zoning Spartanburg County Performance Zoning Ordinance

[Historyguy]

Yikes - that really does seem iffy.  And another funny thing, as far as I know, the City's zoning ordinance does not actually allow mobile homes,  but if this development is contiguous to the City, then it might fall under the water annexation agreement from 2013 - where adjacent properties that need a new tap into Spartanburg Water have to agree to annexation.  It must be right up against the city limits because of where it is - it's so close to Crescent Avenue!  

 

[Spartan]

On 1/21/2022 at 6:56 PM, westsider28 said:

Some items on Monday's County Council agenda that demonstrate how clunky this whole system is.  First is an ordinance to amend the Performance Zoning Map to change the Road Classification of North Town Drive from local to collector.  This is likely to allow a higher density development on the big grassy site near Hearon Circle that was recently for-sale.  This is basically a rezoning without technically being a rezoning, and shows how foolish the road-based zoning system is.

The second seems borderline illegal to me.  It's an ordinance to amend Section 2.04 Land Development in the vicinity of the Spartanburg Downtown Memorial Airport to allow manufactured homes in limited circumstances.  This seems to be a butt-covering for a development (City View) that is already complete (but technically shouldn't have been allowed).  The ordinance is so specific, that it can only be applied to this one development: "a. To ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses, Manufactured Home Parks will be allowed where the Park is over 45 acres and contiguous to a municipality".  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought zoning had to be broadly applicable and not target single parcels/developments with unique regulations.

I didn't realize there were more performance zoning areas besides that area in the western portion of the County. It's a terrible system that will not result in better development patterns. Atlanta here we come!

What you're talking about with the airport/trailer park thing would technically be spot zoning if the County had a Euclidean zoning ordinance. I don't know if its illegal in SC, but its definitely bad practice. But I would expect no less from the County. Terrible land use practices will continue to result in terrible land use patterns unless County council grows a spine. I think they should be using Beaufort County as a model instead of Lexington... but that's just me.

On 1/23/2022 at 4:59 PM, Historyguy said:

Yikes - that really does seem iffy.  And another funny thing, as far as I know, the City's zoning ordinance does not actually allow mobile homes,  but if this development is contiguous to the City, then it might fall under the water annexation agreement from 2013 - where adjacent properties that need a new tap into Spartanburg Water have to agree to annexation.  It must be right up against the city limits because of where it is - it's so close to Crescent Avenue!  

 

Definitely. Will they annex?

[Historyguy]

 

On 1/26/2022 at 7:40 PM, Spartan said:

I didn't realize there were more performance zoning areas besides that area in the western portion of the County. It's a terrible system that will not result in better development patterns. Atlanta here we come!

What you're talking about with the airport/trailer park thing would technically be spot zoning if the County had a Euclidean zoning ordinance. I don't know if its illegal in SC, but its definitely bad practice. But I would expect no less from the County. Terrible land use practices will continue to result in terrible land use patterns unless County council grows a spine. I think they should be using Beaufort County as a model instead of Lexington... but that's just me.

Definitely. Will they annex?

I mis-spoke about mobile homes not being allowed in the city - I did find that they are allowed in B-3 and B-4 general business and heavy commercial zones, but not in any of the residential zones - R6, R8, R12, and R15.  I wonder if they might decide, even if the property is contiguous, that they might just prefer not to have that in the city!  

I can't say that I know much about county policies, and the politics of county council, but until their voters support them having stronger regulations, I don't see much happening.  It seems like convoluted logic, but it's almost like a lot of people don't want growth, so they won't let the county plan for what's inevitable, and when they try to plan something - like area performance planning, people suspect that it's there to promote growth, so they oppose it.  Throw in the private property rights issues - the "you can't tell me what I can do with my property" angle, and all you wind up with is sprawl and traffic and more complaints about sprawl and traffic, but no way to stop either.  Seems like a vicious cycle.  

[Spartan]

On 1/30/2022 at 11:53 AM, Historyguy said:

I can't say that I know much about county policies, and the politics of county council, but until their voters support them having stronger regulations, I don't see much happening.  It seems like convoluted logic, but it's almost like a lot of people don't want growth, so they won't let the county plan for what's inevitable, and when they try to plan something - like area performance planning, people suspect that it's there to promote growth, so they oppose it.  Throw in the private property rights issues - the "you can't tell me what I can do with my property" angle, and all you wind up with is sprawl and traffic and more complaints about sprawl and traffic, but no way to stop either.  Seems like a vicious cycle.  

I'd say this is pretty spot on. That's why I'm cynical about them actually solving any of the problems of growth. I guess the good thing for Spartanburg is that those problems are largely concentrated in Boiling Springs and the western portion of the county. 

[mainonmain]

No zoning for Boiling Springs is my vote. None at all. Keep the status quo. The folks who live there now absolutely LOVE it. L-O-V-E it. Leave 'em alone.

And the messier and more jacked-up it gets out there, the better the city looks to newcomers who prefer a higher standard of planning and development. The difference in real estate and taxes becomes more and more worth it for folks choosing where to live or operate a businesss. It helps the city in the long run for Boiling Springs to be as effed-up and as different from the city as possible.

[Spartan]

I don't disagree with that in concept. I do think it will take significantly more and faster growth for people's mindset to change.

[westsider28]

County Council is planning to rollout "Performance Zoning" to the entire county.  Currently, only the southwest portion of the county (Reidville vicinity) is under PZ.  Council is establishing a schedule (including public engagement) that would see county-wide adoption by the end of the year.  PZ is deeply flawed, and I haven't seen any obvious improvement in development quality where PZ is in-place, so I don't know how much positive impact this will have.  But keep an eye out for public input opportunities.  Perhaps it can be improved somewhat.

[NotNotSanti]

On 1/22/2023 at 4:28 PM, westsider28 said:

County Council is planning to rollout "Performance Zoning" to the entire county.  Currently, only the southwest portion of the county (Reidville vicinity) is under PZ.  Council is establishing a schedule (including public engagement) that would see county-wide adoption by the end of the year.  PZ is deeply flawed, and I haven't seen any obvious improvement in development quality where PZ is in-place, so I don't know how much positive impact this will have.  But keep an eye out for public input opportunities.  Perhaps it can be improved somewhat.

What is performance zoning, specifically? Is that where a general zoning code would apply to the county, so that towns that are not incorporated would have that applied to them?

Just noticed a link related to this: http://services.spartanburgcounty.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/COU - Ordinance - LU_PERFORMANCE ZONING ORDINANCE (PZO) DISCUSSION AND ROLLOUT.pdf?meetingId=705&documentType=Agenda&itemId=8785&publishId=18628&isSection=false

Edited January 23, 2023 by NotNotSanti

[NotNotSanti]

Thanks to all who contributed to this topic in months past. Just read the whole thread, and it really helped clarify some points for me.

[westsider28]

5 hours ago, NotNotSanti said:

What is performance zoning, specifically? Is that where a general zoning code would apply to the county, so that towns that are not incorporated would have that applied to them?

Just noticed a link related to this: http://services.spartanburgcounty.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/COU - Ordinance - LU_PERFORMANCE ZONING ORDINANCE (PZO) DISCUSSION AND ROLLOUT.pdf?meetingId=705&documentType=Agenda&itemId=8785&publishId=18628&isSection=false

Edit: Just saw your new post, so this explanation is probably redundant now, but maybe useful to others.

Performance Zoning is for the unincorporated areas of the County.  As the link says, it's not traditional Euclidean Zoning where every single parcel has a designation.  It's road-based (which is deeply flawed).  It only allows large commercial and industrial uses on larger roads.  Residential is allowed basically everywhere.  There are also various density, set-back, height and buffering requirements.  There are some limited aesthetic standards (sign ordinance, landscaping, limited billboards, etc) to try to improve the appearance of major roads.

Here's a link to the full ordinance (156 pages): https://www.spartanburgcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/13682/Performance-Zoning-Ordinance

And the map of where it's fully implemented so far: https://www.spartanburgcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/13681/Performance-Zoning-Map

The whole county already has some parts of it in-place.  For example, there was some controversy with a proposed apartment complex between Circle K and Tractor Supply in Boiling Springs because most of their property bordered Clark Road, which wouldn't allow the density they wanted, but a small portion bordered Highway 9 (which did allow that density), but they wanted to use that part of the parcel as a driveway, which wasn't allowed.  They basically subdivided the site with just enough of the parcel touching Hwy 9 to give the site max density.  And thus you see an opportunity for abuse with this system. 

Also, Council recently reclassified North Town Drive near Heron Circle as a "collector road" (which allows higher density) to allow an apartment development there.  Which was pretty arbitrary. (what defines a collector road anyway?)

It's supposed to be simpler, less restrictive, and more predictable than traditional zoning, yet still "protect" single-family homes from commercial development (which is anti-urban and anti-walkability) and from industrial (more understandable).  And it theoretically restricts "high-traffic" uses to large roads, though the whole idea of collector/arterial roads (vs street grids / redundancy / multiple routes) is problematic.  It just seems to me that PZ doesn't do much to improve the issues we face (other than maybe improving aesthetics).

Edited January 24, 2023 by westsider28

[NotNotSanti]

12 hours ago, westsider28 said:

Edit: Just saw your new post, so this explanation is probably redundant now, but maybe useful to others.

Performance Zoning is for the unincorporated areas of the County.  As the link says, it's not traditional Euclidean Zoning where every single parcel has a designation.  It's road-based (which is deeply flawed).  It only allows large commercial and industrial uses on larger roads.  Residential is allowed basically everywhere.  There are also various density, set-back, height and buffering requirements.  There are some limited aesthetic standards (sign ordinance, landscaping, limited billboards, etc) to try to improve the appearance of major roads.

Here's a link to the full ordinance (156 pages): https://www.spartanburgcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/13682/Performance-Zoning-Ordinance

And the map of where it's fully implemented so far: https://www.spartanburgcounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/13681/Performance-Zoning-Map

The whole county already has some parts of it in-place.  For example, there was some controversy with a proposed apartment complex between Circle K and Tractor Supply in Boiling Springs because most of their property bordered Clark Road, which wouldn't allow the density they wanted, but a small portion bordered Highway 9 (which did allow that density), but they wanted to use that part of the parcel as a driveway, which wasn't allowed.  They basically subdivided the site with just enough of the parcel touching Hwy 9 to give the site max density.  And thus you see an opportunity for abuse with this system. 

Also, Council recently reclassified North Town Drive near Heron Circle as a "collector road" (which allows higher density) to allow an apartment development there.  Which was pretty arbitrary. (what defines a collector road anyway?)

It's supposed to be simpler, less restrictive, and more predictable than traditional zoning, yet still "protect" single-family homes from commercial development (which is anti-urban and anti-walkability) and from industrial (more understandable).  And it theoretically restricts "high-traffic" uses to large roads, though the whole idea of collector/arterial roads (vs street grids / redundancy / multiple routes) is problematic.  It just seems to me that PZ doesn't do much to improve the issues we face (other than maybe improving aesthetics).

 

That was very informative, thank you. The link is for the Performance Zoning that has been applied for the Southwest region. I wonder if any modifications will be done to it before it's rolled out to the county as a whole. Based on their schedule it would seem like it. Wonder what kind of improvements could be done to it. 

Honestly curious, is there another kind of zoning that you would prefer? I'm fairly new to this topic of county wide zoning. What does Greenville, for example, use?

Also... how will this mesh with the previous approvals for mixed-use development in the county?

Edited January 24, 2023 by NotNotSanti

[westsider28]

4 hours ago, NotNotSanti said:

That was very informative, thank you. The link is for the Performance Zoning that has been applied for the Southwest region. I wonder if any modifications will be done to it before it's rolled out to the county as a whole. Based on their schedule it would seem like it. Wonder what kind of improvements could be done to it. 

Honestly curious, is there another kind of zoning that you would prefer? I'm fairly new to this topic of county wide zoning. What does Greenville, for example, use?

Also... how will this mesh with the previous approvals for mixed-use development in the county?

Greenville County has traditional (Euclidean) zoning for much of the county, I believe.  Traditional zoning is problematic as well, for some of the reasons the County document stated (difficult to predict future growth/land-use, frequent time-consuming and controversial rezonings, etc) and it isn't very conducive to walkable, mixed-uses either.

I'm not sure there is a good solution on a large scale.  The most ideal thing would be if the State allowed municipalities to naturally expand their boundaries as growth and development happened (and incorporation of new towns like Boiling Springs), so the County wouldn't need to deal with this.  Absent that, it's really the details that would make the most difference.  Some important provisions I'd like to see:

--Sidewalk requirements for all commercial and multi-residential development (Many other places have this, and while it results in odd disconnected sidewalk strips in the short run, it is cheaper and faster in the long run to do it piece-by-piece than a large-scale government project.)

--Road connectivity requirements (NO MORE CUL-DE-SACS! leaving streets open-ended at parcel borders and requiring road connectivity between developments is one of THE best things we can do to improve walkability AND car traffic, because it allows shorter walk distances AND more driving route options which disperses traffic. This is very common elsewhere.)

--Require large-scale developments to widen roads nearby (at their expense, not ours) or pay a fee into a road improvement fund

--More strict tree-save and tree-replacement requirements

--Require buildings near the street with parking behind / beside (no front parking lots) for commercial; encourage/require rear/alley garages for residential

--No street-facing height limits or set-back requirements, at least on large roads (current code you can't have a 4-story building within like 100 feet of the road)

There's more, but that's what I can think of at the moment.  I will be suggesting these ideas at the public meetings.

[NotNotSanti]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Glad you will be sharing your thoughts publicly! 

[Spartan]

On 1/24/2023 at 9:01 AM, NotNotSanti said:

 

That was very informative, thank you. The link is for the Performance Zoning that has been applied for the Southwest region. I wonder if any modifications will be done to it before it's rolled out to the county as a whole. Based on their schedule it would seem like it. Wonder what kind of improvements could be done to it. 

Honestly curious, is there another kind of zoning that you would prefer? I'm fairly new to this topic of county wide zoning. What does Greenville, for example, use?

Also... how will this mesh with the previous approvals for mixed-use development in the county?

A few thoughts.

1. The point of zoning is not solely to regulate development. It is supposed to be the regulatory tool to implement a land use plan that has been vetted by a stronng public engagement process. Zoning, in the absence of a plan, is just a massive and annoying HOA.
    
2. A Form-Based Code (like the City's Downtown Urban Code) is the Gold Standard zoning model.  There are only a few places in SC that use a form based code, with Beaufort County being the largest geographically. Form based codes are superior because they regulate the parts of building cities that actually matter, which is where the building is located on a site and how it addresses the street (ie: does it have a front door onto a sidewalk). Cities were built this way by default up until 1950 or so. This model does not significantly regulate land uses - it allows for the market to determine where things should go, and as such it has an inherent flexibility to respond to current market forces. They always allow for mixture of uses, facilitate good street network development, and generally result in more attractive places to live. The idea is that you remove barriers to good development practices and add barriers to bad practices. This does not prevent bad development, but the market tends to take the path of least resistance - and it has been proven to work quite well.
    
3. Euclidean zoning does the opposite. It separates land uses by category and by design encourages separation of buildings. Much of suburban Atlanta and Charlotte are built under this model - make of that what you will. It is possible to accomplish a "hybrid" zoning structure that uses FBC principles in the Euclidean model. Charlotte does this in its new UDO and it isn't terrible - but FBC would still be a better tool. This model requires rezonings with council action to determine any potential changes in land use. It is inherently less flexible in responding to market conditions, and in a state like SC it is typically more of a rubber stamping process since Councils bend over to approve literally any rezoning - so why have it if you aren't going to stick to it?
    
4. Performance Zoning is the worst model I've heard of - though I do give it some credit for being better than nothing. It has been well summarized in this thread so I won't rehash it - but I think its safe to predict that it won't have the desired outcome. You can look at Lexington County, which uses the model we are basing our ordinance off of, as a guide. They've had it in place for close to 20 years I think (could be wrong about that). IMO if you've ever spent any time there I think you would agree that it does a fantastic job of reinforcing a dated "bad suburbia" model of growth (i.e.: the status quo) - and if that's your jam then you should be pretty excited about this move.

The ability of this zoning model to support mixed use development will ultimately depend on how its written. In all likelihood it will be better than the current regulatory process that disallows it almost entirely. My biggest critique is that it does not require new street connections between developments. All new development is going to be located on to fewer roads, thus forcing more traffic onto those roads and increasing the need to make EXPENSIVE improvements (aks: widenings) that the General Assembly is, thus far, unwilling to pay for.  But  hey, let's see how many shitty "starter" homes we can cram onto one acre.

When talking about growth in the Upstate, I've heard my entire life "we just don't want to be Atlanta" - but so far there is zero effort being made to accomplish that goal. Circling by to my first point - unless I've missed something, Spartanburg County does not have a current land use plan. They have an old plan that they just continue to renew - but it dates to the 90s if memory serves. IMO, they have the process backwards. Why are they adopting this zoning tool? What goals is it going to accomplish/implement? Who is determining what the zoning should be and why - especially in areas where we want to preserve open space/farming etc.? 

What is the plan? What do the people of Spartanburg County want to see in terms of growth? How does the people's voice translate into policies/goals in the plan? What are the tools available to implement it, and which ones are appropriate for Spartanburg County? -- these are all questions that should be asked before adopting a zoning ordinance.  Once you address those, then the narrative, path forward, and information about what the public actually supports all become clear. 

 

 

[NotNotSanti]

11 minutes ago, Spartan said:

A few thoughts.

1. The point of zoning is not solely to regulate development. It is supposed to be the regulatory tool to implement a land use plan that has been vetted by a stronng public engagement process. Zoning, in the absence of a plan, is just a massive and annoying HOA.
    
2. A Form-Based Code (like the City's Downtown Urban Code) is the Gold Standard zoning model.  There are only a few places in SC that use a form based code, with Beaufort County being the largest geographically. Form based codes are superior because they regulate the parts of building cities that actually matter, which is where the building is located on a site and how it addresses the street (ie: does it have a front door onto a sidewalk). Cities were built this way by default up until 1950 or so. This model does not significantly regulate land uses - it allows for the market to determine where things should go, and as such it has an inherent flexibility to respond to current market forces. They always allow for mixture of uses, facilitate good street network development, and generally result in more attractive places to live. The idea is that you remove barriers to good development practices and add barriers to bad practices. This does not prevent bad development, but the market tends to take the path of least resistance - and it has been proven to work quite well.
    
3. Euclidean zoning does the opposite. It separates land uses by category and by design encourages separation of buildings. Much of suburban Atlanta and Charlotte are built under this model - make of that what you will. It is possible to accomplish a "hybrid" zoning structure that uses FBC principles in the Euclidean model. Charlotte does this in its new UDO and it isn't terrible - but FBC would still be a better tool. This model requires rezonings with council action to determine any potential changes in land use. It is inherently less flexible in responding to market conditions, and in a state like SC it is typically more of a rubber stamping process since Councils bend over to approve literally any rezoning - so why have it if you aren't going to stick to it?
    
4. Performance Zoning is the worst model I've heard of - though I do give it some credit for being better than nothing. It has been well summarized in this thread so I won't rehash it - but I think its safe to predict that it won't have the desired outcome. You can look at Lexington County, which uses the model we are basing our ordinance off of, as a guide. They've had it in place for close to 20 years I think (could be wrong about that). IMO if you've ever spent any time there I think you would agree that it does a fantastic job of reinforcing a dated "bad suburbia" model of growth (i.e.: the status quo) - and if that's your jam then you should be pretty excited about this move.

The ability of this zoning model to support mixed use development will ultimately depend on how its written. In all likelihood it will be better than the current regulatory process that disallows it almost entirely. My biggest critique is that it does not require new street connections between developments. All new development is going to be located on to fewer roads, thus forcing more traffic onto those roads and increasing the need to make EXPENSIVE improvements (aks: widenings) that the General Assembly is, thus far, unwilling to pay for.  But  hey, let's see how many crapty "starter" homes we can cram onto one acre.

When talking about growth in the Upstate, I've heard my entire life "we just don't want to be Atlanta" - but so far there is zero effort being made to accomplish that goal. Circling by to my first point - unless I've missed something, Spartanburg County does not have a current land use plan. They have an old plan that they just continue to renew - but it dates to the 90s if memory serves. IMO, they have the process backwards. Why are they adopting this zoning tool? What goals is it going to accomplish/implement? Who is determining what the zoning should be and why - especially in areas where we want to preserve open space/farming etc.? 

What is the plan? What do the people of Spartanburg County want to see in terms of growth? How does the people's voice translate into policies/goals in the plan? What are the tools available to implement it, and which ones are appropriate for Spartanburg County? -- these are all questions that should be asked before adopting a zoning ordinance.  Once you address those, then the narrative, path forward, and information about what the public actually supports all become clear. 

 

 

Much to digest here! Thank you, Spartan.

I also saw someone elsewhere post this link to an explanation of PZO. Granted, it's from another county and state altogether, and as I'm not sure if these concepts translate 1-to-1 intrastate, take with a grain of salt! https://www.chescoplanning.org/MuniCorner/eTools/61-PerformanceZoning.cfm
 

How it Works

Performance zoning, sometimes called "impact zoning" or "flexible zoning," is a method of regulating the design and location of a development based on factors that relate directly to the development's site and the specific effects of the development on its neighborhood. Performance zoning is a way to make traditional zoning more sensitive to the particular nature of specific development sites and has been used in both residential and non-residential developments.

Performance zoning regulations commonly require the identification and mapping of natural and manmade features that are to be protected on a property, while also taking into account the impacts that the development will have on the local neighborhood.

In performance zoning, natural features such as wetlands, watercourses, floodplains, and steep slopes are commonly protected from development, as well as woodlands, prime agricultural soils, and historic features. After these areas are identified and mapped, they are deducted from a site's development potential, and the remaining areas can then be developed at a density permitted by the zoning ordinance.

In addition to identifying site features that should be protected, performance zoning can also examine the impact of the development on the neighborhood and community, such as lost viewsheds, development that is incompatible with community character, and increased traffic. To ameliorate these impacts, performance zoning might require less intense development, changes to a development design, or improvements to adjoining roads.

Benefits

Balances Development with a Site's Carrying Capacity

The design matches the area's ability to accept development without overburdening the environment, utility and circulation system, etc.

Permits a Wider Range of Land Uses

When a site's capacity to accept development is balanced with the area's ability to accommodate increased demands on the environment, utility and circulation system, etc., more flexibility in site design and land uses could be permitted.

Reduces Potential Land Use Conflicts

Almost any land use can be made compatible with adjacent land uses if its potential adverse effects are eliminated or minimized.

Offers More Development Flexibility

The private sector can respond to market forces more quickly and can use more discretion in deciding on land use types.

Increases the Efficiency of Land Usage

Performance zoning can make better use of existing infrastructure, which will tend to encourage development (and redevelopment) into places Urban, Suburban and Suburban Center Landscape areas.

 

[Spartan]

Suburban Philadelphia is a completely different animal. If we adopt their ordinance then maybe I'll come around. Again, I submit to you Lexington County. Just look at the results of decades of growth down there, and compare that to what's going on in Spartanburg County today. You won't be able to find any significant difference except they have a bit more sand in their soil.  Look at this area and pan around the area west and south of Lexington (which is newer growth than Irmo), and see if there's anything that looks like something you'd rather have in Spartanburg County. I'm willing to bet you won't see much that is special. 

Are subdivisions bad? Not necessarily. Are shopping centers bad? Not necessarily. It's not about what is being built, but how its being laid out and how it connects. I remain skeptical that this zoning ordinance will do much to shift the needle significantly. I should add that its not all bad - some limitations on where these large industrial warehouses get built is probably a good thing. I'm interested to see what their public facing engagement looks like this fall.

 

[westsider28]

Developers and real estate agents are opposed to expanding Performance Zoning to the whole county.  They say that it's overly restrictive, so they'd prefer a hybrid system that would include the best parts of the existing ULMO and PZO.  They mention that PZO restricts commercial development to limited areas (sounds like the ULMO is actually more "mixed-use friendly").  And the PZO has larger setback requirements (not good for creating a walkable community).  They say PZO has shrunk and outright killed some developments (I'm sure some residents would say that's a success).  One plus side of the PZO sucking, is that it has encouraged annexation into municipalities, which have less restrictions.  For example:

A 20-acre tract on South Danzler Road at East Victor Hill Road near the town of Duncan only has 3.7 acres of developable land under the PZO.  If the property were annexed into Duncan with fewer restrictions, then 14 acres of the tract would be developable (though they'd likely have higher property taxes).

Anyway, sounds like the PZO isn't working for developers or residents.  Maybe we need to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch...

[NotNotSanti]

Interesting! Good thing it was tested in a section of the county first. 

[Spartan]

It isn't working because its an absolute garbage way to do zoning.

Form based code maximizes flexibility for developers, creates clear expectations about what will happen for the public, and creates a built environment that, over time, supports the type of cities people say they want.