The burden of proof

Urban planner and former Eastwood resident Maureen Harding sends this in with permission to publish here:

The Planning Commission must find by the evidence on the record that the proposed action does not impair the public’s general health, safety and welfare.   The burden of proof falls on the applicant to show that it does not.

Incompatible uses can impair the public’s general health, safety and welfare.

Here are principles of compatibility that will inform decision making:

Principle 1: Compatible uses do not overwhelm other uses. How can a use overwhelm its neighbors?  A use would be considered overwhelming when its size or scale (e.g., height, bulk, and mass) is significantly greater than its neighbors.  A high-rise building in a low-rise neighborhood will overwhelm the immediately adjacent buildings as well as the entire neighborhood.  Large expansions of single-or two-story buildings with long walls unbroken by windows or doors also create an imposing neighborhood presence, as do the acres of paved parking needed to support them.  The overall size of the new building may create a sense of overcrowding, even where the proposed building does not exceed the density or intensity limits.

Principle 2: Compatible uses do not intrude into the neighborhood. A new building may create the loss of privacy due to the height of the building relative to the surrounding buildings.  Windows, balconies, or exterior hallways may provide a direct and often too close view into adjacent buildings and yards.  Intrusion may also take the form of blocked views, excess shadowing, or distinct differences in building style, color and materials.

Principle 3: Compatible uses have appropriate site design features. Traditional setbacks and buffers, even with fences or walls, may be useless to achieve compatibility among uses that are significantly different in intensity, scale, height, and bulk.  The placement of accessory structures—especially dumpsters, loudspeakers, and security lights—may have significant impacts on adjacent uses and the entire neighborhood.  Driveways, parking lots, and outdoor gathering spaces are all site design features that have great potential for negative impacts.

Principle 4: Compatible uses have appropriate transitions from nearby uses. “Transition” is a familiar concept when used to describe the gradual decrease in density and intensity of land use districts from an activity center outward.  However, transition in site design features (e.g., building height, residential density, or lot size) may contribute significantly to achieving compatibility.

Principle 5: Compatible uses contribute to stable neighborhoods. Cities and neighborhoods change over time.  Unplanned and unwelcome change creates instability.  Stable neighborhoods slowly change, if at all, over a period of time, but the change should not be forced through the introduction of incompatible uses.

Source: The Board of Adjustment: The Citizens Planning Series by V. Gail Easley, FAICP and David A. Theriaque, American Planning Association Planning Press, Chicago Illinois; Washington D.C., 2005.