensmeyer et al., 2003; Rohan and Kelly, 2013). In the zoning process, the legislative body and the Zoning Board of Adjustment or Board of Zoning Appeals often hold significant roles while the planning commission acts only in an advisory capacity.

In the subdivision control process, the planning commission has a significant role in the formulation and implementation of SR. The planning commission also plays a significant role in the drafting and implementation of comprehensive plans (Nolon, 2001; Juergensmeyer et al., 2003; Rohan and Kelly, 2013).

In states without comprehensive plans or a consistency requirement for all land-use regulations, there is no legal requirement for a relationship between either zoning or subdivision controls and comprehensive plans. The statutes of some states without a comprehensive plan in combination with the consistency requirement instead require a comprehensive plan or a plan with major street elements to be put in place before local authorities can step in to regulate subdivisions. Other states require an official map before embarking on SR. In some areas, statutes require the subdivision review process to include findings on the subdivision plat’s compatibility with the plan or map. These planning requirements, in some cases, allow the planning board to rely solely on the comprehensive plan to reject a subdivision plat (Juergensmeyer et al., 2003).

Consistency between planning and subdivision control has been better than that between planning and zoning, although the problem does not end there. SR still takes place without the use of a comprehensive plan, which may lead to difficulties. In many areas, a comprehensive plan is merely a general guide because it has not been legally adopted.

If, for instance, a proposal is rejected and the comprehensive plan is not legally binding, the property owners may not be able to appeal the decision. The refusal, based on non-compliance with the plan, may be beyond the authority of the plat reviewing agency.

The required zoning and subdivision regulations ought to be consistent with the comprehensive plan (Juergensmeyer et al., 2003; Rohan and Kelly, 2013).