9050 
 B3 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 ^C 31 DM^ 
 
 © 
 
 (30 
 
 O 
 
Hr. 
 
 ZONING 
 
 By EDWARD M. BASSETT, Counsel 
 of the Zoning Committee of New York 
 
 A compact but complete handbook of Zoning covering the story of the 
 spread of this movement, the reasons for zoning, the experiences of the 
 various zoned cities, the correct principles and best practice, the legal 
 pitfalls and a selected list of references. The author was Chairman of 
 the first of all the Zoning Commissions (New York City) 
 
 %e)>ised 1922 
 
 National Municipal League 
 
 261 Broadway New York City 
 
 m 
 
 Technical Pamphlet Series No. 5 
 
• c c ' .c 
 
 133 
 
 W V--' 
 

 > ) , 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Chaotic conditions in unzoned cities .'. 315 
 
 II. Protective efforts before the spread of zoning.- 317 
 
 III. What is zoning and how does it protect 318 
 
 IV. How to obtain a zoning plan for a city or village 327 
 
 V^. Where to get information 331 
 
 VI. Statement of principles of zoning formulated by the author 333 
 
 VII. Suggestions for forms of legislative enactments- 334 
 
 VIII. Opinions of the Courts 336 
 
 IX. Enabling Acts _ _ 338 
 
 X. Bibliography by Miss Theodora Kimball- _ 338 
 
 483313 
 
.< < C.J 
 
 c c c 
 
ZONING 
 
 I. CHAOTIC CONDITIONS IN UNZONED 
 CITIES 
 
 Ten years ago in every large city of 
 our country a landowner could put up 
 a building to any height, in any place, 
 of any size, and use it to any purpose, 
 regardless of how much it hurt his 
 neighbors. A few cities had passed 
 ordinances limiting the height of sky- 
 scrapers, but these limits were subject 
 to easy change and not part of a com- 
 prehensive plan. A few cities limited 
 the height of apartment houses and 
 did not allow them to cover the entire 
 lot. In many cities regulations looking 
 toward zoning were practiced or at- 
 tempted, but they were usually for 
 chosen sections or to meet local emer- 
 gencies. Building laws, apart from 
 those applying to fire limits, treated all 
 parts of the city alike whether inside 
 or suburban, whether business centers 
 or residential outskirts. By and large 
 the upbuilding of a city was left to the 
 whim or personal profit of the individ- 
 ual builder and he could do what he 
 wanted to with his own land, even if it 
 hurt the city or the neighborhood. 
 
 Skyscrapers would be built to un- 
 necessary height, their cornices pro- 
 jecting into the street and shutting 
 out light and air. The lower floors 
 needed artificial light in the daytime. 
 Business centers instead of being ra- 
 tionally spread out were intensively 
 congested. Transit and street facilities 
 were overwhelmed. In some of the 
 larger cities a landowner in the business 
 district was almost compelled to put 
 up a skyscraper because if he put up a 
 low building, his next neighbor would 
 put up a higher one that would take 
 advantage of his light and air. The 
 first skyscraper that went up in a 
 block would enjoy high rents because 
 
 of its outlook, but when other build- 
 ings went up equally high, its rents 
 would fall. The skyscraper would 
 usually be built to cover the entire lot, 
 with its windows opening on other 
 people's land. Some eligible lots were 
 hedged in by skyscrapers so that no 
 profitable buildings could be erected 
 upon them and their rightful value was 
 stolen by their skyscraper neighbors. 
 The individual landowner could not be 
 blamed because if he did not take ad- 
 vantage of his neighbor, his neighbor 
 would take advantage of him. Many 
 owners recognized that skyscrapers 
 were less desirable and often less profit- 
 able than lower buildings, that the giv- 
 ing up of valuable space to gangs of 
 elevators for different stories lessened 
 the rentable area and that the cost of 
 construction per cubic foot of a sky- 
 scraper was vastly greater than of a 
 building of moderate height. Never- 
 theless the owner, realizing that a fairly 
 low building in the intensive district 
 would be pocketed by skyscrapers, 
 would build a skyscraper himself. If he 
 left any of his lot uncovered, or set 
 back the upper part of his building, his 
 neighbor would take entire advantage 
 of it instead of leaving corresponding 
 openings. The result was that the lack 
 of regulation stimulated each owner to 
 build in the most hurtful manner. 
 
 In residential localities high apart- 
 ments would build out to the street 
 line and their windows would open on 
 the grounds of private residences. A 
 vacant unrestricted lot in a high-class 
 residential district had a high exploi- 
 tation value. After such a locality 
 was exploited by a dozen apartment 
 houses, the owners of the private resi- 
 dences would begin to move away. 
 The locality would become depressed 
 
'516 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 and the apartment houses themselves 
 would sometimes find themselves in a 
 blighted district. 
 
 Bright business streets would be in- 
 vaded by factories. When the factory 
 use began to predominate, customers 
 would leave the localities, rents of 
 stores would drop, and some of the 
 most eligible business centers of cities 
 became partly deserted. Fortunes 
 were lost because business would move 
 away from the locality where it would 
 naturally remain if not forced out. 
 Public stables and more latterly public 
 garages would enter the best business 
 and residential districts. A garage 
 costing ^25,000 might cause a loss of 
 $100,000 in the surrounding values. 
 Garages did not seek the industrial 
 localities but would crowd into the 
 business and residential districts that 
 they would hurt the most. 
 
 Although it was evident that a grow- 
 ing city would more and more need its 
 vacant suburbs for residential pur- 
 poses, sporadic factories were free to 
 enter these open places. Sometimes 
 nuisance factories would go out half a 
 mile from the city in an open area in 
 order that they might be free from 
 complaints of smoke and fumes. When 
 the city built out toward the factory, 
 the residences would keep at a dis- 
 tance. The factory might occupy an 
 acre and almost ruin a hundred acres. 
 Pressure of taxes and interest charges 
 on the owners of this blighted district 
 would cause them to sell at last for 
 cheap and poorly-built houses without 
 the introduction of proper street im- 
 provements. 
 
 Although retail stores ought to go 
 on business streets, sometimes a drug- 
 gist or grocer would try to short-cir- 
 cuit the trade by leaving the business 
 street and moving to a residential cor- 
 ner. He might project his plate-glass 
 front to the street line, cutting off the 
 
 frontages of the houses in the block that 
 had been built with a uniform set-back. 
 If the first comer was successful in his 
 business, others were attracted, and 
 soon the residential section was shot 
 through with the unnecessary business 
 buildings. This hurt the car-line street 
 where the business ought to be, and it 
 hurt the residential district where the 
 business ought not to be. 
 
 In the great cities especially this 
 danger of invasion of hurtful uses 
 drove well-to-do families out of the 
 city, where in suburban villages they 
 could to a greater extent obtain pro- 
 tected surroundings. Citizens whose 
 financial ability and public enterprise 
 made them most helpful within the 
 city limits were the very ones that 
 would often be tempted to remove 
 their families outside of the city. 
 Thousands of the best business men 
 would earn their livelihood in the big 
 city, but would give their money and 
 energy to the creating of healthful liv- 
 ing conditions in a suburban town. 
 This helped to create a city of fac- 
 tories and tenement houses instead of a 
 city of homes with needed open places. 
 A man who built a $40,000 home in 
 most of our large cities was considered 
 highly speculative because in a few 
 years he might have an apartment 
 house on one side and a factory on the 
 other. No kind of building was im- 
 mune from harm. Business districts 
 were invaded by factories, apartment 
 house districts by sweat shops, junk 
 shops and garages, private house dis- 
 tricts by apartment houses, and vacant 
 suburban areas by the sporadic chemi- 
 cal or metal factory. There was a 
 succession of invasive uses for which 
 the buildings already erected were not 
 adapted. Sometimes a blighted dis- 
 trict ensued. In any case buildings 
 could not be used for their normal life 
 for the purposes for which they were 
 
ZONING 
 
 317 
 
 designed. Waste on a large scale was 
 inevitable. Sometimes buildings that 
 had a normal life of eighty years were 
 torn down within fifteen years and re- 
 placed by a different kind. 
 
 Not only were private owners in- 
 jured but the city itself became less 
 attractive to industrial enterprises, busi- 
 ness men and home owners. Chaotic 
 conditions caused workers to travel 
 daily too far from home. The cost of 
 rapid transit lines over and under 
 ground was increased. Street widths 
 and sizes of blocks could not be pre- 
 determined. Expensive street improve- 
 ments, consisting entirely of altera- 
 tions, became successively necessary. 
 For these reasons the city was not as 
 economically sound as it would be if 
 through community action it could 
 have kept its house in order. 
 
 II. PROTECTIVE EFFORTS BEFORE THE 
 SPREAD OF ZONING 
 
 But one will say, "Could not all 
 of these injurious effects have been 
 prevented by private restrictions in 
 deeds?" The history of private re- 
 strictions has been far from satisfac- 
 tory. They have operated fairly well 
 in residential developments but have 
 almost never been resorted to for the 
 regulation of skyscrapers, to prevent 
 the invasion of industry in business 
 localities or to stabilize large land 
 areas, different parts of which can prop- 
 erly be put to different uses. When 
 localities are built up without contract- 
 ual restrictions it is always too late 
 to impose them because private owners 
 can never agree after their buildings are 
 once erected. Efforts are frequently 
 made but a small minority can usually 
 upset the best laid plan. Even in 
 private residential developments the 
 beneficial effect of private restrictions 
 is apt to be short-lived. Usually these 
 restrictions are for a period of twenty 
 
 or twenty-five years. In that time 
 three-fourths of the lots are built upon 
 with a uniform class of residences. As 
 the time expires, owners begin to keep 
 their lots, especially vacant corner lots, 
 out of improvement so that on the 
 lapse of the restrictions they may erect 
 apartment houses and thus exploit the 
 private home surroundings. Some- 
 times during this period home owners 
 will allow their houses to run down so 
 that they will be almost valueless when 
 the restrictions expire, and they can 
 then use their land without great loss 
 for apartment houses or business places. 
 Home owners in such localities must be 
 alert to go to court at the slightest 
 violation of the restrictions, otherwise 
 the courts will hold that the restric- 
 tions have become inoperative through 
 laches. Often the restrictions are badly 
 drawn and show lack of foresight. 
 Then litigations are sure to ensue. In 
 any case such restrictions have little 
 effect on the upbuilding of a city that 
 is to continue a center of population for 
 centuries. If the restrictions are per- 
 petual, they are still more troublesome. 
 After the lapse of a long time they are 
 difficult to alter because some owners 
 deriving their title from a common 
 source will not sign releases. The 
 courts are prone to say that the re- 
 strictions have expired by lapsing on 
 account of a change in the character of 
 the neighborhood. Perpetual restric- 
 tions have proven more harmful than 
 those for a fixed period. Contractual 
 restrictions have been of great service 
 in all cities and they will continue to be. 
 They cannot, however, be looked upon 
 as affording sufficient or long-time 
 protection from an all-city point of 
 view. They are incapable of adapta- 
 tion to the changing needs of the city. 
 They sometimes stand in the way of 
 normal and natural improvements. 
 Some cities have given large powers 
 
318 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 to official boards or department heads very little effect in bringing about the 
 
 to prohibit offensive uses of buildings orderly upbuilding of the entire city. 
 
 or to cause them to be placed in suit- And even this field which might be left 
 
 able localities. At the best this is a to the discretion of officials is apt to 
 
 substitution of the rule of man for the become a matter of favor or punish- 
 
 rule of law and is apt to result in play- ment. 
 
 ing favorites. The method is not Uniform building laws do not bring 
 legally sound except as to uses of a about the orderly condition desired, 
 nuisance character, and many cities They do not recognize that heights of 
 are sure to be disappointed before long buildings which may be permitted in 
 in finding that the courts will not up- the intensively used parts of the city 
 hold an enlargement of the unregulated should not prevail in the suburbs, 
 freedom of officials in prohibiting cer- They do not recognize that stores 
 tain buildings in one place and allow- which may be built on car-line streets 
 ing them in another. A landowner should not be built promiscuously 
 who offers his plan to a building de- among homes. They do not recognize 
 partment for a building not objection- that a lot can be more appropriately 
 able as a nuisance can in such a city built upon to the extent of 90 per cent 
 practically always obtain a mandamus in the business districts than in the 
 order against the building superin- suburbs. In other words they apply 
 tendent commanding him to file the uniformly over the entire city. The 
 plan and issue the permit. Some- usefulness of zoning regulations con- 
 times cities seek to apply specific reg- sists in their being different for differ- 
 ulations to parts of their area, leaving ent districts. Regulations commonly 
 other areas without such regulation, classed as fire limits are a simple form 
 This is equally apt to meet the disap- of zoning which has been employed for 
 proval of the courts, for all property a long time by many cities, 
 situated substantially similarly should 
 
 be treated alike. Public garages afford "i- what is zoning and how does it 
 a good example of the kind of building protect. 
 left to officials to locate on application. A zone is a belt. Medieval walled 
 While a public garage partakes of a towns in Europe were somewhat circu- 
 nuisance character and is generally rec- lar in form. When they outgrew their 
 ognized as coming within such control, walls, especially in the case of large 
 nevertheless it almost always happens cities, the location of the walls would 
 that there is a tendency to employ in- be made into public parks or circular 
 fluence in the obtaining of permits, boulevards, and outside of the former 
 Garages are a public necessity. Every walls the land would be laid out in 
 city should have numerous spots where belts, sometimes restricted to different 
 public garages can be built without the classes of residences. These were called 
 permit being a matter of favor. It is belts or zones. The term zoning, there- 
 well settled that nuisances can be seg- fore, does not apply strictly in our cities 
 regated. Slaughter houses can be com- where the different districts assume all 
 pelled to go into assigned localities, sorts of forms, although in general 
 The trouble is that the power to segre- there is a recognition of intensive use 
 gate slaughter houses and the very lim- in the center of the city surrounded by 
 ited power of public officials to locate belts of greater distribution as one goes 
 garages and other quasi-nuisances has toward the edge of a city. The crea- 
 
ZONING 
 
 319 
 
 tlon of different districts, accompanied 
 by the application of different regula- 
 tions, was five years ago called district- 
 ing, but this word was so apt to be con- 
 fused with political districts that public 
 favor caught and used the word zoning, 
 until now the zoning of a city is com- 
 monly understood to be the creation of 
 different districts for different pur- 
 poses, and for different kinds of build- 
 ings. 
 
 In many European cities zoning in a 
 more or less perfect form has been 
 practiced. Those countries as a rule 
 do not have written constitutions. The 
 law pronounced by the supreme power 
 is final. No court can set it aside. 
 Building departments in cities could be 
 instructed to accept some plans and 
 refuse others in different districts. 
 Sometimes a uniform architectural 
 style was obtained by this rather arbi- 
 trary control of building departments. 
 In Bremen a medieval appearance has 
 been given even to new buildings be- 
 cause the building department would 
 refuse plans unless of a certain design. 
 In some cities industry was segregated 
 in localities where the prevailing winds 
 would take the smoke away from the 
 city. Sometimes these regulations are 
 arbitrary or based on aesthetics. The 
 ease with which they could be enforced 
 probably prevented the adoption of a 
 comprehensive plan with the details 
 thoroughly worked out. However that 
 may be, our cities have found a com- 
 prehensive zoning plan adapted to 
 states whose government depends on a 
 written constitution, and where the 
 courts can set aside legislative acts as 
 unconstitutional. 
 
 For a long time people supposed that 
 zoning was impossible in our cities as 
 contrary to our written constitutions. 
 This impression was wrong. The courts 
 had said nothing to warrant this im- 
 pression. On the contrary the courts 
 
 had repeatedly put themselves in line 
 with sensible zoning and against ar- 
 bitrary zoning. 
 
 The chaotic conditions described in 
 the early part of this article were due 
 to the inability of the individual to pro- 
 tect himself. The power of the com- 
 munity was the only safeguard and the 
 community had not discovered how to 
 exercise its power. Some landowners 
 did not consider that they really owned 
 their land unless they were free to do 
 anything and everything with it that 
 was possible. Others would gladly 
 treat their neighbors fairly if they had 
 any assurance that their neighbors 
 would do the same. The truth is that 
 no man can make the best use of his 
 own unless his neighbors are required 
 to make such use of their own as not 
 to injure others. The landowner who 
 is free to put up a skyscraper covering 
 100 per cent of his land, and opening 
 his windows on his neighbor's land, 
 may think that his lO per cent net 
 earnings are a justification of the right- 
 eousness of unhampered use of his own 
 property, but when his neighbors put 
 up similar buildings and his rent goes 
 down until it pays barely 2 per cent on 
 his investment, he realizes that fair 
 regulation which would have divided 
 the light and air between him and his 
 neighbors and allowed him to earn a 
 steady 7 per cent or 8 per cent on his 
 investment would be best for him in 
 the long run. 
 
 But some will say, "If we are not 
 allowed to do as we choose with our 
 own property, the public ought to pay 
 us our damages." It is a fact, how- 
 ever, that fair regulations compelling 
 the division of light and air are a bene- 
 fit to both owners. One owner gives 
 up something of his absolute owner- 
 ship and use and in return he receives 
 something from his neighbor. 
 
 The people of every state have the 
 
320 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 inherent right to pass laws for the zoning as for uniform sanitary and fire 
 
 public safety, health, morals and gen- protection laws. It must, however, 
 
 eral welfare. Call it community power similarly be confined within the limits 
 
 or police power — the meaning is the recognized by the courts. That is, 
 
 same. It is commonly called the police zoning must be done with relation to 
 
 power, which is something of a mis- the public health, safety, morals and 
 
 nomer because it has nothing to do general welfare. If it is done arbitra- 
 
 with the police. If we think of police rily or by whim or for aesthetics or for 
 
 power as community power, we will purely sentimental purposes or with 
 
 have it about right. It is that power unjust discrimination, the courts will 
 
 which the state employs for fire pro- not uphold it. 
 
 tection, for sanitary regulations and Although the police power, as recog- 
 for preventing the spread of epidemics, nized by the courts of our country. 
 One does not assert that the public adapts itself admirably to the zoning 
 must pay him something when the of cities, yet many cities seem to think 
 health department says that he must that they are safer in employing emi- 
 be vaccinated, and yet he is giving up nent domain. The exercise of eminent 
 something of his absolute freedom. His domain requires that property or rights 
 compensation is that he, along with over property shall be taken for a pub- 
 all of his neighbors, is protected against lie use and that just compensation shall 
 the spread of smallpox. Fireproof re- be made. In the very nature of the 
 quirements, plumbing rules, tenement case it is not applicable to zoning be- 
 house laws, strength of construction cause zoning should cover the entire 
 requirements, all come within the po- city, not merely a part. It is for the 
 lice power. They are exercised with- benefit of all private owners, and is not 
 out compensation being made to the any more a taking for public use than 
 private owner subjected to regulation, vaccination is a taking for public use. 
 The courts rigorously uphold these The expense of appraisal would be 
 laws and ordinances, scrutinizing them, calamitous and the spreading of assess- 
 however, to see that they are related ments On other property according to 
 to health, safety, morals and the gen- benefit would be impossible. More- 
 eral welfare of the community. If they over, a vital city is growing and chang- 
 are employed merely on a whim, or for ing. It cannot be run into a fixed 
 aesthetics or some sentimental object, mould where it will stay forever. Po- 
 the courts will not support them. The lice power zoning can be altered to fit 
 popular notion, and to some extent the the changing needs of a growing city, 
 official, has prevailed, that if different but zoning by condemnation would 
 regulations are enforced in different ossify a city. Some cities after mak- 
 parts of the city, it cannot be done ing a mistake in zoning and receiving 
 under the police power but must be a setback from the courts, think they 
 done under eminent domain, and com- must have a constitutional amendment 
 pensation must be made. They for- permitting zoning. Constitutional 
 get that the health and safety of the amendments regarding the police pow- 
 community may require different regu- er should be avoided unless they are 
 lations in different parts of the city be- absolutely necessary. The police pow- 
 cause the needs of diiferent parts of er residing in the state legislature 
 the city are different. The police should be ample for zoning if zoning 
 power can as well be employed for is done wisely. 
 
ZONING 
 
 321 
 
 The first comprehensive zoning in 
 the United States was done in Boston. 
 A building height of 80 feet was al- 
 lowed on some main thoroughfares and 
 a limit of 125 feet was imposed on new 
 buildings on all other streets. This 
 ordinance was attacked in the courts 
 for unconstitutionality, but was upheld 
 by the highest court of Massachusetts 
 and was affirmed by the supreme court 
 of the United States. Los Angeles fol- 
 lowed with a zoning plan which di- 
 vided the city into residential and non- 
 residential districts. Under this ordi- 
 nance, which was retroactive in form, 
 the city authorities ousted a brick yard 
 around which a residential district had 
 grown up. The owner of the brick 
 yard attacked the ordinance on the 
 ground of unconstitutionality but the 
 ordinance was upheld both by the 
 highest court of California and by the 
 United States Supreme Court. Other 
 cities have as a rule considered that it 
 is unduly harsh to make a zoning law 
 retroactive, considering that existing 
 uses and buildings should be allowed to 
 continue subject to certain rules which 
 tend gradually to make them conform 
 to the requirements of the district. 
 New York was the first city to work 
 out a comprehensive zoning plan. The 
 first step after four years of prepara- 
 tory study was to obtain the passage 
 of a legislative enactment granting the 
 police power of the state to the city for 
 the purpose of dividing the city into 
 districts according to height, bulk and 
 use of buildings with power to make 
 appropriate regulations for each dis- 
 trict and with a provision that the 
 regulations might differ In the different 
 districts. The ordinance which the 
 city adopted under this law is supple- 
 mented by three maps of the entire 
 city. One map shows a set of dis- 
 tricts laid out according to heights al- 
 lowable; another shows a different set 
 
 of districts outlined according to the 
 area of the lot that new buildings 
 therein may occupy; the last map 
 shows districts outlined according to 
 allowable uses of land and new build- 
 ings. Other cities followed rapidly. 
 
 How does zoning protect in actual 
 practice? In general It stabilizes build- 
 ings and values. Most of all it con- 
 serves the future. Zoning does not 
 prohibit existing stores in residential 
 localities or existing apartment houses 
 In private home localities or existing 
 factories In business localities. It reg- 
 ulates new buildings and changes of 
 uses. Although It Is possible that un- 
 der the Los Angeles case zoning could 
 go further and oust Inappropriate 
 buildings, yet it Is considered unwise 
 to do this and successful zoning en- 
 deavors to protect investments rather 
 than destroy existing property. When 
 one considers that the cities of our 
 country will in all likelihood continue 
 as centers of population for centuries, 
 one realizes that the harm already done 
 by indiscriminate building is of small 
 account If the future of the city can be 
 protected. 
 
 The zoning ordinances and maps 
 differ somewhat In the different cities 
 that have adopted zoning. The Inter- 
 ested city official or citizens' organiza- 
 tion should obtain copies of the various 
 ordinances and maps which every city 
 will gladly furnish at a nominal cost. 
 The reader must assume that the zon- 
 ing plan described In this chapter will 
 vary In its details In different cities. 
 New York, for instance, allows build- 
 ings on certain broad streets In the 
 skyscraper district to go up 250 feet 
 on the street line before they begin 
 to set back. Smaller cities do not al- 
 low such heights, and New York would 
 not have done so If existing buildings 
 of great height had not made it im- 
 possible to adopt a more sensible limit. 
 
322 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 Limitations for new buildings vary in 
 the different districts, a higher building 
 being allowable in the intensively used 
 parts of the city than in the outskirts. 
 Usually the allowable height has a 
 relation to the width of the street. 
 New York has 2^^, 2, i^, 1^4 and i 
 times height districts. This means that 
 a new building in the 2 times district 
 can be built to a height on the street 
 line of 2 times the width of the street. 
 After reaching such a height it must 
 begin to set back at the rate of i foot 
 for every 4 feet of additional height. 
 If a street is broader than 100 feet, the 
 building is not allowed any additional 
 height, and if a street is narrower than 
 50 feet the building need not be corre- 
 spondingly lower than one erected on a 
 50 foot street. Towers are allowed of 
 an unlimited height, and steeples, 
 chimneys and other structures defined 
 in the ordinance are excepted from the 
 height regulations. Towers, in the 
 opinion of many, afford a variety in 
 the appearance of a city and bring an 
 interest which the city would otherwise 
 lack. Some experienced engineers 
 maintain that allowable heights should 
 not be related to street widths. The 
 setbacks required after the building 
 has gone to the allowable height on the 
 street line are for the purpose of af- 
 fording access of light and air to the 
 street itself. Provisions of a similar 
 nature apply to the rear of such build- 
 ings. 
 
 Height regulations therefore not only 
 limit height of new buildings but in- 
 sure a fair division of light and air 
 among lot owners. The erection of 
 unnecessarily high skyscrapers is no 
 longer a sign of city progress but rather 
 a sign of city ignorance. Buildings of 
 moderate height broaden out a business 
 center. Values are equalized instead 
 of being absorbed by a few. Office 
 business can be conducted in the day- 
 
 light instead of under artificial light. 
 There is greater convenience and econ- 
 omy in every way. One would say 
 that economic reasons would sooner 
 or later prevent people from building 
 skyscrapers. But every little while a 
 person or business comes along who 
 wants to advertise itself by a monu- 
 ment even if the earning power of the 
 building is very small. The usual 
 trouble with these monuments is that 
 they hurt their neighbors. 
 
 Not less important in the height reg- 
 ulations are the provisions for divi- 
 sion of light and air between lot own- 
 ers. As a building goes higher its side 
 courts must be larger. Details for 
 yards and inner and outer courts 
 should be examined in existing ordi- 
 nances. The setbacks help to create 
 pyramidal structures which leave light 
 and air for their neighbors. 
 
 Height regulations alone, however, 
 are not enough and they do very little 
 to prevent congestion where land val- 
 ues are low. Just as lower heights may 
 be required in the outlying districts, 
 so it is practicable to prevent building 
 on the entire lot in the outlying dis- 
 tricts. Then, too, industrial buildings 
 and warehouses along water-courses 
 and railroads sometimes are lighted 
 from above or need no light at all. 
 Such buildings can properly occupy the 
 entire lot. These considerations make 
 it necessary to employ another set of 
 regulations commonly called area reg- 
 ulations. They supplement the height 
 regulations. Districts of the one sort 
 need not be coterminous with districts 
 of the other sort and in New York they 
 are not. These area districts in New 
 York are A, B, C, D and E. The A 
 districts are warehouse and industrial 
 districts, usually along watercourses or 
 railroads or land which for one reason 
 or another is best adapted to storage 
 and industry. Here new buildings can 
 
ZONING 
 
 333 
 
 cover 100 per cent of the lot. The 
 other extreme is the E district adapted 
 to private detached residences, where 
 the new buildings may cover not over 
 30 per cent of the lot. B districts are 
 adapted to the large office, business, 
 and high apartment house localities. C 
 districts are adapted to non-elevator 
 apartment houses, and D districts to 
 one and two-family private residences 
 in blocks. The E zones of New York, 
 or zones corresponding to them in other 
 cities that have adopted zoning, have 
 been considered one of the most im- 
 portant results of the new movement 
 because they perpetuate the highly re- 
 stricted residential developments. In 
 New York it is not practical to put up 
 any residential building on 30 per cent 
 of the lot except a one-family private 
 residence. Most of such restricted 
 areas have been placed in E zones on 
 the petition of the property owners. 
 They are so popular that many new E 
 zones have been created. It was at 
 first feared by some that land in these 
 E zones would be less valuable because 
 the building area was so highly re- 
 stricted, but it turned out that the 
 protective features were so great that 
 the supply of land in these areas could 
 hardly meet the demand. In some 
 cases where restrictions expired or were 
 about to expire the E zone require- 
 ments have made the locality better 
 than it was before. Owners of vacant 
 corner lots, that had been held out of 
 use so that apartment houses might be 
 built, have in almost every case im- 
 proved them with high-class one-fam- 
 ily residences. In such districts own- 
 ers of houses instead of letting them 
 become dilapidated when the private 
 restrictions were about to lapse have 
 improved their homes, adding private 
 garages, sun parlors and substituting 
 copper for tin. These E districts are 
 preventing well-to-do citizens from 
 
 leaving the .city to settle with their 
 families in outlying villages because 
 they offer an opportunity for villa 
 homes protected against^ all injurious 
 buildings for an unlimited time. In 
 them people can have the advantages 
 of open surroundings and still be near 
 their business, all city conveniences, 
 and have the benefit of low car-fares. 
 
 One may ask why they are called E 
 districts instead of private residential 
 districts. The reason is that the meth- 
 od of creating districts graduating from 
 100 per cent to 30 per cent is a plain 
 employment of the police power with a 
 recognition of health and safety con- 
 siderations, and the courts will protect 
 a plan which is based on such a foun- 
 dation. In New York at least it pre- 
 supposes that an apartment house cov- 
 ering not over 30 per cent of the lot 
 would be substantially as safe and 
 healthful as a one-family house, al- 
 though as a matter of practice land- 
 owners in E districts will not erect 
 apartment houses. The courts will 
 recognize the common sense of bring- 
 ing light and air in greater abundance 
 to suburban districts where children 
 are growing up. There is a temptation 
 in cities where land is less expensive to 
 create one family house districts as use 
 districts. This has sometimes been 
 done under the apprehension that a 
 30 per cent restriction would not pre- 
 vent the two-family or apartment 
 house. Each city must judge for itself 
 whether it will adopt the safe course of 
 creating E districts depending on the 
 30 per cent limitation preventing hurt- 
 ful buildings or whether it will follow 
 the more hazardous course of consid- 
 ering private detached residences a 
 separate use. The reason that it is 
 hazardous is because the court is likely 
 to inquire what dangers to health and 
 safety exist in two-family houses, each 
 built on a small fraction of the lot, 
 
324 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 which do not exist in one-family houses New Jersey, has four use districts, — 
 
 similarly built. Each city in framing heavy industry, light industry, busi- 
 
 its zoning ordinance and maps must ness and residence; and excludes new 
 
 keep in mind. that it is done under the residences from the heavy industry 
 
 police power and that the requirements districts which are mainly in or near 
 
 must have a relation to public health, the salt meadows. Some cities, partic- 
 
 safety, morals and the general welfare, ularly on the Pacific coast, have created 
 
 The courts of some states of the far numerous use districts, including dis- 
 
 West are undoubtedly willing to recog- tricts for private residences, districts 
 
 nize a greater scope of the police power for apartment houses and districts for 
 
 than those of some of the more con- public buildings. In the opinion of the 
 
 servative Eastern states. author use districts should be few in 
 
 Private restrictions can continue order that they may be upheld in our 
 along with zoning regulations. It is more conservative states. Until we 
 undoubtedly desirable to supplement have further light on the subject from 
 zoning regulations with private restric- the courts, the districts should be, with 
 tions in the opening of new develop- the possible exception of peculiar cir- 
 ments for residences. Inasmuch as cumstances, heavy industry, light in- 
 private restrictions are contractual and dustry, business and residence, 
 zoning is done under the police power. Heavy industry districts are intended 
 the one group has no relation to or for industries of a nuisance character 
 effect upon the other. Private restric- and works requiring a large spread of 
 tions cannot be copied in zoning. They yards and buildings. If these districts 
 rest on different bases and are enforced can be decided upon before or simul- 
 in different ways. Private restrictions taneously with laying out streets, the 
 are the result of private bargains, blocks should be made larger than for 
 Zoning is a public requirement imposed ordinary residence or business. They 
 directly or indirectly by the state. will usually be near railroads and wa- 
 
 Zoning to regulate height and area ter-courses. Some well-known advis- 
 
 would be only a partial remedy. If the ors consider that residences should not 
 
 protection of zoning stopped at this be permitted in heavy industry zones, 
 
 point, factories, garages, stores and It will be noticed that this is a depar- 
 
 residences could be built anywhere, and ture from the general rule. In New 
 
 there would be no protection against York new stores or residences may be 
 
 constant injury. Consequently a third built in industrial zones. The argu- 
 
 class of regulations is necessary con- ment for the exclusion of residences is 
 
 cerning the use of land and buildings that the surroundings are unhealthful 
 and different districts must be created _and residences in such locations are 
 
 to separate these uses. The use dis- almost sure to become neglected and 
 
 tricts need not correspond with the unsanitary. The author, however, is 
 
 height or area districts and commonly of the opinion that, if the land is suffi- 
 
 do not. In New York the use districts cienfty "high for drainage and cellars, 
 
 are, — unrestricted, in which residences it is a hardship to the owner to be de- 
 
 and business as well as factories can prived of using his land for residences, 
 
 go; business districts, in which resi- The residences do not hurt the neigh- 
 
 dences, as well as business can go; and boring factories, and the grounds of 
 
 residence districts, in which business prohibition cannot be based on the 
 
 and industry are excluded. Newark, maxim that one should so use his own 
 
ZONING 325 
 
 as not to injure another. Sometimes most always tend to become business 
 heavy industrial districts must be laid streets. It is well to consider this in 
 out far in advance of use and it would zoning localities not yet built up. If 
 seem to be a hardship) to require an small retail stores and shops are com- 
 owner to pay taxes and perhaps hold pelled to go to certain localities, they 
 his land without the slightest income should be compelled to go to the main 
 awaiting the coming of a heavy Indus- thoroughfares and car-line streets, 
 try use. Then, too, a piece of land in a How often it has happened that main 
 heavy industry zone might be too thoroughfares have been built up with 
 small for a factory and yet be sur- splendid homes which have later proved 
 rounded by large factories. Surely it to be out of place. Zoning seeks to 
 is a hardship to prevent the owner set aside streets for a long period of 
 from making use of it for that purpose fixed usefulness. This object is best 
 which as a last resort a man can attained by giving privacy to private 
 always adopt, i.e., for small homes, homes. If five or six stores have come 
 Where land like the Newark salt into a block of residences fronting on a 
 meadows is too low for drainage or street-car line or a main thoroughfare, 
 cellars, the case is somewhat different, it is likely that the street should be put 
 Zoning, however, must not be arbi- in a business district. It has begun to 
 trary. Regulation becomes arbitrary show its normal destiny and zoning it 
 when it prohibits every possible use of as a residence district will usually not 
 land and compels the owner to hold it save the residential values but on the 
 in idleness. other hand will hold back the develop- 
 Light industry zones and business ment of normal business values, 
 zones are self-explanatory. Public Residence districts should allow dwell- 
 garages or garages for more than three ings, clubs, churches, schools, libraries, 
 vehicles should be permitted in these hospitals, railroad passenger stations, 
 two zones only on special permit of a farm buildings, greenhouses and their 
 board of appeals. In New York they usual accessories. A private garage as 
 are classed among heavy industry. A an accessory to a home constructed for 
 public garage may be as hurtful in a not more than three vehicles should be 
 light industry district as in a business allowed in a residence district. Some 
 district. In New York the board of have asserted that hospitals and sani- 
 appeals can allow a new garage for tariums should not be allowed in resi- 
 more than five vehicles in a business dence districts as they may sometimes 
 district only when there is already one be offensive. The question, however, 
 such garage in the street between two arises as to where they should be 
 intersecting streets. It has been found placed. Surely not in industrial or 
 that light industry cannot be entirely business districts. Bill-board permits 
 excluded from business districts. De- are not issued in residence districts in 
 partment stores, millinery shops and New York. The zoning ordinance has 
 jewelry stores need to devote a part of proved to be the first effective control 
 their space to light manufacture and of this subject, recognizing that al- 
 this should be permitted in some way. though bill-boards may be proper in 
 In New York it is provided for by some districts, they should not be scat- 
 allowing one-quarter of the store space tered among homes, schools and church- 
 to be used for light industry. Main es. It should here be said that there 
 thoroughfares and car-line streets al- is a natural tendency for cities of medi- 
 
326 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 um size whose nearby areas are not 
 congested to favor the control of dif- 
 ferent kinds of residential units by cre- 
 ating one-family house districts, two- 
 family house districts and multi-fam- 
 ily house districts. This tendency has 
 recently been so great that the author 
 hesitates to condemn it. Where city 
 officials are convinced that an area 
 limitation will not produce one or two 
 family houses they probably must take 
 the risk of the courts' approval of dis- 
 tricting by naming the number of fam- 
 ilies. Where, however, conditions are 
 such that division of light and air can 
 be provided for by area regulations as 
 has been done in New York, the author 
 is of the opinion that the recognized 
 police power will more nearly justify 
 the zoning. 
 
 Before adopting any specific method 
 of regulation the enabling act should be 
 scrutinized to see that the city has the 
 necessary power. 
 
 Zoning is not usually retroactive. 
 That is, the height, area and use regu- 
 lations prevent city building depart- 
 ments from issuing permits to new 
 buildings which do not conform to the 
 zoning requirements. But after a 
 zoning plan is adopted old factories 
 will be found in residence and business 
 districts, and stores will be found in 
 residence districts. What shall be done 
 with these non-conforming buildings? 
 It would be a great hardship to the 
 owners to compel them to alter them 
 at once to conform with the require- 
 ments of the district. The zoning 
 ordinance therefore must provide for 
 the gradual elimination of such build- 
 ings in a way that will fairly preserve 
 the investment of the owner. The 
 owner can reasonably say that he 
 should be allowed to use his building 
 for the purpose for which it was con- 
 structed. On the other hand when he 
 comes to alter or enlarge his building, 
 
 the community can reasonably say 
 that, although he has the privilege to 
 continue his old building, he has no 
 privilege to alter it or enlarge it in a 
 way contrary to the requirements of 
 the district. In New York an owner 
 of a store or light industry building 
 which does not conform to the district 
 may change it to any other use of the 
 same grade provided he does not en- 
 large it at all or reconstruct it. If, 
 however, it is a heavy industry non- 
 conforming building, it cannot be 
 changed to any other use even of the 
 same grade if any structural alteration 
 is made. It will be seen that these 
 rules as time goes on tend to make the 
 buildings conform with the require- 
 ments of the district. 
 
 The question also arises with these 
 non-conforming buildings whether, if 
 a part of the building only is used for 
 a non-conforming use, such non-con- 
 forming use can extend throughout the 
 building. The rule In New York Is 
 that a non-conforming use cannot be 
 enlarged at the expense of a residence 
 use. But the better rule would un- 
 doubtedly be that a non-conforming 
 use should not be enlarged at the ex- 
 pense of a conforming use. Each city 
 will need to adapt its rule of non-con- 
 forming uses to its own peculiar re- 
 quirements. The ordinance of St. 
 Louis has given a board of appeals the 
 discretion to allow alterations in use, 
 reconstruction and enlargement of such 
 buildings. It would seem, however, 
 that this Important subject ought to be 
 governed by law rather than by the 
 judgment of a board. The rules of 
 non-conforming uses can be and should 
 be rigid. They may be difficult to 
 state but this fact does not justify their 
 being left entirely to the discretion of 
 a board. 
 
 Another subject related to existing 
 non-conforming buildings and uses Is 
 
ZONING 
 
 327 
 
 the prevention after the zoning ordi- 
 nance is adopted of the intrusion of 
 non-conforming uses into conforming 
 buildings. For instance in a residence 
 district a home owner may try to carry 
 on a sweat shop or a restaurant or a 
 junk yard. How shall he be pre- 
 vented? Evidently this is beyond the 
 power of control by permit. The 
 wrongful intrusion must be prevented. 
 The ordinance should make such act 
 unlawful and make provision for oust- 
 ing the unlawful use. In New York this 
 duty is placed on the fire department. 
 The fire department can send notice to 
 the offending owner directing him to 
 quit the unlawful use. If the owner 
 does not do so, the facts are turned 
 over to the corporation counsel who 
 can bring the offender before the mag- 
 istrate's court for fine or imprisonment. 
 The New York enabling act does not 
 give the city the right of injunctive re- 
 lief which it should have done. 
 
 IV. 
 
 HOW^ TO OBTAIN A ZONING PLAN 
 
 FOR A CITY OR VILLAGE 
 
 The state legislature is the repository 
 of the police power. The fact that the 
 legislature creates a municipal corpora- 
 tion undoubtedly endows such corpora- 
 tion with certain necessary functions 
 under the police power. If this was 
 not so, the city could not transact its 
 business. Before, however, a city pro- 
 ceeds to adopt a zoning plan, it is wise 
 to obtain a specific donation of this 
 power from the state legislature. This 
 can be accomplished by a legislative 
 act applicable to all cities of a state, or 
 by amending the charter of the city. 
 An existing home rule act or general 
 provision should be carefully scrutin- 
 ized before it is depended upon, in or- 
 der to make sure that the city possesses 
 the police power so far as height, bulk 
 and use of buildings are concerned, to- 
 gether with the right to impose differ- 
 
 ent regulations on different districts. 
 The enabling acts of several states now 
 allow villages to zone. The decisions 
 of the courts do not draw the line clear- 
 ly between the inherent police power 
 of a city merely because the legislature 
 has allowed it to be a city and the 
 larger donation of police power requi- 
 site for a zoning plan. Cities have 
 adopted fire limits which are a simple 
 form of zoning and have done this 
 without any specific grant of power 
 from the legislature. New York kept 
 on the safe side by having its charter 
 amended by the legislature in this re- 
 spect and also to provide that the 
 board of estimate after a zoning plan 
 was once adopted could not alter it ex- 
 cept by a unanimous vote in certain 
 cases, and to provide for a board of 
 appeals to be created by the local au- 
 thorities with power to pass on border- 
 line and exceptional cases of buildings. 
 Should the zoning plan be prepared 
 by a city planning commission or a 
 zoning commission? Should such a 
 commission be composed of officials or 
 citizens? Should the council or a com- 
 mission be empowered to enact the 
 ordinance? Each city will decide these 
 questions, keeping its own peculiar 
 needs in mind. The plan should be 
 prepared by a commission, a majority 
 of whose members should be citizens 
 serving without pay. Certain officials 
 qualified by their experience and proved 
 judgment may be added. No official 
 should be added for the purpose of 
 educating him or swinging him over 
 as an advocate of zoning. The com- 
 mission should be unhampered in 
 making suggestions and it has much 
 greater freedom if its makeup Is not so 
 largely official that its doings are taken 
 to represent the intention of the ad- 
 ministration. A zoning commission 
 has enough to think about without 
 being compelled to consider whether 
 
328 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 its composition will reflect on the ad- Fifth Avenue, Euclid Avenue or Mich- 
 ministration or not. If the work goes igan Avenue is the wrong way to be- 
 on wisely with frequent conferences gin. Then, too, throughout the prep- 
 with property owners of all classes and aration of the plan property owners of 
 with frequent hearings, there is no all sorts should be taken into the con- 
 danger but that the excrescences and fidence of the commission. Taxpay- 
 theoretical trimmings will be rubbed ers' associations, boards of trade, man- 
 off. After the plan is worked out after ufacturers' associations, fire insurance 
 many hearings and conferences, it men, savings banks and title com- 
 should be reported to the council who panics, and owners of high buildings, 
 should have the power to hold further low buildings and vacant land should 
 hearings, refer it back to the commis- all have a part in advising what will 
 sion if desired and ultimately to enact stabilize property and prevent confis- 
 it. The adoption and amendment of a cation. 
 
 zoning plan belong to the council as Zoning looks mainly to the future, 
 
 much as the street layout. Moreover The zoning of built-up localities must 
 
 the natural growth and changes in the recognize actual conditions and make 
 
 city will require intelligent amendment the best of mistakes of the past. But 
 
 of the zoning plan year by year and it the zoning of open areas, while fol- 
 
 is probably impossible to expect that lowing desirable natural tendencies, 
 
 citizens serving without pay can keep must check the undesirable tendencies, 
 
 in touch with the needs of the city so Zoning should follow nature and it 
 
 well as officials assisted by the constant should not be forgotten that the city 
 
 advice of the city departments. It Is has a history. There will be a tempta- 
 
 of doubtful wisdom to put actual legis- tion for radical individuals and officials 
 
 lative power in a city planning or zon- to use zoning as a field for experimen- 
 
 ing commission. tation. This is a mistake. The scope 
 
 In most cases it is best for a zoning of the police power is measured by the 
 
 commission to prepare the plan. There universality of its recognition as well as 
 
 is a difference between the planning of the universality of Its need. Some of 
 
 public streets and places and the work- the features of modern zoning have not 
 
 ing out of a zoning plan. The former yet been so widely approved by the 
 
 has to do with land and buildings courts that cities newly preparing plans 
 
 owned or to be owned by the city, can afford to go very far in advance of 
 
 Zoning has to do with the regulation the procession. 
 
 of private property. The two fields Such a city will be tempted to try 
 
 are therefore quite distinct. More piecemeal zoning. On the appointment 
 
 rapid progress Is made by creating a of a zoning commission home owners in 
 
 zoning commission. Its work is funda- localities subjected to some immediate 
 
 mental. It should be carried on inten- danger w^ill go to the commission and 
 
 sively with the recognition, however, show how they must have an immedl- 
 
 that it is part of the city plan. ate remedy because private restrictions 
 
 A farsighted zoning commission will are about to expire or a factory is 
 
 early enlist the favor of the owners of about to be built or plans for a public 
 
 small homes and stores. They can be garage are being filed. If the zoning 
 
 shown in the beginning how they can- commission refuses to act, they go to 
 
 be protected against flats, garages, the council. Sometimes more time is 
 
 junk yards and factories. To feature lost in debating the items of proposed 
 
ZONING 
 
 329 
 
 piecemeal zoning than would suffice to 
 zone the entire city. Such piecemeal 
 zoning should not be done. In the 
 long run it delays. Precarious locali- 
 ties should get behind comprehensive 
 zoning and hurry it up. Comprehen- 
 sive zoning of an entire city is strong 
 because localities substantially simi- 
 larly situated are treated alike. Piece- 
 meal zoning is weak because it is dis- 
 criminatory. Piecemeal zoning is apt 
 to produce test cases full of danger 
 because, for instance, an owner of a 
 vacant lot is prevented from building a 
 garage in one residential locality when 
 a similar owner in a similar locality 
 ten blocks away is allowed to build a 
 garage. This is discriminatory on its 
 face and is likely to incur the criticism 
 of the courts. Then if some adverse 
 decision is handed down in such a test 
 case, critics of zoning and sometimes 
 newspapers will assert that the courts 
 have declared zoning to be unconstitu- 
 tional. A'lore time is taken to explain 
 how the mistake was made and thus 
 comprehensive zoning is still more de- 
 layed. The favor of precarious dis- 
 tricts is needed in advancing a general 
 plan. To zone all such districts first is 
 to throw away part of the help which 
 a zoning campaign needs. In New 
 York the temptation to allow piece- 
 meal zoning was successfully resisted. 
 The actual damage that occurred was 
 almost infinitesimal. If, however, the 
 piecemeal plan had been started the 
 city might not be zoned today. An- 
 other- argument against piecemeal zon- 
 ing is that one cannot know how to 
 zone any spot in a city until he knows 
 how to zone the entire city because the 
 use of any one locality has some rela- 
 tion to all others. If a city is deter- 
 mined not to wait for the completion of 
 the comprehensive plan it should re- 
 sort to interim zoning, which by broad 
 regulations covers the entire city. 
 
 The zoning of the entire city should 
 be preceded by an accurate mapping 
 of existing buildings and uses. Present 
 and future transportation lines must 
 be taken into account. In New York 
 a chart was made showing height of 
 buildings, another showing frame build- 
 ings, another showing use, whether 
 industrial, business or residence, an- 
 other showing density of population 
 and another showing by different col- 
 ors the distances of every part of the 
 city from City Hall measured by trav- 
 elling time on rapid transit railroads. 
 These fundamental data assist in pre- 
 paring a foundation of facts instead of 
 a foundation of guesswork. 
 
 It is apparent that the members of a 
 zoning commission cannot personally 
 attend to the collection of data, prepa- 
 ration of maps and the working out 
 of innumerable detail problems. The 
 city must furnish the zoning commis- 
 sion with a staff headed by a compe- 
 tent consultant. The chief of staff 
 should be more than an ordinary en- 
 gineer or architect or lawyer. He 
 should be a broad-gauge expert in the 
 distribution of urban population, in the 
 layout of streets and public places, in 
 forms and materials of buildings and in 
 the limitations imposed by law on the 
 exercise of the police power. No city 
 should be too proud to retain an out- 
 side man. New York city took five 
 years and did not do the job as well 
 as she could do it today in two years. 
 The reason was that she was plowing 
 new ground and there were almost no 
 precedents to help. But some one 
 may say "Why not get the ordinances 
 and maps from zoned cities and pick 
 out what seems to be the best?" The 
 reason is that imitation is likely to be 
 disastrous. No two cities are alike. 
 Each deserves an accurate study of its 
 own growth, tendencies and needs. 
 The heights of buildings allowed in 
 
330 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 New York are far too great for imita- eery on the other. It is apparent that 
 tion. It was the case of the horse be- any provisions inserted in the ordi- 
 ing stolen before the barn door was nance itself are not a sufficient protec- 
 locked. Lower heights in the sky- tion to owners to build in conformity 
 scraper districts could not be imposed with the zoning ordinance because one 
 with fairness to owners of partially im- council may undo the work of its pred- 
 proved land. Too great congestion in ecessor. The only safeguard is in a 
 tenement house districts is allowed, provision of the legislature which will 
 This was due to some extent to existing prevent the city council from freely 
 conditions and to some extent to the changing the maps and ordinance. The 
 novelty of the enterprise which prop- New York enabling act provided that 
 erly induced caution. The chief of the city authorities could not change 
 staff should know the reasons that have the ordinance or maps without fixing 
 prompted different methods in differ- and advertising a public hearing, and 
 ent cities. He will, of course, have be- this further provision was added that, 
 fore him the ordinances and maps of if 20 per cent of the frontage affected 
 all other cities, but he will be more by the change, or 20 per cent of the 
 than an imitator. frontage opposite, or 20 per cent of the 
 We are now ready to listen to the frontage in the rear protested in writ- 
 question of the intelligent reader which ing against the change, then the unani- 
 at this point is quite sure to be "How mous vote of the board of estimate was 
 can you run a city into a zoning plan required to make the change valid, 
 mould and expect it to stay there; do Under a legislative requirement of this 
 not cities have to grow and change?" sort there is little danger of hasty ac- 
 The answer is that zoning encourages tion, and if a protest of 20 per cent of 
 growth while at the same time it pre- the frontage is filed it is practically im- 
 vents too rapid changes. Every vital possible for the applicant to obtain the 
 growing city must change and the zon- unanimous vote of the council unless 
 ing plan must be capable of change, his case is sound and imperative. 
 The same authority that has adopted Cities which have large powers under 
 the ordinance and maps must have the the home rule act should ask their state 
 power to amend them. On the other legislatures to impose this check or some 
 hand a high degree of permanency or similar check upon the city council, 
 stiffness must be insisted upon, other- Another provision that should be 
 wise the property owner who puts up a supplied by the state legislature is to 
 fourteen-story building in compliance empower the city to create a board of 
 with the zoning law might be disap- appeals. The city without such a 
 pointed to find that the council had grant cannot endow a board of appeals 
 altered the law so that a twenty-story with power to decide certain border- 
 building might go up on each side of line cases of buildings which will be 
 his building. He would then be pen- enumerated in the ordinance itself, or 
 allzed because he obeyed the law. to make variations in the provisions of 
 Or a man might put up a fine residence the law to carry out the spirit of the 
 in an outlying residence district de- law and prevent unnecessary hardship, 
 pending upon its permanence and find It Is a safeguard in the administration 
 that the council had changed it to of the law to have a board of appeals, 
 business and he was likely to have a The letter of the ordinance and maps 
 butcher store on one side and a gro- may be the extreme of hardship. No 
 
ZONING 331 
 
 words can be used in the ordinance corrupt or incompetent board of ap- 
 
 that will provide for the multitudinous peals could do a vast amount of injury 
 
 contingencies of new buildings. If but it is the business of the mayor or 
 
 there is no board of appeals to apply appointing power to see that the board 
 
 the spirit of the law and vary its letter, is made up of impartial and experi- 
 
 the exercise of the police power may in enced men, 
 
 certain cases be arbitrary and incur The council should have power to 
 the criticism of the courts. Moreover amend the maps and ordinance and 
 it is a great safeguard to preserve that the board of appeals should not. The 
 elasticity which a board of appeals can board of appeals should have the power 
 give to a zoning plan in order to min- to vary the ordinance and maps in 
 imize the danger of a pronouncement cases of specific buildings and the 
 of unconstitutionality by the courts, council should not. In other words 
 It is a well-recognized rule of the law the council should have charge of the 
 that before an aggrieved owner can ob- maps, for the law-making power should 
 tain a writ of mandamus from the control the fundamental restrictions, 
 court against a building superintendent The board of appeals should have 
 to compel him to file plans and issue a charge of the application of the ordi- 
 permit, he must exhaust all of the rem- nance and maps to specific buildings 
 edies afforded him by the city. This because the council does not have the 
 means that before he can bring up the time or preparation to go into the de- 
 question of unconstitutionality he must tails of exceptional circumstances as to 
 bring his plans before the board of ap- specific buildings. There should be no 
 peals. Experience has shown that a confusion of the powers of the council 
 wise board of appeals can practically and the board of appeals. The field of 
 always mitigate the unfairness involved each is entirely separate and distinct, 
 in the letter of the law if the applicant In New York the board of appeals 
 has a sound and deserving case. If, is authorized by the ordinance to grant 
 however, the board of appeals will not a permit for a public garage in a busi- 
 adjust his case to suit him, he goes ness street if there is already one pub- 
 before the courts with all of the lie garage or public stable in that 
 chances against him, for the courts will street between two intersecting streets; 
 say that his plans run counter to an to allow the projection of a business 
 impartial plan covering the entire city building into a residence district or a 
 and that in addition a fair board of factory building into a business district 
 appeals having the power of adjust- in certain specified cases at the border- 
 ment in cases of unnecessary hardship line between two districts, and to per- 
 decided against the applicant. Every mit a temporary non-conforming use in 
 decision of the board of appeals should outlying undeveloped areas. Other 
 be reviewable by the courts on writ of powers similar to these are enumerated, 
 certiorari. Such review, however, in- Their power to vary the ordinance and 
 volves no danger of overthrow of the maps in cases of unnecessary hardship 
 law itself by the courts but only a is an entirely separate power and is 
 possible limitation of the functions of given directly by the state legislature, 
 the board. Some will say that there 
 
 should be no board of appeals because v. where to get information 
 
 such a board will be too easy and break The reader can hardly hope to ob- 
 
 down the law by granting favors. A tain from this article more than a brief 
 
332 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 outline of the subject of zoning. The 
 councilman, city engineer or legal ad- 
 viser of a city contemplating zoning 
 will desire to know where he can obtain 
 more complete information on what 
 has been done or attempted. Prob- 
 ably the most exhaustive books that 
 have been published, collecting data 
 from all cities, giving full tabulation 
 and maps, and with discussions of legal 
 problems involved, are the report of 
 the heights of buildings commission of 
 the board of estimate and apportion- 
 ment of the city of New York, De- 
 cember 23, 1913, and the report of the 
 commission on building districts and 
 restrictions of the board of estimate 
 and apportionment of the city of New 
 York, June 2, 1916. These reports 
 were made during the preparation of 
 the zoning ordinance and maps for 
 New York. These volumes will be 
 found in many public and municipal 
 libraries. The following cities have to 
 a greater or less extent adopted the 
 zoning plan: 
 
 Alameda, Cal. 
 
 Berkeley, Cal. 
 
 Coronado, Cal. 
 
 Fresno, Cal. 
 
 Los Angeles, Cal. 
 
 Oakland, Cal. 
 
 Palo Alto, Cal. 
 
 Pasadena, Cal. 
 
 Pomona, Cal. 
 
 Sacramento, Cal. 
 
 San Francisco, Cal. 
 
 Santa Barbara, Cal. 
 
 Sierre Madre, Cal. 
 
 South Pasadena, Cal. 
 
 Turlock, Cal. 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Atlanta, Ga. 
 
 Evanston, 111. 
 
 Glencoe, 111. 
 
 Oak Park, 111. 
 
 Brockton, Mass. 
 
 Gardner, Mass. 
 
 Minneapolis, Minn. 
 
 Richmond Heights, Mo. 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Omaha, Neb. 
 
 Bound Brook, N. J. 
 
 Caldwell, N. J. 
 
 Cliffside Park, N. J. 
 
 East Orange, N. J. 
 
 Glenridge, N. J. 
 ^ Hoboken, N. J. 
 
 Irvington, N. J. 
 
 Maplewood, N. J. 
 
 Montclair, N. J, 
 
 Newark, N. J.' 
 
 Nutley, N. J. 
 
 Paterson, N. J. 
 
 Rahway, N. J. 
 
 Roselle Park, N. J. 
 - South Orange, N. J. 
 
 Westfield, N. J. 
 
 West Orange, N. J. 
 
 Gloversville, N. Y. 
 
 New Rochelle, N. Y. 
 
 New York City, N. Y. 
 
 Niagara Falls, N. Y. 
 
 Ossining, N. Y. 
 
 Rochester, N. Y. 
 
 White Plains, N. Y. 
 
 Yonkers, N. Y. 
 
 Cleveland Heights, Ohio. 
 
 East Cleveland, Ohio. 
 
 Lakewood, Ohio. 
 
 Salt Lake City, Utah. 
 
 Tacoma, Wash. 
 
 Cudahy, Wis. 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 Neenah, Wis. 
 
 Racine, Wis. 
 By addressing the chief engineer, 
 information can usually be obtained 
 from any of the above mentioned cities. 
 The National City Planning Confer- 
 ence has for the last ten years carried 
 on an unremitting and intensive study 
 of this subject. It has undoubtedly 
 been not only the principal advocate 
 and supporter of zoning but also the 
 most active disseminator of informa- 
 
ZONING 
 
 333 
 
 tion about zoning. The American City 
 Planning Institute, affiliated with the 
 National Conference, has devoted a 
 series of meetings to discussing the 
 principles of zoning from every angle, 
 receiving suggestions from every part 
 of the country in the hope that it might 
 promulgate an authoritative statement 
 of such principles. The annual reports 
 of the National Conference contain a 
 great deal of helpful material on zon- 
 ing. Lawson Purdy Is the president 
 and Flavel Shurtleff, 60 State Street, 
 Boston, Massachusetts, is the secre- 
 tary of both organizations. Herbert 
 Hoover, secretary of commerce, Wash- 
 ington, D. C, with the help of an ad- 
 visory committee representing many 
 states is now preparing information on 
 enabling acts and ordinances. 
 
 VI. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF ZON- 
 ING FORMULATED BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 (i) The subject in relation to city planning 
 should be called zoning, the boards zoning 
 boards or commissions. In laws and ordinances 
 the word zoning should be used in the title and 
 the word districts in the body of the law to 
 specify the areas affected. 
 
 (2) Zoning is the creation by law of districts 
 in which regulations differing in different dis- 
 tricts prohibit Injurious or unsuitable structures 
 and uses of structures and land. 
 
 (3) Zoning should be done under the police 
 power of the state and not by condemnation. 
 
 (4) Zoning by the exercise of the police pow- 
 er of the state must relate to the health, safety, 
 morals, order and general welfare of the com- 
 munity. It follows therefore that police power 
 zoning must be confined to police power reasons 
 such as fire risk, lack of light and air, congested 
 living quarters and other conditions inimical to 
 the general welfare. The preventive regulations 
 based on these reasons, which necessarily must 
 be applied differently and in different measure 
 in different districts, naturally group themselves 
 into zoning according to use of structures and 
 land, according to height of buildings and ac- 
 cording to portion of lot covered by buildings. 
 Zoning might go further and embrace the sub- 
 jects of fire limits, setbacks, and doubtless other 
 classes of regulations. Enhancement of value 
 
 alone, or aesthetics alone has not thus far been 
 considered by the courts to be a sufficient basis 
 for zoning when done under the police power. 
 
 (5) Before enacting zoning regulations a city 
 should have obtained the power to do so from 
 the state legislature. The essential statement in 
 such grant of power is that the city may impose 
 different regulations ior structures and for the 
 uses of land and structures in different districts. 
 
 (6) Zoning Is part of the city plan and should 
 be applied to land as early as possible and where 
 practicable at the time the street layout is 
 adopted. Studies for zoning In undeveloped 
 districts should be accompanied by studies for 
 at least main and secondary thoroughfares. 
 
 (7) Zoning when applied to existing cities 
 should be adapted generally to existing condi- 
 tions but should endeavor to check undesirable 
 tendencies. 
 
 (8) In the same city, localities having sub- 
 stantially a like character and situation should 
 be zoned In the same manner. This principle 
 should prevent arbitrary, piecemeal or partial 
 zoning, which is dangerous and may be Illegal. 
 
 (9) Zoning should be sufficiently stable to 
 protect those who comply with the law, but at 
 the same time should be susceptible of change 
 by the municipal authority under strict checks 
 prescribed by state law, so that it can be altered 
 to meet changing conditions or conditions not 
 adequately recognized. 
 
 (10) Provision should be made that Inter- 
 ested property owners may initiate the consid- 
 eration of changes, but the actual application of 
 the zoning regulations to the land and any 
 changes therein should rest with the municipal 
 authority and not with the property owners. It 
 Is a wise expedient to require more than a ma- 
 jority vote or even a unanimous vote, of the 
 municipal authority to changes unless a substan- 
 tial majority of the property owners affected 
 thereby have given their consent thereto. 
 
 (11) Zoning regulations may properly be 
 supplemented by restrictions in deeds based up- 
 on purely aesthetic reasons or for the purpose of 
 creating a uniform residential development or 
 for other purposes. 
 
 (12) Regulations applicable to all buildings 
 of a class regardless of location, such as relate 
 to plumbing, strength of material, safety de- 
 vices, or protection of employes against fire 
 should not be placed in a zoning law. They are 
 properly part of a housing law, factory law or 
 building law. Only those requirements which 
 differ in different districts enter into a zoning 
 law. 
 
334 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 (13) Use districts normally comprise resi- 
 dence, business, light industry and heavy indus- 
 try districts. The kinds of industries prohib- 
 ited in light industry districts should be enumer- 
 ated. Residences should be permitted in busi- 
 ness districts and both residences and business 
 should be permitted in light industry districts. 
 It is a moot question whether and under what 
 conditions residences should be prohibited in 
 heavy industry districts. Classes of use dis- 
 tricts should be few. The more minute adapta- 
 tion to local needs should as a rule be provided 
 for in the area and height zoning and by per- 
 mitting special uses under conditions stated in 
 the ordinance or under the administration of a 
 board of appeals empowered to make building 
 exceptions. There is lack of agreement as to 
 the desirabilit}^ and legality of prohibiting apart- 
 ment houses, flats, tenement houses and other 
 multiple dwellings in certain districts limited to 
 single family dwellings. 
 
 (14) Where zoning regulations apply only to 
 new buildings (as is the safer practice) buildings 
 occupied for non-conforming uses should be 
 placed under constant pressure to become con- 
 forming through changes with the lapse of time. 
 
 (a) Structural alterations made in a non- 
 conforming building should not during its life 
 exceed one-half its value, nor should the build- 
 ing be enlarged, unless its use is changed to a 
 conforming use. 
 
 (b) No non-conforming use should be ex- 
 tended by displacing a conforming use. 
 
 (c) In a residence district no non-conform- 
 ing building or premises devoted to a use per- 
 mitted in a business district should be changed 
 into a use not permitted in a business district. 
 
 (d) In a residence or business district no 
 non-conforming building or premises devoted to 
 a use permitted in a light industry district 
 should be changed into a use not permitted in a 
 light industry district. 
 
 (e) In a residence, business or light industry 
 district no building devoted to a use excluded 
 from a light industry district should be structur- 
 ally altered if its use shall have been changed 
 since the time of the passage of the ordinance to 
 another use also excluded from a light industry 
 district. 
 
 (f) In a residence, business or light industry 
 district no building devoted to a use excluded 
 from a light industry district should have its use 
 changed to another use which is also excluded 
 from a light industry district if the building has 
 been structurally altered since the time of the 
 passage of the ordinance. 
 
 (15) In business and industry districts towers 
 within a prescribed height limit should be per- 
 mitted but should not occupy over one-quarter 
 of the lot area. They should be allowed on the 
 street line all the way up, but should stand away 
 from side lines according to a suitable rule. 
 
 (16) Height limitations should be determined 
 primarily by widths of streets and the use of the 
 property. There should also be flat maximum 
 limitations irrespective of street widths which 
 should be fixed with due regard to local condi- 
 tions. 
 
 (17) Included m area limitations there should 
 be a provision for the percentage of lot that can 
 be covered and a limitation of families per acre 
 or of the minimum square feet of lot area per 
 family. 
 
 (18) There should be an administrative board 
 with power under state law: 
 
 (a) To rectify on appeals the errors of build- 
 ing superintendents in passing on applications 
 for building permits. 
 
 (b) To decide borderline and exceptional 
 cases of buildings where specified in the ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 (c) To vary the literal requirement of the 
 law in individual cases of buildings where un- 
 necessary and excessive hardship Is caused and 
 the intention of the law Is equally accomplished 
 by an alternative method to be prescribed. 
 
 Not only should the powers of such a board 
 be specified in the ordinance, but the state leg- 
 islature should authorize the municipal authority 
 to create such a board and to provide In the 
 ordinance what borderline and exceptional cases 
 it may decide. A larger vote than a mere ma- 
 jority should be required for an affirmative de- 
 cision. Proceedings and records of the board 
 should be public and members of the board 
 should be removable for cause. Decisions of 
 the board should be subject to court review. 
 
 VII. SUGGESTIONS FOR FORMS OF 
 LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS 
 
 The acts of the legislature of the 
 state of New York probably cover the 
 subject of zoning more completely than 
 those of any other state. Reference 
 to these enactments is more confidently 
 made by the author because they have 
 been worked out from the ground up 
 in the most painstaking manner, and 
 have stood the test of court construc- 
 tion. 
 
ZONING 
 
 335 
 
 The statutes applicable to New York 
 city will be found in Chapter IX "En- 
 abling Acts." They are embodied in 
 the charter of the city of New York. 
 
 Appended hereto, however, is the 
 New York legislative enactment grant- 
 ing zoning powers to all cities of the 
 state. It contains the best features of 
 the New York charter, with a few 
 changes made desirable by court de- 
 cisions. 
 
 "An Act to amend the general city law, in 
 relation to the regulation of buildings and the 
 location of trades and industries. 
 
 (Section 20. Grant of specific powers. Sub- 
 ject to the constitution and general laws of 
 this state, every city is empowered). 
 
 24. To regulate and limit the height and 
 bulk of buildings hereafter erected and to reg- 
 ulate and determine the area of yards, courts 
 and other open spaces, and for said purposes 
 to divide the city into districts. Such regula- 
 tions shall be uniform for each class of buildings 
 throughout any district, but the regulations in 
 one or more districts may difTer from those in 
 other districts. Such regulations shall be de- 
 signed to secure safety from fire and other dan- 
 gers and to promote the public health and wel- 
 fare, including, so far as conditions may per- 
 mit, provision for adequate light, air and con- 
 venience of access, and shall be made with 
 reasonable regard to the character of buildings 
 erected in each district, the value of land and 
 the use to which it may be put, to the end that 
 such regulations may promote public health, 
 safety and welfare and the most desirable use 
 for which the land of each district may be 
 adapted and may tend to conserve the value of 
 buildings and enhance the value of land through- 
 out the city.. 
 
 25. To regulate and restrict the location of 
 trades and industries and the location of build- 
 ings, designed for specified uses, and for said 
 purposes to divide the city into districts and to 
 prescribe for each such district the trades and 
 industries that shall be excluded or subjected to 
 special regulation and the uses for which build- 
 ings may not be erected or altered. Such reg- 
 ulations shall be designed to promote the public 
 health, safety and general welfare and shall be 
 made with reasonable consideration, among other 
 things, to the character of the district, its pe- 
 culiar suitability for particular uses, the con- 
 servation of property values and the direction 
 of building development, in accord with a well 
 considered plan." ** 
 
 Chapter 483 of the general city law of the 
 state of New York, passed May 15, 191 7. 
 
 "An Act to amend the general city law, in re- 
 lation to the regulation of buildings and the 
 location of trades and industries. 
 
 §81. Board of appeals, i. The Mayor of 
 
 any city, except a city of the first class, may 
 appoint a board of appeals consisting of five 
 members, each to be appointed for three years. 
 Such board of appeals shall hear and decide 
 appeals from and review any order, requirement, 
 decision or determination made by an adminis- 
 trative official charged with the enforcement of 
 any ordinance adopted pursuant to paragraphs 
 twenty-four and twenty-five of section twenty 
 of this chapter. They shall also hear and de- 
 cide all matters referred to them or upon which 
 they are required to pass under any ordinance 
 of the common council adopted pursuant to such 
 two paragraphs. The concurring vote of four 
 members of the board shall be necessary to re- 
 verse any order, requirement, decision or de- 
 termination of any such administrative official, 
 or to decide in favor of the applicant any mat- 
 ter upon which they are required to pass under 
 any such ordinance or to effect any variation in 
 such ordinance. Every decision of such board 
 shall, however, be subject to review by cer- 
 tiorari. Such appeal may be taken by any per- 
 son aggrieved or by an officer, department 
 board or bureau of the city. 
 
 2. Appeal, how taken. Such appeal shall be 
 taken within such time as shall be prescribed 
 by the board of appeals by general rule, by fil- 
 ing with the officer from whom the appealis 
 taken and with the board of appeals of a notice 
 of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof. The 
 officer from whom the appeal is taken shall 
 forthwith transmit to the board all the papers 
 constituting the record upon which the action 
 appealed from was taken. 
 
 3. Stay. An appeal stays all proceedings in 
 furtherance of the action appealed from unless 
 the officer from whom the appeal is taken certi- 
 fies to the board of appeals after the notice of 
 appeal shall have been filed with him that by 
 reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay 
 would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to 
 life and property, in which case proceedirigs 
 shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restrain- 
 ing order which may be granted by the board of 
 appeals or by the supreme court, on application, 
 on notice to the officer from whom the appeal is 
 taken and on due cause shown. 
 
 4. Hearing of and decision upon appeal. 
 The board of appeals shall fix a reasonable time 
 for the hearing of the appeal and give due notice 
 thereof to the parties, and decide the same 
 within reasonable time. Upon the hearing, any 
 party may appear in person or by agent or by 
 attorney. The board of appeals may reverse or 
 affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the 
 order, requirement, decision or determination ap- 
 pealed from and shall make such order, require- 
 ment, decision or determination as in its opinion 
 ought to be made in the premises, and to that 
 end shall have all the powers of the officer from 
 whom the appeal is taken. Where there are 
 practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in 
 the way of carrying out the strict letter of such 
 ordinance, the board of appeals shall have the 
 power of passing upon appeals, to varyor mod- 
 ify any of its rules, regulations or provisions -re- 
 
336 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 lating to the construction, structural changes in, 
 equipment or alteration of buildings or struc- 
 tures, so that the spirit of the ordinance shall 
 be observed, public safety secured and substan- 
 tial justice done. 
 
 §82. Certiorari to review decision of board 
 of appeals, i. Petition. Any person or per- 
 sons, jointly or severally aggriev^ed by any de- 
 cision of the board of appeals, or any officer, 
 department, board or bureau of the city, may 
 present to the supreme court a petition, duly 
 verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, 
 in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of 
 the illegality. Such petition must be presented 
 to a justice of the supreme court or at a special 
 term of the supreme court within thirty days 
 after the filing of the decision in the office of the 
 board. 
 
 2. Writ of certiorari. Upon presentation of 
 such petition, the justice or court may allow a 
 writ of certiorari directed to the board of ap- 
 peals to review such decision of the board of 
 appeals and shall prescribe therein the time 
 within which a return thereto must be made and 
 served upon the relator or his attorney, which 
 shall not be less than ten days and may be ex- 
 tended by the court or a justice thereof. Such 
 writ shall be returnable to a special term of the 
 supreme court of the judicial district in which 
 the property affected, or a portion thereof, is 
 situated. The allowance of the writ shall not 
 stay proceedings upon the decision appealed 
 from, but the court may, on application, on 
 notice to the board and on due cause shown, 
 grant a restraining order. 
 
 3. Return to writ. The board of appeals 
 shall not be required to return the original pa- 
 pers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient 
 to return certified or sworn copies thereof or of 
 such portions thereof as may be called for by 
 such writ. The return must concisely set forth 
 such other facts as may be pertinent and ma- 
 terial to show the grounds of the decision ap- 
 pealed from and must be verified. 
 
 4. Proceedings upon return. If, upon the 
 hearing, it shall appear ^o the court that testi- 
 mony is necessary for the proper disposition of 
 the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a 
 referee to take such evidence as it may direct 
 and report the same to the court with his find- 
 ings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall 
 constitute a part of the proceedings upon which 
 the determination of the court shall be made. 
 The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or part- 
 ly or may modify the decision brought up for 
 review. 
 
 5. Costs. Costs shall not be allowed against 
 the board, unless it shall appear to the court 
 that it acted with gross negligence or in bad 
 faith or with malice in making the decision ap- 
 pealed from. 
 
 6. Preferences. All issues in any proceed- 
 ings under this section shall have preference 
 over all other civil actions and proceedings. • 
 
 §83. Amendments, alterations and changes 
 in district lines. The common council may from 
 time to time on its own motion or on petition, 
 
 after public notice and hearing, amend, supple- 
 ment or change the regulations and districts es- 
 tablished under any ordinance adopted pur- 
 suant to paragraphs twenty-four and twenty- 
 iive of section twenty of this chapter. When- 
 ever the owners of fifty per centum or more of 
 the frontage in any district or part thereof shall 
 present a petition duly signed and acknowledged 
 to the common council requesting an amend- 
 ment, supplement, change or repeal of the reg- 
 ulations prescribed for such district or part 
 thereof, it shall be the duty of the council to 
 vote upon said petition within ninety days after 
 the filing of the same by the petitioners with 
 the secretary of the council. If, however, a 
 protest against such amendment, supplement or 
 change be presented, duly signed and acknowl- 
 edged by the owners of twenty per centum or 
 more of any frontage proposed to be altered, or 
 by the owners of twenty per centum of the 
 frontage immediately in the rear thereof, or by 
 the owners of twenty per centum of the front- 
 age directly opposite the frontage proposed to 
 be altered, such amendment shall not be passed 
 except by the unanimous vote of the council." 
 
 Article 5-A of the general city law of the 
 state of New York, in effect May 12, 1920. 
 
 VIII. OPINIONS OF THE COURTS 
 Scope of the Police Power 
 
 City of Rochester v. West, 164 N. Y. 510 
 
 (1900). _ 
 Cusack V. City of Chicago, 267 111. 344; U. S. 
 
 Supreme Court, 242 U. S. 526 (Jan. 15, 
 
 1917)- 
 Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36. 
 Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 
 Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171 
 People ex rel. Busching v. Ericsson (1914), 263 
 
 111. 368, 105 N. E. 31S, L. R. A. 191S D 
 
 607 
 People ex rel. Keller v. Village of Oak Park 
 
 (1915), 266 111. 365, 107 N. E. 636 
 City of Spokane v. Camp, Supreme Court of 
 
 Washington, October 15, 1908, 97 Pac. Rep. 
 
 770 
 People ex rel. Kemp v. D'Oench, iii N. Y. 359 
 
 (1888). 
 Tenement House Dept. v. Moeschen, 179 N. Y. 
 
 32s (1904) 
 Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 188 
 Nahser v. City of Chicago, 271 111. 288, L. R. A. 
 
 (1916), 95 
 Spann v. City of Dallas, 189 S. W. 999 
 In the Matter of the Application of Richard 
 
 _ Russell, 158 N. Y. Supp. 162 (1916) 
 Quintini v. City of Bay St. Louis, 64 Miss. 483, 
 
 I South 625, 60 Am. Rep. 62 
 Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 
 
 186 (U. S. Supreme Ct.) 1911 
 People V. Wineburg Adv. Co., 195 N. Y. 126 
 Haller Sign Works v. Phvsical Culture Training 
 
 School, 249 111., 436, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
 
 Gunning Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis, 
 235 Mo. 99, 137 S. W. 929 
 
ZONING 
 
 337 
 
 City of St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466, 42 L. 
 R. A. 686 
 
 Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 132 
 
 Eubank v. Richmond, no Va. 749, 67 S. E. 376 
 
 Romar Realty Co. v. Board of Commissioners 
 
 of the Borough of Haddonfield, Supreme 
 
 Court, New Jersey, filed June 22, 1921 
 Sherman, et al. v. Shevitz, et al., Circuit Court, 
 
 Wayne County, Michigan, No. 67777 
 
 (1919) 
 Grant of the Police Power by the Leg- 
 islature to the City 
 City of Chicago v. Stratton, 162 111. 494, 35 L. 
 
 R. A. 84 
 City of Olympia v. Mann, i Wash. 389 
 Mount Vernon First National Bank v. Sarlls, 
 
 129 Ind. 201, 13 L. R. A. 481 
 Commonwealth v. Roberts, 155 Mass. 281 
 Health Department v. Rector, etc., 145 N. Y. 
 
 32 (1895) 
 People ex rel. Friend v. Chicago, 261 111. 16 
 State V. Johnson, 114 N. C. 846 
 Clements v. McCabe, et al.. Supreme Court, 
 
 Michigan, 177 N. W. R. 722 (1920) 
 People ex rel. Lincoln Ice Co. v. City of Chi- 
 cago, Supreme Court of Illinois, October 
 
 28, 1913, 260 111. 150 
 Coyne v. Prichard, Supreme Court, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Western District, filed January 3, 
 
 1922 
 Spann v. City of Dallas, et al., Dallas County, 
 
 Fifth District, Dallas, Texas, November 2, 
 
 1921 
 Osborne, Building Inspector, v. Grauel, Court 
 
 of Appeals, Maryland, filed February 5, 
 
 1920 
 Blakeslee, Inc. v. Mayor, et al, Jersey City, N. 
 
 J., 112 Atlantic Rep. 593. (March 31, 1921) 
 City of St. Louis v. Evraiff, et al., Supreme 
 
 Court of Missouri, Division No. 2, #22412, 
 
 October Term, 1921 
 
 Eminent Domain Not Applicable to 
 Zoning 
 
 Sanitary District of Chicago v. Chicago and A. 
 
 R. Co., Supreme Court of 111., February 17, 
 
 1915, 108 N. E. Rep. 312 
 Forster v. Scott,_i36 N. Y. 577 
 Matter of opening Furman Street, 17 Wend. 
 
 (N. Y.), 649 
 Matter of opening Rogers Avenue, 29 Abb. N. 
 
 C. (N. Y.), 361 
 Edwards v. Bruorton, 184 Mass. 529 
 Matter of Clinton Ave., 57 App. Div. 166 (N. 
 
 People ex rel. Dilzer v. Calder, 89 (N. Y.) App. 
 
 Div. 503 (1903) 
 St. Louis V. Hill, 116 Mo. 527 (1893) 
 Attornev General v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476, 
 
 SS N. E. 77, 47 R. A. 314 (1899) 
 Town of Windsor v. Whitney, et al, 95 Conn. 
 
 Rep. 357 (1920) 
 
 Constitutionality of Zoning 
 
 Welch V. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364; affirmed 214 
 U. S. 91 
 
 Cochran v. Preston, 108 Md. 220, 23 L. R. A. 
 (N. S.) 1163 
 
 Ex Parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal. 20, 118 Pac. 714 
 
 In re Montgomery, 163 Cal. 457, Ann. Cas. 
 1914 A, 130, 125 Pac. 1070 
 
 Ex Parte Hadacheck, 165 Cal. 416, L. R. A. 
 1916 B 1248 
 
 Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U. S. 394 
 
 State ex rel. Lachtman v. Houghton, 158 N. W. 
 Rep. 1017. A valuable discussion pf this 
 and other cases by R. S. Wiggin in Minne- 
 sota Law Review, February, 1917 
 
 Opinion of the Justices, Mass. House Doc. No. 
 1774 (1920), 127 N. E. R. 525 {1920) 
 
 State of Ohio ex rel. Morris v. Osborn, April 
 30, 1920, 22 N. P. (N. S.) 549; The Ohio 
 Law Reporter, Vol. 18, No. 22, August 23, 
 1920 
 
 Lincoln Trust Company v. Williams Building 
 Corporation, 169 N. Y. Supp. 1045; 183 
 App. Div. 225; decided July 7, 1920. Court 
 of Appeals, 229 N. Y. 313, Advance Sheets 
 No. 1024 
 
 Cliffside Park Realty Co. v. Borough of CliflF- 
 side Park, Supreme Court, New Jersey, 
 filed February 18, 1921, Enoch L. Johnson, 
 Clerk, Trenton, N. J.; affirmed Court of 
 Errors and Appeals, New Jersey, filed June 
 20, 1921, Thomas F. Martin, Clerk 
 
 Handy v. Village of South Orange, et al., Su- 
 preme Court, New Jersey (Newark), Feb- 
 ruary 22, 1922 
 
 Pera v. Village of Shorewood, Circuit Court, 
 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 28, 1921 
 
 Village of South Orange v. Heller, Chancery 
 Court, New Jersey, May, 1921 
 
 Procedure and Board of Appeals 
 
 Aaderson v. Steinway 165 N. Y. Supp. 608; 
 
 178 App. Div. 507; 221 N. Y. 639 (1917) 
 Whitridge, et al. v. Park, Calestock, et al., 100 
 
 Misc. 367; 165 N. Y. Supp. 640; 179 App. 
 
 Div. 884 (1917) 
 People ex rel. Flegenheimer v. Leo, New York 
 
 Law Journal, May 8, 1918; 186 App. Div. 
 
 893 (1918) 
 People ex rel. New York Central R. R. ■:;. Leo, 
 
 105 Misc. 372 (1918) 
 People ex rel. Beinert v. Miller, 100 Misc. Rep. 
 
 318; 165 N. Y. Supp. 602; 188 App. Div. 
 
 113 (1919) 
 People ex rel. Sondern v. Walsh, 108 Misc. 193; 
 
 also 196 (1919) 
 People ex rel. McAvoy v. Leo, et al., 109 Misc. 
 
 255 (1919) 
 
 People ex rel. Cotton v. Leo, no Misc. 519; 
 194 App. Div. 921 (1920) 
 
 People ex rel. Healy v. Leo, et al., 194 App. 
 Div. 973 (1920) 
 
 Walsh V. Cusack Co., et al., New York Su- 
 preme Court, New York Law Journal, 
 March 3, 1921, p. 1878 
 
 People ex rel. Ruth v. Leo, et al.. New York 
 Supreme Court, Special Term, Part VI, 
 
338 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 New York Law Journal, March 29, 1921, 
 
 p. 219s; 197 App. Div. 942 (1921) 
 Biggs V. Stein way & Sons, 182 N. Y. Supp. 
 
 loi; 191 App. Div. 526; 229 N. Y. 320 
 
 (1920) 
 People ex rel. Helvetia Realty Co., et al., v. 
 
 Leo, et al., 183 N. Y. Supp. 37; 195 App. 
 
 Div. 887; 231 N. Y. Ill (1921) 
 People ex rel. Facey v. Leo, no Misc. 516; 193 
 
 App. Div. 910; 230 N. Y. 602 (1921) 
 People ex rel. Sheldon v. Board of Appeals, 115 
 
 Misc. 449; affirmed Appellate Division, 
 
 New York Law Journal, February 25, 1922, 
 
 p. 1849 
 
 Lack of Board of Appeals 
 
 State of Nebraska ex rel. Westminister Pres- 
 byterian Church of Omaha v. Edgecomb, 
 Chief Engineer, District Court of Douglas 
 County, Nebraska, Doc. 185, No. 261, Sep- 
 tember I, 1921 
 
 IX. ENABLING ACTS 
 
 California, 1917, chapter 734. 
 
 Connecticut, 192 1. 
 
 Iowa, 1917, chapter 138. 
 
 Illinois, June 28, 1919. 
 
 Illinois, June 28, 1921. 
 
 Indiana, 1921, chapter 225. 
 
 Kansas, 1921, chapter 100. 
 
 Louisiana, June 18, 1918. 
 
 Massachusetts, 1898, chapter 452. 
 
 Massachusetts, 1904, chapter 333. 
 
 Massachusetts, 1920, chapter 601. 
 
 Michigan, May, 192 1. 
 
 Minnesota, 1915, chapter 128. 
 
 Minnesota, 1921, chapter 217. 
 
 Missouri, March 31 and April i, 1921. 
 
 Nebraska, 192 1. 
 
 New Jersey, 1917, chapter 54. 
 
 New Jersey, 1918, chapter 146. 
 
 New Jersey, 1920, chapter 240. 
 
 New Jersey, 1921, chapter 82. 
 
 New Jersey, 192 1, chapter 276. 
 
 New York, charter of city of New 
 York, Sections 242a-242b; 718-719. 
 
 New York, 1917, chapter 483, Gen- 
 eral City Law. 
 
 New York, charter of Rochester, Laws 
 1917, chapter 505. 
 
 New York, 192 1, chapter 464 Village 
 Law. 
 
 Ohio, February 13, 1920. 
 
 Oregon, 1919, chapter 300. 
 Pennsylvania, May 11, 1915. 
 Pennsylvania, June 21, 1919. 
 Pennsylvania, June 25 ,1919. 
 Pennsylvania, May 11, 1921. 
 Rhode Island, 192 1, chapter 2069. 
 South Carolina, March 4, 192 1. 
 Tennessee, 192 1, chapter 165. 
 Texas — charter of the city of Dallas, 
 
 1920. 
 Texas, 1921, chapter 87. 
 U. S. Congress for Washington, March 
 
 I, 1920. 
 Wisconsin, 1913, chapters 457 and 743. 
 Wisconsin, 1917, chapter 404. 
 Wisconsin, 1919, chapter 691. 
 Wisconsin, 192 1. 
 
 X. THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ZONING 
 
 BY THEODORA KIMBALL^ 
 
 Within the last ten years in this 
 country there have appeared a consid- 
 erable number of publications relating 
 to zoning. The earliest of these dealt 
 largely with European practice as a 
 suggestion or guide for proposals in 
 the United States. As our cities draft- 
 ed their own zoning ordinances, and 
 succeeded in getting them adopted, a 
 steady and increasing stream of re- 
 ports and descriptive articles has come 
 forth, valuable to other cities as a rec- 
 ord of experience. In addition, mem- 
 bers of the American City Planning 
 Institute, especially Messrs. Bartholo- 
 mew, Bassett, Cheney, Ford, Swan, 
 Whitten, and Williams, have summar- 
 ized the results of their work in the 
 zoning field. A small selection from 
 all the above-mentioned groups of pub- 
 lications is given below. 
 
 A full bibliography of American ref- 
 erences on zoning would comprise a 
 large number of additional titles, in- 
 cluding reports of local progress, con- 
 densations of the same paper in sev- 
 eral periodicals, and publications with 
 little or no explanatory text, of maps 
 
ZONING 
 
 339 
 
 and ordinances, drafted or enacted. 
 Some account of these latter will be 
 found by consulting the list of cities 
 where zoning has been adopted, given 
 elsewhere in this pamphlet. In the 
 bibliography for the earlier edition of 
 the pamphlet (1920), a number of 
 local publications not repeated here 
 were included. 
 
 This present bibliography has been 
 checked by Mr. Bassett with the files 
 of the Zoning Committee of New York 
 and has been selected from all publica- 
 tions received both at the Harvardi 
 School of Landscape Architecture and 
 the Zoning Committee's office up to 
 March 16, 1922. 
 
 iLibrarian, School of Landscape Architecture 
 at Harvard University; Honorary Librarian, 
 American City Planning Institute. 
 
 Selected References on Zoning 
 
 In Books, Reports, and Pamphlets 
 
 American Civic Association. Zoning, as an 
 element in city planning, and for protec- 
 tion of property values, public safety, and 
 public health, by Lawson Purdy, Harland 
 Bartholomew, Edward M. Bassett, Andrew 
 Wright Crawford, Herbert S. Swan. Wash- 
 ington, June, 1920. 48 p. (Ser. H, no. 15, 
 June 30, 1920). 
 Atlanta, Ga. City Planning Commission. 
 The Atlanta zone plan: report outlining a 
 tentative zone plan for Atlanta, by Robert 
 H. Whitten, Consultant. Atlanta, 1922. 
 18 p. illus. photos, diagrams, map. [Ex- 
 cellent statement of advantages of zoning.] 
 Bassett, Edward M. The Board of Appeals 
 in zoning. New York, Pub. by Zoning 
 Committee of New York [1921]. 25 p. 
 
 . Zoning. (Supplement to National 
 
 Municipal Review, May, 1920, v. 9, no. 5, 
 p. 315-341.) Revised edition 1922. [A 
 general treatise on the subject, containing 
 a statement of principles, program of action, 
 and legal basis, with bibliography by T. 
 Kimball.] 
 Cheney, Charles Henry. Procedure for zon- 
 ing or districting of cities. San Francisco, 
 California Conference on City Planning, 
 Sept., 1917. IS p. plans. (Bulletin No. 2). 
 Chicago, III. Citizens' Zone Plan Conference, 
 Report of Proceedings. Dec. 16, 1919. 94 
 p. (Issued by Union League Club, Chi- 
 cago.) 
 Civic Club of Allegheny County. _ Munici- 
 pal Planning Committee. Districting and 
 
 zoning; what it is; why Pittsburgh should 
 do it. Jan. i, 1918. 7 P- iHus. plans. 
 Cleveland. City Plan Commission. The 
 Cleveland zone plan; report to the City 
 Plan Commission outlining tentative zone 
 plan for Cleveland, by Robert H. Whitten 
 and Frank R. Walker. Cleveland, 1921. 
 23 p. illus. plans, diagrams. [An effective 
 "selling-campaign" document.] 
 Davis, Earl H., compiler. Zoning. [A com- 
 pilation showing the advance of the move- 
 ment in the United States.] St. Louis, 
 July, 1917. [38 p.] plans. (St. Louis Pub- 
 lic Library Monthly Bulletin, n. s. v. 15, 
 no. 7). 
 Detroit, Mich. City Plan Commission. A 
 building zone plan for Detroit. Nov., 
 1919. 18 p. illus. T. Glenn Phillips and 
 Harland Bartholomew, consultants. 
 Ford, George B. Building zones; a handbook 
 of restrictions on the height, area and use 
 of buildings, with especial reference to New 
 York City. New York, Lawyats Mortgage 
 Co. [1917.] 36p.+plans. illus. [Con- 
 tains digest of cases: Constitutionality of 
 the zone plan, by H. S. Swan.] 
 Lewis, Nelson P. The planning of the mod- 
 ern city. New York, Wiley and Sons, 1916. 
 p. 260-285: Restrictions, illus. plan. [Re- 
 lates largely to building height regulation 
 and districting.] 
 McBain, Howard Lee. American city prog- 
 ress and the law. New York, Columbia 
 University Press, 1918. p. 92-123: City 
 planning. Building heights and zoning. 
 National Conference on City Planning. 
 
 (60 State St., Boston.) Proceedings 
 
 4th, 1912, p. 173-191: The control of 
 municipal development by the ''Zone sys- 
 tem" and its application in the United 
 States, by B. Antrim Haldeman. With 
 discussion. Condensed in American City, 
 Sept., 1912. 
 
 6th, 1914, p. 92-132: Protecting resi- 
 dential districts, by Lawrence Veiller. With 
 discussion. Also published separately by 
 National Housing Association. 
 
 8th, 1916, p. 147-176: Districting by 
 
 municipal regulation, by Lawrence Veiller. 
 With discussion. 
 
 9th, 1917, p. 168-227, 289-298: Dis- 
 tricting and zoning of cities. Introductory 
 remarks, by Henry D. Ashley. — Districting 
 and zoning of cities, by Lawson Purdy.— 
 Districting progress and procedure in Cali- 
 fornia, by Charles Henry Cheney. — Build- 
 ing heights in Washington, D. C, by Rich- 
 ard B. Watrous. — Constitutional limita- 
 tions on city planning powers, by Edward 
 M. Bassett. Also published separately by 
 City of New York. 
 
 loth, 1918, p. 34-71: The zoning of 
 
 residence sections, by Robert H. Whitten. 
 — Industrial zoning in practice, by Herbert 
 S. Swan. With discussion. Mr. Swan's 
 paper was condensed in American City, 
 July, 1918. 
 
340 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENT 
 
 nth, 1919, p. 162-185. Zoning in 
 
 practice, by Charles H. Cheney. [Experi- 
 ence in Pacific Coast cities.] 
 
 I2th, 1920, p. 133-153- Zoning from 
 
 the viewpoint of the lender on real estate 
 mortgages, by W. L. Ulmer. — The need of 
 zoning in Cincinnati, by Bleecker Mar- 
 quette. — Recent court decisions on zoning, 
 by Alfred Bettman. 
 
 13th, 1921, p. 22-48. Zoning and liv- 
 ing conditions, by Robert H. Whitten. — 
 The effect of zoning upon living conditions, 
 by Herbert S. Swan. — How zoning affects 
 living conditions, by George B. Ford. Dis- 
 cussion p. 59-69, 151-154. 
 National Conference on Housing. (105 
 East 22d St., New York) Proceedings, 3d, 
 1913^ P- 54-62, 143-157: Districted resi- 
 dential and industrial districts in German 
 cities, by Frank Backus Williams. With 
 discussion. 
 New York (City). Heights of Buildings 
 Commission. Report of the heights of build- 
 ings commission to the committee on the 
 height, size and arrangement of buildings of 
 the Board of Estimate and Apportionment 
 of the City of New York. Dec. 23, 191 3. 
 New York, 1 91 3. 295 p. illus. Edward _M. 
 Bassett, chairman, Lawson Purdy, vice- 
 chairman, George B. Ford and R. H. Whit- 
 ten, consultants. [Appendices include: The 
 German zone building regulations, by F. B. 
 Williams. — Building restrictions in various 
 cities, by H. S. Swan.] 
 New York (City). Commission on Building 
 Districts and Restrictions. Final re- 
 port, June 2, 1916. (Also Supplementary 
 ed.. The City Club of New York.) City of 
 New York, Board of Estimate and Appor- 
 tionment, Committee on the City Plan, 
 1916. 100 p. illus. plans. Edward M. 
 Bassett, chairman of the commission, Law- 
 son Purdy, vice-chairman, George B. Ford 
 and R. H. Whitten, consultants. Tentative 
 report was issued March 10, 1916. [The 
 final report is perhaps the most compre- 
 hensive treatise on zoning now in print, re- 
 ferring to both European and initial Amer- 
 ican practice. It contains many arguments 
 in favor of zoning.] 
 Newark, N. J. City Plan Commission. En- 
 couraging proper city growth through build- 
 ing districts. Reprinted from a series of 
 articles published in the Newark Sunday 
 Call, beginning Feb. 4, 1917. (13 P-) iHus. 
 plan. 
 Portland, Ore. City Planning Commission. 
 Zoning and city planning for Portland, Ore- 
 gon. June, 1919. 55 p. illus. (Bulletin 
 No. i). References on zoning and city 
 planning, p. 55. 
 
 Proposed building zone for the 
 city of Portland, Oregon, as tentatively 
 recommended by the Neighborhood Prop- 
 erty Owners Meetings and the City Plan- 
 ning Commission, Oct. 25, 1919. ' 32 p. 
 (Bulletin No. 4.) C. H. Cheney, consult- 
 
 St. 
 
 ant. [Report contains section: The legality 
 of zoning, by Herbert S. Swan, p. 15-19.] 
 Louis. City Plan Commission. Prelimi- 
 nary statement on districting; a reasonable 
 exercise of the police power for health, 
 safety and general welfare. July, 1916. 
 
 3P- . 
 . Zoning for St. Louis; a fundamental 
 
 part of the city plan, Jan., 1918. 30 p. 
 
 illus. Harland Bartholomew, consultant. 
 
 . Height, area and use districts and 
 
 restrictions. May, 191 8. Folio of maps. 
 
 . The zone plan. June, 1919. 82 p. 
 
 illus. plans. [Contains section of "expert 
 testimony" giving arguments in favor of 
 zoning from hygienic, economic, etc., points 
 of view.] Harland Bartholomew, consult- 
 ant. 
 
 Swan, Herbert S. The law of zoning; a re- 
 view of the constitutionality of zoning reg- 
 ulations which control buildings in accord- 
 ance with a general plan of municipal de- 
 velopment. Supplement to National Mu- 
 nicipal Review, Oct., 1921, v. 10, p. 519- 
 536. 
 
 Veiller, Lawrence. Zoning. In his A model 
 housing law, revised edition, 1920, p. 375- 
 381. [Legislation suggested in connection 
 with the housing law.] 
 
 Williams, Frank Backus. The zoning or dis- 
 tricting system in its relation to housing. 
 Massachusetts Civic League (3 Joy St., 
 Boston) [1915.] 8 p. 
 
 hi Periodicals 
 
 American Architect (243 West 39th St., New 
 York), Nov. 13, 1918, vol. 114, p. 5?2-594- 
 The non-conforming building in zoning, by 
 Herbert S. Swan. 
 
 American City (Tribune Bldg., New York), 
 Dec, 191 3, vol. 9, p. 5x7-518. The street 
 as the basis of districting, by F. B. Wil- 
 liams. 
 
 , Apr., 1916, vol. 14, p. 328-333- illus. 
 
 City planning by coercion or legislation, by 
 George B. Ford. 
 
 , Aug., 1916, vol._i5, p. 183-184. The 
 
 new Berkeley zone ordinance, by Charles H. 
 Cheney. 
 
 , Oct., 1917. vol. 17, p. 357. The new 
 
 California State Zoning Act, by Charies H. 
 Cheney. 
 
 -, July, 1918, vol. 19, p. 3-6. illus. plan. 
 
 Zoning as a war-time measure, by Charles 
 H. Cheney. 
 
 , Aug., 1918, vol. 19, p. 127-130. illus. 
 
 The St. Louis zoning ordinance, by Harland 
 Bartholomew. 
 
 July, 1919, vol. 21, p. 1-3. illus. 
 Comprehensive zone ordinance adopted by 
 Alameda, by Charles _E. Hewes. [An up- 
 to-date ordinance typical of recent zoning 
 on Pacific Coast.] 
 
 , Nov., 1919, vol. 21, p. 458-460. The 
 
 legality of zoning regulations, by Herbert 
 S. Swan. 
 
 -, April,_ 1920, v. 22, p. 339-344; ^''"^• 
 Does your city keep its gas range in the 
 
ZONING 
 
 341 
 
 parlor and its piano in the kitchen? How 
 a zoning law, administered at norninal ex- 
 pense, will promote orderliness in com- 
 munity development, help real estate and 
 benefit the entire city, by Herbert S. Swan. 
 
 , Aug., 1920, V. 23, p. 140-142. The 
 
 zoning of apartment and tenement houses. 
 An important legal decision [East Cleve- 
 land] which will help to preserve our Amer- 
 ican cities as cities of homes, by Robert H. 
 Whitten. 
 
 , Mar., 1921, v. 24, p. 287, 289. Effi- 
 cient industry and wholesome housing true 
 aims of zoning, by Thomas Adams. [Zon- 
 ing placed in its broad relations to city de- 
 velopment.] 
 
 -, April, 1921, V. 24, p. 383-386. Sim- 
 plifying zoning. Exemplified in the com- 
 pleted ordinances for Mansfield, Ohio, and 
 East Orange, N. J., by George B. Ford. 
 
 Dec, 1921, V. 25, p. 456-458. The 
 remarkable spread of zoning in American 
 cities, prepared by American City Bureau. 
 [Lists of cities with ordinances enacted or 
 in preparation.] 
 
 , Mar., 1922, V. 26, p. 230. Interim 
 
 zoning, with suggestions for ordinances, by 
 Edward M. Bassett. 
 
 American Society of Civil Engineers Pro- 
 ceedings, Feb., 1922, v. 48, no. 2, p. 213- 
 218. The relation of zoning to the housing 
 problem, by B. Antrim Haldeman. 
 
 Architectural Forum. (85 Water St., Bos- 
 ton.) Oct., 1921, v. 35, p. 119-124. illus. 
 diagrams. New York's new architecture, the 
 effect of the zoning law on high buildings, 
 by Aymar Embury, II. 
 
 , Oct., 1921, v. 35, p. 131-134- illus. 
 
 Zoning and the architecture of high build- 
 ings, by Irving K. Pond. 
 
 Architectural Record. (115 W. 40th St., 
 New York.) Sept., 1920, v. 48, p. 193- 
 217. illus. plans. The New York zoning 
 resolution and its influence upon design, by 
 John Taylor Boyd, Jr. 
 
 Baltimore Municipal Journal. Series of art- 
 icles by JefTerson C. Grinnalds, beginning 
 Oct. 8, 1920, V. 8, no. 19, p. 4-5. What is 
 Zoning.'' Why should we have it.'' 
 
 National Municipal Review (National Muni- 
 cipal League), May, 1917, v. 7, p. 3?5-336. 
 Building Zone Plan of New York City, by 
 R. H. Whitten. 
 
 May, 1918, vol. 7, p. 244-254. How 
 zoning works in New York, by Herbert S. 
 Swan. 
 
 -, May, 1919, vol. 8, p. 226-229. The 
 next problem in city zoning, by Francis P. 
 Sloan. [Refers to already existing stores 
 and factories in newly created residential 
 zones.] 
 
 , Sept., 1919, vol. 8, p. 501-502. St. 
 
 Louis zoning law under fire, by Louis F. 
 Budenz. 
 
 -, Jan., 1920, vol. 9, p. 31-43. Zoning 
 in practice, by Charles H. Cheney. Paper 
 
 at nth National Conference on City Plan- 
 ning, Buffalo, 1919. 
 
 National Real Est.ate Journal (139 North 
 Clark St., Chicago), Nov., 1919, vol. 20, 
 no. 4, p. 21-24. illus. How zoning stand- 
 ardizes values, by Charles H. Cheney. 
 
 , Jan. 5, 1920, vol. 21, no. I, p. 25-28. 
 
 illus. Chicago zoning plan conference; a 
 two days' drive to create popular interest 
 and approval, touches many phases of the 
 subject. 
 
 , Mar. I, 1920, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 19-22. 
 
 Zoning experiences in many cities, by Har- 
 land Bartholomew. 
 
 , Feb. 14, 1921, V. 22, p. 16-17. The 
 
 need and nature of city zoning; an address 
 delivered at the Fourth Annual Convention 
 of the Real Estate Association of Illinois, 
 by Charles B. Ball. 
 
 -, Sept. 26, 1921, V. 22, no. 20, p. 41- 
 
 45. Zoning is so logical and reasonable 
 that it must come sooner or later — it is 
 inevitable. Paper and discussion at 14th 
 Annual Convention of National Associa- 
 tion of Real Estate Boards, by George B. 
 Ford. 
 
 , Oct. ID, 1921, V. 22, p. 36-39. Zon- 
 ing. The realtor's part in planning "the 
 city efficient," out of which grows "the 
 city beautiful." Paper at 14th Annual 
 Convention of National Association of Real 
 Estate Boards, by J. C. Nichols. 
 
 , Jan. 2, 1922, V. 23, p. 26. Zoning 
 
 vs. private restrictions, by Edward M. Bas- 
 sett. [Prevention of blighted districts.] 
 
 Park International, July, 1920, v. i, p. 56- 
 59. illus. Zoning in the location of public 
 parks, by Harland Bartholomew. 
 
 (Philadelphia) Realtor's News, Jan., 1922, 
 V. 3, p. 5-6. The legal view of zoning, by 
 E. A. Merrill. [Legal obstacles, and the 
 test of a good ordinance.] 
 
 Political Science Quarterly, Dec, 1921, v. 
 36, p. 617-641. Law making by property 
 owners. Shall the exercise of the police 
 power be made to depend on property 
 owners? By Howard Lee McBain. [In- 
 cludes a discussion of the validity of clauses 
 in zoning ordinances requiring the consent 
 of property owners.] 
 
 Special Libr.'Vries (Special Libraries Associa- 
 tion. 120 Peterborough St., Boston), Jan., 
 1916, vol. 7, p. 2-7. Bibliography on resi- 
 dential and industrial districts in cities, by 
 H. A. Rider. 
 
 Survey (112 East 19th St., New York), Mar. 
 6, 1920, vol. 43, p. 675-680, 718. illus. Un- 
 walled towns, by Bruno Lasker. [Tend- 
 encies towards Social segregation to be 
 guarded against in town planning and zon- 
 ing.] 
 
 , May 22, 1920, V. 44, p. 275-278. 
 
 map, plan. Removing social barriers by 
 zoning, by Charles H. Cheney. [A reply 
 to Mr. Lasker's article above.] 
 
Current Publications of the National Municipal League 
 
 A Model City Charter 
 Pocket Civic Series 
 
 1. Modern Principles of Polit- 
 ical Reform. 
 
 2. The Short Ballot. 
 
 3. The Story of the City-Man- 
 ager Plan, 
 
 A Model State Constitution 
 Technical Pamphlets . 
 
 1. The Assessment of Real Es- 
 tate. 
 
 2. Administrative Consolida- 
 tion in State Governments. 
 
 3. The Coming of Centralized 
 Purchasing in State Govern- 
 ments. 
 
 4. A Correct Public Policy 
 Toward the Street Railway 
 Problem. 
 
 5. Zoning. 
 
 50 cents 
 
 10 cents each, $5.00 per hundred 
 
 4. Ramshackle County Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 5. Municipal Undertakings. 
 
 6. Criminal Justice — How to 
 Achieve It. 
 
 7. Civil Service (The Merit 
 System.) 
 
 . . . . . 25 cents 
 
 25 cents each, $15.00 per hundred 
 6. 
 
 7- 
 
 If^ 8. 
 
 10. 
 
 12. 
 
 Employment Standardiza- 
 tion in the Public Service. 
 
 The Presidential Primary. 
 
 The Law of the City Plan. 
 
 Administrative Reorganiza- 
 tion in Illinois. 
 
 Service at Cost for Street 
 Railways. 
 
 The Law of Zoning. 
 
 State Parks (illustrated.) 
 
 i"^ The Planning of Cities and Towns in the 
 
 United States and Canada (illustrated) . . 50 cents 
 
 Outlines of a Model Election System ... 25 cents 
 
 The Fate of the Direct Primary . . . . 25 cents 
 
 Special Assessments for Public Improvement . 25 cents 
 
 The National Municipal League Series of Books 
 
 1. A New Municipal Program. 
 $2.60. 
 
 2. Experts in City Govern- 
 ment. $2.60. 
 
 3. Municipal Functions. $2.60. 
 
 4. Town Planning. $2.85. 
 
 5. City Planning. $2.60. 
 
 6. Satellite Cities, $2.60. 
 
 7. The Social Center. $2.60. 
 
 8. The City Manager. $2.60. 
 
 9. City Government by Com- 
 mission. $3.10. 
 
 10. Excess Condemnation. 
 $2.60. 
 
 11. The Reg^ulation of Municip- 
 al Utilities. $2.60. 
 
 12. The Initiative, Referendum 
 and Recall. $2.85. 
 
 13. Lower Living Costs in 
 Cities. $2.60. 
 
 14. Woman's Work in Munici- 
 palities. $2.60. 
 
 NATIONAL MUNICIPAL REVIEW 
 
 261 BROADWAY, NEW YORK 
 
 Annual Subscription $5.00 
 
 Free to Members of National Municipal League 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 
 (510)642-6753 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to NRLF 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 
 
 prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 JAN 011996 
 
 20,000 (4/94) 
 
FOURTEEN DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 20Sep'55CT 
 
 SEP^ 4:19bt) LU 
 
 .!%kv 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 DEC 2 )yb] 
 
 ^^ 
 
 sM 
 
 ' ' ' -'— U Uu 
 
 ^8 '64 -KM 
 
 LD 21-100m-2,'55 
 (B139s22)476 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley