Controlling Strip Development: Case Studies From New England

.
Ross Moldoff
Author Info

Abstract

This article presents case studies of several communities that have tried to tame the spread of strip development. The communities range from small rural places in the early stages of strip development to large suburban areas with mature strips. The focus is on techniques for controlling the negative impacts of strip development which can be used by any community which has a strip or wants to prevent one from developing.

Introduction

Line a highway...with coal-yards, breweries, forges, warehouses, soap-works, shambles, and shanties, and there certainly would be nothing charming about it. Line it with ill-proportioned, vilely-colored, shabby-genteel dwelling houses...and it would be anything but attractive to people of taste and refinement. Line it again with high dead-end walls, as of a series of private mad houses...and it will be more repulsive to many...Nothing of this kind is wanted in a suburb or a rural village. Nothing of this kind must be permitted if we would have it wholly satisfactory. On the contrary, we must secure something very different.

Frederick Law Olmsted, 1868

Strip development destroys communities by eliminating their sense of place and producing economic, environmental, and social costs of staggering magnitude. Indeed, the negative impacts of commercial strips were written about by Frederick Law Olmsted over one hundred years ago. Yet virtually every community in the country with a major road corridor finds it either already consumed by or facing pressure for fast-food restaurants, new and used car dealers, gas stations, mini-malls, big box retailers, and the myriad other uses so common on typical strips. Most local leaders (and planners!) do not realize that their own land use regulations actually create and encourage strip development.

While strips continue to grow in most places, a few success stories have gained attention. Described below are efforts in four New England communities to control strip development.

Salem, New Hampshire: General Lessons

Other than a thoroughbred horse track and a regional amusement park, the Town of Salem, NH, (population 27,000) is most well-known for its large concentration of mini-malls and other retail uses along a 5 mile stretch of NH Route 28. Only 32 miles from Boston, and the closest non-sales tax location to several major population centers, Salem, has seen both the benefits and burdens of strip development for many years. Over the past decade, the Town has approved close to 100 retail projects, including a 1.2 million square foot mall, and tried to manage the resulting impacts. Here are some of our thoughts on controlling strip development.

Zoning Map

In 1961, voters in Salem adopted a zoning map which included a 5 mile long commercial district, on what was mostly farm land and open space, along Route 28. Over the next 30 years, this area developed into a classic "strip", with multiple shopping centers, fast food restaurants, car dealerships and other retail uses. The character of the community was forever altered by this development. While some residents bemoan the change, Salem got exactly what it zoned. The Zoning Map created the strip and allowed its growth.

In retrospect, a better idea would have been to create retail clusters or nodes around major intersections, and allow some transitional uses like professional offices along the rest of the road. Limiting both the depth and length of retail zones is crucial to preventing strip development.

Setbacks Between Certain Uses

The types of businesses permitted in a retail district affects its character. Just about every imaginable business is allowed along Route 28, but used car dealerships must be at least 2000 feet away from each other and gas stations to be at least 1000 feet apart. Why not do the same for fast food restaurants, convenience stores, and other major traffic generators or offensive users?

Landscaping

One of the most objectionable aspects of strip development is the "sea of pavement" effect, where open fields and woodlands are reduced to asphalt parking lots. A decent landscaping plan can mitigate some of this problem. Salem requires all commercial lots to maintain 30% open space. Our parking regulations require a landscaped area around the edge of parking lots, and 1 shade or ornamental tree for each 2000 sq.ft. of parking area. These simple rules have produced a big improvement in the aesthetics of the retail zone. The Planning Board also asks for berms, hedges, and walls to screen parking lots from the street and insists on grass rather than bark mulch or wood chips in highly visible planting areas.

Curb Cuts

It's essential for traffic safety to limit the number and width of curb cuts and driveways on strips wherever possible. A related issue involves requiring connections between existing or proposed parking lots and combining driveways between neighboring lots. In Salem, success with these techniques has come through persuasion by staff and the Planning Board rather than formal regulations. In the less-developed northern section of Route 28, a "local controlled highway access zone" has been designated to control the number of curb cuts and to create connected driveways where possible.

Parking Lots

Salem does not regulate parking lot design, but the Planning Board requests long "throats" for cars to stack within the lot, rather than on the street. Any conflict points within the lot are pushed as far from the street as possible. Avoiding vehicular/pedestrian conflicts in front of store entrances is another concern. We have also tried to get parking lots located behind buildings rather than in front, but merchants strongly resist this concept.

Divided Highways

Merchants hate this idea too, but a divided highway is safer and controls traffic more effectively than any other alternative. In Salem, the merchants had enough political clout to get a proposed raised median divider on Route 28 eliminated from reconstruction plans, so most of the road now has left and right turning lanes in the middle. In nearby Nashua, center turning lanes on Route 101A and on Daniel Webster Highway were eventually replaced by median dividers, and that may happen eventually in Salem, too.

Signage

Unattractive signage can make an otherwise acceptable project look terrible. In Salem, the signage was too far gone to do much good, but a new sign ordinance contains some innovative ideas, such as reducing the height allowed for free standing signs from 35 feet to 20 feet. In a new area, even lower sign heights should be required. An incentive for smaller signs is provided by allowing a reduced setback from the road for a 50% reduction in sign size. Multi-tenant shopping centers are required to have uniform wall signs - same shape, size, color, and style - except for national trade-marks. The use of portable signs is prohibited except for 30 days around the opening of a new business. The parking of vehicles or trailers which advertise a business within view of the highway is also prohibited.

Traffic Studies

All major retail projects are required to prepare traffic studies which evaluate their impact on the local road network. These studies are then reviewed, at the applicant's expense, by the Town's own independent consultant. This insures a non-biased result and gives the Town a common source of information on traffic conditions in town. Along some portions of Route 28, participation in an off-site road impact fee system is required.

Architecture

Salem started with voluntary design guidelines to encourage higher quality building designs, and recently adopted them as requirements. They call for avoiding long unbroken expanses of walls and flat roofs, using brick, clapboard, glass, or stone for wall surfaces, and utilizing columns, awnings, towers, and arches to create interesting building designs. They also list local examples of attractive buildings which illustrate what the Town hopes to see in new projects.

Framimgham/Natick, Massachusetts: Highway Overlay District

Clearly the region enjoys considerable economic benefits as an outcome of this substantial development. However, it is equally apparent that benefits to be realized must be carefully weighed concurrently with the adverse impacts such growth can also engender. Rapid development in the absence of an overall growth strategy is likely to result in an erosion of environmental quality, traffic congestion, declining air quality, visual discordance, an impoverished landscape and undue pressure on water supply networks and sewer system capacity.

The desire to assess the future implications of current area-wide growth trends within the Golden Triangle Area compelled the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) to conduct a build-out analysis in 1988. At the time of its assessment, the Planning Council concluded that, under existing zoning standards, the amount of development within the Golden Triangle could double. MAPC also determined that, by the year 2010, the demand for additional office and retail space would exceed the level of development permitted by both Framingham and Natick, based on employment projections for the area.

In response to these troubling conclusions, the Towns of Natick and Framingham decided that it was time to find a way to address the issues of unconstrained growth to avoid the potential problems of overdevelopment which could eventually amount to self-strangulation. Local officials from both Towns were appointed to the Golden Triangle Committee which sought to create tools to address the problems of growth while there was still time.

The Highway Overlay District Regulations are the outgrowth of the Golden Triangle Committee's efforts to develop the appropriate means to guide and shape growth within the Triangle area. Salient features of the regulations are reviewed in the accompanying description.

Purpose

The purpose of the Highway Overlay Districts regulations is as follows:

Definitions

The terms defined in Section 2 are applicable only to the Highway Overlay District Regulations. Many of these definitions offer explanations for thresholds which trigger various review procedures, amenities which can be offered to off-set density increases within the Highway Overlay Districts and the precise characteristics of various landscaping elements.

Establishment of Districts

The Golden Triangle Plan creates two new overlay districts:

The Highway Overlay Districts provisions are added to the requirements of the underlying zoning standards. The underlying zoning applies unless specifically superseded by the new regulations.

Use Regulations

Uses permitted by the existing underlying districts are permitted in the RC and HC districts, provided that they meet the additional requirements of the new regulations. Mixed use development is permitted to the extent that each individual use would otherwise be permitted by the underlying zoning.

Intensity Regulations

The floor Area Ratio (FAR) for non-residential development in the overlay districts is limited to 0.32. The Planning Board may, by Special Permit, grant an FAR increase up to 0.40 for new construction proposed in the RC District providing that the landscape to surface area ratio (LSR) is increased, and public amenities are provided. The Planning Board may, by Special Permit, grant an FAR increase up to 0.40 for projects in the RC and HC Districts which propose lot consolidation, providing that the proposed floor area increase does not exceed 20% of the combined gross floor area of the buildings on the lots to be consolidated, or 12,000 square feet, whichever is less. The Board must also find that lot consolidation will result in less curb cuts, improved signage, unified landscaping, improved access, and improved overall site design.

The area dedicated to certain building functions are excluded from FAR computation in order to encourage their development. These functions include: day care facilities; ramps and aisles of parking facilities; facilities dedicated to private transit such as car or van pooling; and cafeterias for the primary use of the employees who work at the site. However, if a portion of a site is dedicated to the Town or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the FAR will be based on the site plus the dedicated portion.

Open Space Requirements

The base landscape to surface area ratio (LSR) is 0.20 for retail and consumer service and manufacturing uses, and 0.40 for office, and other non-retail, nonresidential uses. Projects which are granted density increases in exchange for public benefit amenities must provide an increased LSR equal to the sum of the base LSR plus 1/2 the difference between the proposed FAR and 0.32.

Dimensional Regulations

Height and front yard setback limitations established by the underlying zoning are applicable to the overlay districts except that the setback for non-residential structures, located next to residential districts, increases as height increases. Structures must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from all side and rear property lines, or the distance specified by the underlying zoning, if such standard is greater.

Landscaping Requirements

This section establishes detailed criteria for design to ensure that landscaping is an integral part of development and enhances the visual quality of the Highway Overlay District. The regulations encourage the creation and protection of open space and seek to avoid large expanses of impervious surfaces. In order to achieve this purpose the Landscaping Requirements are designed to achieve the following specific objectives:

planted buffer strips along lot fronts to create separation; planted buffer strips where development abuts residential districts; landscaped parking areas for visual and climatic relief from large paved surfaces and to channel on-site vehicular and pedestrian movement; the preservation of existing mature vegetation.

Landscaping and parking lot plans must be prepared by a registered professional landscape architect. The landscaping standards are applicable to any new structure, substantial alteration or improvement, or change of use of an existing structure. No occupancy permit can be issued for projects undertaken within the overlay districts prior to the Planning Board's approval of a landscaping plan. In an effort to ensure flexibility in the application of the landscaping standards and in recognition of varying topographic and geographic constraints, the Planning Board may waive literal conformity if it finds that the site plan will meet the functional objectives of the Highway Overlay District Regulations.

Bonus Density Provisions

Development density increases may be permitted by the Planning Board in exchange for the provision of certain public benefit amenities. To qualify as a public benefit amenity, a specific improvement or facility must be determined to provide a public benefit; to be appropriate to the goals and character of the area; and must meet the following criteria:

Administration

Mutual review, of an advisory nature, between the Framingham and Natick Planning Boards is encouraged but limited to larger projects deemed likely to have significant, area-wide impacts.

The Framimingham/Natick Highway Overlay District was adopted in the early 1990's, so its effect is not yet fully felt. However, it sets out a regulatory framework for addressing the problems of strip development in a mature, already-congested road corridor.

Stowe, Vermont: Mountain Road Study

Stowe Mountain Road (Vermont Route 108) is at the heart of the Stowe, Vermont (population 3,000) resort industry. Not only is it a vital route connecting the Town's major attractions, it has provided the setting for much of Stowe's recent development. As early as 1975, when zoning in Stowe was first enacted, the Town acknowledged the economic importance of this corridor by designating it a Highway Tourist District, allowing a variety of commercial uses along the entire length of road from the Village to Notchbrook Road. Twenty years later, the consequences of this zoning have become apparent. This article discusses those past changes, examines the future effects of commercial strip zoning, and suggests an alternative to the Highway Tourist District.

The route between Stowe Village and the entrance to Smuggler's Notch Ski Resort contains a varied landscape that can be divided into four distinct segments defined by terrain, vegetation, buildings, the way land is used, and the way traffic flows. People travelling the road have a sense of these very different segments as they pass through open fields, shopping centers and wooded hillsides, past parking lots and mountain vistas.

  1. The first segment, encompassing the existing Village Commercial-30(VC-30) Zoning District from Route 100 to Weeks Hill Road, is within sight and walking distance of the Village, but separated from it by the Little River and West Branch floodplain. This wetland area and several steep slopes have limited development to a narrow band along the road, creating a settlement pattern that is much more linear than the compact settlement pattern found in the heart of the Village.

  2. The area between Weeks Hill Road and the Mountain Road bridge adjacent to the Gables Inn has developed in a manner similar to the VC-30 District. However, the narrow terrain and dense conifer forest distinguishes it from its neighboring segments, creating the impression of a connector between the first and third segments. It has a linear development pattern and a distinct, automobile oriented landscape.

  3. The broad, level fields adjacent to the old Gale Farm make this segment unique. There is more buildable, flat land here than anywhere else on the corridor. Recently, several new shops, offices and apartments have located here, demonstrating its appeal as a growth area. There is room for many more if future buildings are sited in a compact pattern rather than the disconnected sprawling pattern of recent years.

    4

  4. The segment between Cottage Club Road and the entrance to Smuggler's Notch is commonly referred to as the "upper" Mountain Road. This segment is physically more constricted and less developed than lower portions of the road. It winds through narrow valleys and past open meadows, offering distant views of Mount Mansfield. Historically, this segment is home to many of Stowe's older inns and lodges, although single family homes remain the dominant land use.

The pattern of buildings along the Mountain Road has changed over the years. Early buildings were smaller in scale, close to the road and aligned with it. Some highway businesses (motels) had appeared by then, especially close to the village and at the other end of the corridor near the ski area. By 1994, existing buildings had expanded and new, larger ones, had been built. Commercial buildings on parcels adjacent to the road were set further back and at angles unrelated to the road's geometry. Low density residential developments appeared on wooded hillsides above the road and in open meadows along flatter sections. These form a second tier of development behind the roadside commercial buildings. Although the building scale and density is smaller, this second layer follows the same pattern of setback and orientation.

The pattern and amount of space dedicated to off-road parking and circulation is also of interest. Developments along the corridor are connected not by a network of public streets but by a single road. As traffic increases, it must all feed onto the one road which will eventually need to be widened, changing its character and further discouraging pedestrian activity. The effect of an auto dependent land use pattern is also revealed here in the ratio of parking area to building. Most (nonresidential) buildings are surrounded by parking lots as large as themselves, sometimes twice their size. These large lots, wrapping around the buildings they serve, affect the character of the corridor, by contributing to a sense of sprawl.

With current regulations and a healthy development climate, the sprawling pattern of the past decades will continue to play itself out on the Mountain Road, diminishing its appeal as a tourist destination and its function as a highway. But with careful planning, Stowe can prevent future sprawl and protect the long term growth potential of the corridor. For a century, growth on the Mountain Road occurred in crossroads settlements, which were smaller scale versions of Stowe's villages. These traditional growth centers can be the focus for future development, leaving the remaining rural character of the road intact.

In growth areas, new streets, buildings, and landscape improvements can transform what is now low density sprawl into a comfortable village environment. The traditional settlement pattern can be a model for future development. Buildings can be set in clusters, close to the road and aligned with it. Expanding the public street network with small scale connector streets can alleviate congestion and provide a framework for future compact development.

In between the growth centers, special care will be required to preserve the character and scenic qualities of the corridor. Such care could take different forms depending on the character of the specific segment. It could involve landscaping standards designed to maintain the dominant vegetation of the area; improved driveway management to maintain traffic flow; a reduction in development densities, possibly through the transfer of development rights; and a re-evaluation on the mix of uses permitted in the district.

Stowe is fortunate that in 1996, the Mountain Road remains a scenic corridor. There is still quite a bit of open land. Nineteenth century farm houses and views of Mount Mansfield still dominate much of the landscape. But will these qualities last into the twenty-first century? Will travelers along the Mountain Road in the year 2040 see the same pattern of fields, woods, and mountains that drew visitors to Stowe for over a hundred years? In the past fifty years, commercial development encouraged by current zoning has changed the face of the Mountain Road. It is time to reconsider past land use decisions and to alter that zoning. To ensure that the Mountain Road will continue to be a source of pride and prosperity for future generations the following recommendations should be addressed:

Revise Existing Zoning District Boundaries

In keeping with the concept of clustering Mountain Road development within growth centers, areas appropriate for compact village scale development should be designated as new zoning districts. Such areas include the existing VC-30 district (segment one), the old Gale Farm (segment 3) and smaller crossroads districts at the intersections of Route 108 and Edson Hill Road and Notchbrook Road.

Improve Development Standards Presently

The Town lacks the detailed development standards needed to discourage inappropriate site design. New standards are needed to reinforce compact, pedestrian-friendly development patterns in the proposed growth centers and to maintain the rural character of the upper Mountain Road (segment 4). In addition to better standards for parking, landscaping and overall site configuration, the Town should consider guidelines to ensure that buildings have: 1) a main entrance on the front street line; 2) a minimum roof pitch; and 3) a maximum percentage of the facade devoted to window openings.

Preserve Meadows and Open Fields

The remaining open meadows and fields along the Mountain Road should be protected through a combination of regulatory restrictions and financial incentives. Such restrictions could take the form of specific site development standards designed to concentrate development outside of open fields; incentives could include a transfer of development rights (TDR) program or the purchase of development rights.

Improve Lighting and Sign Standards

Standards for sign and parking lot lighting should be adopted to avoid excessive light levels, off-site glare and sky glow. Sign standards should be amended to reduce the size of signs, especially in the growth centers.

Make Capital Improvements

In addition to the zoning changes, a thoughtful program of capital improvements is needed. Within growth centers, streetscape improvements such as street trees, narrow travel lanes, curbs and sidewalks should be provided to slow traffic, improve pedestrian circulation and reinforce the village character of the area.

The patterns of development that have shaped the Mountain Road provide valuable lessons for future growth. These recommendations are based on those lessons. If acted upon, they will improve the linear strip development of the recent past and encourage new growth that reflects Stowe's history.

Bedford, New Hampshire: Performance Zoning

In 1994, the Town of Bedford, NH, (population 13,000) adopted a performance zoning ordinance meant to guide development on the Route 3 Corridor. Traditionally, zoning ordinances have been used as a means to control land use and provide for the separation of incompatible types of development. Under this system, uses are allowed or disallowed largely based on where the business wants to locate. In performance zoning, almost any use can be approved in an area, ranging from agricultural to retail to manufacturing. An analysis of the potential impact of each use is done using a number of criteria to determine if the business will be permitted. The criteria include availability of municipal water and sewerage, highway improvements, landscaping, lighting and emissions. Bedford's Route 3 Corridor Performance Zoning District was developed by determining a number of goals for the Route 3 Corridor, and then creating incentives to encourage land development in a manner consistent with these. The goals to be met include: 1. diversity of tax base; 2. increased return on infrastructure improvements; 3. minimize traffic impact; 4. preservation of historic and natural features.

The heart of Bedford's system is incentive bonuses, which are used as a means of rewarding those who develop land in a way consistent with the desired results. These incentives include decreased minimum lot size and frontage, increased building density, decreased front setback requirements, and modified landscape requirements. One of these bonuses decreases the minimum lot size and frontage from 3 acres and 300 feet, to 1 acre and 75 feet on lots with municipal water and/or sewerage. A developer may also take advantage of these incentives by contributing money to a fund for future sewer system expansion or by deeding land to the town for recreational or historical preservation purposes. These incentives are offered in exchange for developing a common driveway to serve multiple lots, rather than one driveway per lot. Incentives allowing for future road expansion also exist. By deeding an easement within 50 feet of the center line of Route 3, a developer is allowed to increase the impervious surface area on the site by an area equal to the easement area. This allows for an increase in the building size.

To help maintain the aesthetic qualities of the Route 3 Corridor, an incentive bonus allows for a 50% reduction in the front setback requirements, in exchange for placing parking areas in the rear or side of proposed buildings.

The use of landscaping is a crucial part of the overall attempt to maintain the aesthetics along Route 3. The Minimum Landscape Performance Standards for the district will help to diminish the potential for adverse effects from the varying land uses, improve the aesthetics of the area, and aid in the reduction of adverse environmental effects, such as noise, glare, wind velocities, and air pollution. The first step in accomplishing this is the establishment of a street tree area, which will act to promote a uniform quality throughout the district. This section establishes guidelines on tree size, type, and spacing in order to maintain consistency throughout the district. Landscaping is also required along the front, sides and rear of the properties. These areas serve to provide a transition between the proposed structure, the street tree area and neighboring businesses. In doing this, the potential for conflict between the varying uses is minimized. In addition, an exterior landscape area is required around all driveways and parking areas. Those who develop property in a way consistent with the goals of the landscaping article are given an incentive bonus which allows them to meet requirements by leaving existing vegetation and trees (following an established standard). As an incentive to encourage connected parking areas and common access, side and rear landscape areas may be omitted.

Size and placement of signs is also regulated in a way to accomplish the established goals of the district. While not dictating the exact type of sign to be used, regulations are used to help establish a degree of continuity within the district.

Through the establishment of a number of different criteria and standards, the district allows for a wide variety of development to occur, while working toward a set of goals. By allowing for a wide variety of uses in the Route 3 area, the economic strength and tax base of the town is strengthened. Natural landscaping is used as a means of separating potentially conflicting uses, while adding to the aesthetic continuity of the area. Common driveways and interconnecting parking lots are utilized to decrease traffic congestion. Increased density allowances for land donation encourage the preservation of historical areas and the establishment of recreational areas.

By offering special incentives, developers are encouraged to assist in meeting the goals established by the community for the Route 3 Corridor, making them an ally in the process, rather than an adversary.

Conclusion

Strip development proliferated throughout New England during the 1980's development boom. Just about every town, big or small, rich or poor, well-planned or growing out of control, now has one. Usually, local leaders don't realize their own regulations actually create a strip and, once created, they don't know how to stop its growth. It takes persistence and hard work to enact the regulations and policies needed to control strip development, but it can be done, as illustrated by the case studies described above. Indeed, it must be done if we are to preserve any semblance of our traditional New England landscape.

Footnotes

1 Originally published in New Hampshire Planners Association Newsletter, May 1992.

2 Prepared by Metropolitan Area Planning Council, November 1992.

3 From a report by Brian Shupe and Julie Campoli for Town of Stowe.

4 Originally published in New Hampshire Planners Asociation Newsletter, February 1994.

Resource List

Books: How Superstore Sprawl Can Harm Communities (and what citizens can do about it). Constance Beaumont. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1994. (202)673-4000.

Dealing with Change in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Conservation and Development. Robert Yaro, et al. Center for Rural Massachusetts. 1988. (413)545-0153.

Rural By Design. Randall Arendt. APA Planners Bookstore. 1994. (312)955-9100.

Saving Face: How Corporate Franchise Design Can Respect Community Identity. Ronald Lee Fleming. APA Planning Advisory Service Report #452. 1994. (312)955-9100.

Designing Urban Corridors. Kirk Bishop. APA Planning Service Report #418. 1989. (312)955-9100.

The New Urbanism: Toward An Architecture of Community. Peter Katz. 1994. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

A Better Place To Live: Reshaping The American Suburb. Philip Langdon. 1994. Harper Perrennial.

Designing the Future to Honor the Past: Design Guidelines for Cape Cod. Cape Cod Commission and Community Vision, Inc. 1994. (508)362-3828.

Ordinances:

Town of Framingham, MA, Zoning By-laws, Section IV.K. Highway Overlay District Regulations. 1995. (508)620-4811.

Town of Bedford, NH, Zoning Ordinance. Article 9. U.S. Route 3 Corridor Performance Zoning District. 1993. (603)472-8104.

Town of Kittery, ME, Land Use and Development Code. Mixed Use District Regulations. (207)439-1633.

City of Concord, NH, Zoning Ordinance. Suburban Overlay Zoning District. (603)225-8515.

Rural Development/Hamlet Design/Building Form Guidelines. Dutchess County Department of Planning & Development. 1994. (914)485-9681.

Design Standards and Guidelines for Large Retail Establishments. City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 1995.

Articles:

"How to Cope With - Or Without - 'Big Box' Retailers." Alan Weinstein. Zoning & Planning Law Report. Vol. 17, No. 7. July-Aug. 1994. "Recent Trends in Zoning for Big Box Retail Uses." The Zoning Report. Vol. 13, No. 13. November 17, 1995.

"The Big Box's Final Frontier." Todd Bressi. Planning. February, 1996.

"Store Wars." Jonathan Walters. Governing. January, 1995.

"Shopping Centers Can Be Good Neighbors." Terry Lassar. Planning. October, 1995.

"The Superstore Syndrome." Richard Stapleton. Land and People. Fall, 1995.

"Putting the Community Back Into Community Retail." Alex Achimore. Urban Land. August, 1993.

"Zipping Up The Strip." Ruth Eckdish Knack. Planning. July, 1996.

"Rethinking the Drive-Through." Zoning News. August, 1992.

"When Wal-Mart Says Uncle." Sylvia Lewis. Planning. August, 1994.

"Park & Shop: Some Guidelines." Ruth Eckdish Knack. Planning. May, 1992.

"Roadside Protection: Newfoundland's Protected Road Zoning Program." John Crowley. APA Journal. Winter, 1991.

"Three For The Road." Planning. May, 1989.

Ross Moldoff, Planning Director
Salem, New Hampshire