The Difference Between Subjective & Objective Design Criteria Municipalities Use For New Housing Developments

“Stewards of Existing Conditions” are those currently living in their homes, and the “Sponsors of Proposed Projects” are those that are trying to live in their homes – or are those that are trying to make places for other people to live.  The Stewards tend to value “the way things were” and are much more powerful than the Sponsors.  This is because a.) they are living there now, or have been living there longer, and so they are a known entity to other residents and politicians, and b.) there are many more Stewards than Sponsors among the electorate. A Sponsor might not even live yet in the area, and therefore not be a relevant voice for the politician to care about because they can’t cast a vote.

Every municipality that has a Design Review process for proposed projects will have a list of codified “findings” that must be deemed “met” by those Commissioners tasked with its evaluation.  This process is also called “Discretionary Review” as the approval of the project is at the “Pleasure of the Planning Commission.”  Examples of Objective Criteria for a proposed project could include having at least a 12’ front yard setback, a maximum of .63 Floor-to-Area Ratio, and a maximum 47% Building Coverage Ratio. 

 If the criteria are clear and quantitative for the developer, then the predictability of timeline and budget estimates, and likelihood of a positive financial return, rise.  As contrast, examples of Subjective Criteria for a proposed project could include “must be consistent with neighborhood character”, “must not introduce too much bulk and mass,” and that there “must be enough light and air for adjacent properties.”

Those criteria are the trappings of the politicians and appointed officials – the right to the use subjective criteria being as coveted as access to oxygen.  Why?  Because it allows the official to gauge the sentiment of the Stewards/electorate, and if negative, pick a subjective finding or two that can’t be met.  Try arguing with a Planning Commissioner that your project does not occlude “light and air” from a neighboring structure.  Its impossible – there are no objective facts to work with.  It is totally subjective.

 These subjective criteria are of inestimable value to the official because they are directly related to the ability for these political operatives to be effective at securing votes from the Stewards.  And thus secure re-election, or re-appointment.