Hearing Without Listening III
Calming the Emotional Storms of Land Use Change
Time flies, but I am back. I began this on a morning saddened by the blind violence of these times. But an arthritic 73-year-old with fading vision is not going to lead a revolution, so I’m doing the work I can.
Let’s start with GOOD NEWS! because, despite the machinations of wicked old men, there is a lot of it to report.
The most exclusive of the suburbs in our metro area has lightened up its zoning bylaws (1). We’ll see where that leads. Changing the rules doesn’t make land or borrowing cheaper, lower taxes on improvements, or expand the construction work force, but it does provide a pathway toward more housing. The neighboring town to the north has dramatically raised the height limit along its major transportation corridor. The housing stock there has been slowly expanding, anyway. We’ll see what goes up (2).
While we’re still remembering the Winter Olympics, there’s progress on affordable housing in Lake Placid, with a new project just approved by the Adirondack Park Agency and residents of a 165-unit mobile home park using state law to prevent their neighborhood being sold to private investors (3,4). Speaking of ski towns, you may want to read Susan Shain’s February 10 story about Breckenridge, CO in High Country News. Inclusionary housing policies can make a positive difference for working people in places where the market will never produce housing for them (5).
Beyond my usual beat, I served as a juror for the annual awards given by the Small Town and Rural Planning Division of the American Planning Association. Looking at 20 projects from around the U.S. was fun and an interesting sample of the state of planning in smaller communities.
What I learned was that the need-for-more-housing message has been heard. The plans the jury reviewed contained far more detailed housing data and policies than in the past. And those data show that housing needs are just as acute in rural places as in the cities. One can’t know how policy will translate into action - only one of the plans included an actual housing project - but the awareness that must precede change is widespread.
Finally: I was talking with a nurse at the ophthalmologist’s office and learned that he lives in a mixed-use project that I put a lot of energy into when I was Town Planner. Sam has an apartment above the Italian restaurant I mentioned in an earlier newsletter, and while he’s not a fan of the management company, he loves the convenience of living where he can walk to everything. We know what makes good neighborhoods. How do we navigate the emotional storms of land use change to get them built?
Calming the Storms of Land Use Change
The development where nurse Sam has his apartment had been on the agenda for three years when I first saw it. It wasn’t the only big project the town was reviewing, and projects tended to come back over and over again in those days, with the discussion of details masking the real issues. Meetings sometimes went past midnight.
We adopted a rule that the last agenda item opened before 10 was the last item that would be considered. Remaining items would be tabled. And we improved the hearing process as I explained in the October 25, 2025 edition of this newsletter. But those procedures are for quasi-judicial hearings where it is or at least should be) clear that the only legitimate question is one of compliance.
Who
The problematic hearings are those before elected officials where popular opinion can overcome any facts or rules. They are legislative hearings because a change to a zoning map is an amendment of the rules (6). These hearings encourage taking positions rather than collaborative inquiry. For some participants, they are performances. There have been plenty of horror stories about that on Substack. I need not share another (though someday I will tell you all about that meeting across the street from a bar in the wilds of Idaho).
How
Our town gradually changed its approach to land use decision making between 2004 and 2008. The resulting by-law (what ordinances are called here) has been amended as needed, with changes in the text reflecting an evolving understanding of the town’s needs. But there has been only one amendment to the zoning map. Just one. How many map amendments have there been in your jurisdiction during the past 18 years?
That one map change was because I – Town Planner at the time – made a mistake. I did not pay enough attention to how a particular part of town was evolving. My successors corrected the oversight. There has not been a single zoning map change for a specific project in a town that has grown 20-25%.
How is this possible? Please remember the Time–Care-Trust motto of this newsletter. That’s the attitudinal root, along with a willingness to be irreverent (consciously, not reflexively) about the way things have always been done. Here are the steps we took.
Planning processes often begin with a broad vision. Fine. Visioning, well done, sets a positive tone. We did that. But planning is an inherently geographical art.
So, roll out a map. Preferably a paper map that people can draw on. I have looked at a lot of plans lately and see no connection between the level of technology used and the value of the product. That doesn’t mean technology can’t help. It does mean that you can succeed if all you have is an aerial photo and some markers.
Second Step: Think Form. What is nature telling you? Where does the community have what type of infrastructure? That (in-FORM-ation) can and should be mapped in advance. But GIS only tells you where things are. Understanding their significance requires conversation.
Third Step: Think Function. How does each part of the community contribute to its overall vitality? How do water and wildlife move through the landscape? Where do people live? shop? work? play? Critically, how do they move between activities? The typical land use categories (residential, commercial, etc.) are not of much help in this effort. They are not as important as understanding – deep breath – the particular character of each area.
That deep breath is because I know many of you are tired of hearing “character” cited as a reason to oppose change. Your weariness does not mean, however, that character doesn’t exist. In fact, it is my observation that resistance to the idea reinforces it. No one will respect a planning process or a political stance that assumes away the differences between a village built in the 1840s and a subdivision platted in the late 1960s. But that is what many YIMBYs appear to NIMBYs (and sometimes to me) to be advocating.
You can’t keep character out of the conversation, so bring it in early. A community can have a productive conversation about character at the beginning of a planning process. It is far too late at a hearing when the options have been narrowed to saying “yea” or “nay” to a specific project.
So, Step Four, is to acknowledge and Reframe Character. What does a generic label like “R” tell us about the character of a place, anyway? I once lived a block from an old-fashioned corner store (though this one was not on a corner). No one would ever have called that neighborhood anything but residential, even though the store was the hub of activity. And how much does making that “R” an “R-1” add? Cities cook up an alphanumerical soup - I was looking at a zoning map that shows four R-1s, A through D - of zoning districts as they try to capture perceived social distinctions with use and density. But use obviously is not the difference between those four districts. And would folks strolling from the R-1B into the R-1C notice any change? I live in a town home project at five dwelling units per acre. There are detached homes at seven per acre not far down the road. Could you guess the density driving by? We’ll return to this point. But first, here’s the last step.
Think Change. How are things evolving in each functional area? What’s driving the changes? What could happen next? What should happen next? Answering those questions allowed us to turn each functional area into a zoning district that reflected the terrain, circulation, and infrastructure (existing and planned), all the determinants of development potential, current land use being just one among them.
What Does that Look Like?
Parts look like any other zoning map. There are definitively industrial zoning districts with activities that range from gravel mining to chip manufacturing. Those areas haven’t changed much, nor are they expected to.
Half our town is rural. Continuing agriculture (defined to allow the remaining farmers some entrepreneurial options) and open space residential development are permitted. Large-lot subdivisions linger from the past, but new ones are banned. Change is slow, as the community wants it to be (7), and the town seeks to preserve rural lands by acquiring conservation easements or, where there is recreational potential, land. Few communities regulate rural land use as strictly, but the restrictions are in the text. The map unremarkably just says ARZD – Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District.
In between the beloved rural and the genuinely industrial, however, is a landscape that has been in flux since IBM came to Vermont in 1958. The development pressure was eventually countered by a 1990s growth management system that included both the allocation of sewage treatment plant capacity and zoning. Like most conventional zoning of the era, the rules promised to freeze the community in time, while sneaking change in parcel-by-parcel (8).
That approach failed to survive litigation. So, the Town hired a new planner. That was me, and the rest of the map shows how I helped them become proactive rather than reactive. Before explaining, I will say that what we accomplished was made possible by a particular geography and history. The process outlined here is broadly applicable, but the outcomes will vary. Excellence in planning is rooted in taking the time and care to understand and honor the particularities of a place. I also want to say that none of what happened would have been possible without a great corps of volunteers, wonderful colleagues in town government, developers who would try something new, and an awesome, though tiny, staff.
The first thing you might notice on the rest of the map is the Village Zoning District. The charming village center was untouchable. Trying to freeze it in time resulted in infill that provided a few more homes, but didn’t do much to reinforce the village vibe. The town finally unfroze the regulations for the village historic district last year. We’ll see what happens.
Everything else was “in play,” and the circumstances were favorable for a fresh approach. Large tracts of vacant land were interspersed with the mix of uses that often results when a rural area gradually suburbanizes. There was strong community support for environmental protection. And I had experience drafting regulations in a different way.
So, rather than focusing on current land use, we talked about the functional areas and how they might appropriately change. This resulted in four strategies:
most existing residential neighborhoods were lumped into a single, broadly written zoning district with rules that encouraged infill (we were striving for what is now called “gentle density” (9));
we designated a large growth center for higher density mixed-use development;
we filled in the edges around the growth center and at community entrances, with mixed-use zoning tailored to each area; and
we adopted detailed performance standards to guide development within each zoning district (10).
Those strategies have served well for 16 years. The town did convert the density-based growth center zoning to a form-based code, a move that was consistent with the original intent and helped streamline development review in the growth center.
That’s a concise summary of a complex process. Four things stand out.
First, planning continues. The 2025 town plan calls for re-thinking several functional areas.
Second, there wasn’t much for NIMBYs to do. It helped that the growth center had few residential neighbors. But it was more important that we began with the assumption that the town not only would, but should change. We worked hard to bring folks along (I described one of what seemed like thousands of those conversations in an earlier newsletter), but town leadership set a tone. It wasn’t a stale “growth is good” booster’s motto. It was: Accept change, with its inconveniences and its advantages. That will enable the town to provide the services you want and protect the parts of the landscape you cherish most.
Third, our experience does not support the YIMBY press to make most development approval by-right. Just make it fast. The project where nurse Sam lives had been under review for more than three years. I asked the developer to withdraw the application and hire more creative designers. He did. They came back with a video to explain the new plan to the public and the development review board. Conceptual approval followed within months. That was just in time for the 2008 collapse of the real estate market, but the project is building out. You can rent an apartment there or enjoy the pasta.
Fourth, a well-managed discretionary review process can foster public engagement. Yes, you must address foundational issues in a separate planning context, not during development review. But respecting peoples’ natural curiosity about what’s happening gives them a sense of community in a world where that is too rare.
Our approach resulted in abundant, pedestrian-friendly development featuring housing choices that did not exist before, as well as more options for shopping and services. It did not result in affordability, except to the extent the town used inclusionary regulations (11). If you build a great place to live, that will be reflected in the cost of housing. It would be easier to buy a home or rent here if there was less open space, fewer trails, poorer public services, and fewer housing choices. But Gwen and I drove through a sample of the red state developments that some YIMBYs laud while traveling during the holidays and pulled up Zillow when we stopped each evening. Such development is indeed less expensive, though not much less when adjusted for the difference in wages. It is also cheaper . Encouraging the “ticky-tacky” development Pete Seeger sang about (12) is disrespectful of the land, the prospective residents, the capabilities of developers (who often respond to positive guidance), and what we know about how to build better.
To summarize: Stop managing land use change with map amendments. Zoning generated by a process like the one described here not only avoids frustrating public hearings, it helps build neighborhoods that people love. Improving land use regulations should not deceive us into believing that providing a place for everyone is as easy as permitting gentle density or walk-able mixed-use projects. Our society has gone a long way down a ”Nowhere Road (13)” of commodifying and financializing basic needs, including shelter. The journey back is uphill. In the meantime, we should do what we can. I hope the story I have told here will help other communities understand how.
Notes:
(1) Re Shelburne’s new land use regs, please see The Yankee Planner, Winter 2025-2026.
https://files.constantcontact.com/eb4823ad701/9bbdfd21-f71d-4093-bac4-51ad2feaf701.pdf
(2) Re Essex Junction height limits, please see Compass Vermont on December 26, 2025:
(3) Re Lake Placid’s recent affordable housing project, please see the Adirondack Explorer on January 26, 2026:
(4) The use of New York’s first refusal law is also covered by the Explorer, please see:
(5) Re Breckenridge’s efforts to provide workforce housing, please see High Country News on February 10, 2026:
(6) Some states – via statute or case law - make some hearings before elected officials quasi-judicial. I’m not sorting out that exception here because doing so would not change my advice.
(7) In four years of reviewing what were then the largest developments in the state’s history, the “development” on which we received the most complaints was a single house on ten acres. It stood bold (and bright red) in the middle of a former hay meadow instead of being tucked into the woods as the local land use ethos demands.
(8) Don’t talk to me about PUDs (Planned Unit Developments). The original intent from the 1960s was lost almost immediately as communities used PUDs to facilitate development one case at a time rather than having to actually do some planning.
(9) I recently read a 2019 Strong Towns blog saying, “What there wasn’t in 2009 was any real movement to touch zoning codes or other building regulations in America’s enormous swaths of single-family neighborhoods.” I’m not sure about that, but I know there was one exception. The Residential Zoning District we created could be called the Sprawl District. It encompasses most of the housing built here between the 1960s and the early 2000s. Most of it is single-family homes on large lots. But it also includes a late 1960s cluster development, town homes, a farm store with surrounding fields, a riding stable, golf courses, and protected open space. There were still a few vacant sites when we drew the boundary. What united all that was how the town wanted it to change; gradually becoming a little more dense, a bit more walk-able.
(10) Performance zoning is not as arcane as some planners will tell you. to offer a brief starting point in understanding: When I visited my brother in St. Louis, we drove past the immense (~140 acres) Anheuser-Busch brewery on our way to a microbrewery that occupied 20,000 square feet at most. The use is identical. But the impact? What communities ought to care about is how uses perform; how lightly they set in the landscape, what infrastructure they need, and how they affect their neighbors. Defining character as a matter of performance rather than use centers the community conversation on the specific and tangible. I will write a newsletter that expands on this if there is demand.
(11) There is frequent criticism of inclusionary regulations as a “tax” on market rate housing. But we have seen no evidence here that they inhibit building or that prices would be lower. Strong demand blots out whatever effect they have. The inclusionary requirements went through a thoroughly scrutinized public adoption process and legal challenges have not materialized. So, what’s wrong with a community saying that it ought to be possible for a tiny number of working people to live in the mix?
(12) Hear Pete’s musical take on suburbia at:
(13) Travel the “Nowhere Road” with Waylon and Willie at:
This is exactly the kind of storytelling I have always seen as this publication's highest purpose. Great work!