The Legality of Form-Based Zoning Codes

THE LEGALITY OF FORM-BASED ZONING CODES
RICHARD S. GELLER
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 36
II. PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBANISM ......................................... 37
III. DISADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL ZONING CODES ......... 39
IV. PRECEDENTS FOR FORM-BASED CODES .............................. 42
V. SMARTCODE: HOW A FORM-BASED CODE OPERATES .......... 44
A. Community Level Transects ......................................... 44
B. Parking, Driveways, and Thoroughfares ..................... 50
C. Building Functions and Form ..................................... 53
D. Open and Civic Space ................................................... 55
E. Development Types ....................................................... 57
VI. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT
FORM-BASED CODES ........................................................... 59
A. Safety and Health Justifications ................................. 62
B. Sociological Justifications ............................................ 69
C. Aesthetic Justifications ................................................. 71
D. Economic Benefits ......................................................... 73
E. Environmental Justifications ...................................... 76
F. Increased Road Capacity .............................................. 78
G. Reducing Government Expenses .................................. 79
H. Form-Based Codes Are Easier to Understand ............. 80
VII. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES TO FORM-BASED CODES ............. 82
A. Consistency with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan ....................................................................... 82
B. Not a Taking of Property .............................................. 84
C. Bert Harris Act Challenges .......................................... 85
VIII. FORM-BASED SYSTEMS AS A PARALLEL, FLOATING,
OR HYBRID CODE ................................................................ 90
IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 91
Adjunct Professor, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida; Planning and Zoning
Commissioner, Orange County, Florida; B.A., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio (1988); J.D.,
Temple University, cum laude (1992). Richard Geller is a partner with Fishback Dominick
in Winter Park, Florida. Mr. Geller would like to thank: Kurt Ardaman, City Attorney, City
of Winter Garden, Florida; Jim Hall, Director of Planning, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.;
Darren McCartney, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell; Professor Bruce Stephenson, Director of
the Master of Planning in Civic Urbanism program at Rollins College; and Craig Ustler,
CEO, Ustler Development, Inc., for their helpful suggestions and criticisms.
35
36 JOURNAL OF LAND USE [Vol. 26:1
I. INTRODUCTION
A growing number of land planners, architects, and local gov-

ernment officials are seeking to dramatically improve zoning laws
in Florida and throughout the United States. New Urbanism, a
movement which advocates pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use com-
munities, would replace conventional zoning with form-based zon-
ing. Form-based zoning focuses on the physical appearance of
streets and buildings to achieve a predictable, aesthetic result.
Conventional zoning, by comparison, focuses on the segregation of
land uses, which contributes to sprawl.1
The City of Miami replaced its zoning code with a form-based
system.2 St. Lucie County, Florida adopted form-based zoning so
that new development resembles small towns.3 Form-based codes
are helping revitalize downtown districts in Fort Myers, Kendall,
Naples, West Palm Beach, and Sarasota.4 Form-based zoning pro-
vides a means for local governments to comply with the Florida
Growth Management Act’s mandates to discourage sprawl and in-
corporate energy efficient land use patterns.5
This article will review New Urbanism’s principles, disad-
vantages of conventional zoning codes, historical precedents for
1. CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER, THE OPTION OF URBANISM: INVESTING IN A NEW

AMERICAN DREAM 151 (2009) (conventional zoning codes “generally outlaw mixed use devel-
opment, mandate setbacks from the property lines, require huge amounts of parking, put
height limits on construction, and set many other requirements that practically allow only
driveable sub-urban development.”); City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 So. 2d 468, 470
n.4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (Cowart, J., concurring specially) (“the better practice is to restrict
each different use and each different intensity to its own zone . . . .”).
2. ABOUT THE MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, http://www.miami21.org/zoning_code.asp (last
visited Feb. 18, 2011).
3. DANIEL G. PAROLEK, KAREN PAROLEK & PAUL C. CRAWFORD, FORM-BASED CODES:
A GUIDE FOR PLANNERS, URBAN DESIGNERS, MUNICIPALITIES, AND DEVELOPERS 280 (2008);
See also ST. LUCIE COUNTY., FLA., LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ch. 4, §§ 4.04.00-.01 (2010),
available at http://library4.municode.com/default-now/home.htm?infobase=14641&
doc_action=whatsnew (last visited Feb. 18, 2011).
4. See SMARTCODE COMPLETE, http://www.smartcodecomplete.com/learn/links.html
(last visited Feb. 18, 2011) (listing local governments that have adopted or are in the process
of adopting a form-based code). Over two dozen local governments in the United States have
adopted form-based codes. Orlando and Winter Springs, Florida have also adopted form-
based codes. See ORLANDO, FLA., BALDWIN PARK PD ORDINANCE (1998), available at
http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/bp_regplan.htm; WINTER SPRINGS, FLA.,
TOWN CTR. DIST. CODE (1998), available at http://www.winterspringsfl.org/EN/web/find/
codes/DocsFormsPubs/43915/towncentercode.htm.
5. See The Community Renewal Act, ch. 2009-96, § 13, 2009 Laws of Fla. (exempting
“Dense Urban Living Areas” from State transportation concurrency requirements and pro-
posing a “mobility fee to replace the existing transportation concurrency system. The fee
should “promote compact, mixed-use, and energy-efficient development.”); See also STATE OF
FLA DEP’T OF COMTY. AFFAIRS, ENERGY EFFICIENT LAND USE, ENERGY CONSERVATION, AND
REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES—HOUSE BILL 697, http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/
EnergyGHG/index.cfm (last visited Feb. 18, 2011) (providing a summary of the 2008 man-
date to incorporate energy efficient land use patterns in comprehensive plans).
Fall, 2010] FORM-BASED ZONING 37
form-based systems, how form-based zoning operates, legal bases

for its adoption, and arguments for thwarting potential legal chal-
lenges. The justifications for form-based zoning include: improved
aesthetics, better public health and safety, more efficient traffic
management, lower government expenditures, economic benefits,
and environmental protection. When form-based zoning adheres to
New Urbanism’s principles, the codes reduce dependence on cars,
disperse traffic, and replace strip shopping centers with Main
Streets. The aesthetic predictability of development, regardless of
use, assures compatibility between adjacent building forms, which
protects the property rights of nearby residents.
Inordinate burden claims under Florida’s Bert Harris Private
Property Rights Protection Act may pose the most serious legal
challenges to application of a form-based code.6 However, by de-
regulating zoning use classifications, onerous parking require-
ments, and density constraints, form-based codes give landowners
additional rights and flexibility. Damage claims under the Bert
Harris Act must prove decreased market value. However, because
walkable development is scarce, form-based zoning typically re-
sults in increased property values. When a property owner claims
otherwise (such as due to new height limitations), the Bert Harris
Act requires compatibility between the proposed development and
existing, adjacent land uses. This constraint reduces the risk of
unreasonable judicial results.
II. PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBANISM
New Urbanism has grown out of widespread dissatisfaction

with suburban sprawl. The automobile distorted centuries-old de-
velopment patterns. Garages dominate the fronts of houses.7 Sub-
divisions spread aimlessly into rural areas with traffic forced to
use collector and arterial roadways. The arterials provide the only
access to strip shopping centers, office parks, and schools, with
none planned or integrated into efficient multi-use development.
This makes traffic congestion inevitable.8
6. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(2) (2010); discussed infra section VII.B.

7. See JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER, THE GEOGRAPHY OF NOWHERE: THE RISE AND DE-
CLINE OF AMERICA’S MAN-MADE LANDSCAPE 129 (1993) (“As a matter of design, the garage
in front of the house is a disaster . . . . [W]hen you consider that every house on the street
has a similar gaping blank façade, you end up with a degraded street as well as a degraded
architecture.”).
8. ELLEN DUNHAM-JONES & JUNE WILLIAMSON, RETROFITTING SUBURBIA: URBAN
DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR REDESIGNING SUBURBS 82 (2009) (“So how does a high-speed subur-
ban arterial become a clogged commercial strip? It usually begins with the transportation
engineers laying out what they consider to be a rural road. . . . The assumption is that rural
Conventional zoning codes separate uses stringently, placing

everyday needs beyond reasonable or safe walking distance and
making mass transit less practical. Arterial roads, engineered with
the width and design speeds of interstate highways, discourage
walking and bicycling. High travel speeds contribute to tens of
thousands of driver, passenger, and pedestrian deaths annually.9
Conventional zoning codes create traffic by forcing exclusive de-
pendence on cars for commuting to work, school, dining, enter-
tainment, groceries, and other daily needs. Those who cannot
drive—children, seniors, and the disabled—find themselves
trapped in subdivisions.
Sprawl development often fails aesthetically. Gigantic signs di-
rected to high-speed traffic dominate commercial roadways.10 Set-
back lines encourage developers to place massive, often half-empty
parking lots alongside the roads, creating an auto-centric land-
scape without the architectural definition of adjacent buildings.11
This visually-chaotic and unappealing development pattern,
whether in Orlando, Phoenix, or Cincinnati, has no sense of place
or uniqueness.12
roads between urban centers should be designed to maximize traffic flow, so speeds are high
and regulations limit intersection intervals and curb cuts. Walkability is not a factor . . . .
However, the new road’s access to cheap land builds development pressures and the pro-
spect of tax revenues. These in turn prompt local governments to grant commercial and
subdivision rezoning requests . . . . Designed for through traffic and mobility but zoned for
uses requiring access, it no longer functions well for either.”).
9. In some years, more than 40,000 people die in traffic accidents in the United
States. See NAT’L HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN., FATALITY ANALYSIS REPORTING SYS-
TEM ENCYCLOPEDIA (2010), available at http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx; See
also MICHELLE ERNST & LILLY SHOUP, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PARTNERSHIP,
DANGEROUS BY DESIGN: SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF PREVENTABLE PEDESTRIAN DEATHS (AND
MAKING GREAT NEIGHBORHOODS) 8-9 (2009) (ranking Orlando-Kissimmee, Tampa-St. Pe-
tersburg, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, and Jacksonville the nation’s most dan-
gerous metropolitan areas for pedestrians in 2007-2008), available at
http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf.
10. STEVEN A. MOUZON, THE ORIGINAL GREEN: UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY OF TRUE
SUSTAINABILITY 131 (2010) (“So is there any shadow of a doubt why poor Waffle House has
such ugly buildings? Of course not! They’ve completely blown their budget on the sign and
the parking lot!”).
11. See KUNSTLER, supra note 7, at 131 (“The road is now like television, violent and
tawdry. The landscape it runs through is littered with cartoon buildings and commercial
messages. We whiz by them at fifty-five miles an hour and forget them, because one conven-
ience store looks like the next. . . . There is little sense of having arrived anywhere, because
everyplace looks like noplace [sic] in particular.”).
12. However, Cincinnati councilwoman and former mayor Roxanne Qualls is leading
an effort to adopt a form-based code in Cincinnati. Laura Baverman, New Zoning Method
Could Rewrite Local Development, BUS. COURIER, Sept. 26, 2008,
http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/09/29/story11.html; See also Randy
A. Simes, Cincinnati’s Form-Based Code Effort to Take City Leaders Back to Nashville,
SOAPBOX CINCINNATI (Feb. 10, 2009), http://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/fbc0210.aspx
(reporting that the city council approved $50,000 to advance form-based codes). The official
website on Cincinnati’s form-based codes effort is at http://www.cincycharacter.com/ (last
visited Feb. 18, 2011). Phoenix, too, is developing a form-based code, but limited to its down-
The transformation of Main Streets into commercial arterials,

like in Apopka, Florida, destroys many of the attributes and charm
one finds in historic business districts that preserved a pedestrian
orientation, like St. Augustine, Mt. Dora, Key West, Naples, Palm
Beach, and Winter Park. Land planners, therefore, are looking to
historic examples to guide future development, paying close atten-
tion to roadway design, the mixing of uses, and reasonable densi-
ties sufficient to create aesthetically-pleasing and economically
sustainable communities. Seaside, in Florida’s Panhandle, and
Celebration, near Disney World, pioneered New Urbanism. More
than three hundred fifty New Urbanist projects throughout the
United States followed, with more than forty in Florida alone.13
New Urbanism’s guiding principle is to provide the pedestrian
with an attractive and safe environment.14 To encourage pedestri-
an travel, New Urbanism mixes and locates residential, office, and
commercial uses within reasonable walking distances. Streets with
narrow lanes, lined with shade trees, and with on-street parking,
reduce traffic speeds. Ample parks and open space compensate for
smaller front yards. Instead of cul-de-sacs, streets lay-out on in-
formal grids, which disperse traffic and lessen the cost of installing
sewer lines and other infrastructure. Buildings hide parking lots.
The technique of hiding garages in rear alleys makes homes ap-
pear inhabited by people, instead of cars. Apartments over busi-
nesses provide more opportunities for affordable housing and add
people, vibrancy, and customers to business districts. Conventional
zoning codes, however, either disallow or discourage New Urbanist
development patterns.
III. DISADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL ZONING CODES
The complexity and length of conventional zoning codes make

them difficult to understand and implement. The Orange County,
Florida, Zoning Code, for example, spans over three hundred total
pages, including ninety pages of Subdivision Regulations.15 Only
town. See Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Project: Project Description and Scope, CITY OF
PHOENIX, http://phoenix.gov/urbanformproject/abtproj.html (last updated Dec. 5, 2008).
13. For a listing of neo-traditional neighborhoods, see TND Neighborhoods, THE TOWN
PAPER, http://www.tndtownpaper.com/neighborhoods.htm (last visited Feb. 18, 2011), but
note that not every project necessarily contains all elements of New Urbanism or employs a
form-based code.
14. PETER CALTHORPE, THE NEXT AMERICAN METROPOLIS: ECOLOGY, COMMUNITY,
AND THE AMERICAN DREAM 17 (1993) (“At the core of this alternative, philosophically and
practically, is the pedestrian. Pedestrians are the catalyst which makes the essential quali-
ties of communities meaningful.”).
15. See ORANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES ch. 9, 34, 38 (2010). The zoning
code includes disconnected chapters governing: Architectural Standards and Guidelines for
Commercial Buildings, Exterior Lighting Standards, Landscaping Buffering and Open
those who study and work with such complex provisions—local

government staff, as well as private sector land planners, land use
attorneys, and traffic and civil engineers—can hope to grasp the
details, and not everyone comprehends the overall impact on larg-
er scale planning.
Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, who planned Sea-
side and sparked the New Urbanism movement, criticize conven-
tional zoning ordinances because “[t]hey do not emanate from any
physical vision. They have no images, no diagrams, no recom-
mended models . . . . They are not imagining a place that they ad-
mire, or buildings that they hope to emulate.”16 Instead of focusing
on desired form, conventional codes emphasize “permitted use” and
numbers, such as floor area ratios and dwelling units per acre,
which provide little assurance of the physical outcome.
In Florida, the local governing body normally does not regulate
the physical form of development when considering whether to
amend the comprehensive land use plan.17 The absence of an in-
tended physical outcome causes considerable angst among nearby
residents. After amendment of the comprehensive plan, the analy-
sis shifts to the proposed zoning’s consistency with the new land
use (usually a foregone conclusion) and consistency and compati-
bility with adjacent areas’ development and zoning.18 The latter
analysis, however, normally evaluates compatibility between uses
(low density residential next to low density residential, commercial
next to commercial or office on high speed roads, and block walls
separating different uses) rather than compatibility between
building forms and the appropriate benefits of mixing uses.19
The opportunity for a local government to require an improved
physical form dissipates.20
Space, Planning and Development, and Signs. Orange County staff hopes to replace these
disjointed provisions with a Unified Land Development Code, intended as a hybrid ordi-
nance with form-based provisions governing areas intended for development based on ur-
banism.
16. ANDRES DUANY ET AL., SUBURBAN NATION: THE RISE OF SPRAWL AND THE DECLINE
OF THE AMERICAN DREAM 19 (2000).
17. PETER CALTHORPE & WILLIAM FULTON, THE REGIONAL CITY 186 (2001) (Florida’s
Growth Management Act “did not directly address the physical form of metropolitan
growth—a deficiency that became all too apparent as sprawl became more important in the
1990s.”).
18. See, e.g., Dade Cnty. v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So. 2d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1978).
19. In contrast, form-based codes de-emphasize use segregation. See Peter Katz, Eight
Advantages of Form-Based Codes, FORM-BASED CODES INST., http://www.tampagov.net/
dept_land_development/files/Eight_Advantages_to_Form.pdf (last visited Feb. 18, 2011); See
also Definition of a Form-Based Code, FORM-BASED CODES INSTITUTE (Feb. 17, 2009),
http://www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes.
20. As amended in 2009, the Growth Management Act now allows simultaneous con-
sideration of Comprehensive Plan and zoning change applications. FLA. STAT. §
163.3184(3)(e) (2010) (“At the request of an applicant, a local government shall consider an
A big-box commercial building with a massive parking lot in

front is incompatible with a residential neighborhood. Convention-
al codes rightly separate them. However, a more traditional,
mixed-use street achieves compatibility between myriad buildings
of similar size, regardless of whether they house apartments,
stores, or offices. Most jurisdictions, however, have made Main
Street illegal. As Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck explain:
The problem is that one cannot easily build Charleston any-

more, because it is against the law. Similarly, Boston’s Bea-
con Hill, Nantucket, Santa Fe, Carmel—all of these well-
known places, many of which have become tourist destina-
tions, exist in direct violation of current zoning ordinances.
Even the classic American main street, with its mixed-use
buildings right up against the sidewalk, is now illegal in
most municipalities. Somewhere along the way, through a
series of small and well-intentioned steps, traditional towns
became a crime in America.21
Most conventional codes require variances or a cumbersome

and time-consuming Planned Development zoning process to build
traditional neighborhoods. The additional time adds to a develop-
er’s financing burden. Developers typically find drive-only sprawl
development—readily allowed—faster, easier, and ostensibly
cheaper than walkable development. Bankers, investors, and land
use attorneys reinforce this conclusion, perpetuating drive-only
sprawl despite market data showing considerable unmet demand
for walkable development.22
Setback laws and onerous parking requirements suburbanize
and degrade the urban environment in and near city cores.23 Park-
ing requirements that never existed before World War II often
make development of small businesses unaffordable and prevent
application for zoning changes that would be required to properly enact the provisions of
any proposed [comprehensive] plan amendment transmitted pursuant to this subsection.
Zoning changes approved by the local government are contingent upon the comprehensive
plan or plan amendment transmitted becoming effective.”).
21. DUANY ET AL., supra note 16, at xi; See also Chad D. Emerson, Making Main Street
Legal Again: The SmartCode Solution to Sprawl, 71 MO. L. REV. 637, 637 (2006); Andres
Duany & Emily Talen, Making the Good Easy: The Smart Code Alternative, 29 FORDHAM
URB. L.J. 1445, 1445 (2002).
22. See LEINBERGER, supra note 1, at 172.
23. See JAMES H. KUNSTLER, HOME FROM NOWHERE: REMAKING OUR EVERYDAY
WORLD FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 91-94 (1998) (using example of the suburban strip
grocery store that replaced the architecturally magnificent Grand Union Hotel, degrading
Saratoga, New York’s historic business district).
revitalization of old urban commercial areas.24 The properties re-

main eyesores, abandoned and in disrepair.
One observer charged, “The congested, fragmented, unsatisfy-
ing suburbs and the disintegrating urban centers of today are not
merely products of laissez-faire or the inevitable result of mindless
greed. They are thoroughly planned to be as they are: the direct
result of zoning and subdivision ordinances zealously administered
by planning departments.”25 Drive-only sprawl is, in fact, extreme-
ly planned, but poorly conceived as an ideal and worse as an out-
come. New Urbanists seek to transform existing zoning ordinances
to correct planning missteps going back decades.
IV. PRECEDENTS FOR FORM-BASED CODES
The United States has a long history of mandated urban de-

sign. In 1683, William Penn decreed Philadelphia’s city design—
four quadrants of gridded, tree-lined streets, public squares, and a
commercial center at a harbor on the Delaware River.26 John
Ogelthorpe’s plan in 1770 of blocks, public squares, and
uniform-sized lots shaped quaint development in Savannah, Geor-
gia.27 Pierre L’Enfant planned Washington, D.C.’s broad avenues
so that important government buildings would sit at the end of
vistas.28 During the 1700 and 1800s, few municipalities regulated
building form.29 However, builders of numerous small towns
used “pattern books” with three-dimensional images to achieve
desired appearances.30
Walton County, in Florida’s Panhandle, went through the
24. See DONALD C. SHOUP, THE HIGH COST OF FREE PARKING 154-56 (2005); ENVTL.
PROT. AGENCY, EPA 231-K-09-003, ESSENTIAL SMART GROWTH FIXES FOR URBAN AND SUB-
URBAN ZONING CODES 14 (2009), available at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/
2009_essential-fixes.pdf (“In many communities, the effect of conventional parking require-
ments is to make redevelopment of smaller parcels in older, mature areas infeasible . . . .”);
Donald Shoup & Vinit Muhkija, Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Require-
ments, 72 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N. 296, 296 (2006) (removing minimum parking requirements in
urban areas encourages revitalization).
25. William Lennertz, The Codes, in TOWNS & TOWN-MAKING PRINCIPLES 102 (Alex
Krieger & William Lennertz eds., 1991).
26. Philadelphia’s Zoning History, PHILADELPHIA ZONING CODE COMMISSION,
http://www.zoningmatters.org/issues/history (last visited Feb. 18, 2011); BILL HARRIS, PHIL-
ADELPHIA: A PICTURE MEMORY 7 (1990).
27. Beth Reiter, Savannah City Plan, THE NEW GEORGIA ENCYCLOPEDIA (Jan. 23,
2004), http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2547.
28. See LEWIS MUMFORD, THE CITY IN HISTORY 404 (1961); See also PIERRE CHARLES
L’ENFANT, PLAN FOR WASHINGTON, D.C., THE CODES PROJECT,
http://codesproject.asu.edu/node/15 (last visited Feb. 18, 2011).
29. Emily Talen, Design by the Rules: The Historical Underpinnings of Form-Based
Codes, 75 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N 144, 153 (2009).
30. See, e.g., MICHAEL LASSELL, CELEBRATION: THE STORY OF A TOWN 44-45 (2004).
sprawl-dominated decades after World War II without a building

code or building officials. Developer Robert Davis and planners
Duany and Plater-Zyberk used this freedom to create the first
form-based development standards for a new, neo-traditional town:
Seaside.31 The standards fit on a single page.32
Architects and planners hired by Disney studied old pattern
books and developed their own to govern building elevations, land-
scaping, roofing, fencing, mass, and setbacks for another new
town: Celebration, Florida.33 They achieved a variety of building
structures within a pre-World War II architectural milieu.34 Cele-
bration and Seaside demonstrated that developers could still cre-
ate meaningful and desirable places, but their laudable results re-
quired deed restrictions or other private means.35
The City of Orlando, however, took a revolutionary approach.
In 1998, Orlando adopted a form-based code to govern redevelop-
ment of its former Naval Base into the mixed-use neighborhood of
Baldwin Park.36 The form-based code allowed flexibility for locat-
ing apartments, townhomes, and single family homes as market
conditions changed.37
31. Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Foreword to PAROLEK, ET AL., supra note 3, at ix, xi;
KUNSTLER, supra note 7, at 256.
32. See Lennertz, supra note 25, at 97; SEASIDE: MAKING A TOWN IN AMERICA 99-104
(David Mahoney & Keller Easterling, eds. 1991) (The Zoning Code—Town of Seaside con-
sists of building types for eight zones, with different combinations of retail, residential, of-
fice, and lodging uses. For each zone, the code establishes standards for yards, front porch-
es, out-buildings, parking, and building height.); SEASIDE, FLA., SEASIDE URBAN CODE,
available at http://codesproject.asu.edu/sites/default/files/code_pdfs/Seaside-Urban-Code.pdf.
Developer Robert Davis says they “reverse engineered” small town features. THE SEASIDE
STORY: 30 YEARS OF NEW URBANISM, http://seasidedocumentary.com/ (last visited Feb. 18,
2011).
33. LASSELL, supra, note 30, at 45 (“In order to prepare the Pattern Book, we studied
pattern books from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, visited and analyzed a number
of small towns in the Southeastern United States, and applied the lessons learned to cur-
rent development practices.”).
34. Id. at 40 (“Everything in Celebration would look as if it could have been built (at
least in the imagination) before World War II and the subsequent upending of America’s
long town-planning tradition.”). Many often describe Celebration as “neo-traditional” devel-
opment. New Urbanism is far broader than neo-traditionalism, accommodating myriad ar-
chitectural styles. See also THE DISNEY COMPANY, CELEBRATION PATTERN BOOK A-7, (UR-
BAN DESIGN ASSOCIATES) (1997), portions available at http://codesproject.asu.edu/node/67.
(The Celebration Pattern Book is far more detailed and intrusive in mandating architectural
elements than SmartCode, discussed infra note 38.).
35. See Robert J. Sitkowski & Brian W. Ohm, Form-Based Land Development Regula-
tions, 38 URB. LAW. 163, 163 (2006) (“The form-based approach to new urbanist land use
regulation has, up until recently, been applied mainly in private-covenanted regimes . . . .”)
(footnote omitted).
36. ORLANDO, FLA., BALDWIN PARK PD ORDINANCE (1998), available at
http://www.cityoforlando.net/planning/cityplanning/bp_regplan.htm.
37. Interview with Jim Sellen, AICP, MSCW, Inc. (Apr. 2009).
V. SMARTCODE: HOW A FORM-BASED CODE OPERATES
Drawing on his experiences with Seaside and projects that fol-

lowed, Duany co-authored SmartCode, a model form-based code at
“the intersection of law and design.”38 The City of Miami is the
first major city to comprehensively model its zoning laws from
SmartCode.39 The following sections explain how SmartCode’s key
provisions work.
A. Community Level Transects
Conventional zoning separates land solely by use, whether ag-

riculture, residential, office, commercial, or industrial. SmartCode
discards this stiff approach and instead, to create a sense of place,
establishes zones by intended environments. SmartCode organizes
land into six such environments, called “transects.” They are: T-1
Natural Zone; T-2 Rural Zone; T-3 Sub-Urban Zone; T-4 Urban
Zone; T-5 Urban Center Zone; and T-6 Urban Core Zone, in addi-
tion to Civic Zones and Special Districts.40 A chart from
SmartCode best illustrates the continuum, from natural
and sparsely populated rural areas to a high-rise downtown
business district:
38. ANDRES DUANY ET AL., SMARTCODE VERSION 9.2 v (2009), available at

http://smartcodecentral.com/smartfilesv9_2.html. See also KUNSTLER, supra note 7, at 258
(Duany and Plater-Zyberk refined their form-based system when planning Kentlands, a
neo-traditional town in Gaithersburg, Maryland).
39. See Charles Rabin, Pedestrian-friendly Miami 21 Zoning Code Approved, MIAMI-
HERALD, Oct. 23, 2009, at B1 (Miami commissioners voted four to one to approve the new
form-based code, called Miami 21, on October 22, 2009). Plater-Zyberk, Dean of the Univer-
sity of Miami School of Architecture, served as the City’s consultant. Andres Viglucci &
Charles Rabin, Miami 21 Finally Gets Approval of City Commission, MIAMI HERALD, Sept.
5, 2009, at A1.
40. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at vii (“One of the principles of Transect-based plan-
ning is that certain forms and elements belong in certain environments. For example, an
apartment building belongs in a more urban setting, a ranch house in a more rural setting.
Some types of thoroughfares are urban in character, and some are rural. A deep suburban
setback destroys the spatial enclosure of an urban street; it is out of context.”).
Figure 1: “A Typical Rural-Urban Transect, with Transect Zones”41
A local government creates a regulating plan, mapping out

transect zones.42 Low density residential subdivisions fall general-
ly into the T3 Sub-Urban Zone. Communities such as Seaside, Cel-
ebration, and Baldwin Park fall into the T4 General Urban Zone,
which consists of “mixed use but primarily [a] residential urban
fabric.”43 The T5 Urban Center zone would encompass more urban-
ized areas, with commercial buildings from two to five stories.44
The T6 Urban Core Zone would include downtown skyscrapers.
Finally, accommodating the economics of retail, big box stores and
shopping malls belong in Special Districts. SmartCode describes
the characteristics of each Transect Zone in the following Table:
41. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at vii.

42. Bob Sitkowski & Bill Spikowski, Form-Based Codes, in DANIEL K. SLONE & DORIS
S. GOLDSTEIN, A LEGAL GUIDE TO URBAN AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR PLANNERS,
DEVELOPERS, & ARCHITECTS 111,115-16 (2008).
43. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC27.
44. Id. at SC45, Table 15C (defining heights under “Building Configuration”).
Table 1: Transect Zone Descriptions45
The classification of land into transects ensures the correct

building types and roads fit their environment. A six story build-
ing, for example, does not fit visually in a T3 Sub-urban Zone.
SmartCode uses graphics to limit building heights by transect:46
45. Id. at SC 27.

46. Id. at SC 37.
Figure 2:47
Officials may “calibrate” heights to local conditions and prefer-

ences. For example, Miami’s T6 Urban Core Transect has
sub-transects for twenty-four, thirty-five, sixty, and eighty
story buildings.48
SmartCode regulates the relationship between buildings,
streets, and pedestrians. Large front yards in the T3 Sub-urban
Zone do not belong in the T4 General Urban Zone. Graphics show
“build-to” lines moving closer to the street in each succeeding,
more intense transect:
47. Id.
48. MIAMI, FLA., MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, art. 4, table 2, IV.4-IV.5 (2010), available at
http://miami21.org/pdfs/finaldocumentsmay2010/fulldocument-may2010.pdf (Miami 21 calls
the additional transects “T6-24,” “T6-36,” “T6-60,” and “T6-80”). However, skyscrapers
stretch, if not deviate from the New Urbanist ideal. LÉON KRIER, THE ARCHITECTURE OF
COMMUNITY 99, 294 (2009) (criticizing skyscapers as vertical “mono-functional overexpan-
sion.”).
Table 2: Private Frontages49
The following matrix/graphic allows a closer examination of the

T4 General Urban Zone:

Table 350
The T4 General Urban Zone requires construction of buildings

within a zone of six to eighteen feet from the front lot line. This
allows room for porches, fences, stoops, shop fronts, and awnings.
Building heights range from two to three stories, in contrast to the
mostly single-story strip shopping centers of drive-only sprawl.
SmartCode replaces the convoluted floor area ratio, found in con-
ventional codes, with a simple lot coverage requirement—70% in
50. Id. at SC44.

the T4 General Urban Zone.51 In order to bring buildings closer to

where people would walk, SmartCode confines off-street parking
to the property’s rear, called the “Third Layer.”52 These elements
focus on creating an extremely desirable built environment
for pedestrians.
B. Parking, Driveways, and Thoroughfares
Sprawl development often eliminates on-street parking to in-

crease traffic speed and road capacity.53 New Urbanists favor on-
street parking because it offers convenience, it can buffer pedestri-
ans and outdoor café patrons, and it can slow traffic to speeds con-
ducive for pedestrian crossings. SmartCode, therefore, counts on-
street parking towards meeting parking space requirements.54 De-
velopers may also purchase or lease parking spaces within walking
distance from a “Civic Parking Reserve.”55
Conventional zoning codes often require an oversized parking
lot, a large portion of which remains empty most of the year.
SmartCode encourages adjacent and nearby businesses, offices,
and residences to share parking lots. Combined with on-
street parking, this further reduces the size of parking lots,
eliminates unnecessary impervious surfaces, and improves
aesthetics. SmartCode provides the following tables to determine
parking requirements:
51. For comparison, the sprawl-favoring Orange County, Florida Code allows as little
as 8% lot coverage in C-1 Retail commercial districts. ORANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDI-
NANCES § 38-830 (2010) (based on minimum floor area of 500 feet on a minimum 6,000
square foot lot).
52. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC43-46, Table 15A-15D.
53. FLA. DEP’T. OF TRANSP., PLANS AND PREPARATION MANUAL: DESIGN CRITERIA AND
PROCESS 2-41 (2003), available at http://www.pbcgov.com/mpo/library/fdot/pdf/
2003PlansandPreparationManual.pdf (“Parking that adversely impacts capacity or safety is
to be eliminated whenever practical.”); FLA. DEP’T. OF TRANSP., MANUAL OF UNIFORM MINI-
MUM STANDARDS FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETS AND HIGH-
WAYS 3-25 (2007) [hereinafter GREENBOOK], available at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/
rddesign/FloridaGreenbook/Greenbook2007.pdf (“It can generally be stated that on-street
parking decreases through capacity, impedes traffic flow, and increases crash potential.”).
54. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC23-24. Expansive suburban parking lots offer
more convenience to drivers than on-street parking, while offering virtually no convenience
to pedestrians. SmartCode seeks to balance walking, biking, and driving.
55. Id. at SC56. Municipal parking lots would require walks no greater than one-
quarter mile. Id. (defining “standard pedestrian shed” as having about a quarter mile radi-
us). This arrangement is preferable to parking lots owned and controlled by a single busi-
ness, which may tow vehicles belonging to those patronizing other businesses.
Table 4: Parking Calculations56
One calculates the actual parking requirement by adding the

spaces required by each function, as shown in the chart on the left-
hand side, and then dividing the total by the factor indicated
where the functions intersect in the matrix on the right-hand
side.57 For example, assume a building in the T4 General Urban
Zone has 10,000 square feet of retail and 10,000 square feet of of-
fice. Standing alone, the Required Parking matrix would require
forty parking spaces for the retail function (four parking spaces per
1,000 square feet) and thirty parking spaces for the office function
(three parking spaces per 1,000 square feet), for a total of seventy
parking spaces.58 However, the Shared Parking matrix sets a fac-
tor of 1.2.59 Dividing the seventy parking spaces by 1.2 gives us a
quotient of fifty-nine, the effective number of shared parking spac-
es needed.60 A typical conventional code, such as that of Orange
County, Florida would require over eighty parking spaces for the
same square footage of office and retail use, consuming almost
a half-acre of land.61 Compared to a typical conventional code,
SmartCode would trim the amount of required parking
by about one-third.
To address economic concerns in more suburban areas, excess
56. Id. at SC39.

57. Id. at SC39. According to SmartCode’s annotations, when three building functions
would share parking, use the lowest factor to ensure enough parking. SMARTCODE 9.0 &
MANUAL SCA76 (on file with author) (available for purchase at
http://newurbannetwork.com/tools/books/smartcode-version-9-and-manual). The Miami 21
Code requires more parking than SmartCode by “dividing the number of spaces required by
the lesser of the two uses by the appropriate factor . . . and adding the result to the greater
use parking requirement.” MIAMI, FLA., MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, Art. 4, Table 5, available at
http://miami21.org/pdfs/finaldocumentsmay2010/fulldocument-may2010.pdf.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. The Orange County Code requires five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of of-
fice use and 3.3 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of general business use. See OR-
ANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 38-1476 (2010). Each regular parking space must
measure at least 180 square feet. Id. § 38-1479.
parking for special events like Christmas shopping on the Friday

after Thanksgiving could occur on nearby land set aside as open
space.62 This solution would lessen the visual impact of half-empty
parking lots degrading the built environment during the rest of the
year.63 This would also lessen the costs associated with useless
over-development of surface parking lots.
Parking lots behind buildings and in the middle of blocks avoid
cluttering the streetscape. The following satellite image shows how
apartment and mixed-use commercial buildings create a wall along
the streets and hide parking lots in the Baldwin Park town center
in Orlando, Florida.
Image 1: Baldwin Park Town Center, Orlando, Florida64
62. See CALTHORPE, supra note 14, at 112 (“Where possible, overflow parking areas
should be developed with a permeable surface.”).
63. National chains, including pharmacies and supermarkets, often demand excessive
parking when negotiating leases with land owners and developers; See e.g., New Store Loca-
tion Criteria CVS CAREMARK REALTY, http://www.cvscaremarkrealty.com/new-location-
criteria (last visited Feb. 18, 2011) (stating that CVS requires seventy-five to eighty parking
spaces). Corporations making unreasonable parking demands have not grasped that sub-
stantially empty parking lots make their investments appear economically unhealthy. A
study conducted for Home Depot showed no correlation between parking demand and the
square footage of its stores. The study enabled Home Depot to justify requests for substan-
tial parking reductions, thereby saving construction costs. See SHOUP, supra note 24, at 34-
37, 69 n. 52.
64. Image credit: Google Earth.
Vehicular paths across sidewalks, when too numerous and too

wide, reduce a neighborhood’s pedestrian orientation. Therefore,
when homes have front-loaded garages, SmartCode restricts
driveway widths to ten feet when meeting the street.65 Whether
front-loaded or accessed through rear alleys, SmartCode recesses
garages to the property’s rear.66 These requirements call less at-
tention to garages and cars.
SmartCode requires thoroughfares for both vehicles and pedes-
trians “designed in context with the urban form[,]” and engineered
to the “desired design speed of the Transect Zone[][.]”67 Streets
should define blocks and connect with other streets “wherever pos-
sible” to form a network.68 One desirable exception to connectivity
occurs when civic buildings, churches, or other architecturally-
significant structures appear at the end of a street vista.
SmartCode would overrule traffic engineering manuals, disallow-
ing this classic urban design.69
C. Building Functions and Form
SmartCode diminishes, but does not eliminate the

separation of uses by prescribing “building functions” in a simple,
one-page matrix:

66. Id.
67. Id. at SC12.
68. Id.
69. See id.; See also DUANY, ET AL, supra note 16, at 35-36 (arguing that decades of
experience do not support the concern that motorists would drive into buildings).
Table 5: Specific Function and Use70
Even the function and use matrix of a city as large and diverse

as Miami fits on a single page.71

The Function and Use matrix places big box shopping centers
and malls, college campuses, cemeteries, utility plants, industrial
facilities, adult entertainment, and vehicle service centers in Spe-
cial Districts.72 The matrix allows religious assemblies in all zones
except for T1.73
In the T3 Sub-urban Zone, residential neighborhoods may have
restricted commercial and office uses in buildings of a residential
character.74 A neighborhood clubhouse, built in a form compatible
with surrounding homes, can contain a small store for basic grocer-
ies, over-the-counter drugs, and personal hygiene products.75 The
clubhouse or another building built to look like a home may con-
tain a small restaurant, seating no more than twenty persons. Of-
fice use in a home may occur only on the first floor, encouraging
the business owner to live upstairs.76 This type of mixed use would
internally capture and avoid traffic trips on nearby arterial roads.
D. Open and Civic Space
SmartCode defines “Open Space” as “land intended to remain

undeveloped[,]” including “civic space.”77 To prevent developers
from designating undesirable or inaccessible parcels, open space
takes the form of parks, squares, greenbelts, plazas, and play-
grounds, as follows:
71. MIAMI, FLA. MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, art. 4, tbl. 3, IV.6 (2010), available at
http://miami21.org/pdfs/finaldocumentsmay2010/fulldocument-may2010.pdf. Contra OR-
ANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 38-77 (2010) (Orange County, Florida’s conven-
tional zoning use matrix spans twenty-four oversized pages measuring 8.5 by sixteen inch-
es).
72. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC40 (confining these uses in the matrix to the
“SD,” or “Special District” designation).
73. SmartCode is consistent with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, which states, in part, that “[n]o government shall impose or implement a land
use regulation that—(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B)
unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3) (2006).
74. See SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC43. Hip and gable roof lines give a residen-
tial character to non-residential buildings.
75. SmartCode allows a corner store to serve every 300 dwelling units. Id. at SC39.
However, a corner store off a major road needs at least one thousand households within a
five-minute walk for economic sustainability. Robert J. Gibbs, Neighborhood Retail, in
DOUGLAS FARR, SUSTAINABLE URBANISM: URBAN DESIGN WITH NATURE 139, 140 (2008).
Large chain and warehouse stores may have a cost advantage over smaller stores, but
neighborhood stores will have a convenience advantage.
77. Id. at SC54.
Table 6: Civic Space78
Open space can play a social role in bringing a community to-
78. Id. at SC41. Future versions of SmartCode should address open space in suburban
areas to provide overflow parking for big box stores and malls.
gether, an aesthetic role in providing a natural oasis in an urban

or suburban environment, and a health and safety role by provid-
ing recreational opportunities.
E. Development Types
Peter Calthorpe, one of New Urbanism’s founding leaders, de-

scribes pedestrians as “the lost measure of a community[.]”79
SmartCode rediscovers this measurement, relying on a concept
called the “pedestrian shed.”80 This refers to the one-quarter mile
radius distance that most pedestrians will walk comfortably in
about five minutes, before opting to drive.81 A “linear pedestrian
shed” follows a commercial corridor and measures one-quarter
mile from the center; a “long pedestrian shed,” a ten-minute, half-
mile walk, applies to Transit Oriented Development, accommodat-
ing transit station spacing guidelines.82 Pedestrian sheds roughly
determine the size of neighborhoods in form-based codes.
Smart Code allows development as a matter of right in three
primary forms: (1) Traditional Neighborhood Development; (2)
Clustered Neighborhood Development; and (3) Regional Center
Development.83 SmartCode defines Traditional Neighborhood De-
velopment (TND), as “a Community Unit type structured by a
Standard Pedestrian Shed oriented toward a Common Destination
consisting of a Mixed Use center or Corridor, and in the form of a
medium-sized settlement near a transportation route.”84 Seaside,
Celebration, and Baldwin Park are classic examples of TND.
Clustered Land Development (CLD)—SmartCode’s term for a
hamlet—is “a small settlement standing free in the countryside.”85
It consists of “a Community Unit type structured by a Standard
79. CALTHORPE, supra note 14, at 17.

81. Id. Miami’s new form-based code states: “It has been shown that provided with a
pedestrian environment, most people will walk this [quarter mile] distance rather than
drive. The outline of the shed must be refined according to actual site conditions, particular-
ly along [t]horoughfares.” MIAMI, FLA., MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, art. 1, I.24 (2010), available
at http://miami21.org/pdfs/finaldocumentsmay2010/fulldocument-may2010.pdf. The term
“pedestrian shed” revives a concept described in the 1920s by urban planner Clarence Perry,
who advocated a neighborhood scale based on a quarter mile, five minute walk to all daily
needs. MUMFORD, supra note 28, at 500. This amounts to 125 to 160 acres, depending on
whether the site is more round or square. U.S. GREEN BLDG. COUNCIL, LEED 2009 FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT xvi (2009), available at www.cnu.org/leednd.
82. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC53; CALTHORPE, supra note 14, at 57 (“Urban
TODS are typically sited approximately ½ to 1 mile apart to meet station spacing guidelines
. . . .”).
84. Id. at SC57.
85. Id. at SC50.
Pedestrian Shed oriented toward a Common Destination such as a

general store, Meeting Hall, schoolhouse, or church.”86 To preserve
the environment of the “small settlement . . . in the countryside”87
against sprawl pressures, at least 50% of the CLD “shall be per-
manently allocated to a T1 Natural Zone and/or T2 Rural Zone.”88
The third community type, Regional Center Development
(RCD), “takes the form of a high-Density Mixed Use center con-
nected to other centers by transit.”89 RCD’s cousin, Transit Orient-
ed Development (TOD), consists of “an overlay on all or part of a
TND or RCD,” permitting increased density to support rail or bus
transport on dedicated lanes.90 A viable TOD requires a minimum
average of ten residential units per acre, mixing small lot single
family homes, accessory living spaces over garages, townhomes,
apartments, commercial, and office uses.91 SmartCode requires a
variance for approval of a higher density TOD overlay.92 In most
other respects, however, under SmartCode, a developer may obtain
approval for a New Urbanist community as a matter of right, while
single-use, cul-de-sac subdivisions would require a variance—the
opposite of conventional codes.
A zoning ordinance must establish sufficient guidelines for
government officials to grant permits, variances, and exceptions.93
SmartCode establishes a system comparable to conventional codes,
86. Id.
87. Id.
88. Id. at SC10 (The hamlet is not concerned with economic growth based on devel-
opment. The Florida Agricultural Lands and Practices Act contemplates Clustered Land
Development in the case of an “agricultural enclave . . . larger than 640 acres[.]”). FLA.
STAT. § 163.3162(5) (2010). The landowner may submit a comprehensive plan amendment
consistent with “the uses and intensities of use of the industrial, commercial, or residential
areas that surround the parcel[,]” but “must include appropriate new urbanism concepts
such as clustering, mixed-use development, the creation of rural village and city centers,
and the transfer of development rights in order to discourage urban sprawl while protecting
landowner rights.” Id.
89. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC55. An RCD consists of “a Long Pedestrian Shed
or Linear Pedestrian Shed” adjoined by “one or several Standard Pedestrian Sheds.” Id. In
other words, the plan anticipates at least two quarter-mile walkable areas adjoining each
other.
90. Id. at SC57.
91. CALTHORPE, supra note 14, at 83.
93. Mayflower Prop., Inc. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 137 So. 2d 849, 852-53 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1962) (stating that a lack of guidelines for permits, variances, and exceptions voids a
zoning ordinance). Under Florida law:
A "variance" is the relief granted from the literal enforcement of a zoning ordi-
nance permitting the use of property in a manner otherwise forbidden upon a find-
ing that enforcement of the ordinance as written would inflict practical difficulty
or unnecessary hardship on a property owner. An "exception" is a departure from
the general provisions of a zoning ordinance granted by legislative process under
express provision of the enactment itself.
Id. at 852.
but uses the categories of development by “Right,” “Warrant,” or

“Variance.”94 SmartCode defines “Warrant” as “a ruling that would
permit a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision of
this Code[,]” but which the Code’s intent justifies.95 A “Variance”
comprises any other Code deviation.96 To minimize bureaucratic
obstacles, a developer can obtain administrative approval for a
Warrant and “[t]he request for a Warrant or Variance shall not
subject the entire application to public hearing, but only that por-
tion necessary to rule on the specific issue requiring the relief.”97
To protect the traditional form of development, SmartCode ex-
cludes certain key requirements from Warrants or Variances: (a)
maximum traffic lane dimensions; (b) a requirement to furnish
rear alleys; (c) minimum residential densities; (d) “permission to
build accessory buildings” such as those over garages; and (e) min-
imum parking requirements.98 The latter requirement views too
little parking as undesirable as too much parking.
SmartCode has an additional, optional layer of regulation at
the “Regional Level,” classifying land into “Sectors” for preserva-
tion, restricted, controlled and intended growth, infill develop-
ment, and special districts.99 The Sectors provide an alternative
means for organizing a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as required
by Florida and other states.100 However, the thrust of place-making
under a form-based code occurs at the Transect level.
VI. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE AUTHORITY TO

ADOPT FORM-BASED CODES
In 1926, the United States Supreme Court set the stage for al-
most universal adoption of single-use zoning separation with its
opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.101 The term “Eu-
94. See, e.g., SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC4.

95. Id. at SC4. SmartCode’s annotations advise, “A Warrant should not be referred to
as a Variance. True Variances are typically regulated by state law, which dictates who can
grant them, under what circumstances, using what standards. These standards often in-
clude that there be a hardship that is not self-imposed and that the circumstance being
changed is not commonly found.” SMARTCODE ANNOTATED, VERSION 9 & MANUAL SCA6
(2009) (on file with author). Officials considering Warrants must have “delegated authority,
typically with clear parameters[.]” Id.
97. Id.
98. Id. SmartCode’s annotations explain, “The five items listed here are important
ones that tend to be discarded by many developers wishing to execute only the superficial
characteristics of Smart Growth.” SMARTCODE ANNOTATED, VERSION 9 & MANUAL SCA6
(2009) (on file with author).
99. See generally SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC6-8.
100. Id.
101. See Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926).
clidean zoning,” came from this decision. Interestingly, Ambler Re-

alty provides support for form-based codes as well.
The Village of Euclid created a scheme which divided Ambler
Realty’s land into three different land use and height zones, pre-
venting Ambler from extending industrial uses into the Village.102
Ambler argued that the Village substantially reduced the value of
its land, depriving it of liberty and property without due process of
law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.103 However, the Supreme Court upheld the
ordinance’s constitutionality as a reasonable, non-arbitrary exten-
sion of the Village's police powers.104 The court reasoned that a lo-
cal government could regulate the location of land uses in a way
similar to its ability to regulate nuisances.105
Ambler Realty contains judicial support for the form-based
codes that are replacing Euclidean zoning:
There is no serious difference of opinion in respect of the va-

lidity of laws and regulations fixing the height of buildings
within reasonable limits, the character of materials and
methods of construction, and the adjoining area which must
be left open, in order to minimize the danger of fire or col-
lapse, the evils of overcrowding and
the like, and excluding from residential sections
offensive trades, industries and structures likely to
create nuisances.106
Consistent with this language, form-based codes set building
102. Id. at 380-83. The Ambler property's zoning included categories “U-2,” “U-3” and
“U-6.” Id. at 382. Each zoning category included the cumulative uses allowed by each prior,
sequentially numbered land use category. For example, “U-1” uses included single family
dwellings, public parks, water towers and reservoirs, electric railway passenger stations
and rights of way, farming, and non-commercial greenhouse nurseries. Id. at 380. U-2 zon-
ing included the uses allowed under U-1 as well as residential duplexes. Id. U-3 zoning in-
cluded all the foregoing, as well as “apartments houses, hotels, churches, schools, public
libraries, museums, private clubs, community center buildings, hospitals, sanitariums, pub-
lic playgrounds, . . . recreation buildings, and a city hall and courthouse[.]” Id. U-6 included
all of the foregoing, the uses allowed by U-4 and U-5, as well as plants for “sewage disposal
and [gas production], garbage and refuse incineration, scrap iron, junk, . . . rag storage,
aviation fields, cemeteries, crematories, penal and correctional institutions, [mental health]
institutions, [oil and gasoline storage facilities], and manufacturing and industrial opera-
tions . . . .” Id. at 381.
103. Id. at 384. Industrial uses had a fair market value of $10,000 per acre compared to
residential uses at $2,500 per acre. Id. Ambler also set forth a claim under the Ohio Consti-
tution, treated by the Court no differently than its analysis under the United States Consti-
tution. Id.
104. Id. at 389.
105. Id. at 388.
106. Id.
heights appropriate to the context, establish the character of con-

struction, mandate open space, prohibit the overcrowding condi-
tions prevalent in impoverished urban areas a century ago, and
exclude “offensive trades, industries, and structures” from tran-
sects where they do not belong.107 Noxious industrial uses remain
segregated into Special Districts.108
The Supreme Court held that lower courts should uphold zon-
ing ordinances so long as their validity is “fairly debatable.”109
“Fairly debatable” means “open to dispute or controversy on
grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction[.]”110 This
highly deferential rational basis standard dooms most legal chal-
lenges to zoning ordinances and amendments.111 So that Courts do
not become “‘super’ zoning review boards[,]”112 a zoning classifica-
tion is “presumptively valid.”113 “[T]o render a zoning ordinance
invalid, it must affirmatively appear that the restriction is clearly
arbitrary and unreasonable and without substantial relation to the
public safety, health, morals or general welfare.”114 As the next
section demonstrates, ample safety and health considerations jus-
tify form-based zoning.
107. Id. at 388; SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC40 (confining industrial uses to Spe-
cial Districts). One offensive use not appearing on the Function matrix is a slaughterhouse,
which could fall into a Special District or T2 Rural District. SmartCode section 2.9.1 dic-
tates that Special District designations “shall be assigned to areas that, by their intrinsic
size, Function, or Configuration, cannot conform to” one of the development patterns al-
lowed as a matter of right. Id. at SC8.
108. Id.
109. Id.
110. City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 1953).
111. Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 1 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 1941) (“In this State, it is no
longer questioned that a municipality, acting under legislative authority, may be vested
with the power to enact a valid zoning ordinance and that a general attack thereon will
ordinarily fail . . . .”).
112. Town of Indialantic v. McNulty, 400 So. 2d 1227, 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (up-
holding zoning ordinance protecting beach dunes) (quoting Broward County v. Capeletti
Bros., Inc., 375 So. 2d 313, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (“Where the question of public interests
to be served remains fairly debatable, the courts are not empowered to act as super zoning
boards substituting their judgment for that of the legislative and administrative bodies
exercising legitimate objectives.”)); See also City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 3
So. 2d 364, 366-67 (Fla. 1941) (adopting the “‘fairly debatable’” standard for zoning laws)
(quoting Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. at 388).
113. Lee Cnty. v. Sunbelt Equities II, LP, 619 So. 2d 996, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Cf.
Hanson v. State, 56 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla. 1952) (stating that courts should construe a legis-
lative act's purpose and intent “so as to fairly and liberally accomplish the beneficial pur-
pose for which it was adopted[.]”); and Alderman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 664
So. 2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (stating that courts must interpret statutes “to facili-
tate the achievement of their goals in accordance with reason and common sense.” (citing
Dep’t of Commerce v. Hart, 372 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)).
114. Blitch v. City of Ocala, 195 So. 406, 410 (Fla. 1940) (citing State v. City of Miami,
134 So. 541 (Fla. 1931)).
A. Safety and Health Justifications
In finding land use segregation “fairly debatable,” the Supreme

Court in Ambler Realty relied on a number of arguments that, to-
day, seem quaint and outdated.
In the first place, the exclusion of business establishments

from residence districts might enable the municipal gov-
ernment to give better police protection. Patrolmen’s beats
are larger, and therefore fewer, in residence neighborhoods
than in business neighborhoods. A place
of business in a residence neighborhood furnishes an
excuse for any criminal to go into the neighborhood, where,
otherwise, a stranger would be under the
ban of suspicion. 115
Ambler Realty assumes that police officers actually walk a beat.

Today, cul-de-sac suburban residents rarely see regular police pa-
trols, and never on foot. New Urbanists point to the inefficiency of
suburban cul-de-sac road networks as a prime reason why overly-
stretched police departments provide infrequent patrols.116 The
following map shows three dozen home burglaries in six months in
upscale, sprawl development near Orlando, far from any low
income area.
115. Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 393 (1926) (quoting Louisiana
ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans, 97 So. 440, 444 (La. 1923)).
116. DUANY ET AL., supra note 16, at 129.
Image 2:117
Bay Hill
Country Club
Most of the burglaries occurred during daytime working

hours.118 Residential single-use neighborhoods sit desolate during
working hours, providing few “eyes on the street” to deter crime.119
The residents who would put a stranger “under the ban of suspi-
cion” drive away to work or to the strip shopping center when day-
117. Map courtesy of Orange County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office.

118. David Ogden, Captain, Orange Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., Remarks at the Meeting of the
Dr. Phillips Advisory Council (Oct. 7, 2009) (stating most burglaries in Dr. Phillips occur
during working hours). Communities in Dr. Phillips such as Bay Hill spend thousands of
dollars in homeowners’ association dues on off-duty police patrols. Residential areas on the
map showing no residential burglaries include the guard-gated communities of Orange
Tree, across Turkey Lake Road from Universal Orlando, and Isleworth, in the map’s north-
west corner. Gated communities disconnect road and pedestrian travel networks. ANDRES
DUANY, JEFF SPECK, & MIKE LYDON, THE SMART GROWTH MANUAL 5.13 (2010) (arguing that
gated communities “disrupt the road network, acting as huge cul-de-sacs and impeding an
efficient, distributive transportation network.”).
119. See generally JANE JACOBS, THE DEATH AND LIFE OF GREAT AMERICAN CITIES 45-
46 (Modern Library 1993) (1961) (stating, “there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belong-
ing to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street . . .
to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They
cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind. . . . [T]he sidewalk must have
users on its fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and
induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers.
Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at an empty street. Almost nobody
does such a thing. . . . The basic requisite for such surveillance is a substantial quantity of
stores and other public places sprinkled along the sidewalks of a district[.]”).
time burglaries occur.120 The map illustrates that disconnected

cul-de-sacs, apart from making police patrolling more difficult,
provide little, if any crime deterrence. In contrast, the Town
of Windermere, a well-patrolled area of mostly gridded streets ad-
jacent to Dr. Phillips, reported only one residential burglary in all
of 2009.121
Another outdated justification for single-use zoning in Ambler
Realty concerns fire fighting. The Supreme Court noted: “[T]he
segregation of residential, business and industrial buildings will
make it easier to provide fire apparatus suitable for the character
and intensity of the development in each section . . . .”122 Today,
the increased distance fire fighters must travel due to disconnect-
ed, sprawling road networks greatly increases danger to persons,
property, and fire fighters themselves.123 Hook and ladder fire
trucks, whose sizes far exceed the needs of two-story residential
areas, result in wider streets, high speed traffic,
more accidents, and, ironically, a greater likelihood of fuel-fed
vehicular fires.124
Ambler Realty further justified segregating land uses on the
basis that it would “increase the safety and security of home
life, greatly tend to prevent street accidents, especially to children,
by reducing the traffic and resulting confusion in
residential sections[.]”125
Contrary to the Supreme Court’s suppositions, today’s gently
curving streets and arterial roadways have lanes as wide as inter-
state highways designed for high-speed travel. Rounded intersec-
tion corners, instead of more squared curbs, encourage quick vehi-
cle turns, creating peril for children and all pedestrians. A 2009
report concluded that more than half of all pedestrian deaths occur
on poorly designed arterial roadways.126 The report ranked sprawl-
ing metropolitan Orlando, Tampa, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano
Beach, and Jacksonville as the most dangerous areas for pedestri-
120. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. at 393.

121. Interview with Daniel Saylor, Chief of Police, Windermere Police Dep’t., (Oct. 1,
2009) (regarding the difficulty of patrolling cul-de-sacs in the Dr. Phillips area compared to
Windermere’s street grid); Florida Department of Law Enforcement, FLA. DEP’T OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT, FLORIDA INDEX CRIME BY JURISDICTION, 1991-2009 (2009), available at
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Data---Statistics-(1)/UCR-Offense-Data/UCR-
Offense-Data.aspx.
123. See CONGRESS FOR NEW URBANISM, EMERGENCY RESPONSE & STREET DESIGN, 6-7
(2009) available at http://www.wyopass.org/Documents/Upload/File/CNUEmergency_
Response_FINAL.pdf.
124. DUANY, ET AL, supra note 16, at 67-68.
126. ERNST & SHOUP, supra note 9, at 8.
ans in the nation.127

In 2007, more than 50,000 child pedestrians sought treatment
at hospital emergency rooms, with 5,300 hospitalized.128 In 2005,
876 child pedestrians died.129 Including adults, vehicles kill more
than 4,000 pedestrians annually.130 This large annual statistic
persists even though drive-only sprawl development discourages
and has reduced pedestrian activity. The percentage of children
walking or biking to school has decreased from 48% in 1969 to 13%
in 2009.131 In one study, parents most often cited distance and traf-
fic danger as the reasons their children did not walk to school.132
SmartCode seeks to reverse this trend, stating: “[S]chools should
be sized and located to enable children to walk or bicycle to
them.”133 A New Urban environment can induce up to 80% of chil-
127. Id at 8-9. The Orlando Sentinel reported that 115 pedestrians died in Central
Florida in 2007-2008, an average of more than one pedestrian death a week. Dan Tracy,
David Damron, & Scott Powers, Pedestrians Beware—National Study Ranks Orlando Worst
in Nation, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Nov. 9, 2009, at A1. The 2009 report updates Michelle
Ernst, Mean Streets 2004: How Far Have We Come?—Pedestrian Safety, 1994-2003, SUR-
FACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT 6-7 (2004), http://www.transact.org/library/
reports_html/ms2004/pdf/final_mean_streets_2004_4.pdf. The studies use a Pedestrian
Danger Index (“PDI”), which “looks at the rate of pedestrians deaths, relative to the amount
that people walk in a given metro area.” Id. at 6.
128. American Academy of Pediatrics, Policy Statement—Pedestrian Safety, 124 PEDI-
ATRICS 802, 802 (2009), available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/
124/2/802.pdf (citing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statis-
tics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
(last visited Feb. 18, 2011)).
129. Id. Some of the most tragic incidents involved vehicles traveling on high-speed ar-
terial roads hitting children stepping out of or waiting for a school bus. See, e.g., Dave
McDaniel, Driver in Fatal Accident Had Revoked License, WESH.COM (Jan. 5, 2005),
http://www.wesh.com/news/4050596/detail.html (“‘These cars on this road are out of control,’
said Ron Seggi, the owner of the home where the child died.”); James W. Dodson, Children
Who Were Injured or Killed at Florida School Bus Stops, 1981-2010, FLA. CHILD INJ. L.
BLOG (Jun. 9, 2010), http://www.floridachildinjurylawblog.com/children-who-were-injured-
or-killed-at-florida-school-bus-stops-1981-2010/.
130. ERNST & SHOUP, supra note 9, at 6.
131. U.S. Travel Data Show Decline in Walking and Biking to School Has Stabilized,
SAFEROUTES (Apr. 8, 2010), http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/news_room/2010-04-
08_2010_nhts_release.cfm (citing U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP, FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., NATIONAL
HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY (2009), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/introduction.shtml);
Noreen C. McDonald, Active Transportation to School: Trends Among U.S. Schoolchildren,
1969-2001, 32 AM. J. PREVENTATIVE MED. 509, 511 (2007).
132. Id. at 513-15.
133. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC3. Orange County, Florida, facilitates sprawl by
requiring sixty-five acre high schools (resulting in massive parking lots consuming as much
land as the buildings), twenty-five acre middle schools, and fifteen acre elementary schools,
with only a 10% reduction for multi-story schools. ORANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDINANC-
ES § 38-1755(1) (2010). LEED-ND, which incorporates New Urban principles and awards
points and certification for sustainable neighborhood development, compresses high schools
to fifteen acres, middle schools to ten acres, and elementary schools to five acres. U.S.
GREEN BLDG. COUNCIL, supra note 81, at 76. Future versions of Smart Code should also
include acreage standards. Before placing schools on arterial roads, school boards and school
officials should consider the increased annual operating costs of more bus transportation
dren to walk or bike to school.134

To avoid typical street configurations that discourage pedestri-
an activity, SmartCode establishes the following principle:
“Within the more urban Transect Zones (T3 through T6) pedestri-
an comfort shall be a primary consideration of the Thoroughfare.
Design conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movement gen-
erally shall be decided in favor of the pedestrian.”135 SmartCode
prescribes safer, narrower, pedestrian-friendly
street geometries:136
Table 7: Vehicular Lane Dimensions137
SmartCode allows travel lanes as narrow as eight to ten feet

wide, to slow urban design speeds to thirty-five miles per hour or
less.138 To compare, arterial roadways in suburban sprawl have at
least twelve foot wide lanes like interstate highways, resulting in
speeds of forty to fifty-five miles per hour.139 SmartCode slows the
and the capital costs of constructing larger parking lots. The ability to walk to and from
school safely increases opportunities for students to participate in extracurricular activities.
134. Robert Steuteville, How Design can Influence Walking to School, NEW URBAN
NETWORK (Dec. 17, 2010), http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/robert-
steuteville/13750/how-design-can-influence-walking-school (citing University of Utah study
finding that 15% of children walked to conventional suburban school while, two miles away,
80% of children walked to school in New Urban development).
135. SMARTCODE, supra, note 38 at SC12.
136. See id. at SC29-30.
137. Id. at SC29.
138. Id.
139. PLANS AND PREPARATION MANUAL, supra note 53, at 2-40 (matrix showing twelve
foot wide lanes for freeways and arterial roads); GREENBOOK, supra note 53, at 3-16 (“Traffic
lanes should be 12 feet in width, but shall not be less than 10 feet in width. Streets and
highways with significant truck/bus traffic should have 12 feet wide traffic lanes.”). The
Green Book authorizes engineers to design roads for speeds faster than the posted speed: “A
design speed 5 mph to 10 mph greater than the posted speed limit will compensate for a
speed of vehicles turning corners, with an effective turning radius

between five and twenty feet in urban transects.140 To compare,
intersection corners in suburban sprawl often have a twenty-five
foot or greater turning radius, which increases vehicle turning
speeds.141 The increased turning radius also lengthens a pedestri-
an’s crossing distance and exposure to peril. The following graph
illustrates the impact of increasing the turning radius on pedestri-
an crossing distances:
Figure 3: Increased Turning Radius and Crossing Distances142

Turning Radius Crossing Distance Increased Crossing
Distance
16.4 ft. (5 m) 35.4 ft. 2.6 ft.
32.8 ft. (10 m) 51.5 ft. 18.7 ft.
49.2 ft. (15 m) 72.2 ft. 39.4 ft.
A thirty-five foot turning radius requires a pedestrian to cross

more than fifty feet of pavement. A fifteen foot turning radius re-
duces the crossing distance to thirty-five feet. Consequently, form-
based codes mandate a smaller turning radius than conventional
codes and most engineering standards.143
slight overrunning of the speed limit by some drivers.” Id. at 3-5. This explains why motor-
ists often exceed posted speed limits. Federal interstate highways also have twelve foot
lanes. Lane Width, U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN.,
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/geometric/pubs/mitigationstrategies/chapter3/3_lanewidth.htm
(last visited Feb. 18, 2011).
140. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC29. The typical curb radius in Manhattan is ten
feet. ROBERT STEUTEVILLE & PHILIP LANGDON, NEW URBANISM: BEST PRACTICES GUIDE 146
(2009).
141. GREENBOOK, supra, note 53, at 3-48 - 3-49 (“Where turning roadway criteria are
not used, the radius of the inside pavement edge should be no less than 25 feet.”); ORANGE
COUNTY, FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 34-171(4) (“The horizontal alignments of streets in a
subdivision shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum radius of inside edge of pave-
ment at right angle curves internal to subdivisions will be thirty-five (35) feet.”).
142. Chart adapted from Federal Highway Administration, Pedestrian Crossings, U.S.
DEPT. OF TRANSP., http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalk2/sidewalks208.htm (last
visited Feb. 18, 2011) (measuring the increase in crossing distance by using a baseline curb-
to-curb crossing distance of 32.8 feet).
143. Various techniques can increase the effective turning radius for vehicles, including
on-street parking, bike lanes, and mountable curbs. These techniques can ensure adequate
turning space for fire engines and garbage trucks, while preserving a reasonable pedestrian
crossing distance. see, e.g., ORANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 38-1382(h)(4)
(2010) (“The right turning radius easement may be created, for instance, by installing
To achieve the twin goals of moving traffic while providing a

safe and friendly pedestrian realm, SmartCode revives the Euro-
pean-style, multi-way boulevard.144 Landscape strips separate
faster through traffic lanes in the middle from lanes for slower,
local traffic and on-street parking on the sides.145 A study of boule-
vards in Europe and the United States found they “are not inher-
ently more dangerous than ordinarily configured arterial streets”
because, “[w]hen a situation is complex, drivers and pedestrians
use greater caution.”146 The same principle applies to the modern
roundabout, which warrants inclusion in future versions of
SmartCode. By decreasing traffic speeds and potential conflict
points, roundabouts reduce fatalities more than 90% compared to
signalized intersections.147
The ability to require adequate parks and recreational facilities
falls squarely within the police powers to provide for health, safe-
ty, and welfare. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal rec-
ognized: “Open space, green parks and adequate recreation areas
are vital to a community’s . . . physical well-being.”148 One study
found a correlation between the amount of physical activity in
mountable curbs, and/or by strategically arranging on-street parking and no parking

zones.”).
144. DUNHAM-JONES & WILLIAMSON, supra note 8, at 82 (“Americans stopped building
multiway boulevards in the 1930s. Traffic engineers feared that the complexity of the inter-
sections would lead to high accident rates, and boulevards did not fit into the developed
functional classification street system[,]” which consists solely of arterials, collectors, and
local roads.) Post-World War II preferences for Euclidean separation hastened the multi-
way boulevard’s demise as a “mixed use public way.” ALLAN B. JACOBS, ELIZABETH MAC-
DONALD, & YODAN ROFÉ, THE BOULEVARD BOOK: HISTORY, EVOLUTION, DESIGN OF MULTI-
WAY BOULEVARDS 5-6 (2002).
145. Thoroughfares Module, SMARTCODE ANNOTATED, SCA42-SC43 (2009), available at
http://curis.msstate.edu/publish/3000_3_Modules-V9_PrintFinal.pdf.
146. JACOBS, MACDONALD, & ROFÉ, supra note 144, at 110; See generally TOM VAN-
DERBILT, TRAFFIC: WHY WE DRIVE THE WAY WE DO (AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT US) 176-210
(2008); Eric Dumbaugh, Safe Streets, Livable Streets, 71 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N. 283, 288 (2005),
available at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a787370026
(based on 1999-2003 crash data for a section of Colonial Drive near Mills Avenue in Orlando
with on-street parking and eleven foot lanes, “is safer in all respects” compared to section of
Colonial Drive four miles to east, which lacks on-street parking, has 12.5 foot lanes, and
higher posted speed).
147. U.S. DEP’T OF TRANSP., FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., ROUNDABOUTS: A SAFER CHOICE
(2008), available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/fhwasa08006 (citing
Bhagwant N. Persaud et al., Observational Before-After Study of the Safety Effect of U.S.
Roundabout Conversions Using the Empirical Bayes Method, TRANSP. RES. REC. 1751
(2001), https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/dlord/Papers/trb_01-0562CDFINcor.pdf.). The Town of
Windermere, Florida, where the author drives frequently, converted intersections with stop
signs into roundabouts. The Town virtually eliminated long traffic backups while retaining
Main Street as a charming two-lane road.
148. Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 431 So. 2d 606, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (up-
holding ordinance requiring dedication of three acres of land for every 1,000 residents or
contribution of money equal to land value into county-maintained trust fund for park land
acquisition).
children and the availability of park space.149 SmartCode requires

a playground within 800 feet of every home.150
Drive-only sprawl has lessened physical activity and increased
obesity in people of all ages.151 By enabling children to walk and
bike to school, form-based codes can help reverse “[t]he rapid in-
crease in prevalence of obesity in the United States pediatric popu-
lation during the last 25 years,”152 which the American Academy of
Pediatrics says has “reached epidemic proportions.”153 The Acade-
my has concluded that the built environment can predispose chil-
dren to obesity.154 The Centers for Disease Control reports the per-
centage of obese children between the ages of six to eleven has in-
creased from 6.5% in the 1970’s to 19.6% by 2008.155 Obese chil-
dren suffer from psychological damage, cardiovascular disease,
asthma, liver damage, diabetes, and have an increased risk of can-
cer and a substantially lowered life expectancy.156
B. Sociological Justifications
Government land use regulation may protect “family values,

youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion[.]”157 Ambler Re-
alty stated that single-use zoning would “preserve a more favora-
149. June M. Tester, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, Policy Statement: The Built
Environment: Designing Communities to Promote Physical Activity in Children, 123 PEDI-
ATRICS 1591, 1592 (2009), available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/
123/6/1591.pdf.
150. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC11 (This provision compensates for small back-
yards and very small front yards.).
151. Tester, supra note 149 at 1591, 1593.
152. Michael Rosenbaum, Special Considerations Relative to Pediatric Obesity, in OBE-
SITY (Matthias Tschoep ed. 2007), http://www.endotext.org/obesity/obesity16/
obesity16.html.
153. PEDIATRIC NUTRITION HANDBOOK: POLICY OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIAT-
RICS 755, 763 (Ronald E. Kleinman ed., 6th ed. 2009).
154. Id. (“Regular physical activity should be consciously promoted, prioritized, and
protected within families, schools, and communities.”). Television, video games, computers,
and other sedentary activities, as well as the proliferation of fast food restaurants, have also
played obvious roles in increasing childhood obesity.
155. CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, CHILDHOOD OVERWEIGHT AND
OBESITY (2010), http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html (last visited Feb. 18, 2011)
(The CDC reports data from NHANES surveys show that “the prevalence of obesity [has]
increased . . . [a]mong pre-school age children 2-5 years of age . . . from 5 to 10.4% between
1976-1980 and 2007-2008 and from 6.5 to 19.6% among 6-11 year olds. Among adolescents
aged 12-19, obesity increased from 5 to 18.1% during the same period.”).
156. WALT LARIMORE & SHERRI FLYNT, SUPERSIZED KIDS: HOW TO RESCUE YOUR CHILD
FROM THE OBESITY THREAT 17-22 (2005); HOWARD FRUMKIN, LAWRENCE FRANK, & RICHARD
JACKSON, URBAN SPRAWL AND PUBLIC HEALTH: DESIGNING, PLANNING, AND BUILDING FOR
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES 190 (2004) (“Children who are physically inactive tend to have low-
er self-esteem. Children who become overweight confront psychosocial challenges such as
rejection by other children. . . . Moreover, overweight children tend to become overweight
adults, predisposing to a wide range of adult disease.”(footnotes omitted)).
157. See Vill. of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 9 (1974).
ble environment in which to rear children[.]”158 New Urbanists

criticize sprawl for requiring a parent—typically the mother—to
place her career on hold and devote her time
to chauffeuring children to school and activities.159
Such neighborhoods often feature bored kids with the younger
ones stranded at home and older ones tempted to
engage in delinquency.160
Conventional zoning and high speed arterial roads also leave
those senior citizens who can no longer drive safely trapped at
home while seniors in traditional communities continue walking to
shopping and activities. The author's grandmother, Dorothy Get-
tleman, an immigrant who never learned to drive, walked the safe,
gridded streets of Golf Manor, Ohio to Obermeyer's grocery store
for her daily needs. She never had to live in an old-age home, un-
like many seniors when their driving days end. About one-third of
people in the United States do not drive, yet virtually all new de-
velopment depends exclusively on automobiles.161
Single-use zoning, by disallowing apartments over retail, has
contributed to shortages of affordable housing near employment
centers. New Urbanists favor the dispersal of affordable housing to
avoid concentrations of poverty. SmartCode suggests that “munici-
palit[ies] waive or reduce parking requirements for [a]ffordable
[h]ousing units located within a quarter mile of a transit stop.”162
SmartCode allows accessory dwellings over garages, which home-
owners can rent out, providing more affordable housing within an
158. Vill. of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 394 (1926).
159. DUANY, ET AL., supra note 16, at 116-18. Seaside, Florida’s developer, Robert Da-
vis, wrote, “For many families Seaside has been the first place where kids can run free and
can be trusted to find their way back home. This was a normal experience in my early
childhood and in [my wife] Daryl's, but today's kids spend much of their time in car seats,
bring chauffeured from one activity to another. Experiencing the world in a straightjacket
as a set of images through a car window cannot be good for the psychic health of the young-
est members of our society.” Robert Davis, Seaside: Investing in our Children and Grand-
children, 1 BEACH LIFE 26 (2010).
160. See DUANY, ET AL., supra note 16, at 116-18. Parental supervision plays a role in
whether children turn to delinquency, regardless of the neighborhood type. However, one
should not overlook the impact of long commutes leaving children unsupervised and the
effect of boredom. See also OVER THE EDGE (Warner Home Video 1979) (based on events in
Foster City, California) (dramatizing a sterile, planned suburban community whose teenag-
ers, too young to drive, escape boredom with drugs, premarital sex, and violence. Police and
parents lash out at the symptoms, oblivious to the underlying causes); Sean, Forgotten
Films: Over the Edge, FILM JUNK MOVIE BLOG (Mar. 31, 2008),
http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/03/31/forgotten-films-over-the-edge/; LEINBERGER, supra note
1, at 90 (“The boredom of having only the option of drivable sub-urban life, including the
unintended consequences of ever longer and more congested commutes and the running of
nearly every errand in a car, is not to be underestimated.”).
161. LEINBERGER, supra note 1, at 69.
162. Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co. & Sandy Sorlien, Incentives SmartCode Module art. 1,
§ 1.8.1(f), http://www.transect.org/docs/Incentives.pdf.
otherwise expensive neighborhood.163 Accessory housing over gar-

ages increases home values by providing a desirable amenity.
C. Aesthetic Justifications
Zoning for a community’s aesthetic appeal falls within the

scope of police power.164 To achieve the aesthetics of a pedestrian-
oriented environment, police powers enable local governments to
establish the width of streets and sidewalks,165 and more broadly,
regulate land use “to preserve small town character.”166 In Res-
tigouche, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the aesthetic “goal of creat-
ing a traditional main street[.]”167 The Court affirmed the denial of
an automobile dealership on a pedestrian-oriented street:
To further the goal of creating a traditional main street, the

Town sought to encourage retail uses along Indiantown
Road which would serve the everyday needs of nearby resi-
dents, promote pedestrian traffic, and have a character con-
sistent with the neighboring residential developments. The
Town could have reasonably believed that the purchase of
an automobile is not an everyday need, that the typically
large lot of an automobile dealership might break up the
pedestrian flow between retail establishments, and that
such dealerships might disrupt the planned residential
character of the street with bright lights, red flags and
flashy signage.168
Aesthetic considerations provide just cause for regulating ad-
163. See SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC 23. In Florida, accessory dwelling units can
help satisfy the affordable housing component of a local government’s comprehensive plan.
FLA. STAT. § 163.31771(5)(2010).
164. Abbott v. City of Cape Canaveral, 840 F. Supp. 880, 884 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (munici-
pal ordinance regulating satellite dishes did not violate the dish owner’s right to substantive
due process since the ordinance’s preamble articulated legitimate government objectives of
safety and aesthetics).
165. See Garvin v. Baker, 59 So. 2d 360, 363-64 (Fla. 1952) (upholding ordinance re-
quiring dedication of at least sixty feet for streets, avenues, and six foot sidewalks). Six-foot-
wide sidewalks generally provide sufficient space for two people to walk side-by-side. Many
sidewalks in suburban sprawl areas do not exceed four feet in width.
166. Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 1993) (citing
Constr. Indus. Ass’n. v. City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897, 905-09 (9th Cir. 1975)).
167. 59 F.3d 1208, 1214 (11th Cir. 1995).
168. Id. However, in many instances a small to moderate-sized car dealership could
place its showroom on the street and parking lot behind the building, as frequently seen
outside the United States.
vertising signs.169 For pedestrian-oriented urban retail areas,

SmartCode allows one “blade sign,” installed perpendicular to the
façade eight feet above the sidewalk for each business.170
SmartCode prohibits internal illumination, though it allows neon
signage in shop-front windows in the T4-T6 zones.171 Special situa-
tions requiring different signage, such as a theatre, would require
permission by Warrant.
By regulating the general mass and form of buildings, form-
based zoning ensures that single-family homes, apartments, and
businesses below apartments transition seamlessly.172 To ensure
compatibility, zoning regulations may, for example, require
office buildings to take a “‘residential scale and character’’’ with
pitched roofs and hidden parking.173 Some form-based codes
disguise multi-family buildings as single-family homes to e
nsure compatibility. An apartment house, for example, can look
like a mansion.174
The size of lots on which one may erect one, two, or four-family
buildings “is a subject for police regulation and when not unrea-
sonable, such regulations do not deprive a person of his property
without due process of law.”175 Conventional lot size restrictions
do not necessarily prevent construction of buildings out of propor-
tion to adjacent ones.176 A form-based code can more effectively
prescribe minimum and maximum building width, depth, scale,
and mass.177
Zoning may set specific building heights as an exercise of police
power. Heights may vary in the city according to location, if well-
calculated to promote the general welfare.178 SmartCode sets build-
169. City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Adver. Ass'n of Lakeland, Fla., 414 So. 2d 1030, 1031
(Fla. 1982) (“[T]here is a relationship between signs and the general welfare and well-being
of a community from the standpoint of aesthetics.”); City of Miami Beach v. Meiselman, 216
So. 2d 774, 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (holding that a municipality may restrict size of signs).
171. Id.
172. PAROLEK ET AL., supra note 3, at 46 (illustrating scenarios for mid-block and rear
lot transitions between mixed use development and residential uses to achieve seamless
consistency at the street front and not “compromise . . . the residential character of the adja-
cent neighborhood.”
173. Battaglia Prop. Ltd. v. Fla. Land & Water Adjudicatory Comm'n, 629 So. 2d 161,
167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
174. See PAROLEK ET AL., supra note 3, at 80.
175. Garvin v. Baker, 59 So. 2d 360, 364-65 (Fla. 1952).
176. In the Orlando metropolitan area, the construction of large mansions next to small
homes periodically stirs controversy in Windermere and Winter Park.
177. PAROLEK ET AL, supra note 3, at 47 (policymakers should, nonetheless, allow suffi-
cient variety in mass to avoid architectural monotony).
178. Town of Bay Harbor Islands v. Burk, 114 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (cit-
ing Welch v. Swasey 214 U.S. 91 (1909)).
ing heights by transect.179 Local calibration should ensure the

compatibility of adjacent building heights.
A legislative act establishing a setback line is valid.180 The
same principle applies to a “build-to line,” which, in a form-based
code, brings buildings close to the roads for pedestrian conven-
ience, gives thoroughfares architectural definition, and hides
parking lots in the rear. A city ordinance may restrict the location
of parking.181
D. Economic Benefits
Regulation protecting a local economy “promotes the welfare of

the public,” and falls within a local government's police powers. 182
Improved aesthetics and walkability increase the economic value
of development. In Nashville, between the years 2003 and 2008,
neighborhoods that implemented form-based codes for re-
development saw increases in taxable value of 75% compared to
28% countywide.183 Residential lot prices in Seaside increased ten
times during the town’s first decade, while prices in adjacent areas
remained stagnant or declined.184
David Pace, who developed Baldwin Park and Celebration,
characterized New Urbanism as “the most profitable form of devel-
opment that you can undertake, if you have the right piece of
land.”185 Pace describes New Urbanism as “a safer market” be-
cause, “[w]hen times get tough, people are going to be more in-
clined to invest their money in a project that has the bones and the
infrastructure” of a traditional town rather than “a classic, subur-
ban sprawling community that has nothing else going for it.”186
In normal economic cycles, developers who diversify with mixed
use have steadier returns than those who depend on a single
179. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC 37.

180. Scutti v. State Rd. Dep’t. of Fla., 220 So. 2d 628, 629-30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
181. See Ross v. City of Orlando, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1360, 1366 (M.D. Fla. 2001) (rejecting
facial vagueness challenge and upholding city ordinance preventing residents from parking
recreational vehicles on their residential property under certain conditions).
182. Graham v. Estuary Props, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374, 1377-81 (Fla. 1981) (upholding
conditions on development prohibiting destruction of mangroves because resulting pollution
would adversely impact the local fishing industry).
183. Building Great Neighborhoods with Form-Based Codes, ROXANNE QUALLS, CIN-
CINNATI CITY COUNCIL, http://www.roxannequalls.com/home/initiatives/
building_great_neighborhoods_with_form-based_codes.html (last visited Feb. 18, 2011) (cit-
ing Rick Bernhardt, Nashville Metro Planning Dept. executive director).
184. PETER KATZ, THE NEW URBANISM: TOWARD AN ARCHITECTURE OF COMMUNITY 4
(1994).
185. ORANGE CNTY. GROWTH MGMT. DEP’T PLANNING DIV., THE ECONOMIC RETURN ON
NEW URBANISM STUDY 69 (2008).
186. Id.
market sector.187
Before the recession of 2007 to 2009, costs ran about 20% high-
er for developing Celebration and Baldwin Park than conventional
suburban development.188 However, a high level of community
amenities, not essential to New Urbanism, contributed to the pre-
mium.189 At the housing price spectrum’s lower half, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Hope VI
Program is redeveloping failed public housing projects into mixed
income, mixed-use neighborhoods based on New Urbanism princi-
ples.190 The combined cost of demolition, site preparation, and con-
struction is less than one-half the cost
of apartments and condominiums sold in Celebration and
Baldwin Park.191
Even in communities with upscale amenities and higher pro-
duction costs, walkable development can double returns to a devel-
187. See id. at 78.

188. Id. at 69, 71 (developer for Celebration and Baldwin Park estimated the cost pre-
mium at 20% “plus a loss of land acreage,” however, “[y]ou’re going to get your density
back”). Reed Berlinsky, vice president of land acquisition for KB Homes, has built homes in
the New Urbanist community of Avalon Park, in Orange County, Florida, and he believes
that “[t]wenty percent is the right number on the development side,” although “we’ve really
had some very skewed development costs over the last five years as the market has
changed.” Id. at 71.
189. Id. at 50-51 (Celebration architect John Van Fossen states, “[A] lot of the costs
that have been attributed to New Urbanism are not really necessary to New Urbanism[;]
they’re in many cases . . . things that developers have added on to them, because they want
a high end community . . . . New Urbanism is about building walkable[,] compact communi-
ties. It doesn’t say they all have to be high end, and I think that’s a problem that we’ve add-
ed on to get these developed.”); See also RICHARD FOGLESONG, MARRIED TO THE MOUSE:
WALT DISNEY WORLD & ORLANDO 159-60 (2001) (stating only 10% of Disney World cast
members could afford Celebration’s minimum home price).
190. See generally CONG. FOR THE NEW URBANISM & THE DEP’T OF HOUS. & URBAN
DEV., PRINCIPLES FOR INNER CITY NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: HOPE VI AND THE NEW URBAN-
ISM (2000), available at http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/principles.pdf; Hope VI
Funds New Urban Neighborhoods, NEW URB. NEWS (Jan/Feb 2002),
http://www.newurbannews.com/hopeVI.html; CALTHORPE & FULTON, supra note 17, at 254
(opining that the HOPE VI program “shows that we can bring zones once dominated by
violence and despair back in to the social, economic, and physical fabric of the city” and that
“economic integration is possible even at the extreme end of our social spectrum.”).
191. Barbara Sard & Leah Staub, House Bill Makes Significant Improvements In “Hope
VI” Public Housing Revitalization Program: Provisions to Overcome Employment Barriers
Need Strengthening, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES 2, n.3 (2008),
http://www.cbpp.org/files/1-16-08hous.pdf (“HUD figures indicate an average cost per unit
developed with HOPE VI of $153,441, of which $63,114 (or 41 percent) is contributed by the
HOPE VI program. These figures include demolition and site preparation as well as con-
struction of all units, including market rate and tax credit-assisted units as well as public
housing.” (emphasis removed)); Contra, Jack Snyder, Celebration Apartments Set Record
Per-Unit Price, ORLANDO SENTINEL, Nov. 3, 2005, at C3, available at:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-11-03/news/MIRASOL03_1_1_celebration-
apartments-gdc (stating that Mirasol, a luxury apartment complex in Celebration sold for
$402,000 per unit.); See, Mary Shankin, Condos Help Perk Up Sales in Orlando's Baldwin
Park, ORLANDO SENTINEL, June 8, 2009, at M6 (stating condominiums in Baldwin Park are
selling in excess of $359,000 per unit).
oper compared to drive-only development.192 The market for tradi-

tional, walkable communities is about one-third of home buyers,
while supply generally does not exceed 5%.193 Conventional zoning
codes, therefore, distort the market by creating an artificial scarci-
ty of traditional neighborhoods, driving up housing prices 40% to
200% in walkable developments.194 The price premium will dimin-
ish as form-based codes increase the supply of walkable develop-
ment to meet marketplace demand. However, because new con-
struction and infrastructure increases in the built environment at
a rate of only 2% annually, the demand for walkable New Urban-
ism development will outstrip supply for decades.195
Infill development encouraged by form-based codes can meet
future housing needs as the market shifts from housing for fami-
lies with children to housing for retiring baby boomers and young-
er people who remain single or delay starting families. A
2006 study predicts thirty two million new households by 2025, of
which only four million will include children.196 This trend will
lessen demand for large lot housing in high performing public
school districts.197
192. ORANGE CNTY. GROWTH MGMT. DEP’T PLANNING DIV., supra, note 185, at 60 (One
market study, according to Canin Associates land planner Edward Erfurt, “went up to a full
TND, and it was over a 100 percent return from where they were with a conventional devel-
opment.”).
193. Id. at 54. Outside of Florida, real estate analyst Chris Leinberger estimates that
“Atlanta and Phoenix have no more than ten percent of their housing supply in walkable
urban neighborhoods[,]” while “[o]lder metropolitan areas such as Boston and Chicago may
have upward of twenty to thirty percent of their housing in walkable urban neighborhoods.”
LEINBERGER, supra note 1, at 101.
194. Id. at 99-100 (housing prices in walkable communities forty to 200% higher than
drive-only communities); A 2005 study found a demand for walkable urbanism by 29% of
respondents in Atlanta and 40% in Boston. Id. at 94 (citing Jonathan Levine, Aseem Inam,
& Gwo-Wei Torng, A Choice-Based Rationale for Land Use & Transportation Alternatives:
Evidence from Boston & Atlanta, 24 J. PLAN. EDUC. & RES. 317, 317-323 (2005)). High
amenities contribute to the premium in newer communities. ORANGE CNTY. GROWTH MGMT
DEP’T PLANNING DIV., supra, note 185, at 50-51.
195. LEINBERGER, supra note 1, at 172.
196. Id. at 88-90 (citing Arthur C. Nelson, Leadership in a New Era, 72 J. AM. PLAN.
ASS’N 393, 394 (2006)).
197. Id. at 90 (“These 28 million childless households, more than seven times the abso-
lute growth of families with children, will be the primary factor that dictates the future of
the built environment. These families will not overly concern themselves with the quality of
public schools or the perceived need for large lots for children in making their decisions.”); S.
Mitra Kalita & Robbie Whelan, No McMansions for Millenials, WALL ST. J. (Jan. 13, 2011,
12:19 PM), http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/01/13/no-mcmansions-for-millennials/
(reporting “key finding” of “Generation Y” survey of people born between 1980 and the early
2000’s was, “They want to walk everywhere[,]” and that “[a] whopping 88% want to be in an
urban setting . . . .”).
E. Environmental Justifications
Local governments may exercise their police powers “to protect

and preserve the environment.”198 Sprawl development created by
conventional zoning consumes enormous quantities of undeveloped
and agricultural land. Between 1982 and 2007, the amount of de-
veloped land in the United States increased by 50%, from 70.9 mil-
lion acres to 111.2 million acres.199 For perspective, this is a land
mass larger than the State of Illinois. The rate of development ac-
celerated 50%, from 1.4 million acres annually during the 1980s to
2.2 million acres annually during the 1990s.200
Form-based codes reduce sprawl pressures by creating more
compact development patterns and by encouraging infill develop-
ment. SmartCode provides for a mechanism known as a Transfer
of Development Rights (TDRs).201 Those developing in more urban-
ized transects can pay for TDRs for increased density rights or to
meet open space requirements. Landowners in the T-1 and T-2
Transects receive compensation for land preservation.202 Parks, as
required by form-based codes, can preserve undeveloped land for
nature trails, habitats, and aquifer recharge. It is well established
that a local government may, as a condition of plat approval,
require a developer to dedicate land or pay a fee to expand the
park system.203
198. Town of Indianlantic v. McNulty, 400 So. 2d 1227, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“There can no longer be any question that the ‘police power’ may be exercised to protect and
preserve the environment.”); Moviematic Indus. Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs. of Metro.
Dade Cnty., 349 So. 2d 667, 667-69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (upholding rezoning of property from
heavy industrial use to single family lots on five acre parcels to protect the Biscayne Aqui-
fer).
199. U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., NAT’L RES. INVENTORY 2007 ANNUAL NRI, LAND USE 31
(Feb. 2007), available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2007/
2007_NRI_Summary.pdf. Brookings Institution real estate analyst Chris Leinberger points
out that “the USDA does not consider some of the lowest density development popular over
the past generation, such as McMansions on two-acre lots, as urban land use.” He estimates
that, including exurban fringe development, land consumption exceeded metropolitan popu-
lation growth by at least ten to twenty times between 1980-2000. LEINBERGER, supra note 1,
at 72 (footnote omitted).
200. U.S. DEP’T OF AGRIC., NAT’L RES. INVENTORY, 2001 ANNUAL NRI, URBANIZATION
AND DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL LAND, KEY FINDINGS (2003), available at
http://www.nrcs.USDA.gov/technical/NRI/2001/nri01dev.html.
202. See Shands v. City of Marathon, 999 So. 2d 718, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (denying
inverse condemnation claim on basis that “the availability of . . . TDRs for at least six acres
of the upland portion of the Key suggests that some, perhaps not insignificant, economic
value remains.”); City of Hollywood v. Hollywood, Inc. 432 So. 2d 1332, 1337 (Fla. 4th DCA
1983) (contemplates scenario of landowner obtaining increased density by buying TDR).
203. Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward Cnty., 431 So. 2d 606, 607, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
(upholding ordinance requiring dedication of three acres of land for every 1,000 residents or
depositing money equal to land value into county-maintained trust fund for park land ac-
quisition).
Local police powers authorize zoning restrictions to prevent

pollution.204 In Massachusetts v. EPA, the United States Supreme
Court found that greenhouse gases fall within the definition of “air
pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.205 An amendment to Florida’s
Growth Management Act in 2008 requires local governments to
plan energy efficient land use patterns and strategies to reduce
greenhouse gases.206
Drive-only sprawl development increased miles traveled by ve-
hicles by over 150% between 1977 and 2001—roughly five times
faster than population growth.207 The United States Department of
Energy projects a further 48% increase in vehicle miles traveled by
2030.208 Despite higher fuel efficiency standards, carbon emissions
would remain at 2005 levels.209
By placing schools, shopping, and employment within a safe
walking distance of most residences, form-based codes can reduce
carbon and other vehicle pollutants by decreasing vehicle miles
traveled by at least one-fourth.210 Widespread adoption of
form-based codes could also help the United States lessen
its dependency on foreign crude oil from hostile or
unstable countries.211
204. Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374, 1381 (Fla. 1981); see also Cent.
Fla. Invs., Inc. v. Orange Cnty. Code Enforcement Bd., 790 So. 2d 593, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA
2001) and FLA. CONST., art. II, §7 (stating, “Adequate provision shall be made by law for the
abatement of air and water pollution[.]”).
205. Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 529-30 (2007). In response to the Supreme
Court ruling, the EPA published a rule interpreting the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse
gases. See Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gas-
es Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,885 (proposed Apr. 24, 2009)
(to be codified at 40 C.F.R. ch.1).
206. See FLA. STAT. § 163.3177(6)(a) (2010); Tom Pelham, The Role of Local Land Use
and Transportation Planning in Reducing GHG, FLA. DEP’T OF CMTY. AFFAIRS
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fdcp/dcp/EnergyGHG/Files/LocalLandUseGHGPresentation.pdf
(last visited Feb. 18, 2010).
207. Joseph B. White, Next Car Debate: Total Miles Driven, WALL ST. J., Feb. 5, 2008,
at O2, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120190455899936509.html.
208. REID EWING ET AL, URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, GROWING COOLER: THE EVIDENCE ON
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 4 (2008) (48% increase in vehicle miles trav-
eled compared to 2005 levels).
209. Id.
210. Id. at 6-7 (citations omitted); Robert Steuteville, New Urban Community Promotes
Social Networks and Walking, NEW URBAN NETWORK (Sept. 2009), available at
http://newurbannetwork.com/article/new-urban-community-promotes-social-networks-and-
walking (stating that 50% of residents in a traditional community walked to the store five or
more times per week compared to only 5% in a sprawl neighborhood); See also NAT’L RE-
SEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NAT’L ACADS, Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of
Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions (2009),
http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/drivingandbuiltenvironment20090901?d
ocid=337.
211. See generally THOMAS FRIEDMAN, HOT FLAT & CROWDED 77-110 (2008).
F. Increased Road Capacity
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a local

government has a legitimate public purpose in reducing traffic
congestion by requiring pedestrian and bicycle pathways.212 Flori-
da courts have likewise upheld zoning restrictions to avoid serious
traffic congestion. 213
Collector and arterial roads remove the ability to walk and bike
to destinations, concentrate traffic, and cause suburban conges-
tion. Traditional communities rely on pedestrians to reduce traffic
and grid patterns to disperse traffic. Charleston, South Carolina,
laid-out on a 2,500 acre grid, “handles an annual tourist load of 5.5
million people with little congestion, while Hilton Head Island, ten
times larger,” but which relies on a loop arterial road, “experiences
severe backups at 1.5 million visitors.”214 The following graphic il-
lustrates the principle:
212. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 387-88, 395-96 (1994) (holding, “[n]o precise
mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some effort to quantify its
findings in support of the dedication for the pedestrian/bicycle pathway beyond the conclu-
sory statement that it could offset some of the traffic demand generated.”).
213. See e.g., Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F.2d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 1993);
See also City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148, 151-52 (Fla. 1953) (“Collins Ave-
nue . . . is heavily congested and . . . to rezone would seriously aggravate the traffic prob-
lem[.]”); Trachsel v. City of Tamarac, 311 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Cnty.
of Brevard v. Woodham, 223 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
214. DUANY, ET AL, supra note 16, at 24. Limited access to and from Hilton Head Island
also contributes to the congestion.
Figure 4215
Smart Code mandates an interconnected street network

founded on blocks. Cul-de-sacs become the exception, rather than
the rule: “All Thoroughfares shall terminate at other Thorough-
fares, forming a network. Internal Thoroughfares shall connect
wherever possible to those on adjacent sites. Cul-de-sacs shall
be subject to approval by Warrant to accommodate specific site
conditions only.”216
G. Reducing Government Expenses
Gridded street design reduces the cost of infrastructure by at

least one-third over conventional suburban design.217 Compact
215. Image Credit: Craig Ustler, Ustler Development, Inc. For similar graphs, see Bri-
an Bochner & Fred Dock, Street Systems and Classifications to Support Smart Growth 8
(2003), available at http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume%202/
Dock.pdf, and The Land Use Plan: Balanced Transportation, CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS
FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE 2030, available at http://www2.nngov.com/newport-
news/plan/framework2008/section_d393749e1271.html (source credited to Glatting Jackson,
Inc.).
216. SmartCode, supra note 38, at SC12.; Cf. Eric M. Weiss, In Va., Vision of Suburbia
at a Crossroads: Targeting Cul-de-Sacs, Rules Now Require Through Streets in New Subdi-
visions, WASH. POST, Mar. 22, 2009, at A1, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248.html (stating that severe limits on cul-de-
sacs decrease consumer choice in new development and reduce privacy; however, this is the
trade-off to limit government expenditures and avoid ever-widening roads.).
217. See Robert Steuveville, The Case for the Simple Grid, NEW URB. NEWS, Mar. 2009
at 7 (reporting: “A grid lowers per-unit infrastructure costs 35 to 40 percent compared to
conventional suburban development, reports Jonathan Ford, a planner and civil engineer
with Morris Beacon Design. In a study for EPA, he ran cost comparisons of various devel-
opment scenarios for a South Carolina site.”).
communities enable local governments to provide services to more

residents at a lower per capita cost and at a higher service level.
For example, a fire station serving a TND in Charlotte, North Car-
olina, covers 4.5 times as many households as a comparable fire
station in the city’s drive-only sprawl.218 Per capita operating costs
of $740 for the fire station in sprawl far exceeded the $159 for the
fire station serving the traditional neighborhood.219 Firefighter re-
sponse times improve with interconnected, gridded streets.220
At the macro level, a University of Pennsylvania study of the
Orlando metropolitan area examined land planning alternatives
for a population projected to grow from 3 million to 7.2 million by
the year 2050.221 The present trend model, relying on roads and
new highways to service low density residential neighborhoods,
would cost government $130.7 billion.222 An alternative, Transit
Oriented Development model reduced newly developed acreage by
64% and infrastructure costs by $26.3 billion compared to the pre-
sent trend model.223 The reduction occurred despite $27.9 billion
invested in high speed and commuter rail and $18.1 billion spent
acquiring environmentally-sensitive land.224
H. Form-Based Codes Are Easier to Understand
An ordinance is unconstitutionally vague when “persons of

common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application.”225 The diagrams and images in form-
based codes can clarify language otherwise vague in a conventional
code,226 and make obsolete the notion that we are “[c]ondemned to
218. CONG. FOR NEW URBANISM, supra note 123, at 7.

219. Id.
220. Id. at 6 (in Charlotte, firefighter response times increased from 4.5 minutes to 5.5
minutes between the mid-1970’s and 2002, coinciding with the prevalence of cul-de-sac resi-
dential development. Response times decreased to five minutes since adoption in 2001 of an
ordinance requiring street connectivity).
221. See generally Jonathan Barnett, Alternative Futures for the Seven-County Orlando
Region, in SMART GROWTH IN A CHANGING WORLD 61 (Jonathan Barnett ed., 2007). The
Penn researchers extrapolated the 2050 population from a projection of 5.3 million people by
2030 made by the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Id. at
62.
222. Id. at 69.
223. Id. at 72-75.
224. Id. at 75.
225. Rectory Park, L.C. v. City of Delray Beach, 208 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1329 (S.D. Fla.
2002).
226. Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 851 P.2d 744, 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). For a brief
summary of this case and its implications, see SLONE & GOLDSTEIN, supra note 42, at 111.
For examples of graphic links from an online code’s text, see ST. PETERSBURG, FLA., CODE OF
ORDINANCES ch.16 § 20.010.4.1 (2008), available at http://www.municode.com/resources/
gateway.asp?pid=11602&sid=9.
the use of words[.]”227 Form-based zoning codes rely on images, di-

agrams, and matrixes to make the requirements and physical vi-
sion understandable to the general public, government officials,
developers, and the professionals who work with them. Diagrams
illustrating flexible standards within a mathematically certain
range may regulate the placement of buildings, streets, sidewalks,
parking, above-ground utilities, and trash containers.228
More general diagrams, labeled for “Illustrative Purposes On-
ly,” may convey intent as to general appearance without constitut-
ing a specific regulation.229 A photograph illustrating a design
principle could contain information inconsistent with another code
provision.230 To avoid ambiguity, a form-based code should contain
language such as that drafted by the author for the City of Winter
Garden Downtown Historic District Overlay: “The photographs
and illustrations . . . are for illustrative purposes only. Each photo-
graph and illustration is intended to illustrate the design princi-
ple(s) or architectural style or element identified in the correspond-
ing caption. The text [of the Code] . . . shall prevail in the event of
any discrepancy with a visual depiction . . . .”231
Conventional zoning codes also use graphics, diagrams, and
matrixes, but to a more limited extent. A map, for example, paint-
ed with the myriad colors of zoning use districts, must accompany
a zoning ordinance.232 A roadway corridor map associated with a
comprehensive land use plan similarly uses graphics to convey in-
formation.233 Florida law expressly permits comprehensive land
use plan graphics to prescribe standards for an area’s physical de-
227. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110 (1972) (rejecting vagueness attack
on noise ordinance).
228. See Union Trust Co. v. Lucas, 125 So. 2d 582, 586-87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960) (uphold-
ing a setback ordinance although it failed to define “building”). A vagueness attack will fail
when a decision-maker has “flexibility” in applying “clear and definite standards.” See Rec-
tory Park, L.C. 208 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 (upholding zoning ordinance allowing high density,
mixed-use development as conditional use).
229. Elizabeth Garvin & Dawn Jourdan, Through the Looking Glass: Analyzing the Po-
tential Legal Challenges to Form-Based Codes, 23 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 395, 420 (2008)
(“If graphics are regulatory, it is wise to provide written guidance to match the intent of the
illustration, both in the form of labels on the illustration and text with the regulation.”).
230. For example, an early draft of the Design Guidelines Manual accompanying the
Winter Garden, Florida, Historic Downtown District Overlay ordinance contained a photo-
graph of a house for the purpose of conveying its architectural style. However, the photo-
graph showed a vehicle parked on the lawn, in violation of another code provision. We re-
placed the photograph.
231. WINTER GARDEN, FLA., CODE § 98-188(4)(b) (2010). See also SMARTCODE, supra
note 38, at art. 1, § 1.2.6 SC2 (“Where in conflict, numerical metrics shall take precedence
over graphic metrics.”).
232. See Moon v. Smith, 189 So. 835, 838-39 (Fla. 1939) (holding a zoning ordinance is
deemed void for lack of definiteness if lacking a zoning map).
233. See Palm Beach Cnty. v. Wright, 641 So. 2d 50, 53-54 (Fla. 1994).
velopment.234 Conventional codes use complex matrixes to catego-

rize those land uses permitted or available as a conditional use.235
These well-established precedents, authorized by local government
police powers, set the stage for a more comprehensive use of
graphics, diagrams, and matrixes to guide and improve the look
and function of future development.
Despite the overwhelming advantages of replacing convention-
al zoning with form-based codes, some will oppose their adoption.
The next section reviews potential challenges.
VII. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES TO FORM-BASED CODES
A. Consistency with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Florida's Growth Management Act requires consistency be-

tween zoning and the underlying Comprehensive Plan.236 The Act
requires compatibility that will “further the objectives, policies,
land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive
plan.”237 A potential challenger to a form-based code would look
for inconsistencies.238
In Florida, each local governing body must transmit a compre-
hensive plan to the Department of Community Affairs.239 The
comprehensive plan should set forth “general guidelines[,]” which
Courts should construe broadly.240 Land use regulations must im-
plement the Comprehensive Plan with “specific and detailed provi-
sions” that, among other things:
(b) Regulate the use of land and water for those land use
234. See FLA. STAT. § 163.3177(1) (2010) (stating in part: “The comprehensive plan
shall consist of materials in such descriptive form, written or graphic, as may be appropri-
ate to the prescription of principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and balanced
future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area.”).
235. See, e.g., ORANGE CNTY., FLA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 38-77 (2010).
236. FLA. STAT. § 163.3194(1)(b) (stating that “[a]ll land development regulations en-
acted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or
portion thereof[.]”); Id. § 163.3213(2)(b) (defining “‘[l]and development regulation’” as an
ordinance for regulating “any aspect of development”). See Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs. v. Snyder,
627 So. 2d 469, 476 (Fla. 1993) (concluding a landowner seeking a zoning change has the
initial burden of proving consistency with comprehensive plan).
237. FLA. STAT. § 163.3194(3)(b).
238. “Some areas frequently requiring adjustment [in comprehensive plans before
adopting a form-based code] are Transfer of Development Rights, fast-tracking approvals,
building code waivers, the bifurcated Variance/Warrant system and associated administra-
tive processing of Warrants, and the procedures for various approvals by the [Consolidated
Review Committee], the Planning Office, the Board of Appeals and the Legislative Body, or
their local analogs.” SMARTCODE 9.0 & MANUAL A-44 (on file with author).
239. FLA. STAT. § 163.3184.
240. Id. § 163.3194(4)(b).
categories included in the land use element and ensure the

compatibility of adjacent uses and provide for open space.
....
(e) Ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands
designated in the comprehensive plan.
(f) Regulate signage.

....
(h) Ensure safe and convenient onsite traffic flow, consider-
ing needed vehicle parking.241
As demonstrated earlier, in ways superior to conventional zoning,

form-based codes ensure compatibility between adjacent uses, pro-
vide for meaningful open spaces, protect environmentally sensitive
lands, regulate signage, ensure safe and efficient traffic flow, and
provide for necessary parking. A comprehensive plan can accom-
modate, facilitate and encourage form-based zoning.
The Growth Management Act “shall be construed to encourage
the use of innovative land development regulations.”242 The Act
mandates “land use efficiencies within existing urban areas[,]” and
“innovative” greenfield development which uses “creative land use
planning techniques, which may include, but not be limited to, ur-
ban villages, new towns . . . clustering and open space provisions,
mixed-use development, and sector planning.”243 This language
amply authorizes adoption of form-based codes.
The Growth Management Act requires “comprehensive plans
and implementing land development regulations [that] provide
strategies which maximize the use of existing facilities and ser-
vices through redevelopment, urban infill development, and other
strategies for urban revitalization.”244 SmartCode contains an en-
tire Article on infill development.245
Amendments to comprehensive land use plans are legislative
241. Id. § 163.3202(2).

242. Id. § 163.3202(3).
243. Id. § 163.3177(11)(b) (stating: “It is the intent of the Legislature that the local
government comprehensive plans and plan amendments adopted pursuant to the provisions
of this part provide for a planning process which allows for land use efficiencies within ex-
isting urban areas and which also allows for the conversion of rural lands to other uses,
where appropriate and consistent with the other provisions of this part and the affected
local comprehensive plans, through the application of innovative and flexible planning and
development strategies and creative land use planning techniques, which may include, but
not be limited to, urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations,
clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development, and sector planning.”).
244. Id. § 163.3177 (11)(c).
245. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at art. IV.
in character, even if pertaining to a single parcel.246 Therefore, the

“fairly debatable” standard would apply to a comprehensive plan
that provides for form-based zoning.
B. Not a Taking of Property
A claim that a form-based code takes property without reason-

able compensation in violation of the United States Constitution
would likely fail. The Constitution confers no general freedom from
zoning changes.247 The purchase of land creates no right to build
to a property’s highest and best use,248 or even rely on
existing zoning.249 In fact, a landowner with favorable zoning who
delays development acts at his “own peril” since zoning laws
may change.250
Form-based codes normally increase property values, but even
if one could demonstrate otherwise, a regulation diminishing most
of a property’s value is not a taking.251 A zoning ordinance is inva-
lid only if it prohibits all reasonable252 and “economically viable”253
uses. In the T1 Natural Transect, property owners may receive
246. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Qualls, 772 So. 2d 544, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). At the
zoning stage, however, an application to change a single parcel would constitute a quasi-
judicial proceeding, requiring substantial competent evidence. See Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v.
Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 474 (Fla. 1993), (upholding a lower court ruling that, “‘[R]ezoning
actions which have an impact on a limited number of persons or property owners, on identi-
fiable parties and interests, where the decision is contingent on a fact or facts arrived at
from distinct alternatives presented at a hearing, and where the decision can be functional-
ly viewed as policy application, rather than policy setting, are in the nature of. . . quasi judi-
cial action. . . .’” (quoting Snyder v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 595 So. 2d 65, 78 (Fla. 5th DCA
1991)).
247. See New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty., 95 F.3d 1084, 1090 (11th Cir. 1996).
248. Lee Cnty. v. Morales, 557 So. 2d 652, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding that a prop-
erty owner was not entitled to more economically valuable zoning); See also Graham v. Es-
tuary Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374, 1379 (Fla. 1981) (holding that a developer was not per-
mitted to destroy mangroves to maximize residential density because mangrove destruction
would pollute bays and impact the fishing industry).
249. Morales, 557 So. 2d at 655 (commercial zoning replaced with agriculture/rural res-
idential zoning to protect ecologically significant barrier island).
250. Monroe Cnty. v. Ambrose 866 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (citing Pasco
Cnty. v. Tampa Dev. Corp., 364 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)).
251. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 125-33 (1978); see also
Graham, 399 So. 2d at 1382.
252. See Key Haven Associated Enters. Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement
Trust Fund, 427 So. 2d 153, 159 (Fla. 1982) (“A zoning ordinance is, by definition, invalid if
it is confiscatory”) (citing Dade Cnty. v. Moore, 266 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)) (empha-
sis omitted); Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 1 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 1941); Town of Indialantic
v. McNulty, 400 So. 2d 1227, 1232-34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (holding that a zoning ordinance
to protect beach sand dunes prohibited landowner from building; however, the ability to
obtain a waiver or variance with proper submittals did not establish a taking); Broward
Cnty. v. Capeletti Bros., 375 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
253. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1016 (1992) (emphasis
omitted).
compensation for non-development by way of TDRs in compliance

with constitutional standards.254 A more realistic—and potentially
serious—challenge in Florida would come under its private proper-
ty rights protection statute, the Bert Harris Act.
C. Bert Harris Act Challenges
The Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act

(the “Bert Harris Act”) creates a cause of action when government
regulation “inordinately burden[s]” a property.255 This standard is
easier to prove than a taking of property under the Constitution. A
well-crafted, form-based code will contain disincentives to Bert
Harris litigation. Most property owners should find that form-
based codes increase their property rights by deregulating zoning
use classifications, onerous parking requirements, and density
constraints. Further, a form-based code should streamline cumber-
some and time-consuming approvals for proposed development
meeting the code’s requirements.256 Finally, a litigant could find
proving loss of market value difficult because walkability generally
increases land value.257 Regardless, to avoid unnecessary Bert
Harris actions, local governments should exercise care when as-
signing properties to transects and when calibrating SmartCode to
prevailing building heights. To reduce building heights on a par-
tially developed street may invite Bert Harris litigation by those
254. See Shands v. City of Marathon, 999 So. 2d 718, 723 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (rejecting
inverse condemnation claim in part due to availability of transfer of development rights);
Glisson v. Alachua Cnty., 558 So. 2d 1030, 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (concluding that enti-
tlement to transfer of development rights precludes a takings claim).
The effectiveness of TDRs is dictated by: (1) the “[d]emand for [b]onus [d]evelopment[;]”
(2) the receiving area’s appropriateness, including adequate infrastructure and political
acceptability; (3) “[s]trict [s]ending–[a]rea [d]evelopment [r]egulations[;]” (4) “[f]ew or [n]o
[a]lternatives to TDRs for [a]chieving [a]dditional [d]evelopment[;]” (5) transfer ratios that
provide market incentives; (6) mandatory instead of discretionary transfer approvals to
remove uncertainty; (7) “[s]trong [p]ublic [s]upport for [p]reservation[;]” (8) simplicity of the
program; (9) promotion of the TDR option; and (10) a TDR Bank to buy, hold, and sell TDRs,
including purchasing TDRs when private buyers are not available. Rick Pruetz & Noah
Standridge, What Makes Transfer of Development Rights Work? Success Factors from Re-
search and Practice, 75 J. AM. PLAN. ASS’N. 78, 78-86 (2009).
255. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(2) (2010).
256. For example, Arlington, Virginia’s form-based code enables development approval
within fifty-five days. Columbia Pike Revitalization, VA., ARLINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOP-
MENT, http://www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com/index.cfm/7471 (last visited Feb. 18, 2011);
SmartCode provides for administrative approval of development by right and warrant.
SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC4; PAROLEK ET AL., supra note 3, at 89.
257. LEINBERGER, supra note 1, at 99-100 (40%-200% cost premium to live in walkable
communities compared to drive-only communities). Under the Bert Harris Act, a property
owner must “present the claim in writing to the head of the governmental entity” along with
“a bona fide, valid appraisal,” which “demonstrates the loss in fair market value to the real
property.” FLA. STAT. § 70.001(4)(a).
who perceive a loss of rights enjoyed by their neighbors. Local gov-

ernments should not “incautiously rescind[]” previously allowed, or
“‘grandfathered’” uses.258
At an adoption hearing for Miami’s new form-based code, at-
torneys threatened Bert Harris lawsuits due to height limits in a
certain district.259 Miami’s conventional zoning ordinance allowed
heights up to ninety-five feet in C-1 commercial zones. This en-
couraged re-zonings of residential land to C-1 and construction of
tall buildings next to single family homes. Miami’s form-based
code, therefore, restricted building heights in such areas for com-
patibility.260 As explained below, unless the developers spent mon-
ey developing their properties at the previously allowed heights, or
can establish their proposed heights are compatible with the adja-
cent single family homes, their threatened Bert Harris Act claims
will likely fail.
The Bert Harris Act states:
When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordi-

nately burdened an existing use of real property or a vested
right to a specific use of real property, the property owner of
that real property is entitled to relief, which may include
compensation for the actual loss to the fair market value of
the real property caused by the action of government, as
provided in this section.261
Accordingly, the Bert Harris Act protects only an “existing use . . .

or a vested right to a specific use” from an “inordinate burden.”262
An “‘inordinate burden’” means “an action of one or more govern-
mental entities [that] has directly restricted or limited the use of
real property such that the property owner is permanently unable
to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for
the existing use . . . or a vested right to a specific use.”263 Pre-
existing zoning must have supported the “‘investment-backed
258. Lee Cnty. v. Sunbelt Equities, II, Ltd. P’ship, 619 So. 2d 996, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA
1993). For example, a local government may designate a certain parcel as “conservation” in
a new land use plan and new zoning ordinance when a pre-existing PUD designated the
land for preservation.
259. See Memorandum from Marc D. Sarnoff, Commissioner, District 2, to Mr. Chair
and Fellow Commissioners (Sept. 1, 2009), http://marcsarnoff.com/uploads/2009-09-
01%20Miami%2021.pdf.
260. Viglucci & Rabin, supra note 39.
261. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(2).
262. Id. § 70.001(3)(e).
263. Id.
expectation.’”264 A “‘unilateral expectation or an abstract need’”

is insufficient.265
Development rights vest “by applying the principles of equita-
ble estoppel or substantive due process under the common law or
by applying the statutory law of this state.”266 Approval of a site
plan, issuance of a building permit, and subjective expectations all
fail to create a vested right to rely on existing zoning.267 Nor can
one rely on maximum intensities and densities allowed by a Com-
prehensive Land Use Plan.268 Rather, property rights vest, trigger-
ing Bert Harris Act protection, when a landowner changes his po-
sition substantially, such as by incurring “extensive obligations
and expenses[,]” so as to make destruction of an “acquired” right
“highly inequitable and unjust[.]”269 Statutory vesting can occur
with approval of a Development of Regional Impact.270 Absent
those facts, “[i]t would be unconscionable to allow the Landowners
to ignore evolving and existing land use regulations under circum-
stances when they have not taken any steps in furtherance of de-
veloping their land.”271
The concept of vesting creates an important distinction from an
infringement of theoretical property rights a landowner would
264. Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 918 So. 2d 988, 995 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006) (Bert Harris Act claim on preserved land designated as “conservation” before pur-
chase was “frivolous”).
265. Namon v. Dept’t of Envtl. Regulation, 558 So. 2d 504, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
(quoting Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1005 (1984)). The property owner
must further prove it “bears permanently a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for
the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the public at large.” FLA. STAT. §
70.001(3)(e).
266. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(3)(a); See also City of Jacksonville v. Coffield, 18 So.3d 589,
595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (denying Bert Harris claim because parcel’s development into resi-
dential lots was not a vested right).
267. See Monroe Cnty. v. Ambrose, 866 So. 2d 707, 711 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (recordation
of parcels does not vest rights.); Walker v. Indian River Cnty., 319 So. 2d 596, 599-600 (Fla.
4th DCA 1975) (site plan approval does not create a vested right in absence of substantial
expenditures in reliance); City of Boynton Beach v. Carroll, 272 So. 2d 171, 173 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1973) (“It follows then, and it has been so held, that if the possession of a building
permit does not create a vested right, then a mere application for a building permit cannot
create a vested right.”); see also City of Miami Beach v. Chisholm Props. South Beach, Inc.,
830 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (Schwartz, C.J., concurring) (characterizing Ritz
Carlton’s Bert Harris Act claim due to a building height restriction “spurious”).
268. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs., v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469, 475 (Fla. 1993) (“[T]he local gov-
ernment should have the discretion to decide that the maximum development density
should not be allowed[.]”).
269. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co. v. City of Hollywood, 329 So. 2d 10, 15-16 (Fla. 1976)
(nearly $200,000 spent on site plan, models, building permits and architect's plans and spec-
ifications). Such instances create an estoppel.
270. FLA. STAT. § 163.3167(8); Edgewater Beach Owners Ass’n v. Walton Cnty., 833 So.
2d 215, 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (determining that rights acquired by approval of develop-
ment of regional impact are vested and do not require compliance with a more recently
adopted comprehensive plan).
271. Ambrose, 866 So. 2d at 711 (emphasis added).
never exercise. For example, a property owner with C-1 commer-

cial zoning, who intended to build single-story strip shopping cen-
ter, would face evidentiary obstacles bringing a Bert Harris action
based on an alleged inability to construct a ninety-five foot office
tower. A form-based code requiring two or three stories of mixed-
use development would increase the density actually built.
A zoning ordinance allowing a maximum, or even unlimited,
height does not vest a right to build at a height certain if the ordi-
nance also reserves the right to require compatibility with adjacent
development.272 A form-based code would, in effect, replace a theo-
retical, non-vested height limit (indeterminate due to the compati-
bility requirement) with a vested right to built at a lower, but cer-
tain number of stories legislatively determined
as compatible.
The Bert Harris Act protects, and a form-based code should not
interfere, with existing uses. For example, an existing five-story
building would become non-conforming when a new form-based
code allows only three stories; however, the building would remain.
Miami’s form-based code states, “[N]onconformities may continue
but are not encouraged to expand or enlarge, and once they cease
they may not be re-established[.]”273 This is consistent with case
law, which grandfathers existing nonconforming uses.274 The law
expects nonconforming uses to disappear gradually through
“abandonment, destruction, and obsolescence.”275
However, the term “existing use,” as defined by the Bert Harris
Act, extends to “such reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land
uses which are suitable for the subject real property and compati-
ble with adjacent land uses and which have created an existing
fair market value in the property greater than the fair market val-
272. Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 742 So. 2d 308, 313-14 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1999) (affirming lower court’s denial of a forty-five story residential condominium
based on incompatibility with adjacent properties, despite the central business district’s
exemption from maximum height restrictions); Battaglia Props. v. Fla. Land & Water Adju-
dicatory Comm’n, 629 So. 2d 161, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (holding that a thirty-five foot
height limit is reasonably related to maintaining compatibility with a nearby residential
neighborhood).
273. MIAMI, FLA. MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, art. 7, § 2.1(b) (2010), available at
http://miami21.org/pdfs/finaldocumentsmay2010/fulldocument-may2010.pdf. Miami’s form-
based code also allows development conditions approved under the old code to continue. Id.
at art. 2, § 2.3 (2009).
274. Dowd v. Monroe Cnty., 557 So. 2d 63, 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding a noncon-
forming motel use grandfathered but preventing it from expansion); Bemas Corp. v. City of
Jacksonville, 298 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (pit operation beginning before zoning
change resulted in grandfathered nonconforming use).
275. 3M Nat’l Adver. Co. v. City of Tampa Code Enforcement Bd., 587 So. 2d 640, 641
(Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
ue of the actual, present use or activity on the real property.”276

The determination whether a proposed use is “‘reasonably foresee-
able, nonspeculative’” and compatible with adjacent land uses is
fact-intensive and conducive to litigation.277 Nevertheless, the
“compatible with adjacent land uses” requirement restrains unrea-
sonable judicial results.278 Under this standard, a property owner
could not recover damages when a local government rejects a pro-
posed building height far exceeding the heights of adjacent single-
family homes. In closer cases, the outcome becomes more uncer-
tain. Regardless, the Bert Harris Act pertains to “as-applied” chal-
lenges, as opposed to facial challenges to an ordinance. The proper-
ty owner must seek, and the local government must reject, a re-
quest for a height variance under the form-based code.279
In response to a Bert Harris claim, the local government must
tender a written settlement offer, which may include land swaps or
a transfer of development rights.280 The government entity must
also “issue a written ripeness decision identifying the allowable
uses to which the subject property may be put.”281 The circuit court
must consider both the settlement offer and ripeness decision
when determining whether an inordinate burden has occurred.282
Therefore, if an actual market and mechanism exists for develop-
ment right transfers, a settlement offer of such a transfer may en-
able the local government to prevail in the litigation.283
276. FLA. STAT. §70.001(3)(b) (2010).

277. Id.; see, e.g., City of Jacksonville v. Coffield, 18 So. 3d 589, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
(“Once Mr. Coffield learned that an application had been filed to close the only roadway
providing ingress and egress to the property, development of the property into eight single-
family lots was, if still a possibility, by no means a ‘reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative,’
use of the property.”); Citrus Cnty. v. Halls River Dev., Inc., 8 So. 3d 413, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA
2009) (The purchase of property zoned for low intensity development of single family resi-
dences did not make it “reasonably foreseeable and nonspeculative” to build multi-family
condominiums despite county’s assurance along with erroneous zoning map showing proper-
ty as allowing multi-family uses); Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 918 So. 2d
988, 995 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“[T]here was no ‘reasonable investment-backed expectation’
for existing use [to develop protected conservation land.]”).
278. FLA. STAT. 70.001(3)(b).
279. M & H Profit, Inc. v. City of Panama City, 28 So. 3d 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
280. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(4)(c).
281. Id. § 70.001(5)(a).
282. Id. § 70.001(6)(a). The property owner may file a circuit court lawsuit only after
rejecting the settlement offer and ripeness decision. Id. § 70.001(5)(b). The property owner
must bring the claim at least 180 days before filing suit, shortened to at least ninety days
for agricultural property. Id. §70.001(4)(a).
283. Doris S. Goldstein, New Urbanism: Recreating Florida by Rewriting the Rules,
FLA. BAR J., Apr. 2006, at 63 (“To prevent challenges under the Bert Harris Act, communi-
ties have preferred to achieve objectives through market-place mechanisms, particularly the
use of Transferable Development Rights.” (citation omitted)), available at
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042a
e7a/9a1a0be243586f328525713b00633870?OpenDocument.
The Bert Harris Act “does not apply to any actions taken by a
governmental entity which relate to the operation, maintenance, or
expansion of transportation facilities.”284 Therefore, new thorough-
fare regulations under a form-based code—a key element for es-
tablishing a safe pedestrian realm—will not expose a local gov-
ernment to Bert Harris liability.
VIII. FORM-BASED SYSTEMS AS A PARALLEL, FLOATING,

OR HYBRID CODE
One way to virtually ensure rejection of Bert Harris Act

claims—and reduce political conflict in general—is to make the
form-based code an optional, parallel overlay to the existing zoning
code.285 This approach has proven successful in a limited geograph-
ic area. In 1999, Miami-Dade County adopted the optional format
for downtown Kendall.286 Because of its predictability, numerous
landowners selected the form-based option over conventional zon-
ing for redeveloping properties into 3,000 residential units,
350,000 square feet of retail, 110,000 square feet of office space,
and a Marriott Hotel.287
An alternative to a parallel overlay is a “floating code,” which
avoids the politics inherent in adopting a mapped regulating plan
establishing transects, but which also avoids comprehensive re-
form of a broken zoning system. At a landowner’s request, the
form-based system “floats” to the parcel slated for development.
Coherency and consistency will suffer when an inappropriate tran-
sect-zone floats to a parcel288 or when new drive-only sprawl shat-
ters a pedestrian shed. Consequently, a parallel code is significant-
ly preferable to a floating code, although not as ideal as replacing
an outdated Euclidean zoning scheme.
Political expediency may result in a hybrid code, in which con-
ventional zoning applies to highly suburbanized areas, where resi-
284. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(10).

285. Contra, MIAMI, FLA. MIAMI 21 ZONING CODE, § 2.2.1.1 (2010), available at
http://miami21.org/pdfs/finaldocumentsmay2010/fulldocument-may2010.pdf. “This Code
replaces the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami, also known as Ordinance 11000 except
that Section 627, ‘SD-27 Midtown Special District’ is hereby retained and incorporated as
Appendix C hereto . . . .”).
286. Robert Steuteville, A Suburban Agglomeration Becomes a Downtown, NEW URB.
NEWS, Dec. 2004, at 10, 11.
287. Id.
288. Cf. City of Miami Beach v. Lachman, 71 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 1953) (“The reasona-
ble inference is that if the zoning restrictions are removed from the ten tracts interspersed
among the 86 tracts, the zoning plan as to all will be materially affected, if not, in fact, de-
stroyed.”); See also John M. Barry, Form-Based Codes: Measured Success Through Both
Mandatory and Optional Implementation, 41 CONN. L. REV. 305, 331 (2008).
dents oppose increased density, while form-based zoning applies to

more urbanized areas. Saint Petersburg, Florida and Hillsborough
County, Florida have hybrid codes. Orange County, Florida is mov-
ing in the direction of a hybrid code.
IX. CONCLUSION
The Florida Supreme Court has held, “[A] zoning plan should
be sufficiently stable to protect those who comply with the law, but
at the same time, it should be susceptible to change, so that it can
be altered to meet changing conditions not adequately recognized
or not possible to foresee when the ordinance was adopted.”289
When zoning laws “become obsolete or run afoul the public welfare
would seem to be a good test to prompt the time for change or re-
moval.”290 This authority alone provides support for changing
sprawl-inducing zoning to form-based systems. Decades ago, few
could foresee the negative impact of drive-only development on the
built environment, the natural environment, public health and
safety, and governmental expenditures.
Local governments considering adoption of a form-based code
should guard against incorporation of standards not embodying
New Urbanism. After a code’s adoption, staff, elected officials,
and members of the public should monitor its implementation
and execution.291
Courts will uphold a fairly-debatable legislative decision to
adopt a form-based code. Well-established police powers authorize,
and provide ample justification for a local government to adopt
form-based zoning to improve aesthetics, reduce pollutants, more
efficiently use government resources, and improve health and safe-
ty. In most circumstances, a local government fighting a legal chal-
lenge to a prudently-crafted form-based code should prevail.
289. Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 1 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 1941).
290. Siegel v. Adams, 44 So. 2d 427, 428 (Fla. 1950).
291. Mike Thomas, Nothing ‘New’ Here—Just Same Old Sprawl, ORLANDO SENTINEL,
Oct. 29, 2009 at B1, available at http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-
bodies-offices-regional/13342565-1.html (arguing that Orange County poorly executed its
code with New Urbanism principles by separating residents from shopping areas with high
speed arterial roads and by omitting alleys from residential subdivisions).

The Legality of Form-Based Zoning Codes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Legality of Form-Based Zoning Codes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Legality of Form-Based Zoning Codes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LEGALITY OF FORM-BASED ZONING CODES

A growing number of land planners, architects, and local gov-

1. CHRISTOPHER B. LEINBERGER, THE OPTION OF URBANISM: INVESTING IN A NEW

form-based systems, how form-based zoning operates, legal bases

II. PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBANISM

New Urbanism has grown out of widespread dissatisfaction

6. FLA. STAT. § 70.001(2) (2010); discussed infra section VII.B.

Conventional zoning codes separate uses stringently, placing

The transformation of Main Streets into commercial arterials,

III. DISADVANTAGES OF CONVENTIONAL ZONING CODES

The complexity and length of conventional zoning codes make

those who study and work with such complex provisions—local

A big-box commercial building with a massive parking lot in

The problem is that one cannot easily build Charleston any-

Most conventional codes require variances or a cumbersome

revitalization of old urban commercial areas.24 The properties re-

IV. PRECEDENTS FOR FORM-BASED CODES

The United States has a long history of mandated urban de-

sprawl-dominated decades after World War II without a building

V. SMARTCODE: HOW A FORM-BASED CODE OPERATES

Drawing on his experiences with Seaside and projects that fol-

A. Community Level Transects

Conventional zoning separates land solely by use, whether ag-

38. ANDRES DUANY ET AL., SMARTCODE VERSION 9.2 v (2009), available at

Figure 1: “A Typical Rural-Urban Transect, with Transect Zones”41

A local government creates a regulating plan, mapping out

41. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at vii.

Table 1: Transect Zone Descriptions45

The classification of land into transects ensures the correct

45. Id. at SC 27.

Officials may “calibrate” heights to local conditions and prefer-

Table 2: Private Frontages49

The following matrix/graphic allows a closer examination of the

49. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC36.

The T4 General Urban Zone requires construction of buildings

50. Id. at SC44.

the T4 General Urban Zone.51 In order to bring buildings closer to

B. Parking, Driveways, and Thoroughfares

Sprawl development often eliminates on-street parking to in-

Table 4: Parking Calculations56

One calculates the actual parking requirement by adding the

56. Id. at SC39.

parking for special events like Christmas shopping on the Friday

Image 1: Baldwin Park Town Center, Orlando, Florida64

Vehicular paths across sidewalks, when too numerous and too

C. Building Functions and Form

SmartCode diminishes, but does not eliminate the

65. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC24.

Table 5: Specific Function and Use70

70. SMARTCODE, supra note 38, at SC40.

as Miami fits on a single page.71

D. Open and Civic Space

SmartCode defines “Open Space” as “land intended to remain

Table 6: Civic Space78

Open space can play a social role in bringing a community to-

gether, an aesthetic role in providing a natural oasis in an urban

Peter Calthorpe, one of New Urbanism’s founding leaders, de-

79. CALTHORPE, supra note 14, at 17.

Pedestrian Shed oriented toward a Common Destination such as a