53 
owners to revert to long-term leases, thus freezing land in its 
present use.1® 
6. The effectiveness of holding zones 
Several recent reports on land use policy suggest the possibility of 
authorizing local or state government to designate holding zones in 
which development would have to be delayed for several years.” 
Holding zones are a form of police power regulation. They differ from 
land banks in that they do not involve governmental acquisition of 
land, although they might entail the payment of compensation under 
some circumstances.’® 
The Douglas Commission suggests making provision for the— 
establishment of holding zones in order to postpone development in areas that are 
inappropriate for development within the next three to five years. Local govern- 
ments should be authorized to limit development within such zones to houses on 
only large lots (e.g. 10 to 20 acres) agricultural and open space uses. The State 
legislature would require that localities review holding zones designations at least 
every five years.19 
Such a device would allow the state to post pone urban development 
when financial or other legitimate considerations made it impossible 
to provide services for more intensive use of an area. 
7. The effectweness of planned unit development 
The planned development of land, especially of large tracts, offers a 
promising device for dealing with many of the problems associated 
with present development procedures and patterns. Planned develop- 
ment, as distinct from new communities, can be applied to small scale 
development. 
The Douglas Commission recommends that— 
State governments enact enabling legislation for, and local governments adopt 
provisions establishing regulatory process for planned unit developments. Such 
legislation should authorize provisions to vary according to the size of the property 
(e.g. to permit high rise buildings of light industry only in projects of more than a 
specific size) .?° 
Contrary to the usual practice of not mapping planned unit develop- 
ment districts until a project is approved, a more effective technique 
would be to enable the localities to ‘‘classify undeveloped land in 
planned development districts within which development would be 
allowed to occur only at a specific minimum scale. If a community 
were unwilling to purchase land for development, provision could be 
made to require that new development in specified undeveloped areas 
take place at a fairly large scale.”’ 7! 
When a specific development proposal of modest scope is announced 
by a property owner somewhere in the undeveloped sections of Com- 
monwealth, the burden of proof naturally lies upon those who would 
restrict the use of land by its owner. That burden can rarely be 
overcome, except in cases where there is an exceptionlly clear and 
immediate public interest in prohibiting development. Therefore, a 
steady progression of scattered development appears to be inevitable, 
16 Ibid. 
17 David Heeter, Toward A More Effective Land Use Guidance System (Chicago: American Society of 
Plannine Officials), 1969. 
18 7b2 
19 The National Commission on Urban Problems (Douglas Commission), Building the American City 
(Wwashmelon D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office), 1968, p. 245. 
20 Jbid. 
21 Jbid., p. 246. 
