Best Practices Residential Zoning (2024) view

Report Analysis

Recommendation Based on the Report

1. Expand permitted housing types beyond traditional single-family homes.
For example: allow duplexes, townhomes, small multi-unit buildings, cottage-cluster developments, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
Rationale: This aligns with the Guide’s core principle: a variety of housing types helps meet changing household needs (smaller households, varied incomes, renters vs owners), and increases total housing supply.
2. Introduce zoning districts or overlay zones based on the model district types from the Guide.
E.g., a “Mixed-Middle Residential” or “Medium Multi-Family Residential” district where density, lot size, and land-use mix are calibrated for more compact housing.
Rationale: Provides a clear framework for where higher-density and “missing middle” housing is appropriate — reducing ad-hoc rezoning or protests, and giving developers/policy-makers clarity. The Guide provides sample language and definitions to help.
3. Reduce minimum lot sizes, lot widths, setbacks, and lot-depth requirements (especially in areas targeted for higher density or near amenities/transport).
Consider allowing lot sizes down to ~5,000–7,500 ft² (or even smaller in some contexts), narrow lot widths (30–60 ft), zero-lot-line/townhome-style development, smaller front setbacks (10–15 ft), and minimal side/rear setbacks especially for alley-loaded units.
Rationale: Lowering these dimensional requirements reduces per-unit land and infrastructure costs; makes smaller, more affordable homes viable; and promotes more compact, efficient neighborhoods.
4. Eliminate or relax minimum dwelling unit size requirements.
Allow small-format housing (e.g., units under 1,000 ft²), perhaps aimed at first-time homebuyers, singles, or seniors.
Rationale: Smaller units generally cost less to build and maintain, broadening affordability and offering diverse housing options — consistent with changing demographics and household sizes.
5. Reduce parking requirements (or provide flexible parking standards).
Especially for denser or multi-unit developments, and in areas near walkable amenities or transit.
Rationale: Lower parking requirements reduce land use and building costs, making housing more affordable and enabling more efficient, compact development.
6. Allow multi-unit (e.g. duplex, triplex, small apartment) housing “by right” in appropriate zones.
Rather than only via conditional use, rezoning, or special-use permits.
Rationale: This reduces regulatory uncertainty and delays, lowering the risk and cost for developers — which can unlock more housing supply.
7. Streamline the development approval process.
Reduce the overuse of PUDs, create a standing development-review team, allow third-party review, and simplify application procedures for “by-right” housing.
Rationale: Accelerating approvals and reducing complexity lowers soft costs (time, administrative burden), and makes affordable housing projects more feasible.
8. Engage in community discussion and stakeholder outreach (residents, planners, developers, local officials).
Before rewriting zoning codes — using the Guide as a starting reference.
Rationale: Because the Guide is not “one size fits all,” tailoring zoning reform to Verona’s character, growth patterns, local infrastructure, and community values will help balance housing needs and neighborhood preservation.

Report Summary

  • Part 1: Zoning Code Evaluation Checklist — Six topics (Dimensional Requirements; Density; Land Use; Parking; Approval Processes; Non-Zoning Guidelines) to help communities spot regulatory barriers.
  • Part 2: Model Zoning Districts, Definitions, and Guidelines — Provides model district types (from small-lot single-family to medium-/high-density multi-family), recommended permitted land uses, accessory dwelling unit (ADU) standards, design guidance, and parking standards.
  • Part 3: Guide to Streamlining Housing Approvals — Recommendations to make the development process more efficient: e.g., reducing reliance on negotiated PUDs (Planned Unit Developments), enabling third-party review, using a development review team, and simplifying/providing clarity in approval steps.

Report Notes

Key Principles & Recommended Zoning Adjustments

  • Allow a wide variety of housing types — Not just large single-family homes, but also smaller lots, duplexes/townhomes, multi-unit buildings, accessory dwelling units, cottage clusters, and other “middle-housing” forms.
  • Reduce minimum lot sizes and lot widths — For example, allowing lots smaller than 10,000 ft²; encouraging 5,000–7,500 ft² street-loaded lots; and even 3,000 ft² for alley-loaded lots.
  • Permit “zero-lot line” development (townhomes/duplexes) with fee-simple ownership — so more households can own rather than rent, while keeping development compact.
  • Reduce large setbacks, lot depth requirements, and building-separation standards — Aligning more with older/“traditional” neighborhood patterns rather than sprawling suburban models; for example, allowing 10–15 ft front setbacks in urban/suburban settings and minimal side/rear setbacks for alley-loaded units.
  • Allow smaller dwelling units, and eliminate (or reduce) minimum floor-area requirements — to support smaller households and make housing more affordable (e.g., units under 1,000 ft²).
  • Right-to-build for multi-unit housing (i.e., allow multi-family buildings by right, not only by conditional use or special rezoning) — which reduces uncertainty for developers and speeds up housing production.
  • Rethink parking requirements downward — less parking per unit (or shared parking), especially near transit or in more compact neighborhoods, to reduce land and construction costs.
  • Streamline approval processes — reduce regulatory hurdles, complexity, and delays that increase development cost. This includes simplifying review, limiting overuse of PUDs, enabling third-party reviews, and establishing clear process steps.