Community Participation and the Function of Rules: The Case of Urban Zoning Boards

Abstract

Data from a case study of piecemeal zoning change suggest that the decisions of citizen zoning boards of appeal are neither lawless nor ineffective–the majority of requests that come before them are for bulk and dimension variances which typically do not threaten the land use status quo and are usually granted unless there is local opposition. When substantial changes of land use are involved two factors are influential in determining the outcome of zoning cases–the consistency or clash between the proposed land use and that of the neighborhood surrounding the site, particularly in single‐family residential areas; and the expression of opinion (positive or negative) by the residents of the community. Despite criticism of zoning boards as defective and illegitimate legal institutions and calls for their abolition, they remain popular and extremely resistant to change because they have come to play important dispute settling and community maintenance functions in the urban environment in addition to their explicit rule enforcement functions. These broader community functions of zoning can only be understood in terms of a participatory model of legal process where legal rules are understood as functioning to identify situations as much as they are norms to be enforced.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.