Zoning Notes Prepared by Frank B. Williams Author of "The Law of City Planning and Zoning" From data collected by the Zoning Committee of New York (233 Broadway) Recent Zoning Statutes and Ordinances CRYSTAL LAKE, ILL.-Ordinance, April, 1927. Step-by-Step Zoning in the Unincorporated In various parts of the Los Angeles ordinance, above mentioned, the following provisions occur: "That the portions of said unincorporated territory hereinafter in this ordinance described are the first portions of said territory surveyed and studied for the purposes to be served by this ordinance because the necessity therefor in these particular portions of said unincorporated territory is most urgent; that the zoning of said portions of said unincorporated territory is in conformity with a general zoning scheme covering the unincorporated territory in the entire county of Los Angeles; and that as rapidly as possible, new districts will be added by ordinance until all the more densely populated portions of said unincorporated territory shall have been included within appropriate zones. "It is hereby further declared that the progressive adoption of ordinances placing various portions of such unincorporated territory in the respective zones applicable thereto as soon as the due and careful consideration by the Regional Planning Commission of said county and by the Board of Supervisors will permit, is intended to result eventually in a comprehensive and well-considered plan of location and distribution of the various industries, businesses and population of the entire unincorporated area of the county of Los Angeles and in due relation with existing plans in the incorporated portions of said county.' These paragraphs are in effect a statement that in the zoning as it is after the passage of this ordinance only a part of the territory of the same character is regulated; and the situation is not changed, but, on the contrary, is made more obvious by the statement that the rest of the area will later be similarly restricted. This is partial zoning, with regard to the validity of which the authorities are divided. It seems to the writer that on principle such zoning cannot be upheld; for, to be reasonable and just, similar land similarly situated must at all times be treated alike. Recent Zoning Decisions MASSACHUSETTS.-Siegemund v. Building Commissioner of City of Boston, Supreme Court, May 20, 1927. Under a provision of the Boston zoning law requiring a given setback from a "street" in given districts, a building is not required to set back from a private way, such way not being a street within the meaning of that law. NEW YORK.-Matter of Hillsley Realty Corp. v. Vroman, Building Inspector of Village of Larchmont. The petitioners seek to build an apartment house in a single-family resident district, contrary to the provisions of the zoning ordinance. They allege that, as the ordinance provides that apartments can be built only in the business or industrial district, which is a very small part of the total area of the village, the ordinance does not provide a sufficient portion of the village for multi-family or apartment houses. The petitioners further contend that dwellings of the highest types are more and more tending to be in the form of apartment houses, and that the ordinance is unreasonable in forcing apartment houses into the business section of the village. The respondents claim that these questions are within the discretion of the Board of Trustees. They also allege that the village is almost entirely residential, and that apartment houses could be justly confined to the districts as set forth in the zoning ordinance. The Court dismissed the petition without opinion. NEW YORK.-Matter of Stillman, Supreme Court, New York County, reported in New York Law Journal, June 17, 1927. Certiorari to review a determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of New York City. The property, within a residence district, is improved with five five-story dwellings. The Board granted a variance allowing the construction on the premises of a 21-story business building. Held, that there were no practical difficulties, and the record failed to show any unnecessary hardship, justifying the determination of the Board. The property was acquired with knowledge of the zoning restriction. There is no suggestion of a material change in conditions. The fact that the larger building would yield a greater return is not such a hardship as justifies the variance. Recent Zoning Literature Newman F. Baker, whose writings on various phases of zoning are well known, has published a small but well-arranged and well-written volume called "Legal Aspects of Zoning." The book has been reviewed elsewhere in this magazine, and therefore calls for no further comment here. An important article from Housing Betterment on "Zoning's Greatest Danger-Lawless Acts by Boards of Appeals" is reprinted on pages 231 to 234 of this issue. The Massachusetts Federation of Planning Boards under date of June, 1927, has issued its twenty-first bulletin, entitled "Zoning Appeals." Edward T. Hartman, Executive Secretary, makes a significant statement which is quoted in the "box" on page 231 of this issue. Have your drainage flow under the street Combine ample traffic support with maximum drainage capacity Forty manufacturing plants throughout the United States and Canada assure ARMCO CULVERT MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION MIDDLETOWN, OHIO ARMCO CULVERTS 88 Predominant in use-because predominant in quality 1927, Armco Culvert Mfrs' Ass'n., Middletown, Ohio Yes we should like you to mention THE AMERICAN CITY. Ο The Municipal Bond Market By Sanders Shanks, Jr. Editor, The Bond Buyer N January first of this year The Bond Buyer's Index of Municipal Bond Values (expressed in terms of net yield basis) stood at 4.13 per cent. On May first it had moved down to 3.95 per cent, indicating that municipal bond prices had reached the highest level seen since January, 1917. As this is written, the Index reads 4.05 per cent. In other words, the municipal bond market enjoyed an abrupt rise during the early months of the current year, but approximately one-half of this advance has been wiped out in the reaction which set in the latter part of May and which has affected not alone municipals, but the entire investment security market. The most notable illustration of the unfavorable action of the market is the experience of the banking syndicate which purchased from the city of New York, on May 11, $60,000,000 4 per cent bonds. Two months later, the syndicate announced a price reduction on the unsold balance of approximately $45,000,000 bonds. The reduced prices represent a loss of about $600,000, assuming the bonds are sold at a new price schedule. Municipalities which have recently placed loans or will shortly issue bonds have no cause for complaint. They may still borrow for proper pur A Minnesota Village Crowns Long Record of Utility Operation with Outstanding Success T the annual convention of the League of Minnesota Municipalities in June, 1927, Mayor E. W. Campbell of Litchfield, Minn., a village of about 3,000 population, told of the accomplishments of his municipality in furnishing water, steam heat, and electric light and power to its citizens at moderate rates and with remarkable financial success. The story of the enterprise is given in Minnesota Municipalities for June. It started in 1890 with the building of a lighting plant, wihch yielded sufficient surplus income to add to its own facilities and finance the installation of a 1,000-gallon steel tank and other water-works items, a white-way system of 40-five-light ornamental posts, and an exhaust steam-heating system serving the business district and part of the residence section, besides paying the original bond issue. "In 1920 J. C. Bang, an experienced utility superintendent, was employed to supervise the plant. One of his first acts after taking over the new position was to recommend a complete remodeling and rebuilding of the plant in order adequately to take care of the increased demands for service. In the meantime strong pressure was brought to bear on the Village Council and people of the village by private utility interests to abandon the operation of the plant. . . . A bond issue of $90,000 was proposed to finance the reconstruction and carried by an almost unanimous vote. In order not to burden the new plant too heavily, the bond issue was made payable in installments of $6,000 per year, but the net earnings of the plant during the four years since the plant was rebuilt have been more than sufficient to retire the complete bond issue. The village is just now borrowing from the electric light fund about $40,000 to finance the new sewage-treatment plant. "Under the leadership of Mr. Bang as superintendent the services of the plant have been extended until the combined utilities now serve approximately 1,000 electric users, 500 water users, 75 heat customers, and 100 power customers. In addition, electric service is furnished to the villages of Atwater, Grove City, and Darwin." The annual statement of the combined plant shows the book value on April 1, 1927, after deducting depreciation, to be $160,752.78. The gross earnings from electric, steam heating and water service for the preceding twelve months were $76,106.72; the current expenses, including $6,493.47 set aside to provide for annual depreciation, were $45,851.21, leaving $30,255.51, which represents nearly 19 per cent on the above value. Out of this amount were paid $3,697.50 as bond interest, $6,000.00 as the annual payment for retiring the bonds, and $5,528.36 for permanent improvement. The rates charged are about the average for such services in similar municipalities in the state, as indicated by a study of electric rates in Minnesota made by Dr. Delos F. Wilcox in 1925, a list of Minnesota electric rates published by the League of Minnesota Municipalities in February, 1926, and lists of water-rates appearing in The Municipal Index in 1925 and subsequently. The chief lighting rate is 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, for the first 100 kw.-hrs. per month; the cooking rate is 31⁄2 cents per kw.-hr., straight; the power rate is 8 cents per kw.-hr. for the first 100 per month and graduates down to 2 cents for all over 1,000; water is $2.25 per 1,000 cubic feet for the first 2,000 cu. ft. per month; and steam heat is 75 cents per 1,000 pounds for the first 25,000. |