50 



Mr. Snyder. I am having a little bit of trouble in my mind now, in 

 differentiating between what I read to you, which is subparagraph If, 

 and it seems to me you are describing to me what seems to be described 

 in subparagraph hh. Maybe I need you to differentiate between the 

 two for me. 



Mr. Train. I believe that I was misreading the bill. We are talking 

 here not about the adoption of the management plan in the first in- 

 stance, but the second stage, which is the operation of the plan. 



Mr. Snyder. Yes. But these procedures have to be established before 

 the adoption of the first instance, if I understand it correctly. 



I am for the approach, but I am worried about the mechanics. I can 

 see all sorts of problems where there might be insignificant zoning 

 changes. 



Let's assume that somebody has a piece of property and it is approved 

 in the plans as zoned for a one family residential, and he wants to 

 build a duplex. He wants to take mama and papa in ; he has to get a 

 change of zoning for the duplex. This is fairly inconsequential as tar 

 as your planning is concerned, probably nothing that you all would be 

 much concerned about. But as I read this bill, I am concerned that he 

 might not only have to seek approval of the local zoning board but the 

 State agency through which you deal, and the Federal Government, 

 to get that minor change made. I don't think that is what you mean. I 

 don't think it is what the committee would want in the final analysis.. 



I am not attempting to chop up the bill from the standpoint of what 

 you want to do but we don't want to get ourselves embedded in a lot 

 of bureaucratic redtape where it is not necessary and where it should 

 not be. 



This little guy that wants to go from a single family residence to a 

 duplex might not be able to afford the time, effort, and cost that would 

 be involved in this, and I don't think we would want to hamstring him 

 to that point. 



Mr. Train. Well, certainly the bill does not intend to reach that 

 kind of result. 



Mr, Snyder. Let me say I am sure it does not intend to. My only 

 inquiry is whether it does without intention. 



Mr. Train. Well, on page 9 there are the provisions which cover 

 review of performance by the States. And it does provide that the 

 Secretary shall maintain a continuing review of the operation of State 

 plans that have been approved for which grants have been given. 



Now and then it goes on to state that the Secretary shall have the 

 authority to terminate any financial assistance extended under the act, 

 if he determines that the coastal State is failing to adhere to and is 

 not justified in deviating from the program approved by the Secretary. 



Second, that the coastal State has been given notice of the proposed 

 termination and an opportunity to present evidence of adherence or 

 justification for altering its program. 



Now, I can't conceive that the Federal Government in administering 

 this program would be seeking to interfere with or give oversight to 

 indi-vndual zoning acts such as vou are talking about. 



I would say, though, that if there is a pattei-n that arises in a given 

 State of disregard for the State's OAvn plan which has been approved, 

 then it is possible that the kind of action I have iust described could 

 be taken, but certainly not in the case of an individual, a minor indi- 

 vidual action of some sort. 



