03-055 Approved
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION DECLARING DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
BUILDERS FOR THE BAY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Frederick County wishes to insure that its development design standards and regulations take into
account the effects of the resulting development on the natural environment; and
WHEREAS, changes to the built envirorunent can have a negative impact on both surface and ground water;
and
WHEREAS, through the Builders for the Bay program, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, in conjunction
with the Center for Watershed Protection, offers localities the opportunity to examine their design standards and
regulations through a voluntary "Roundtable" process of consensus building; and
WHEREAS, the Alliance also provides the manpower, organizational skills, and experience in facilitating the
Roundtable process along with the majority of funding required to support the effort; and
WHEREAS, the report and recommendations produced as a result of the cooperative Roundtable process are
submitted to the locality for their consideration and the locality is in no way obligated to implement undesired alterations
to their regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Frederick does hereby state its desire and intent
to enter into an agreement with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay to participate in a Roundtable process, with the
local share contribution not to exceed $20,000.
ADOPTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on the14th day of May, 2003 by the following
recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Margaret B. Douglas
Robert M. Sager
Sidney A. Reyes
Lynda 1. Tyler
Gina A. Forrester
A COPY TESTE:
John R. Riley, Jr., Clerk
Board of Supervisors
Resolution No.: 055-03
cc:
Eric R. Lawrence
Timothy 1. Welsh
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr.
Cheryl B. Shiffler
C. William Orndoff, Jr.
Approved at Board Meeting of May 14, 2003 to
forward to the Planning Commission for Recommendatior
FILE
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Kris C. Tierney
Assistant County Administrator
540/665-5666
Fax 540/667-0370
I MEMORANDUM I
E-mail:
ktierney@co.frederick.va.us
FROM:
Board of Supervisors
Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrat~
Information on the Builders for the Bay Program
TO:
RE:
DATE:
April 10, 2003
"".) ""'T.""'~'~"~"';'"
....'<',.;",.,."."..'0'.,....';,.'>,...,.,""">1,,,...,,"',""'<""",:',.,.'."4""""""1,''1''
;',',., '"'""r""",,,,"M''O/\',W..Mi;e:K''f, ',."",.",,
"""""",';'N',<<",;,+;;,,,~;',
"',,""""'PI'
-
"."..,',.,.,.j-"'"i.;",'I,..);;...,.j""{"',,"4."
Ka~SII~- ._
-~
Following up on Wednesday's discussion at the Board meeting, I have attached some information
on the Builders for the Bay Program. Staffwill be drafting a resolution for the Board's consideration
at your meeting on April 23.
Please let me know if! can answer any questions.
Attachment: as stated
cc: Harvey E.Strawnsyder, Jr.
Eric R. Lawrence
Timothy L. Welsh
John R. Riley, Jr.
C\Clt\2003Cor\KC1\Memo\bosbldrforbay.wpd
_RCS_WHS_WT
_RMS_SAR_MBO_GAF
DATE:
ORIGINAl: FILE
107 North Kent Street. Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
luilders for the Bay
http://www.cwp.orgiBFB]act_Sheet.htm
NYY+. TE 1< FO R ~NAHB );~.....".:....'.
l. ...'. .1.. &. I ... r "".:..
"--'~'-".......,' .I ' ,,<""'-:"":.:..
WATERSHED ALLIANCE
("~h
CW:$,cl.rI'AKf: 1M r
PROTECTION
Buil'dl fi' tb.' U.
I :. / . . I ;. I, iQlf! (': ~ftf! Ii. r.. al. ,!'li
i ,.1:,;l ::"",'!, ,~!" ,l "~",1~;'j! ~!~ ,J':I Jr, ':;,:."t J\\t ",i"J~[
Frequently Asked Questions
Builders for the Bav Community Application
Signed officially on December 3, 2001, the Builders for the Bay is an
agreement among the Center for Watershed Protection, Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, and the National Association of Home Builders to pursue
12 local roundtables in the Chesapeake Bay watershed over the next two
years. The local roundtables are a consensus process by which jurisdictions actually change
existing local subdivision codes and ordinances to be more environmentally friendly and
economically prudent. Since the Builders for the Bay agreement was signed, the Maryland State
Builders Association, the Virginia Home Builders Association, the Pennsylvania Builders
Association, and their local affiliates, along with Ecologix, have all become partners in the
program and will have substantive roles in moving the local roundtables forward.
What is Builders for the Bay?
What are the goals of the Builders for the Bay?
The Builders for the Bay project is intended to help local jurisdictions change their existing
subdivision codes and ordinances to allow for more environmentally sensitive site designs.
Currently, many localities require a special exception process for developers to utilize these
techniques. The goal is to allow for more flexibility in the development process and ultimately
preserve and enhance more natural areas; reduce and manage the amount of stormwater that
flows off of a site; and save developers money.
Who can participate in the Builders for the Bay roundtables?
While any community can join Builders for the Bay, it is crucial to the success
of the roundtable process that the local government, and in particular the
department of planning and zoning, be willing to participate in the process. In
addition, watershed organizations, developers, land owners, and other
community stakeholders will be asked to participate. A community can get
more information on better site design by visiting the Center for Watershed Protection website at
http://www.cwp.orq, or fill out the Builders for the Bav Application Form.
How do you know this process will work?
The Center for Watershed Protection has already held successful local roundtables in Frederick
_ and Cecil counties in Maryland; the Central Rappahannock in Virginia; and Darby Creek in Ohio.
All of these roundtables have resulted in final consensus documents adopted by a
representative mix of local stakeholders. Frederick County has already begun to implement the
10f2
4/11/03 10:26 PM
luilders for the Bay
http://www.cwp.orgiBFB]act_Sheet.htm
subdivision codes changes recommended by the local roundtable, and the other jurisdictions are
currently in the process of changing their codes as well.
How is Builders for the Bay different from the regular local roundtable process?
Builders for the Bay offers a unique opportunity to showcase the local roundtable process
through a unique partnership between the development and environmental communities. More
importantly, it provides an opportunity to work with jurisdictions beyond the development of the
consensus agreement and through the actual code and ordinance changes.
The Builders for the Bay partnership is currently investigating several different
jurisdictions for consideration for the local roundtable process. If you are
interested in initiating a local roundtable, contact Hye Yeong Kwon at the
Center for Watershed Protection at 410-461-8323, or David Bancroft at the
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay at 410-377-6270.
How can my community hold a Builders for the Bay roundtable?
What does a local roundtable cost?
We estimate that the local roundtable process costs $40,000 - $80,000 per community. The
cost depends on the size of the community, the extent to which the community is willing to
commit to the project, as well as the degree of technical support required from the Builders for
the Bay partners.
_ How is Builders for the Bay funded?
Funding for the Builders for the Bay project is diverse, and we continue to seek additional
sources. Current funders include:
· Abell Foundation
· Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation
· National Association of Home Builders
· Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
· Chesapeake Bay Trust
· Chesapeake Bay Program
· Growing Greener Program
· Virginia Environmental Endowment
· Virginia Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund
We are also seeking additional foundation, local government, and local builder contributions
toward this effort.
Where can I get additional information about this project?
A wealth of information about bettersite design, along with additional information on past
roundtables and the Builders for the Bay project, can be found at
http://www.buildersforthebaV.net. You can also contact Hye Yeong Kwon at the Center for
Watershed Protection at 410-461-8323 or David Bancroft at the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay at 410-377-6270.
! of2
4/11103 10:26 PM
emmm
0)
Feature article from Watershed Protection Techniques. 3(2): 623 - 632
- An Introduction to Better Site Design
Pew watershed management practices simulta-
neously reduce pollutant loads, conserve
natural areas, save money, and increase
property values. Indeed, if such "wonder practices"
were ever developed, they would certainly spread
quickly across the nation. As it turns out, these
practices have existed for years. Collectively called
"better site design," the techniques employ a variety
of methods to reduce total paved area, distribute and
diffuse stormwater, and conserve natural habitats.
Despite their proven benefits and successful local
application, better site design techniques often fail to
earn the endorsement of local communities. In fact,
many communities simply prohibit their use.
"Better site design" is a fundamentally different
approach to residential and commercial development.
It seeks to accomplish three goals at every
development site: to reduce the amount of impervious
cover, to increase natural lands set aside for
conservation, and to use pervious areas for more
effective stormwater treatment. To meet these goals,
designers must scrutinize every aspect of a site plan-
its streets, parking spaces, setbacks, lot sizes,
driveways, and sidewalks- to see if any of these
elements can be reduced in scale. At the same time,
creative grading and drainage techniques reduce
storm water runoff and encourage more infiltration.
Why is it so difficult to implement better site
design in so many communities? The primary reason
is the outdated development rules that collectively
govern the development process: a bewildering mix of
subdivision codes, zoning regulations, parking and
street standards, and drainage regulations that often
work at cross-purposes with better site design. Few
developers are willing to take risks to bend these rules
with site plans that may take years to approve or that
may never be approved at all.
In 1997, a national site planning roundtable was
convened to address ways to encourage better site
design techniques in more communities. The
participants represented the diverse mix of organiza-
tions that affect the development process (listed in
Table I) and provided the technical and real world
experience to make better site design happen. After
two years of discussion, the roundtable endorsed 22
better site design techniques that offer specific
guidance that can help achieve one of the basic better
site design goals. These techniques are organized
into three areas:
1. Residential Streets and Parking Lots
2 Lot Development
3. Conservation of Natural Areas
These techniques are not intended to be strict
guidelines, and their actual application should be
based on local conditions. The remainder of this
article introduces each of the better site design
techniques, describes some of the barriers to their
wider use, and suggests ways to overcome these
impediments.
Residential Streets and Parking Lots
As much as 65% of the total impervious cover in
the landscape can be classified as "habitat for cars,"
which includes streets, parking lots, driveways, and
other surfaces designed for the car. Consequently, 10
better site design techniques address ways to reduce
car habitat in new developments.
Figure 1: A Neotraditional Community in Gaithersburg, MD
Better site design techniques have been successfully applied in a
growing number of communities like the Kentlands.
:ite Planning Model Development Principles
http://www.cwp.org/22.Jlrinciples.htm
About the center Pro'ern Wh Watersheds? Techt\i.cQI Tools PubljcatiClns Be A Friend! Calendar
CENTER FOR
ffiD
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
Home Mission Staff Pal"'tn!zrs Board Members CNP iJn the News Contact Us!
HOTvlE
Site Planning Model Development Principles
. ... . 10 .. '"' .. .. .. . . . .. .. ..
Mission
Staff
Board
CWP in the
Nev.ls
Contact Us
DirectiOllS
S EAHCH
The twenty-two model development principles provide design guidance for economically viable,
yet environmentally sensitive development. Our objective is to provide planners, developers, and
local officials with benchmarks to investigate where existing ordinances may be modified to
reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas, and prevent stormwater pollution. These
development principles are not national design standards. Instead, they identify areas where
existing codes and standards can be changed to better protect streams, lakes and wetlands at the
local leveL The development principles are divided into the three following areas:
· Residential Streets and Parking Lots (Habitat for Cars)
· Lot Development (Habitat for People)
. Conservation of Natural Areas (Habitat for Nature)
Each principle is presented as a simplified design objective, Actual techniques for achieving the
principle should be based on local conditions. Please consult the Technical Support Document for
more detailed rationale for each principle. Or click here to use our Codes and Ordinances
Worksheet to evaluate your own communitv.
Residential Streets and Parking Lots (Habitat for Cars)
Ion
4/11/03 10:30 PM
.ite Planning Model Development Principles
http://www.cwp.orgi22.Jlrinciples.htm
1. Design residential streets for the minimum required pavement width needed to support travel
lanes; on-street parking; and emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. These
widths should be based on traffic volume.
2. Reduce the total length of residential streets by examining alternative street layouts to
determine the best option for increasing the number of homes per unit length.
3. Wherever possible, residential street right-of-way widths should reflect the minimum required
to accommodate the travel-way, the sidewalk, and vegetated open channels. Utilities and storm
drains should be located within the pavement section of the right-of-way wherever feasible.
4. Minimize the number of residential street cul-de-sacs and incorporate landscaped areas to
reduce their impervious cover. The radius of cul-de-sacs should be the minimum required to
accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles. Alternative turnarounds should be
considered.
5. Where density, topography, soils, and slope permit, vegetated open channels should be used
in the street right-of-way to convey and treat stormwater runoff.
6. The required parking ratio governing a particular land use or activity should be enforced as
both a maximum and a minimum in order to curb excess parking space construction. Existing
parking ratios should be reviewed for conformance taking into account local and national
experience to see if lower ratios are warranted and feasible.
7. Parking codes should be revised to lower parking requirements where mass transit is
available or enforceable shared parking arrangements are made.
8. Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by providing compact car
spaces, minimizing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, and using pervious
materials in spillover parking areas where possible.
9. Provide meaningful incentives to encourage structured and shared parking to make it more
economically viable.
10. Wherever possible, provide stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff using bioretention
areas, filter strips, and/or other practices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas
and traffic islands.
Lot Development (Habitat for People)
11. Advocate open space design development incorporating smaller lot sizes to minimize total
impervious area, reduce total construction costs, conserve natural areas, provide community
recreational space, and promote watershed protection.
12. Relax side yard setbacks and allow narrower frontages to reduce total road length in the
community and overall site imperviousness. Relax front setback requirements to minimize
driveway lengths and reduce overall lot imperviousness.
13. Promote more flexible design standards for residential subdivision sidewalks. Where
practical, consider locating sidewalks on only one side of the street and providing common
walkways linking pedestrian areas.
14. Reduce overall lot imperviousness by promoting alternative driveway surfaces and shared
driveways that connect two or more homes together.
15. Clearly specify how community open space will be managed and designate a sustainable
legal entity responsible for managing both natural and recreational open space.
16. Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas such as yards, open channels, or vegetated areas
and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway and the stormwater conveyance system.
Conservation of Natural Areas (Habitat for Nature)
20f3
4/11/03 10:30 PM
:ite Planning M~del Development Principles
http://www.cwp.org/22yrinciples.htm
17. Create a variable width, naturally vegetated buffer system along all perennial streams that
also encompasses critical environmental features such as the 1 aO-year floodplain, steep slopes
and freshwater wetlands.
18. The riparian stream buffer should be preserved or restored with native vegetation. The
buffer system should be maintained through the plan review delineation, construction, and
post-development stages.
19. Clearing and grading of forests and native vegetation at a site should be limited to the
minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fire protection. A fixed portion
of any community open space should be managed as protected green space in a consolidated
manner.
20. Conserve trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation,
clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native plants. Wherever practical, manage
community open space, street rights-of-way, parking lot islands, and other landscaped areas.
21. Incentives and flexibility in the form of density compensation, buffer averaging, property tax
reduction, stormwater credits, and by-right open space development should be encouraged to
promote conservation of stream buffers, forests, meadows, and other areas of environmental
value. In addition, off-site mitigation consistent with locally adopted watershed plans should be
encouraged.
22. New stormwater outfalls should not discharge unmanaged stormwater into jurisdictional
wetlands, sole-source aquifers, or sensitive areas.
Recommendations
· We affirm our support for the model development principles and the Technical Support Document upon which
they are based.
· We encourage local governments to consider these principles when evaluating their local
zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, and landscape ordinances.
· We encourage the development community to incorporate these model development
principles in their land development projects.
· We encourage the formation of local roundtables to adopt and adapt these model
development principles within the context of local growth and environmental protection
goals.
· We encourage the lending and insurance communities to consider these principles and
examine their role in land development.
· We encourage local, state, and federal agencies to provide the technical support, financial
incentive, and regulatory flexibility needed to promote the model development principles.
· We encourage environmental and watershed organizations and the general public to use
these principles as educational tools.
Acknowledgements
The Site Planning Roundtable would not have been possible without the generous support of our
funders.
· The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation
· US EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
· Chesapeake Bay Trust
30f3
4111103 10:30 PM