The URL can be used to link to this page

052-09Action: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: March 11, 2009 W APPROVED ❑ DENIED RESOLUTION Directing the Planning Commission to Hold a Public Hearing Regarding the Addition of the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a Component of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan WHEREAS, the Rural Areas Subcommittee was directed to study and offer a recommendation regarding growth in the County's Rural Areas; and, WHEREAS, The Rural Areas Subcommittee has completed its study and on February 19, 2009 forwarded to the Board of Supervisors a report on the Subcommittee's effort, the report being titled the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors discussed the Report on March 11, 2009, and found the Report worthy of considering for incorporation as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good planning practice, to direct the Frederick County Planning Commission hold a public hearing regarding the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REQUESTED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that the Frederick County Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing to consider adopting the Rural Areas Report and Recommendations as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Passed this 1 lth day of March, 2009 by the following recorded vote: This resolution was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gary W. Dove A y e Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher A y e Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. A y e Philip A. Lemieux Aye A COPY ATTEST John R. Miley; r. Frederick'County Administrator Resolution 4052 -09 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development / 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665 -6395 TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director V SUBJECT: Discussion - Rural Areas Subcommittee Recommendation Rural Areas Report and Recommendation DATE: March 4, 2009 In response to increasing development pressures in the County's rural areas, which have intensified over the past decade, in July 2008 the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee, and charged the Subcommittee with: • Identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County, • Gathering ideas to address those issues, and • Forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. The Subcommittee has reviewed State - enabling opportunities to manage rural areas growth; identified those opportunities that were not yet being fully utilized in Frederick County; held various community meetings to gather the citizen's thoughts on the rural areas; and drafted a list of 'Preliminary Thoughts' for what the County could do to address the Subcommittee's charge. Following a presentation of the "Preliminary Thoughts" at a public meeting and digestion of the public comments, the Subcommittee finalized their recommendations. The Subcommittee did offer further consideration regarding the citizen comments received during the "Preliminary Thoughts" public meeting. Particular attention was given to: enabling lot sizes as small as one acre; expanding opportunities to enable community health systems beyond the Rural Community Centers; and maintaining the existing 50% reserve drainfield area requirement. After discussion, the Subcommittee reaffirmed their support for the minimum two acre lot size as deemed necessary to accommodate an appropriately sized health system. This decision also confirmed that the 100% reserve drainfield requirement was appropriate, as it would protect property owner's future needs for relocated drainfields in the event of a primary drainfield failure. In terms of interest in expanding opportunities to utilize community health systems throughout the rural areas, the Subcommittee firmly believed that such a move would enable development to occur in areas that previously had limited development opportunity because of environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, and generally poor soil conditions that are not conducive to private on -site health systems. Utilizing community health systems to introduce development in 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Memo to Board of Supervisors RE: Rural Areas Subcommittee Recommendation March 4, 2009 locations that are developmentally challenged based on existing standards would be contrary to the Subcommittee's charge. On February 19, 2009, the Rural Areas Subcommittee forwarded their findings — the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation - and recommended that the Board consider the (1) Adoption of the report as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and (2) Implementation of the recommendations identified in the study. Attached is the report's Executive Summary, as well as the complete Rural Areas Report and Recommendation ff the Board desires to proceed with the Rural Areas Subcommittee's recommendations, it would be appropriate to direct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation, and return same to the Board with a recommendation. Please contact me should you have questions. Attachments: Rural Areas Report and Recommendation — Executive Summary Rural Areas Report and Recommendation RuRAL AREAS ]RE PORT & RECOMMENDATION Executive Summary ii Report from the Rural Areas Subcommittee Recommended bythe Subcommittee on February l9,2OO9 February 2009, Final Version — Executive Summary Following six months ofresearch presentat discussions, and evaluations the Rural Areas Subcommittee nflered the|rPrelmin*y Thoughts regarding the county's rural areas. The subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts were presented tothe community during a public .eeting held on February 5 2009. After taking into consideration the comments received `-- uringthis Public session, the Subcommittee finalized their research, and on February zy 2009 forwarded a recommendation tnthe Board of Supervisors. This recommendation is included in the Rural Areas Report &Recommendation. Development pressures in the rural areas, which intensified over the past decade, are significantly impacting our community's rural character. The residential development that |s resulting from this pressure impacts the County in various ways. It increases demands for County services. |t significantly impacts the vitality uf the agricultural economy as farmland is converted from active agriculture to residential use. Additionally, the development pressures and resulting residential development impacts the rural character of the community, detracting from vicwoheds and the rural landscape. m� FREDERICK ��"mmNuo SUPERVISORS BOARDOF RURAL AREAS SUBCOMMITTEE February 2009, Final Version— Executive Summary Executive Summary --- Development pressures in the rural areas, which intensified over the past decade, are significantly impacting our community's rural character. The residential development that is resulting from this pressure impacts the County in various ways. It increases demands for County services. It significantly impacts the vitality of the agricultural economy as farmland is converted from active agriculture to residential use. Additionally, the development pressures and resulting residential development impacts the rural character of the community, detracting from viewsheds and the rural landscape. The Subcommittee affirmed the existing land use policies of the County's 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan are appropriate, are supported, and should continue to be promoted. Those policies are: The rural area goals of the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan state: • The intention to preserve rural character and open space. • The intention to improve the rural view shed. • A belief that preserving the rural character and viewshed furthers the community's attractiveness and value. The document also contains the following goals for the larger community, beyond those specifically focused on the rural areas: • Maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area, (UDA). • Ensure that land development activities in the rural areas are of an appropriate quality. • Protect the rural environment. • Utilize the UDA to provide public services at a lower cost. Following six months of research, presentations, discussions, and evaluations, the Rural Areas Subcommittee offered their Preliminary Thoughts regarding the County's rural areas. These Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community during a public meeting on February 5, 2009. It was during this public session that the committee recorded various comments, suggestions, and endorsement of their Preliminary Thoughts. The Rural Areas Subcommittee has taken the received public comments into consideration, and formulated a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors' consideration. Additional details on this process and the Subcommittee's recommendations are included in the body of this document. The Subcommittee's recommendations encourage the County to: Implement enhancements to the existing health system requirements applicable to on -site private residential health systems. • Increase the reserve drainfield area to 100 percent. The current regulations require a 50 percent reserve area which does not enable a homeowner to fully replace a failed health system. • Continue to allow health systems that meet the Virginia Department of Health's, (VDH) General Approval requirements. Prohibit health systems that are permitted through the Provisional and Experimental Approval process. r February 2009, Final Version — Executive Summary o Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems, and require Board of Supervisors' approval for Pump- and -Haul permits. - o Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems. • Enable the use of Community Health Systems within defined Rural Community Centers. • Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot subdivision requirements. • Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres. • Increase the preservation lot (cluster set -aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a minimum 60 percent of the parent tract. • Clarify that the Preservation Tract counts towards the overall density. • Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. o Consider identifying `sending' areas based on rich agricultural soils and ridgeline viewsheds ■ In identifying `sending' areas, recognize that a property's location, soil, and terrain heavily influence its capacity to be developed and thus its development value. • TDR `sending' areas should be designated in an effort to discourage development. • Consider using `receiving' areas where residential development is desired. • Within the UDA on residentially planned areas that are zoned RA. • Within Urban Centers and Neighborhood Villages. • In Rural Community Centers with adopted boundaries. • Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for the development community to purchase development rights from key agricultural areas of the County. • Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for landowners to sell their development rights as opposed to selling their land for development. • Pursue state enabling legislation that would allow the County to implement Impact Fees for new construction. o Seek, support, and participate in collective lobbying efforts to secure impact fee - enabling legislation to adequately address the impacts new construction places on the county. • Strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture. o Promote forum and network opportunities that would further produce marketing and agriculture economy support. On February 19, 2009, the Subcommittee forwarded these recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. RURAL AREAS REPORT & RECOMMENDATION A Report from the Rural Areas Subcommittee Recommended by the Subcommittee on February 19, 2009 February 2009, Final Version Following six months of research, presentations, discussions, and evaluations, the Rural Areas Subcommittee offered their Preliminary Thoughts regarding the County's rural areas. The subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community during a public meeting held on February 5, 2009. After taking into consideration the comments received -4 uring this public session, the Subcommittee finalized their research, and on February 19, )09, forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation is `included in the Rural Areas Report & Recommendation. Development pressures in the rural areas, which intensified over the past decade, are significantly impacting our community's rural character. The residential development that is resulting from this pressure impacts the County in various ways. It increases demands for County services. It significantly impacts the vitality of the agricultural economy as farmland is converted from active agriculture to residential use. Additionally, the development pressures and resulting residential development impacts the rural character of the community, detracting from viewsheds and the rural landscape. FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' RURAL AREAS SUBCOMMITTEE February 2009, Final Version Executive Summary 3 Rural Areas Subcommittee 5 Rural Areas Defined 6 Issues for Consideration 10 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan 12 State Enabled Tools for Managing Growth in the Rural Areas 13 Growth Management Tools Not Fully Utilized in the Rural Areas 22 Community Involvement Process 23 Rural Area Subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts 26 Public Meeting 27 Recommendation 30 Appendix I Community Input — "Ideas" List II Comments offered as part of the Community Meeting Surveys III Researched Topics IV Organization Submitted Materials _ n Li. L.. u,.y�: ., �4 [C C3 f.t C.rifs,_ � n x`. ,!. cl r5i_ > " ; °,:_;�v� February 2009, Final Version Executive Summary -°- Development pressures in the rural areas, which intensified over the past decade, are significantly impacting our community's rural character. The residential development that is resulting from this pressure impacts the County in various ways. It increases demands for County services. It significantly impacts the vitality of the agricultural economy as farmland is converted from active agriculture to residential use. Additionally, the development pressures and resulting residential development impacts the rural character of the community, detracting from viewsheds and the rural landscape. The Subcommittee affirmed the existing land use policies of the County's 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan are appropriate, are supported, and should continue to be promoted. Those policies are: The rural area goals of the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan state: • The intention to preserve rural character and open space. • The intention to improve the rural view shed. • A belief that preserving the rural character and viewshed furthers the community's attractiveness and value. The document also contains the following goals for the larger community, beyond those specifically focused on the rural areas: • Maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area, (UDA). • Ensure that land development activities in the rural areas are of an appropriate quality. • Protect the rural environment. • Utilize the UDA to provide public services at a lower cost. Following six months of research, presentations, discussions, and evaluations, the Rural Areas Subcommittee offered their Preliminary Thoughts regarding the County's rural areas. These Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community during a public meeting on February 5, 2009. It was during this public session that the committee recorded various comments, suggestions, and endorsement of their Preliminary Thoughts. The Rural Areas Subcommittee has taken the received public comments into consideration, and formulated a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors' consideration. Additional details on this process and the Subcommittee's recommendations are included in the body of this document. The Subcommittee's recommendations encourage the County to: • Implement enhancements to the existing health system requirements applicable to on -site private residential health systems. • Increase the reserve drainfield area to 100 percent. The current regulations require a 50 percent reserve area which does not enable a homeowner to fully replace a failed health system. • Continue to allow health systems that meet the Virginia Department of Health's, (VDH) General Approval requirements. Prohibit health systems that are permitted through the Provisional and Experimental Approval process. February 2009, Final Version o Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems, and require Board of Supervisors' approval for Pump- and -Haul permits. o Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems. • Enable the use of Community Health Systems within defined Rural Community Centers. • Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot subdivision requirements. • Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres. • Increase the preservation lot (cluster set -aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a minimum 60 percent of the parent tract. • Clarify that the Preservation Tract counts towards the overall density. • Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. • Consider identifying `sending' areas based on rich agricultural soils and ridgeline viewsheds ■ In identifying `sending' areas, recognize that a property's location, soil, and terrain heavily influence its capacity to be developed and thus its development value. • TDR `sending' areas should be designated in an effort to discourage development. • Consider using `receiving' areas where residential development is desired. ■ Within the UDA on residentially planned areas that are zoned RA. ■ Within Urban Centers and Neighborhood Villages. ■ In Rural Community Centers with adopted boundaries. • Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for the development community to purchase development rights from key agricultural areas of the County. • Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for landowners to sell their development rights as opposed to selling their land for development. • Pursue state enabling legislation that would allow the County to implement Impact Fees for new construction. o Seek, support, and participate in collective lobbying efforts to secure impact fee - enabling legislation to adequately address the impacts new construction places on the county. • Strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture. o Promote forum and network opportunities that would further produce marketing and agriculture economy support. On February 19, 2009, the Subcommittee forwarded these recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. _i,%_F <„x ..k C_'_... _'f'v �C3J"5 ¢'i�.. "�..: �..;,. _..__u February 2009, Final Version Rural Areas Subcommittee In July 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee to take the lead role in evaluating the rural areas of the County. This Subcommittee was charged with: • Identifying the growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County; • Gathering ideas to address those issues; and • Forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. In an effort to encourage public participation, and in order to learn about the community's ideas for the rural areas, a variety of tools and mediums were used to inform the community about the Rural Areas Subcommittee effort. A webpage was established where up -to -date meeting discussion and summary materials were made available. The webpage also contained an informative PowerPoint presentation which outlined the issues the Subcommittee was charged with evaluating. Citizen ideas were accepted via an online comment page, as well as a dedicated Rural Areas Study e -mail address, and could also be mailed or dropped off to the County's Planning and Development office. rt. .....1ilaG �.�. _3iy` _t: "("P of s ui`.C3rS" Rtf.ad February 2009, Final Version Rural Areas Defined For the purpose of this study, the Subcommittee looked at growth in the County's rural areas. These rural areas included all land located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service area (SWSA). It should be noted that the communities of Lake Holiday, Shawneeland, and Mountain Falls are planned for suburban residential uses and, therefore, were excluded from this rural area study. The rural areas of Frederick County account for approximately 89 percent of the County's land area. :✓....r.j 0 su 11- ' ervr...wrs ! Iira I;M1:.t February 2009, Final Version - - County Growth Trends The County has experienced a constant growth rate the past three decades — between 1970 and 2000, the average annual population growth rate was 2.9 percent. This annual growth rate rose to 3.17 percent for the period between 2000 and 2006, resulting in a January 2008 provisional population estimate of 73,818 persons, based on Weldon Cooper Center projections. The County's growth rate since 2000 places the jurisdiction within the top 10 population gainers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, gaining 13,740 persons since 2000. The 2000 US Census indicated that approximately half of the County's population resides in the rural areas of the County. County data evaluations indicate that since 1990, approximately 30 percent of the new home construction has occurred in the rural areas. County Growth Management Tool — the UDA In the late 1980s, the County implemented the use of the Urban Development Area (UDA) as its primary growth management tool. The UDA, an adopted policy tool incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan for over 20 years, directs that suburban residential growth occur within the UDA, where public service provisions, such as water and sewer, are provided. In an effort to maintain an appropriately sized UDA, responsive to growth pressures for residential growth, approximately 5,700 acres have been added to the UDA since 1990; which results in 5,700 acres that have been removed from the rural areas and positioned for more intensive uses. Strategically, this inclusion of additional acreage in the UDA was intended to relieve development pressures from the rural areas, so that agricultural opportunities could be pursued and maintained. The County recognizes that an increasing growth rate, such as the rate experienced by Frederick County since 2000, results in an accelerated consumption of quality rural landscapes and character, and erodes the county's agricultural economy. County Land Division Ordinance Provisions as Compared to Neighboring Jurisdictions The Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances contain the applicable regulations that enable and guide the subdivision of land within the rural areas of the County. The two ordinance provisions that apply to the creation of more than three lots from a single land parcel are the Major Rural Subdivision and the Rural Preservation Lots (cluster). Each provision is based on a maximum allowed density of one unit per five acres. The Major Rural Subdivision Ordinance provision requires that lots be established with a minimum lot size of five acres, have direct access to public roads, and contain private individual health systems. The Rural Preservation Lot ( "clustering ") ordinance provision requires that lots be established with a minimum lot size of two acres, have direct access to public roads, contain private individual health systems, and maintain at least 40 percent of the parent tract in a single "preservation" parcel. • i- E -r :! t C - c r1ty 3 rrrd - 0 uljerr!_.ar" Rura� A..rea SuIDce „ i€ =t ;e 7 1 �� February 2009, Final Version Jurisdictions Rural Densities and Lot Sizes (Based on non - cluster -. § . � � ^�•� �` ��: $� �. € �� }laiv ��. .k�g� � A $�4 :. At ff ��b °f 5' � =S �� .a t� �= .�� e � �4 ti tl ff �� 'h �� i� c11 � j ^ � ° vw ^ ,6'�.W 111 tYi .ev 5fi1 4b�`�� • � C 5` Sl, New Lot Creation Trends The County has realized a gradual increase in the number of lots created annually in the rural areas of the County. It is notable that while the County's growth management policy, the Urban Development Area, seeks to direct new growth towards a concentrated density in the UDA, the County continues to experience about a third of new lot creation occurring in the rural areas. Rural Areas Lot Creation History 20 04 % 200 • �2 101 &. ' L 'FiT rn "�. u� • February 2099, Final Version ... The use of the Rural Preservation Subdivision (two -acre minimum lot size with a 40 percent preservation area) has increased in recent years, and is now more common than the more traditional 5 -acre Major Rural Subdivision land division option. During the period between January 2004 to June 2008, 82 subdivision applications (Rural Preservation & Major Rural Subdivisions) were submitted to the County seeking to create 1,451 lots in the rural areas (approximately 7,255 acres). This does not account for Minor Rural Subdivisions requested — which create less than three lots. Only 912 of these lots have been recorded (created) as of June 30, 2008. The balance has been designed and final plat approvals are pending. New Home Construction Trends The County has realized a gradual increase in the number of new homes constructed in the rural areas, which continues to capture about a third of the new residences constructed in the County. All projections indicate growth trends in the rural areas will continue, if not increase. BD trr cj Super visors' R - il Arc', _'_ `€ i tr New Residential Building Permits Issued in Rural Areas S' �i atSl " t m 3 "i, F t.L " N ' s'pi't q �� „' f p t��s • a • 2 4% : All projections indicate growth trends in the rural areas will continue, if not increase. BD trr cj Super visors' R - il Arc', _'_ `€ i tr New Residential Building Permits Issued in Rural Areas February 2009, Final Version Issues for Consideration The RA Subcommittee identified five issues that warranted consideration in evaluating the rural areas and its associated land development pressures. These five issues each have associated affects on the rural areas, as well as the entire County: 1. The Rural Areas — UDA Relationship 2. Agricultural Economy 3. Land Development and Design 4. Community Services and Facilities 5. Transportation The Rural Areas — UDA Relationship The County's Comprehensive Policy Plan utilizes the land use concept called the Urban Development Area (UDA). The UDA defines the area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. Necessary public services, such as public water and sewer, will be provided within the UDA. The County also uses the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) as a tool to capture commercial and industrial uses, however this area does not allow residential uses, thus its importance in the rural areas discussion is less significant. The UDA and SWSA are planned growth areas within the County positioned to most effectively and efficiently provide necessary public services such as: Transportation, including vehicular and pedestrian; Schools; Parks and Recreation; Fire and Rescue; and Public Safety. New state - mandated Storm Water Management regulations will add increased development costs to projects in the UDA. These new state regulations may inadvertently shift residential development pressures to the rural areas where it would be less costly to comply. Agricultural Economy The County has experienced a net loss of 6,528 acres from the County's Agricultural and Forestal Districts since the 1980's. Through its study of the rural areas, the County strives to support and promote agricultural economy interests and associated pursuits in the rural areas. One potential challenge that confronts the County is its location and affordability, in relation to the Northern Virginia market. This proximity to Northern Virginia will result in increased land demand for housing, as experienced more significantly in the past five years. This pressure for housing will indirectly discourage agricultural activities as land owners evaluate the benefits of abandoning their agricultural venture and converting their farmland to large -lot rural residential subdivisions. Land Development and Design Present ordinance provisions permit a residential density of one unit per five acres. As discussed previously in this document, subdivision options exist that enable this one unit per five acre density to be applied in either a Major Rural Subdivision (with a by -right minimum of five acre lots) or in a Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision (with a by -right cluster minimum lot size of 2 acres). The existing ordinance enables these subdivisions to occur administratively; no legislative action or rezoning application is necessary. A significant amount of available land, and the relative ease in converting it for housing, may indirectly promote housing growth. v J'. ,_- C County B;..:ra o f _pery rs' Rulral A _..;r Sul February 2009, Final Version Community Service and Facilities The dispersed population resulting from rural area growth challenges the cost - efficient provision of County services such as Schools, Fire and Rescue, Public Safety (Sheriff), Parks and Recreation, and Libraries. Current capital facility fiscal modeling utilized by the County (adopted Development Impact Model in July 2008)) projects that every new single - family home constructed in the County places a negative impact of $23,818 on the County's capital infrastructure (schools, fire and rescue, public safety, parks, library). These are capital costs currently not addressed by the rural area land owner or home buyer, and become a burden on the County and the County -wide taxpayer. The County must provide the necessary public services, yet it is unable to recover the costs under the current structure of the County Code and State laws. Transportation The ever expanding growth and development pressures in the rural areas are taxing on the road infrastructure. This is illustrated by the number of roads residents have requested be placed on the County's Six Year Road Improvement Program for hard surface treatment. Currently, the County's Six Year Road Improvement Program plan has enough roads requested for inclusion in the Hard - Surface Road Programs to take well over 20 years to complete (based on today's, 2008 fiscal constraints). The current Hard - Surface Road Plan has 30 roads, totaling over 35 miles, awaiting improvements. Funds are limited for rural area road improvements as most state road dollars are dedicated for the more heavily traveled primary and secondary roads in the more densely populated areas of the State and County. In recent years, the State has established the Rural Rustic Road Program which enables funds and provides for basic paved access in the rural areas. This is a good tool to stretch the limited funds and provide for a hard surface treatment. Unfortunately, it is not meant for every unpaved road. This program does not rebuild the road; no engineering or major improvements may be funded through the Rural Rustic Road Program. So there should not be significant increases in traffic on the qualifying portion of road. Paving follows the guidelines for very low volume local roads (less than 1,000 vehicles per day). Qualifying for this program requires that the Board of Supervisors document its commitment to limit growth on the road and indicate that growth and traffic generation will not increase significantly on the road for ten years. This commitment by the Board would require the Board to significantly alter the development potential in the vicinity of the rural rustic road so there is assurance that growth will not result. Current capital facility fiscal modeling projects that every new single - family home constructed in the County places a negative impact on the public road infrastructure. These are capital costs currently not addressed by the rural area land owner or home buyer, and become a burden on the County. Again, like school and fire and rescue services, the County must provide the public services, yet it is unable to recover the costs. The projected capital cost and economic burden for each new home constructed in the County is in excess of $23,000, excluding the impacts on our road system. Those homes constructed in the rural areas currently do not contribute to this capital cost impact. February 2009, Final Version 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan is the guiding document for long -range land use and transportation planning in the County. In reviewing this adopted policy document, it is important to note the goals applicable to the County's rural areas. The rural area goals of the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan state: • Preserve rural character and open space. • Improve the rural view shed. • A belief that preserving the rural character and viewshed furthers the community's attractiveness and value. The document also contains goals for the larger community, outside of the rural areas emphasis, which states: • Maintain the Rural Character of areas outside of the UDA. • Ensure that land development activities in the rural areas are of an appropriate quality. • Protect the rural environment. • Utilize the UDA to provide public services at a lower cost. It is these adopted policy goals that the Rural Areas Subcommittee kept in mind as they followed their mission and charge. February 2009, Final Version State Enabled Tools for Managing Growth in the Rural Areas The study effort involved evaluating all available tools for managing growth in the County's rural areas as enabled by the Commonwealth of Virginia. This evaluation identified more traditional tools designed to manage growth, as well as tools that indirectly affect growth, in the rural areas. The following are the tools identified as being enabled by the State for use within Frederick County. It is important to note that Frederick County has not been enabled to utilize Impact Fees; therefore, Impact Fees have been excluded from this list. 1. Urban Growth Boundaries 2. Chapter 2232 Review - Development consistency with the Comprehensive Policy Plan 3. Special Exception Permitting (a.k.a. Conditional Use Permits) 4. Cluster Development Zoning 5. Large Lot Zoning 6. Conservation Easements 7. Historic Districts 8. Density Incentives 9. Establishment of Agricultural and Forestal Districts 10. Purchase of Development Rights 11. Transfer of Development Rights 12. Virginia Department of Health (VDH) health system regulations 13. Implementation of a Use Value Assessment and Taxation, "Land Use" 14. Implementation of a Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate. February 2009, Final Version 1. Urban Growth Boundaries Extensions of infrastructure, particularly water and sewer lines and major streets, significantly affect the timing and density of development. The Comprehensive Policy Plan can designate areas which are planned for immediate or long -term utility service, thereby coordinating development approvals (rezoning) and utility extensions to achieve an orderly and compact development pattern adjacent to existing settlements. Urban Growth Boundaries in Virginia are not zoning designations per se, but rather policy designations established in the Comprehensive Policy Plan so as to guide decisions about rezoning applications and public infrastructure investment. Frederick County has implemented this tool in the form of the Urban Development Area. 2. "Chapter 2232" Review The Comprehensive Policy Plan is considered advisory and it serves as a guide for the physical development of the community. However, according to §15.2-2232 of the Virginia Code, the Comprehensive Policy Plan "shall control the general and approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown ". This, while the Comprehensive Policy Plan itself does not directly regulate land use, the Plan does have status as a fundamental instrument of land use control once it is adopted by the local governing body. Section 15.2 -2232 provides that unless a feature is already shown on the adopted plan, no street or connection to an existing street, park, or other public areas, public building or public structure, public utility facility or public service corporation, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed, established, or authorized until its location has been approved by the local Planning Commission as being substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Policy Plan. Frederick County exercises this review for public facilities. 3. Special Exception permitting (aka Conditional Use Permits) Zoning ordinances usually delineate a number of uses that are allowed as a matter of right, and a number of uses that are allowed by special exception (referred to as `Conditional Use Permits' in Frederick County). Uses allowed by special exception are those considered to have a potentially greater impact upon neighboring properties or the public than those uses permitted by right in the district. For example, houses of worship may be desirable in a residential area, but controls over parking, circulation, setbacks and landscaping may be needed to prevent them from adversely affecting surrounding residences. By classifying them as special exceptions, separate and specialized regulations or conditions can be imposed by the locality to mitigate the adverse impacts. These conditions may be imposed and need not be negotiated or agreed to by the applicant. Such conditions must be specific, reasonable, and enforceable. F2jeric k Cour,y F ;wMr� I of Sti-n I,.a�__ c`3 February 2009, Final Version 4. Cluster Development Zoning Under cluster zoning provisions, when a residential subdivision is created, it is designed so that the dwelling units are clustered together on smaller than average lots on only a portion of the tract, leaving the remainder available for open space or similar uses. Clustering may be used in either urban or rural areas. However, the term "cluster zoning" is usually associated with rural land use issues. Depending on the provisions of the specific cluster ordinance, the remaining open space within cluster developments may be held in common and /or be a strictly agricultural or environmental area with no "development rights" remaining on it, the open space parcel(s) may be allowed to have a dwelling unit, with a permanent easement that prohibits further subdivision or additional dwellings. In urban areas, cluster provisions are typically uses for preserving sensitive environmental features and/or for encouraging a compact development pattern that makes efficient use of infrastructure. In rural areas, cluster provisions are typically aimed at agricultural and forestal conservation. Cluster provisions can be voluntary options with a zoning district, or they can be mandatory. A rezoning may also be required in order to create a cluster development. One of the key advantages of rural cluster techniques is that the tool can help to preserve rural land resources while still meeting the desires of rural landowners to obtain a relatively high development value for their property. Typically, rural cluster provisions allow roads and dwellings to be sited with less disruption to views from the public road right -of -way and/or with greater buffer distances between neighboring properties. Frederick County permits clustering via the Rural Preservation Lot provision in the Rural Areas Zoning District. 5. Large Lot Zoning Large lot zoning is one of the techniques in a more inclusive category of zoning techniques called agricultural zoning or agricultural protection zoning. Large lot zoning simply requires that the minimum lot size in a designated rural zoning district is set at a large enough size to protect agricultural activities from excessive encroachment of residential and other non - agricultural land uses. The American Farmland Trust defines a "large lot' for the purposes of agricultural protection as being 20 acres or more. Many localities consider smaller, minimum lot size such as five or 10 acres as being a "large lot" measure. However, if lots less than 10 acres are permitted without a clustering provision, there is a risk that such development will create undue encroachment on agricultural areas and undermine the purpose of the tool. Thus, large lot zoning provisions are often combined with cluster zoning provisions within a given zoning district. .'1 . 1 , .�,.,, , {:I Coun Bo rd of St,lp:,i`:1' so rs' R ural .Areas Suh_C =_ .'.EVe P z;'_ 13 0 ° 3 0 February 2009, Final Version Large lot zoning is relatively inexpensive in that it relies on the police powers of conventional zoning to protect farmland from encroachment of residential development, thereby helping to reduce conflicts between farms and non -farm neighbors. If lot sizes are large enough, and if the locality provides for more intensive development to locate in urban areas or service districts, this technique can help reduce sprawl and public infrastructure costs. It appears to be used most commonly in areas where the farm economy is strong and farmers generally want protection from development. Thus, in areas where the value of rural land for development is far higher than its value for farming, it can be difficult to implement without support of the farming community. Like all zoning measures, it is not permanent and can be changed by local legislative action. 6. Conservation Easements A conversation easement (also known as an Open Space or Scenic Easement) is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that limits the use of land by recording deed restrictions that prohibit or severely restrict further development in order to protect the conservation value of the property, such as farmland, watersheds, wildlife habitat, forests, and/or historical lands. Each easement is unique in terms of acreage, description, use restrictions, and duration. These details are negotiated between the property owner granting the easement, and the organization that will be holding the easement. Conservation easements are typically established in perpetuity, but may be established for shorter periods. The easement allows a property owner to continue to own any underlying interest in the land that is not specifically limited by the easement, to use the land within the terms and restrictions of the easement, and to sell the land or pass it on to heirs (with the easement restrictions conveying with the land). Conservation easements do not permit public access unless specifically provided. Conservation easements may be established through purchase, lease (short term), or through donation. In all of these easement programs, the easement is established through the voluntary cooperation or initiative of the landowner. Frederick County, through the County's Conservation Easement Authority, is actively pursuing conservation easements in an effort to protect and preserve the rural landscape. Leasing of Development Rights. When conservation easements are acquired for short periods, they are called easement leases, term easements or the leasing of development rights (LDR). LDR is the same as Purchase of Development Rights except that the term of the easement can be as short as five years, under amendments to Virginia's Open Space Land Act made in 1981. To date, no Virginia locality has enacted an LDR program, but the concept's potential to be a good alternative to Use Value Assessment, because the locality can set the terms of eligibility, easement duration, restriction, and compensation; whereas under the Use Value program, the state sets most of the rules. However, like Use Value Assessment, the LDR program is a temporary solution to the problem of farmland and open space conversion. Bo; rd AT February 2009, Final Version Donation. When conservation easements are accepted as donations from landowners, the donor property owner qualifies for certain tax incentives at the State and Federal levels, instead of receiving payment from the locality. For landowners in the upper tax brackets, these provisions can be quite lucrative. Localities may accept donations of conservation easements, and many private or semi - private institutions also accept easement donations. Easement donations can also be promoted by localities in conjunction with a PDR program. 7. Historic Districts Localities are authorized by the Virginia Code to establish Historic Districts for designated historic landmarks and defined "historic areas ", including adjacent properties and land contiguous to road corridors leading to such areas. The governing body may provide for a review board to administer the ordinance, often called a Board of Architectural Review. The ordinance may include provisions that no building or structure, including signs, shall be erected or altered within any such district unless approved by the review board as being architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings or structures in the district. Localities typically prepare design guidelines to aid in the administration of such districts. Such districts are established as "overlay" district which do not alter the underlying zoning regulations, per se, but rather provide additional requirements for the design and form of new and/or expanded buildings. The establishment of a Historic Overlay District provides a great deal of authority to a locality in affecting visual character of a neighborhood in terms of architectural and urban design, going well beyond the accepted purview of conventional zoning provisions which deal merely with the height, bulk, use and intensity of buildings. Frederick County, via the County's Historic Resources Advisory Board, encourages property owners to participate in the expansion and establishment of historic districts. 8. Density Incentives A zoning ordinance is a principal planning tool used by localities to achieve their development objectives. Historically, zoning ordinances were purely regulatory tools that established minimum standards for new development. However, because "minimum standards" many times becomes "maximum performance ", zoning ordinances have evolved to include incentive -based approaches to community development objectives. Although different types of incentives can be incorporated into a zoning ordinance (fast track plan reviews, reduced application fees, etc.) the most positive incentive to developers is often increased density. ....rid of SkPp -_. v iscrs .._as I 3 February 2009, Final Version Incentives may be considered and applied through the rezoning process and/or directly through provisions of the zoning ordinance text. In the rezoning process, a locality's Comprehensive Policy Plan provides recommended density ranges for areas planned for residential use and intensity ranges. Establishing density as part of a rezoning approval is a matter of extent to which the objectives as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are met by the rezoning proposal. Incentives may also be directly incorporated into a locality's zoning ordinance text, and be available to anyone who meets the standards established in the zoning ordinance. Incentives may be structure to foster an assortment of community objectives including, but not limited to, affordable housing, dedication of land for highway improvements, reservation of land for open space, enhanced landscaping or signage design, dedication of land for public use. 9. Establishment of Agricultural and Forestal Districts The Virginia Code provides for the voluntary creation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFDs) in order to "provide a means for a mutual undertaking by landowners and localities to protect and enhance agricultural and forestal land as a viable segment of the Commonwealth's economy and as an economic and environmental resource of major importance ". Agricultural and /or Forestal Districts are established by the local ordinance to run for a set number of years (from 4 to 10), during which property owners continue to hold fee simple title to the land, and enjoy various benefits provided by the Code for such districts. The local ordinances usually include provisions that permit the landowner to withdraw from the program under certain defined circumstances. AFDs are established at the request of landowners, who must assemble at least 200 acres of contiguous land and be approved for a district by the local governing body. Districts last from 4 to 10 years and can be renewed. Being in a district ensures a landowner that his land will continue to be eligible for the Use Value Assessment, even if the program is otherwise rescinded by the locality. The AFD also provides some extra protection against certain public infrastructure improvements. In and of itself, an AFD does not change the zoning within its borders. However, an AFD can be a factor in the locality's zoning decisions and planning policies. Further, in adopting an AFD, the governing body may require, as a condition of creation of the district, that any parcel in the district shall not, without the prior approval of the governing body, be developed to any more intensive use or to a certain more intensive use (other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production), during the period which the parcel remains within the district. Frederick County presently has three Agricultural and Forestal Districts. 10. Purchase of Development Rights When conservation easements are purchase as part of a broad government program, it is typically called "Purchase of Development Rights" or PDR. In some other parts of the country it is also known as PACE or Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements. Purchasing "development rights" is the `f ;'.. ;'er,.;, (� �,. ?t..�Yt C?f';.iX' t ..it ,.��f_ «t s ea Rural ,? `. t�� February 2009, Final Version -wr; I same as purchasing conservation easements or that portion of the "bundle of rights" that allows landowners to construct dwellings or non -farm commercial structures on the property. Thus, when a locality purchases a conservation easement from a landowner, it essentially "buys" the right to develop the land and "retires" that right by placing a permanent conservation easement on the property that restricts or prohibits further non -farm development. Typically, these easement restrictions run in perpetuity. Frederick County, through the County's Conservation Easement Authority, is pursuing an active PDR program. 11. Transfer of Development Rights TDR, or Transfer of Development Rights, is a concept in which some or all of the rights to develop a parcel of land in one district (the sending district) can be transferred to a parcel of land in a different district (the receiving district). The TDR is a tool used to preserve open space, farmland, water resources and other resources in areas where a locality wishes to limit or curtail development. In a classic TDR system one or more sending districts are identified, as well as one or more receiving districts. "Development rights" are assigned to landowners in the sending district, typically on the basis of a certain number of permitted dwellings per acre. Owners of land in the sending district are not allowed to develop at the full level of their development rights, but instead may sell their development rights to owners of land in the receiving district, who may then use the newly acquired development rights to build at higher densities than normally allowed by existing zoning (without further legislative approval). TDR systems are intended to maintain designated land in open or non - developed uses and to compensate owners of the preserved land for the loss of their rights to develop it. Frederick County continues to investigate the benefits of a TDR program, and is tracking the General Assembly's efforts to enhance existing enabling legislation. 12. Private On -Site health system regulations The Virginia Department of Health regulates the private on -site health systems that are necessary for a residence to be constructed in Frederick County's rural areas. VDH, through its statewide regulations, enables a number of health systems (general, provisional, and experimental approvals), from conventional drainfields to alternative systems to engineered discharge designs, and programs (i.e., conditional construction permits) for private on -site health systems. In recognition of the varying site characteristics throughout the Commonwealth, localities are provided the ability to request that certain systems and programs not be permitted in a jurisdiction. Through presentations by experts from both the public and private sector, the County has been made aware of various aspects of the existing state regulations that may be enhanced in their application within Frederick County. Frederick County may: a _.._.. Ccur ty Bo-rd of S upervisors' Rural 'Areas &A4 -r-m m r..v _, — m�3 o f ru February 2009, Final Version • Require larger drainfield reserve areas than the existing State standard of 50 percent of the primary drainfield. Most community's surveyed required 100% reserve drainfields; Frederick `- County requires a 50% reserve. • Limit the types of private on -site health systems available, based on the State's three tiers of approvals - general approval, provisional approval, and experimental system approval. • Limit the types ofprivate on -site health systems permitted based on a particular system's design, and whether it's conventional, alternative, discharge, or even pump - and -haul. Other communities are more restrictive than Frederick County in its use of discharge and pump -and- haul systems. • Require Operation and Maintenance of health systems. This was encouraged by the attending experts. It was also noted that the State may require such an O &Mprogram by July 2009. • Prohibit off -site drainfields. Most communities surveyed prohibit the off -site drainfield; Frederick County currently allows it. • Require greater well -head separation distances. Most communities surveyed require 100 foot separations; Frederick requires 50 feet. • Expect a minimum lot size of at least 2 acres to accommodate an on -site health system, and that larger lot requirements are more desirable so as to accommodate the most appropriate systems applicable to the site's soil type. • It was suggested that smaller lots become design challenges that may often lead to the installation of undersized and/or inappropriate systems may be installed to assure the usability of a parcel. 13. Implementation of a Use Value Assessment and Taxation ( "Land Use ") The Use Value Assessment and Taxation Program uses discounts in property tax assessments to promote and preserve agricultural, forestal and open space lands. Use Value Assessment (also commonly known as "land use" or "land assessment ") is a State - guided program available to localities in which the locality can tax farmland and open space land at its "uses" value rather than its fair market value. In most rapidly growing jurisdictions, this typically reduces the real estate tax on the land by a significant amount, thus making it easier to continue a farming business. The program is voluntary to the landowner and requires only 5 acres to qualify under agricultural or open space classification or 20 acres under the forestal use classification (areas as small as one quarter acre may qualify if adjacent to a scenic river or scenic highway or other specific instances provided by the Code). Rollback taxes must be paid when the property is removed from the program. C`oeunl y t Board of CR ce Jrs' Rural Areas c _f"_`,"a :;,t;_._ February 2009, Final Version Land Use Assessment does not stop the pressure to convert farmland to urban development, but does appear to temporarily reduce some of the pressure on landowners in areas where urban development pressures are causing tax burdens to rise. Frederick County utilizes the Land Use assessment program. 14. Implementation of a Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate The locality may reduce one's real property taxes based on the number of years which the landowner agrees not to develop the property, for up to 20 years. Rollback taxes equal the deferred tax plus interest from the effective date of the agreement. Enabled in 1999 (Ch. 1026, Acts of the Assembly), not used to date. Through research and presentations, the County has been made aware of various aspects of the existing state regulations pertaining to the Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate. It was believed that with the increasing demand for land, and the associated land value increase associated with the demand, the benefits of the sliding scale tax rate would be far exceeded by the benefit of developing the property. Further thoughts suggest that if a property owner is willing and able to defer their development rights for up to 20 years, the sliding scale tax rate would not act as an incentive but simply an added benefit. In its application in Frederick County, the benefits of sliding scale vs. Land Use alone would be minimal. February 2009, Final Version Growth Management Tools Not Fully Utilized in the Rural Areas The study effort involved evaluating all available tools for managing growth in the County's rural areas as enabled by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and more importantly, identifying those tools that may not be fully utilized in Frederick County. The following are the tools identified as being worthy of further consideration and implementation to more effectively manage the growth in the rural areas. State enabled opportunities that promote agricultural economy and viewshed preservation • Subdivision Layout Design Requirements • Evaluate if increasing the set -aside "preservation" lot size from the current requirement that the set -aside be 40% of the parent tract to a 60% set -aside requirement would assist in promoting agricultural opportunities. • Consider establishing a maximum lot size for the buildable lots created in a preservation subdivision. • Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs • Evaluate if a TDR program and associated incentives would be beneficial to the community. Such a program could encourage developers to seek out and purchase the development rights from the agricultural property owners. • Pursue state and federal grants to fund the PDR program. • Tax Assessment Programs o Evaluate if establishing a Sliding Scale Land Use Assessment Program would benefit the community. State enabled opportunities that mitigate environmental and fiscal impacts to the county • Residential Density o Consider if revisiting the residential density permitted in the rural areas is appropriate. Evaluate existing densities in adjoining communities to ascertain if Frederick County is comparable with other jurisdictions. • Health Systems • Private on -site systems ■ Evaluate existing state regulations, and ascertain if more stringent standards should be utilized in recognition that soil types in Frederick County are not always comparable nor compatible with state -wide standards. • Community systems ■ Evaluate the use of community health systems within the Rural Community Centers as a means to alleviate existing system failures. Additional details on these identified, but not fully utilized tools, are included on pages 26 and 27 of this report. c , = "ct. ;E .., Do) -,rd of '" �,� .i D', >�v<I r:o �_ Sid ?2 , �_. ,. '.2 _» February 2009, Final Version Community Involvement Process -_ A variety of tools and mediums were used to inform the community about the RA Subcommittee effort: • Rural Areas Webpage. A webpage was created that contained information about the study effort, copies of the meeting agendas and minutes, and announcements about community meeting sessions. The study's webpage was also hyperlinked from the County's homepage, and its address was: ` :lliiiit{T i IIC?..s4 1 s • Online Comment Form. When visiting the study's webpage, one could also provide their ideas and opinions on the study through an Online Comment Form. • E- Mailing List. A mailing list was established to keep interested parties informed on the study's efforts. Up to 50 homes signed up for this e -mail update service. • E -mail. An e -mail address was established to receive citizen comments and ideas. • Community Meetings. Three community meetings were held the first two weeks of November 2008. Through these meetings, information was made available to inform interested participants about the rural study, the enabled tools available, tools that the Subcommittee identified as possible areas to improve upon. These community meetings also ended with participants being encouraged to complete a study survey as a means to convey their individual thoughts on a list of potential tools that could be further implemented in the rural areas. Informative handouts distributed at these community meetings are on the following pages. I rederick County, YA Planning and Do lopment Microsoft Internet Explorer F__ �_WX Fle Fit Yew Farmies .Took Hob I � a.i „J '..`Seardr ;,� Faywbes --... ,::_+< tup ll ' :www m hudwdd.ve usl ... ---------- -.. -. asOS .... del [� Go - '$- J * a.esPY ® Liu+v.a. yam TOOm n - 001d - 149 a I aw y�§en vdea. - (prr.w: • as The Department of Planning & Development The 2008 Evaluation of the County's Rural Areas During the S»er of 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee. This subcommittee was charged with the evaluation of the County's rural arcs, idemiBalioo of issues that may impact the nand character as wen as County fiscal respmsttilulth s, idmli5atum of all potential resolutions to overcome impacts. aM forwarding of recommmdet = designed to preserve the community's naal character into the Bture. Much effort is being sped to better understand our past and present growth trends, and establish a framework to guide us into the future. A sesies of informative documents are available (see links below) for the community to understand the charge of the Rural Arms Subconermi ee, as well w their progress. We would encourage you to forward your thoughts for mcorpora mat into the effaM a well as register your e-mail address to receive occasional program updates. The Rural Areas Subcommittee will be busting a community treating at winch findings to date will be Presented, and comments and suggestive solutions sought. The Community wet continue to be engaged throughout this planning effort, in an effect to foster a high levd of cdomh participation Citcm patiuipsation a mmmnousdy vaLable to the men& study effort It is the Subcommttee's intent to incorporate the comments and issues offered by the pubdic auto the final rmommmdation of the Rural Arms Subco®dtce wbichm will be forward to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Voice your .pinion: Call the planning DeParimem at ..._._ ------ __........._«� 665 --565I _... .,..._._...e.._.w.._..___...... l.a: s 1=i t. r ,.;1 : ie3s ° mss:. -.Iii_ � „ -23 is 3,3 Frederick County Home Planning Home Community Planning I, Transportation Planning Current Planning a Boards, Commissions a and Committees Calendars Agendas Action Summary Report Documats & Applications -` Contact us Maps a Directions The Department of Planning & Development The 2008 Evaluation of the County's Rural Areas During the S»er of 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas Subcommittee. This subcommittee was charged with the evaluation of the County's rural arcs, idemiBalioo of issues that may impact the nand character as wen as County fiscal respmsttilulth s, idmli5atum of all potential resolutions to overcome impacts. aM forwarding of recommmdet = designed to preserve the community's naal character into the Bture. Much effort is being sped to better understand our past and present growth trends, and establish a framework to guide us into the future. A sesies of informative documents are available (see links below) for the community to understand the charge of the Rural Arms Subconermi ee, as well w their progress. We would encourage you to forward your thoughts for mcorpora mat into the effaM a well as register your e-mail address to receive occasional program updates. The Rural Areas Subcommittee will be busting a community treating at winch findings to date will be Presented, and comments and suggestive solutions sought. The Community wet continue to be engaged throughout this planning effort, in an effect to foster a high levd of cdomh participation Citcm patiuipsation a mmmnousdy vaLable to the men& study effort It is the Subcommttee's intent to incorporate the comments and issues offered by the pubdic auto the final rmommmdation of the Rural Arms Subco®dtce wbichm will be forward to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Voice your .pinion: Call the planning DeParimem at ..._._ ------ __........._«� 665 --565I _... .,..._._...e.._.w.._..___...... l.a: s 1=i t. r ,.;1 : ie3s ° mss:. -.Iii_ � „ -23 is 3,3 e „ E 3 Y M E �a5 n y j `�. r •I s b s 8�E uzvi .. Es a� _ u 6 h g c „r8 0s U��o3 NNY MOM vv$a_ �a an gm- -.-- �uR — n 0 , ? a r 3 aAsg W ” ! �C I k o0 0 f+�E t ;� o g� ti a - OO "�� E II ooa- °- o MRS `I `I yy �s aaE�g�`o Ag S ?ED9 Lc' � °gi A S`� G 1 y� �m�gg y m9 & - ti��A ° c9 � R z 8 8�3E `. Q xis ° r�= a 01 ` I `>1 ' I w t m V1 04 L p N R O O Y u °' '� v� 0 m 0 rub E k - G - d a+ r .4 aLS E L O y �3.. L v- W ✓ O 45 O y1 o r c o a1 a O E O N ¢` O Q E F _ a OE J 10 C `� t)p V O fl. Q N ��+ W H L M G G Q1 fJ 'C1 N O. C N �. G a+. �+.. �.. O. ,O O 40 Op �p O C1 Q.. L. E + ` O E !^ a1 M L 41 O1 C L' y 41 -0 Y C N''u �� - N p c °' v u In �, y .00. y u, y w a y In vo f0 L u1 D U N G s� I� tt � L1. F- m v 0 - 4- LO O M f s s - � • s ,r i7 1n a i art H IM F b 980 F� 2 des JUN! //�' dpt'ES Yp J gg c v a 0 y A n X. v F �'i 2! W V W E F- v, Q E F o s 3 tsm L E � E 2 � 4 's a 3 1E - $ Eli `'77 Per 11 Fb &3b$ J a$ 6f • n n � P fill Zi <$ o� k � E - Asa Ra •a °3� e � E "4 0 0' @ m gj - e! as� LA G s u v S fi 8` n A 2 A C!) crs x 3~ 5 3 Y R C v a a C4 Y • c iI_ 331 to "Su8 1; E c ;Es r�.�Et [ s Avg P v fiM�& k % $'€ fI ng� t E MIAs N I j E s 3 tsm L E � E 2 � 4 's a 3 1E - $ Eli `'77 Per 11 Fb &3b$ J a$ 6f • n n � P fill Zi <$ o� k � E - Asa Ra •a °3� e � E "4 0 0' @ m gj - e! as� LA G s u v S fi 8` n A 2 A C!) crs x 3~ 5 3 Y R C v a a C4 Y • c iI_ 331 to "Su8 1; E c ;Es r�.�Et [ s Avg P v fiM�& k % $'€ fI o N I j x = Y §r Q = 2 z a1A S a` s yy e�ag aE 1 { E €E / 'r F F i 5t E £� � r a v U 6 i ' 11 w N! <'r o February 2009, Final Version Rural Area Subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts At the RA Subcommittee meeting on November 20, 2008, the Subcommittee reviewed the materials to date, including the community meeting surveys and, based on this information, offered their Preliminary Thoughts on a potential resolution to their rural areas review charge: _._....n Mo vol Density Maintain 1 unit per 5 acres Rezoning No Drainfield Reserve Area Increase from 50% to 100% Acceptable Health System approvals Continue to allow General Approval systems; no longer allow Provisional nor Experimental system approvals Supported Concept. Requires more study. If State does not Operation & Maintenance Requirements implement a maintenance program by the State Code identified July 2009 deadline, the County should. Preservation Tract Size Increase from 40% to 60% Implement a TDR program. Support for increasing transfer Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) development densities in effort to encourage use of TDR program. TDR banking is presently not permitted, but has been included in the current General Assembly discussions. r--,d erick C.ouil'fi.y Board of S up et'v o Are e �� 2':e 0 Pump- and -Haul' I Allow with Board of Supervisors approval Rural Preservation Subdivision — Preservation Tract size February 2009, Final Version Public Meeting The RA Subcommittee held a public comment meeting on February 5, 2009 where the Subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community, and public comment was recorded. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 people. Below is a summary of the meeting, with emphasis on the comments received. Eric Lawrence, AICP, Director of Planning and Development for the County, began the meeting by providing an overview of the subcommittee's mission of the information that the group used as the basis for its recommendations. Following this abbreviated version of the presentation giving during the community meetings held in November, Mr. Lawrence then proceeded to outline the subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts and recommendations. These Preliminary Thoughts, outlined on the previous page (page 26), were the result of the committee's analysis for the tools available to the County for use in managing growth. At the core of these Preliminary Thoughts was the subcommittee's understanding of the following issues: 1. Relationship of the rural areas to the UDA 2. Agricultural economy 3. Land development and design 4. Community services and facilities, 5. Transportation Following this overview of the subcommittee's Preliminary Thoughts, the public was given the opportunity to share their opinion and suggestions. Below are excerpts from the public comment session; the full text is available upon request. Mr. John Gavitt of the Gainesboro Magisterial District spoke on behalf of Preserve Frederick. Preserve Frederick continues to support the work of the Rural Areas Subcommittee. Mr. Gavitt stated they agree there are a variety of tools available to manage growth in the rural areas. ...It is clear that rural landowners should be compensated for giving up their development rights except where there is donation. ...All citizens must understand that preserving important rural lands for the future will not occur unless there is some level of sacrifice today. ...As important as it is to save our land, it is equally important that any program enacted also save our agricultural industry and infrastructure. Mr. Bob Carpenter of the Gainesboro Magisterial District spoke on behalf of the Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County. Mr. Carpenter commended Mr. Shickle and the members of the Subcommittee for the work that has transpired over the last several months.... He believes that from the time we started this process last July to where we are tonight, ...a lot of good things have occurred ... One of those is the fact that we, his group and the County, have agreed to solicit, pursue and try to find a way to work with Richmond to get the impact fee model discussed and on the record. ...Mr. Carpenter asked that the Subcommittee continue to focus on the TDR Program and to keep in mind that not all land is created equal. Also, they ask that the Subcommittee further study the community waste systems. cu',Wa,'v ,o ar {d of t'-ti5 _. _. 2 7 C 3 February 2009, Final Version M, , Mr. John Good, Jr., of Stonewall Magisterial District, stated that he is happy with a lot of the work this Subcommittee has done and he and his family appreciate it. The preservation of value by not dramatically reducing the density is very important. ...One concern is the 100% reserve area. Mr. Good thinks the concept is good for people who want to fix their systems; the problem is not many people fix their systems. Another concern is about off -site easements and not allowing those anymore. Mr. Lawrence clarified that the Subcommittee does not support elimination of the off -site easement. Mr. Paul Anderson of Back Creek Magisterial District, President of Frederick County Farm Bureau, stated that he appreciates the work the Subcommittee has been doing. ...Mr. Anderson likes the idea of the TDR Program. He also thinks the PDR Program would be a good program to go along with that. ... Mr. Anderson said let's not make agriculture suffer financially so the general public can drive out and see beautiful countryside. ...one of the things that bother Mr. Anderson is the two -acre lots issue. If someone needs to sell lots, two lots probably wouldn't do it, and if he sells the third lot, he has to put a road in. ...So he's going to sell it to a developer and have 19 lots put in to get the money he needs. ...There are a lot of alternate systems and if we can keep the lot sizes down to a minimum in order to preserve as much farm land as we can, that's the goal. Mr. Anderson likes the idea of going from 40% to 60% open space, but we need to look at lot sizes and see if we can maybe reduce those lot sizes based on the type of health systems that can be used. Ms. Charlotte Messick of Back Creek Magisterial District reminded everyone that ...This County needs to find ways to not only educate the young people coming up to be farmers, but to encourage the farmers that are here in every way they can to stay in farming, not because of the monetary reasons, but you don't have scenic viewsheds without a knowledgeable farmer to make that viewshed. Ms. Mary Anderson of Back Creek Magisterial District, who is on the Farm Bureau Board, was asked to read a letter from Mr. John Stetzel, who was not able to attend. Ms. Anderson read that Mr. Stetzel is for controlling growth in the County. However, Mr. Stetzel thinks it needs to be a balanced control between not only the rural areas but also the area within Urban Development Area.... Mr. Stetzel asks please make sure that whatever changes you decide upon not only meet the goals of controlling growth, but also those changes do not negatively impact landowners' equity. Mr. Patrick Felling of Red Bud Magisterial District represents the Potomac Conservancy.... As Mr. Felling considers the issues, one of the things that really stuck out is the potential for Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights to maintain the value for the landowner without increasing the density in rural areas. Ms. Diane Kearns of Gainesboro Magisterial District thanked the Subcommittee for all their work. It may be a good idea to ... create some sort of agriculture task force, maybe through the EDC. TDRs are a great concept and Ms. Kearns applauds that idea. Ms. Kearns agrees with Mr. Carpenter that not all land is created equal so that has to be taken in account. To figure that out, get as many of the sectors involved as possible. Following the comment period, members of the community asked Mr. Lawrence some questions about the details of the existing rules for development in the rural areas and how they related to any potential changes. In regards to some questions about TDRs, Mr. Lawrence explained: that he believes if the TDR Program is created, he would strongly suggest that the county not identify sending areas where one would expect the F a g re Z 3 c` 30 February 2009, Final Version ,. urban development area to be in the future. The receiving area could be designated rural community centers, it could be designated urban centers or it could be designated residentially - planned areas within our Urban Development Area. Also included as a public comment was the letter received from the Winchester Frederick County, EDC, which explained that in the late 90s, the EDC Strategy did contain an agribusiness component, but that due to the graduation of the tourism effort and waning participation of the agribusiness community, the EDC ceased related activities around 2000. Recently however, several local agribusiness stakeholders queried if the EDC would restart its agribusiness effort. As a part of their new efforts, the EDC endorsed a willingness to execute more involved activity with the agribusiness community. The group identified several potential areas for greater growth within the area's agricultural community including Wineries, Tie into retail market, Sole focus on agri - tourism/tainment, and Assistance /partnership with new crops, Marketing, Financing, etc. f;to -v D - - ;, ` a of St_ioe . , rs' Rural , u- .i . ,_2 29 of 30 February 2009, Final Version Recommendation In conclusion, the Rural Areas Subcommittee is recommending that the following changes be considered by the Board of Supervisors: • Increase the Private Health System's Drainfield Reserve Area requirement from 50 to 100 percent. • Continue to allow General Approval of Private Health Systems, however cease from allowing Provisional or Experimental System Approvals. • Cease allowing private, on -site residential discharge systems. • Allow Pump - and -Haul sewage disposal, as a last resort, with Board of Supervisors approval. • Increase the required size of Rural Preservation Tracts from 40 to 60 percent, maintain a minimum lot size of 2 acres, and clarify that the Preservation Tract counts toward the overall density. • Implementation of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, and supports increasing transfer development densities in an effort to encourage use of the TDR program. TDR banking is presently not permitted, but has been included in the current General Assembly discussions, and should be considered if enabled. • Community Health Systems: subcommittee supports the concept for use within the defined Rural Community Centers. In addition to these suggested changes, the subcommittee recommends that the following receive further, in- depth study: • Well Separation Distance Requirements: subcommittee requires more details prior to offering a recommendation. • Operation & Maintenance Requirements: subcommittee supports the concept but requires more information prior to offering a recommendation. If the state does not legislatively implement a maintenance program by its deadline of July 2009, the County should. • Community Health Systems: subcommittee requires more details prior to offering a recommendation for use outside of defined Rural Community Centers • Pursue state enabling legislation that would allow the County to implement appropriate Impact Fees for new construction. • Strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture. County Board of Supervisors' R ur a I a�.r. a s „- 20 ^f 2 APPENDIX I - Community Input - "Ideas" List 2008 Rural Areas Review Effort "IDEAS" List Below is a comprehensive listing of concerns and suggestions (collectively deemed "IDEAS ") offered by the community starting in July 2008. This list will continue to be expanded as new Ideas are submitted and voiced to the Board of Supervisors Rural Areas Subcommittee. To assist in the digestion of the Ideas, categories for significant topics have been established. Please submitted additional "Ideas" to the effort. e -mail us at RAIdeas @co.frederick.va.us telephone us at 540 - 665 -5651 visit the Rural Areas review webpage at www.co.frederick.va.us Promotion of Agricultural Economy • Maintain the spirit of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan by continuing to preserve large open parcels of land, tree cover, scenic views, sensitive environmental areas, and prime agriculture and locally significant soils. (RA Subcommittee selected as top priority during 914108 discussion) • Farmers need the flexibility of using land as a financial tool because most farmers invest their money in land. The proposed amendment (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) will only cripple what farmers can do in the future with the land they have, if they have to make a major decision to sell. • There is no better quality of life than life on a farm. • Support initiatives that will help maintain the rural character of Frederick County in the short run. • The County is also at risk for losing our local base for agriculture and other resources that will become increasingly important as transportation costs continue to rise. • Farmers count on their land as their biggest asset; they don't have a lot of money in the bank. • Farmers are not seeking to subdivide their land, but do rely on selling a five -acre portion during poor economic times to help pay bills and continue farming. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 1 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • Lot size for residential uses impacts adjacent farms. There was added cost and time to the farmer for the chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides necessary to fight the neighbor's weedy field problem. • Not in favor of changing the rural preservation homestead lot from 40% to 60 %. • Definition of rural character was countryside full of small and large farms and maybe some communities; he wanted to see it preserved the way it has been for the last 50- 100 years. • Addressing Land Use tax breaks. Perhaps using a 'scale' based on acreage FARMED would be a small part of the 'incentive' to continue farming in this county. There IS a difference between 'farming' and a plat of open land with a few cattle on it. A clear definition of 'farming' vs 'open space', linked with an increased tax break (land use) based on acreage farmed (the more land you farm the higher the land use breaks) would help promote better relations (appreciation shown to those who continue to farm) between the county as a whole and the agricultural community. (RA Subcommittee priority #2) • Promote family farms. Create policy to encourage farming of the preservation lots. Possibly enable family lots on the preservation parcel that must be held for at least 10 years. This would enable families to farm the preservation parcel, and construct homes for their children, so long as the lots remain in the family. • In planning for future, should recognize that family based farming opportunities are the future farms of the County. (RA Subcommittee priority #4) • Recognize that the use of the preservation parcel as a promotion of FC future's - family farming and horse operations • If any subdivision limitations are established, the county should enable people to cut off one lot that is small (2 acres) to keep afloat • Should it be farmer v. landowner, you can't look for "false farmers ". You need to look at the financial issues of landowners. Look at a system that is linked to time owned to number of lots (history of ownership) in allowing subdivision or tax reductions. • if we give land owners a better tax increase, the County is still saving money and it might encourage land owners to keep on farming because they're not paying a lot of taxes (RA Subcommittee priority #3) Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page L Regarding the Rural Areas Review - Expansion of the use of the Land Use Program • if we give land owners a better tax increase, the County is still saving money and it might encourage land owners to keep on farming because they're not paying a lot of taxes • Addressing Land Use tax breaks. Perhaps using a 'scale' based on acreage FARMED would be a small part of the 'incentive' to continue farming in this county. There IS a difference between 'farming' and a plat of open land with a few cattle on it. A clear definition of 'farming' vs 'open space', linked with an increased tax break (land use) based on acreage farmed (the more land you farm the higher the land use breaks) would help promote better relations (appreciation shown to those who continue to farm) between the county as a whole and the agricultural community. • Should it be farmer v. landowner, you can't look for "false farmers ". You need to look at the financial issue of landowners. Loo at a system that is li nked to tim owned to number of lots histo of ownership) g lots ( history p) in allowing subdivision or tax reductions. • When are you going to stop giving land use assessment tax breaks to people who own as little as six acres, or who only own six head of cattle and still get the break? If agriculture is so important then why are you actively courting industry into the county? By -Right Development. Should the County continue to enable rural area development (subdivision activity) as a by- right, non - legislative activity? • Recommended against rezoning in the rural areas; development in the rural areas should be a by -right style of development and not a zoning style of development. • Like to know that he could subdivide, if for unforeseen health issues he needed to sell his land for financial security. • Farmers are not seeking to subdivide their land, but do rely on selling a five -acre portion during poor economic times to help pay bills and continue farming. • Protected two five -acre areas for a retirement nest egg. The cost of medication and the expense of keeping his property maintained, he was going to need the nest egg. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 3 Regarding the Rural Areas Review Create an incentive to discourage mass platting of lots. Possibly utilize a bonus lot incentive. If a property creates less than 5 lots per year, after 5 years they could receive a bonus lot. • Establish guidelines to discourage large scale projects and mass production of new homes on a particular development/farm land. • Advise a client not to do the ten -acre subdivision, but if they qualify, he would recommend a rural preservation subdivision and only cut off a two -acre lot, not ten acres. Development with a Rezoning action. Should subdivision activity require a legislative action — i.e. rezoning? • Recommend against rezoning in the rural areas; development in the rural areas should be a by -right style of development and not a zoning style of development. • Like to know that he could subdivide, if for unforeseen health issues he needed to sell his land for financial security. • Farmers are not seeking to subdivide their land, but do rely on selling a five -acre portion during poor economic times to help pay bills and continue farming. • Creates an opportunity to address capital and transportation impacts on the community which result from home construction • agreed that when we (rural landowner) develop land in the RA (Rural Areas), he causes impacts and he should pay his way as developers — rezoning enables the farmer /land developer to addresses impacts on the community. • Development creates impacts; rezoning is only way to capture mitigation of the impacts. Recognition of Fiscal Impacts on the County. Should rural area development activity off -set the resulting fiscal impacts on the County's capital and operational expenses /services? • Realizes that when a property owner decides to develop his property, there are affects on the County's infrastructure. This is why the property owner needs to pay some type of fee for the impacts the development will have on the system. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 rage 4 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • Recognition that one of the issues the County faces is the maintenance cost of infrastructure, such as roads, and going Bonn five acres to ten acres will create sprawl and the need for additional roads. • Recognize the traffic impacts on existing roadways.... example provided: if the land feeding into Apple Pie Ridge Road is fully developed, vehicle trips per day (VTD) would be greater than the traffic currently utilizing Rt. 11 today. • Rezoning offers a method by which developments may mitigate their impacts • agreed that when we develop land in the RA (Rural Areas), we cause impacts and we should pay our way as developers, but if we choose to do this development then we should not be expected to pay nearly as much as land in the UDA. • Most people aren't aware that a farm subdivision /home construction creates an unmet impact on the county. • Development creates impacts; rezoning is only way to capture mitigation of the impacts. Lot Size. What are the targeted minimum and maximum lot sizes for the rural areas? • This proposal (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) could be considered discriminatory against landowners who don't live in the Urban Development Areas of Frederick County • Belief that the proposed amendment (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) would cause many small farming operations to fail. • The five -acre lot should continue, along with the 60% open space. • Encourage the clustering of lots and community sewer systems. • Prescribe alternative wastewater treatment systems that would allow clustering of homes on less than two acres. • Don't let lots get created smaller than 2 acres. Most people that live in the rural areas want a garden, pool, garage, etc. If the lots are less than 2 acres, then we will be living on top of each other. Let the people that want smaller lots go to the UDA. Don't let Gainesboro turn into Senseny Road. • A better job can be accomplished towards view shed preservation with smaller lot sizes and community septic systems. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 5 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • Support for larger open space, which can be done with five -acre lots by reducing the lot size, using alternative septic systems approved by the Health Department, or by allowing easements on the parent tract for the septic systems. • Lot size for residential uses impacts adjacent farms. There was added cost and time to the farmer for the chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides necessary to fight the neighbor's weedy field problem. • Concern that if ten acres became the minimum lot size, the number of famTes that could afford to both work and live here will be reduced. • Belief that the single, ten -acre lot size was a waste of land; minimum lot size of two acres or more is better. • Was in favor of raising lot sizes in rural areas to five acres (previously, it was one to three acres); thought it would really slow down development in the rural areas. Time shows it didn't, but ate up more land, faster. • Within the rural areas, it was much better to cluster development on smaller lots instead of spreading it out on five acres • Believe the ten -acre lot is a waste of the County's most valuable natural resource —land. • Recognition that one of the issues the County faces is the maintenance cost of infrastructure, such as roads, and going from five acres to ten acres will create sprawl and the need for additional roads. • Doubling the lot size from five to ten acres certainly reduces the opportunity for making some profit on land. • Not in favor of changing the rural preservation homestead lot from 40% to 60 %. • Has been more rural subdivisions with the 40% rural preservation lot, is because of the bonus lot. • Advise a client not to do the ten -acre subdivision, but if they qualify, he would recommend a rural preservation subdivision and only cut off a two -acre lot, not ten acres. • In favor of the 60% set aside with the smaller lot size. • Suggested clustering and reducing the lot size as small as possible, perhaps 3 % to one acre in size; there is sufficient technology available for septic systems to handle this. • opposed to the ordinance change as presented, especially the ten -acre minimum lot; he thought the five -acre minimum lot was too large • Concern about the increase in minimum lot size from five acres to ten acres; he said it seemed like a waste of land. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 6 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • The beautiful, bucolic pastoral scenery is rapidly disappearing. I strongly advise against lowering the 10 acre lot size. • When I moved here 44 years ago, Frederick Co. was a nice place to live. Due to unbridled development and growth which has caused terrific congestion, pollution, crime and high taxes. The beautiful, bucolic pastoral scenery is rapidly disappearing. I strongly advise against lowering the 10 acre lot size • 1 support smaller lots to save open space. Housing Density. How many homes per acre are appropriate to maintain the future vision and identity of the County's rural areas? • This proposal (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) could be considered discriminatory against landowners who don't live in the Urban Development Areas of Frederick County. • Belief that the proposed amendment (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) would cause many small farming operations to fail. • Proposed amendment change (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) will cripple the farm economy; without equity, most farmers can't get their loans; they can't get operating lines of credit and maintain their operations. • Decreasing lot density in rural areas supports the concept of growth in UDAs and decreases the need for services, police, fire and rescue services, schools, and water, etc., in outlying areas. • Would like to see the proposed amendment passed by reducing the number in half. • Recognize potential economic concerns, but believe that over time, if the supply of land is available, at some point in time the demand will bring the economics back into align with where they should be to make it appropriate for everyone. • Concern that proposed change would devalue the land owned by farmers. • Does not support the by -right density change from five to ten acres. • The reduction in density takes affordability out of the equation for the majority of potential home buyers and folks just wanting to live in a rural setting. • Proposal before the Commission (July 16 proposal regarding increase in lot size and decrease in density) amounts to a downzoning of all of the land in Frederick County zoned RA (Rural Areas). Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 7 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • It will be harder to garner open space easements to protect property in perpetuity from development if density is decreased. Part of the dynamic of open space easements for many potential donors is the value of the tax deduction and the tax credits. When the - value of property is decreased, the value of those deductions and credits will go down. • Decrease in density may impact ability to implement conservation easements. If a density decrease is implemented, a property will be worth 40% less. If the property owner implements a conservation easement, he said the landowner is provided with 70- 75% of the appraised value; he estimated tax credits at about 72 cents per dollar, which further reduces the property value to less than half of what it was originally valued. • Create a density bonus for farms that utilize TDRs as opposed to lot platting of the farm • Change to a one -to -ten density will not allow a subdivision unless a property owner has at feast ten acres. • Density decrease - Belief this could do more financial damage to farmers than a freeze or a hailstorm. • Create bonus incentives for subdivision layouts that place all residential lots at least 500 feet from an existing road - assist in reducing visual impacts that homes create on the landscape • 1 opposed to any change in density Rural Preservation (cluster) Subdivision set aside parcels • In favor of the 60% set aside with the smaller lot size. • Not in favor of changing the rural preservation homestead lot from 40% to 60 %. • Need to make sure the preservation parcel (40 or 60 percent set -aside parcel ) has a dwelling right • Recognize the use of the preservation parcel as a promotion of Frederick County's future - family farming and horse operations • People don't put the best area in the preservation tract, the tracts are the junk of the property. It does nothing to preserve farm land because the preservation tracts winds up with the rocks, steep slopes, wet areas. This needs to be addressed or just call it open space. • People have used rural preservation to get more lots by using up the good areas and not to meet the intent of the subdivision when it was created Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 8 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • Why are we giving someone a bonus lot to develop their property, it needs to be eliminated • 1 support an increase in open space from 40% to 60 %. 1 Support clustering of lots to save open space. Health Systems. Should the County review and establish guidelines regarding the various available health systems? Prohibit experimental systems? Establish greater well -head setbacks and /or larger reserve drain field requirements? • Encourage the clustering of lots and community sewer systems. • Prescribe alternative wastewater treatment systems that would allow clustering of homes on less than two acres. • A better job can be accomplished towards view shed preservation with smaller lot sizes and community septic systems. • Support for larger open space, which can be done with five -acre lots by reducing the lot size, using alternative septic systems approved by the Health Department, or by allowing easements on the parent tract for the septic systems. • Suggested clustering and reducing the lot size as small as possible, perhaps 3 / to one acre in size; there is sufficient technology available for septic systems to handle this. • We hear about fiscal impacts from development, what about environmental impacts — septic, water? • Jefferson County WVA had issues with their wells and the health inspectors stated that certain systems should not be allowed — select alternative systems — and others required maintenance contracts. Frederick County might also consider requiring maintenance contracts. • Why aren't you using perk sites to determine lots? Instead of changing the lot density and upsetting everyone, take a smarter and more environmentally friendly approach. You should consider making all new drainfields, whether they are conventional or alternative, have pretreatment. Also, the County can increase the requirements for drainfields. I think a blanket policy that: o 1) all mound system should be outlawed. They seldom work and when they do, fail not long after installation. 2) recce a minimum of 24" of soil for any system. This would probably decrease the number of lots more than 1:10 will. 3) require the Health Dept to inspect every application. Soil Scientists are approving sites left and right that are way below par. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 9 Regarding the Rural Areas Review 4) outlaw drainfield easements for all new lots. 5) require 100% reserves sites. • I support alternate septic systems that are approved by the Virginia Department of Health. Implement a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program? • Problem is the imbalance between the rural areas and the UDA (Urban Development Areas). Suggested having both areas under the five -acre rule and if a developer in the UDA wants five houses per acre, they should purchase that right from the rural areas property owners. • Decrease in density may impact ability to implement conservation easements. If a density decrease is implemented, a property will be worth 40% less. If the property owner implements a conservation easement, he said the landowner is provided with 70- 75% of the appraised value; he estimated tax credits at about 72 cents per dollar, which further reduces the property value to less than half of what it was originally valued. • Implement a TDR program Create a density bonus for farms that utilize TDRs as opposed to lot platting of the farm • Don't let package plants in Frederick County. It gives the developers to the ability to do a full build -out on the farm instead of letting perk sites control the number. I live on well and septic, and being part of a shared septic system sounds like a bad idea. People can't even keep up with sharing road maintenance, so the County will have to monitor it, more money, time, rules & regs, red tape. I like the idea that everyone is responsible for their own system. If it fails, it is that homeowner's responsibility, not the County's. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 10 Regarding the Rural Areas Review Strengthen a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program? y Advocate for permanent protection of agriculture, wildlife, forestry, and waterways through conservation easements, purchase of development rights (PDRs), or other legislative means. • Decrease in density may impact ability to implement conservation easements. If a density decrease is implemented, a property will be worth 40% less. If the property owner implements a conservation easement, he said the landowner is provided with 70- 75% of the appraised value; he estimated tax credits at about 72 cents per dollar, which further reduces the property value to less than half of what it was originally valued. Suggestions /Ideas that are Not Enabled by the General Assembly • Suggestion to use impact fees for rural area development to assist with costs of infrastructure improvements. o SB 768 was introduced in 2008; failed to succeed. Expected to be discussed during the 2009 legislative session ■ SB768 would have eliminated cash proffers (county -wide) in lieu of an impact fee applicable to home construction outside of the UDA. As presented it would significantly impact the County's ability to address fiscal impacts resulting from growth in the UDA General thoughts that don't fit clearly into other categories • Land is the rural area property owners' investment for their future. • This proposal (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) could be considered discriminatory against landowners who don't live in the Urban Development Areas of Frederick County. • Home and property is a most significant investment and many families purchased homes and land in the rural areas with the intention of living off their land. • Belief that the proposed amendment (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) would cause many small farming operations to fail. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 11 Regarding the Rural Areas Review • Impact to services from these five -acre subdivisions is minimal, compared to the development within the UDA. • Proposal (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) was a gross injustice to the people who cost Frederick County the least amount in services. • Support initiatives that will help maintain the rural character of Frederick County in the short run. • Would love to see development slowed down in Frederick County. • Own land with no intention of selling; however, they would like to retain the right to sell in the future, if it was necessary. • "I purchased property to build a house and for a financial investment; the overabundance of homes in Frederick County has caused everyone's home and land values to decrease." • Concerned about the speed in which this ordinance change was taking place. When an issue of this magnitude comes before a community, there is a period of gathering stake holders, land planners, and building consensus, studying rational ideas and alternatives of the proposed ordinance amendment. Purchased land and built their home because they wanted to live in a rural, agricultural and forest area; have already seen a significant deterioration in the quality of life as development has taken place. • More of their money invested in their land than they do in other investments such as IRAs, etc. Proposed change would financially impact him. • Should provide adequate notice prior to implementing any ordinance changes so that people in the process of subdividing their property might complete the process. Avoid inadequate notice to enable the completion of the subdivision approval process. • The proposal (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) being considered would essentially be like cutting farmers' 401 K in half. • Don't force agriculture to suffer the financial setback because the County wants to keep everything open and make a nice, pretty county for everyone else. • It takes from nine months to a year to get a road ordinance approved and plans drawn by an engineering company and approved by VDOT. (take into consideration when enacting any ordinance changes) • Predicted the proposed change (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) would cause widespread concern over liquidity, equity, and cause dire financial hardships. Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 rage 1Z. Regarding the Rural Areas Review • Questioned the impact this proposed ordinance amendment (regarding an increase in lot size and decrease in density) wou!d have on young people in Frederick County; it was hard enough for young people just starting out to get the money together to build or buy a house without having to buy five acres of land with it. • Definition of rural character was countryside full of small and large farms and maybe some communities; he wanted to see it preserved the way it has been for the last 50- 100 years. • County should be looking /planning for the future. Plan now for 20, 30, 50 years from now. How do we preserve future rural character, whether it's the agricultural industry or simply view shed. • One shouldn't have to protect your land by subdividing to protect it against future Boards. • Avoid incentives that merely delay lot creation. • Maintain family lot option. Consider increasing the 'holding period' from 5 to 10 years. • people need to have input and work through this • Felt this issue was being piecemealed; he said the focus is singular- on density and not on roads, septic, or any other issues. • Urge the Board to consider that previous effort before they take any action on this. He said it would mean going back and revisiting the analysis of the rural areas, what was discovered by the study, what was discovered by the Ad -Hoc group through its deliberations and communications with the community, and from there, policies developed and adopted with input from the community, and finally, adopt the ordinance. • Some people would like to have the ability to sell property (1 -2 lots per year) so they wouldn't have to sell their entire property. • Most people aren't aware that a farm subdivision /home construction creates an unmet impact on the county. • Some of the issues regarding rural area development are fiscal, some are the look and feel of the county's growth trends • famers /investors (is there a difference). Stated that you can't buy land anymore to farm so should the goal really be to preserve farm land because who is going to actually farm. • This effort needs to move along and not stop like the RA study which had major opposition to pieces of the study • Goal is (should be) to preserve rural land Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 Page 13 Regarding the Rural Areas Review People should be able to cut off one lot that is small (2 acres) to keep afloat Should it be farmer v. landowner, you can't look for "false farmers ". You need to look at the financial issues of landowners. Look at a system that is linked to the time land is owned determines the number of by -right lots enabled. In order to retain the quality of life, it is imperative that the rural character of Frederick County be preserved. The UDA and SWSA need to be finite and not compromised and expanded to meet developer's needs. More people, more houses, more business will only result in congestion, conflict and higher prices. If the justification for growth, i.e. expanding the tax base, had merit, wouldn't it be cheaper to live in the more populous areas? More is not better! Idea lists — cumulative as of February 19, 2009 rags L-t Regarding the Rural Areas Review N a N > cu N R i Q y U O N a1 i E C O O Q' V v N M c cf' L1 CU ate+ n -r- -C O 0 N � m � Y O O a) N L N C - O p U 0 N t Q U a) N w E v L u E 3 O v N O � N N aJ ++ c t C O a v ao -o N W 0 CU a, N o H ++ a) C R ~ 3 f° E N ` N • N fC E > > = u > c > Ln au c v 4 c o N E a� o U v o -a v aj s c to N N .0 O L ++ CU a; a C C C O pp 'C C C Y - 6 -0 i N u a) 3 � � N > — {j N L f ca = H _v v f6 y fO .Q S� a -r- 0 0 O 0 4= U +, v a) O C. + L a C NO cu O H L Q. W L cu cu C) 3 a cu E C cu cu E Q 0 0 v r+ N z z E +—= 0 Q 0 z M 0 Z 0 M a u-� :J O Z a I a'-1 11 r-1 M v -1 N H N I ei r-I 0_lw ONE Z-a©m 00 1 MIN f�. 'Ir a aJ a- * * O d ° v Lo w +� - 0 v N a w y w a"/ N « w v v = L L t O N N L L L a) w 0 C 0 c C C a 3 n m a v N N N s 12 cc Z C L u 2 S S `v w N 0 E X m E m m W m H U') u1 O 14 6 N C 0 Q. a 0 Z a, b0 ca a_ d 0 o 0 a � a a a � a H v al a �- C w 0 -Q O cm 3 Y r? a 0 G C N N in in p t .0 L t N N IA u�Y Q' cu a N _0 w 'a C 0 S C 0 C 0 C Q a a a a v Z cc Z 0_lw ONE Z-a©m 00 1 MIN f�. 'Ir a aJ a- * * O d ° v Lo w +� - 0 v N a w y w a"/ N « w v v = L L t O N N L L L a) w 0 C 0 c C C a 3 n m a v N N N s 12 cc Z C L u 2 S S `v w N 0 E X m E m m W m H U') u1 O 14 6 N C 0 Q. a 0 Z a, b0 ca a_ Ln a v L c a 'v L m CL +r f= v O O z m O z fi C 4r v > v O .r.. M 3 E E O U Q tY 00 0 0 N v E v > O z i m 4J c O CL v Y s: d E 1Z O d QJ O O 4) l�6 t V 3 a w t C m CL X w c Q s c M1. a� t Of i s: o� O =I MINlco 0 �M i m cn O L N r i T C } H � d G v u 3 L t V1 N r-1 N � L L s CL y O O y O Q Q. L v z H z 'vM a t+ u eC :� N i f :J C 3 U U 10 U m ~ J p +'� =V k a Z N V Q) H L 'c ♦Z M N N L C Q V a N L Q In Q 1 < f cP^ �4 m 4J c O CL v Y s: d E 1Z O d QJ O O 4) l�6 t V 3 a w t C m CL X w c Q s c M1. a� t Of i s: o� O =I MINlco 0 i O N i T C } H � d G v u 3 L t � L L CL y O O y O Q Q. L z H z In O N N m t0 d / _ V) 2 � g 2 � / 0 � � \ ® - « k 2 / � � | ( t k � a / / % $ \ 0 a k / k � 3 � � \ � » § / # ] $ 4 � � ) o� 2 ) k � « o 0 � � / / S \ � 2 � � \ a S 4) � \ a k § \ $ 0 Ln ƒ \ a- ƒ � � / \ 7 m m / / 2 LO r-I lzt r-I 2 3 cu \ I 2 = - # > 7 \ _ E 2 / o 7 } \ 2 % f ƒ / = % a \ 3 k \ / § k \ a ~ o j CL 5 % A / y \ 3 2 x \ 2 0 - - � C) tofkk cu 2 cu 2 § t r E E f c % @ R & E § k / J wƒ w k 0 � � \ ® - « k 2 / � � | ( t k � a / / % $ \ 0 a k / k � 3 � � \ � » § / # ] $ 4 � � ) o� 2 ) k � « o 0 � � / / S \ � 2 � � \ a S 4) � \ a k § \ $ 0 Ln ƒ \ a- a v L N Y C m fl. E L m o_ O f— L Q� +.r 0 O M O z OA � C ++ (U ) N Z T � .�. M C c C C O U a a: ai O Q v O E M I --II I I 00 N N co N a-•1 Cf M N N ; Z. M zr N N Ln t o pq� V a vJ a 00 r O ' _. r� v C d N O Z ai O Q v O E M I --II I I M1. 'Ir 00 N N co N a-•1 Cf M N N M zr N N Ln M1. 'Ir o a a � v r� ca H 0 N N N R d M L in L n c4 M L s : O t y N v Q Q > v L Q a; S c C C C ' • i=•. - i L C ✓� :a :o -a o L v m _ v O v L O O O a+ Y v v ++ Y 3 3 3 3 Y LA ai e, w o c v v v a� v v v a o 0 0 o O 3 o o ° z z cc z .-i I N M ct d' a' Ico tr-I V t c a d d Oa 0 0 T c IF v v v a) V1 N CJ L L N C a c c c Q a v cu y w cr Z N O CLO �t 41 m CL / V) t E g 2 � / % 2 / 0 2 / / 2 � 3 � f > / � y g _ § - E E \ < / « / � \ � � A \ \ � m 2 \ C4 u / 0 k — � e � M . c k \ » � 2 2 � I 0 ■ ) \ to Ln e e § 2 � 2 � k m _ —1 1 r-4 � � # R C14 CN e � k � \ k 2 � Ln � e f 0 U) | ■ ! \ a i { . . } / ( � � \ � � a @ \ o Q) o ' \ ° « \ Ln c \ \ \ Q) j / \ \ 0 \ c CL ! 2 & E § j ) } ƒ k Q ; � Ln � e f 0 U) | ■ ! \ a cn cu E E O L 'v L ca a y d4 c v a) E O U Q Q: n w-. O v OD fa d , E cu O Z 0 = = O 'a R W to ~ Y ° a0+ 0 i 0 0 Ln f0 u s R r i .a f6 = 0 i M = @ = fp y N M t0 n N `� 0 v H R = O O Vt 4- M 'a 0 N t 0 O 0 f6 .Q (U > r r 0 0 0 0 C- m a 0) 3 +, 0 > E E O = O p C L L 0) = L O = d > M = V .a 01 0) L ._ 01 O td 0J 0 01 N 0 y "° r O 0 0 c6 t6 +•' +d E L r auD = `^ E L ° 0' M p "' U r f6 .0 '' O > O > M O Y 0 0 > O Z O C p r 4 E > 'a 'a O w N > Y N N 0J r M �j r r .0 ° u u i = v " O 0 eo M r m m 0 = 3 0 L u, z ad c y o = f0 S N 07 @ ° a E > L a, O N -a 0 u a>+ >+ = O O 01 = N U E �' >, O L �^ @ L. 0 u y i N = O = = O L. u u O Y r m 3 d •; Y V O u m L H ( O r a = p u O r O t p 4J m 3 L. -W C 3 L 0 u 3= a �a L 0) 0 6 0J Ll 0) 0 � = r L = e0 v, L C. I- r @ 0/ y N Q t r 'p N O O E (u a LL N O i a � E E m r 0 >• _ = _ L t 01 C, m LO0 N 0 = y to u 0 H V f6 L E 00 O0 H O => ++ _ \ N m N i cu r _ ° u 3 = s m W a, s 3 E N 3 c = a co y L r {d O a L (� r r = O Y O �.d L r L N = t6 ° L r O r m y 'a O '�' O 0 E E C. C w.. 0 C "" 00 r t6 .F = LO u f=6 0 0 00 £ a r t0 'a _ @ 'a = �' i w 0 E + O = O 00 L >� >� O R t Q R u C. N N 0 N L N f6 N O L N L m M w N >• N >• C, N y + , d u 3 0) >. m � R 0 L = O N i = O N a CL C L 00 °= E � o C C @ v > E �, a i t C m om_ Y or' X £ m �• oa 0 a m f6 3 c = s o 3 t i+ o t >� �' E m N > L r = H N U U E `yd O L O d M > O = d +d 0 o 3 3 3 � i �a = 0 °° M L °_' m > 3 p (U O. N L 07 C x a L d u N E ,� d o 0 ,� O to E ,� o. o Q i C. U L V = C w C _� _ O = C- x N D 3 ,O 0 01 L �>, M L = ±, - _ �0, m r- em u —, L Q Q o 0r r a .0 = '^ u _ t E r -a u H u u 3 Q M �_ �; c o = ' L = r 0 r w = = f6 0 R Q. O N Lf W N LA W O 0 1 �? t 00 = 0 0 L 3 = .... U C. m � N 0 E V r �, t6 0 0 O 0 to t Z 01 L r p) t r is 3 N y u u C Y OC 0! E OC t t p v y to 3 �.. 0 u • 0) p= u N p oo •�? N r E 0 d= 0! 0 N •L • N T yd 0! r" H '4 H L 0/ 0) 0l L 0 u L 0! m l>6 ate.+ Y d N N = ._ O fl. f0 3 L N 0 3 0) +-' > 01 ,O i VI •y �= 40 = to Q i (U 7 N Y = �, •0 a Q. � 0 = y O O 0 Y N 0 CL -S N Lr- L r 01 3 M '" 01 L t 3 C d 0 R 0 0 0 u N v p C u E OJ di o r I— _ m . a -A = o z E `�° E v .� c a u - L a c Z a, , a` a n w-. O v OD fa d , E cu O Z N Y E 0 U L a V) OD c N ; E E 0 Q cr O N v d0 m CL L � C cu 0 z O � v Y O = L ,� r L Gj ei y OO IA •= O 'O R C d N = y = r 4- _ N Y o c o a w E f° r m 3 Y •0 �_ O = IA °. ° Y IA f6 3 Q. $ >, i OO 3 .0 fC 0 3 .*_' •i h Q O O O 3 = IA i s i i al L V >. H c ° y' H L 3 c' L c 0 r > m W H y 3 _ c w z , a 3 Y_ a �+ c v ° Y o 0 3 L. a 0 0 m N ° M 3 ca _= a o �° H a L 3 �° o Y a r u ° u C C •� d 3 '� 3 L O V i y to > L1 >` o i .t ++ ,= Y >, N - _Q- a y _ u y,. •� t6 aJ o. N = u d O °. Gl Y L w O = O y a+ W y N > CL f6 _N pa 0 Y °. W L- y = Q. ° = •= m L t C = y , O t Y = -0 ° > Y _ O = O o 3 ca O O v = 3 3 a„ ai y 3 -C a) r q N ° C N >' ' m i.0 OG m O O O 3 '' = M y Y C I O L N '- O CO N M C In I A IA fp a7 O Y ° OD Y 3 O f6 u y. y ca •� OD 3 a C a/ aJ i W H 3 o Y w i O o 3 u Y V C I%1 (V y m `� = Y y al .I. C f6 OD C O t a/ 3 tw O IA � t '° L V1 I+ > y i +. > L 3 Y 0 Y Y L 4l r 0 E y u 'Q •IA N r y = y °. C> ,M o OD C a/ . >• y �- 3 y L i L N Y L to • 3 W '0 .0 w 3 N IA V 'a L y r o U a M R y+ N y rz ca t oa d N _3 m s f6 y pa >� O N In L !a L 3 fG 3 V DLO O O 4/ 13 O s '; d4 al H Y 4J 3 °> y = 3 E G! 'a - 'O d a/ ° 3 o N C a "' Z Vl y = }, O C Y C y (� y 6 E O Y O 4. O y y O N IF ow L (d i = i O t 0, > Q O 3 O L Y = N 'In co L d° 3 0 f6 = t O a+ C ! C o o E a/ 3 u o 3 u L p Y i o 3 u N L � O of L O G7 Oa f+ O Q. y 3 to u 'O 'a 3 CL o 3 3 O 3 O pa OG O C L 0 y- w O to i y= C o - y C u to N = Qi i+ = 3 O. N V M Y R Q M L L O Y L Q d = Gl L >. ° f6 L ' IA i >' FA Y 0 ±+ _ 'O 3 ° C Y M >� ' y _L •aJ m _d f0 O u Z = 3 -_ O y y �+ f6 4a m = pa w L Y y t p a U O _ 4- O O CL y Y N y M t Y 3 u y 3 u 3 3 0 0 3 c 3 C u @ 'i '8 to O I i '3 w a+ 41 R W .0 Y VI a' R _N 'N a/ '° O L = ° ?� Y C 3 �_ In fa Y C Rr C a/ — 4O N CO +' N al 3 IA 4 y = d @ i Oa 3 V - y y �` .� • y • x L R ±' O ay+ O i >� L .� _►+ O C e-1 N _ •� R A L 0. ,_ > y p w 0 C Q O V J 3 m u 41 ° S 14 R -0 � cc E 'C G. Q .y +°+ o C '8 y N R u 04 N O. p 3 _ a _ _ Q. •� O _3 u o Q O Y 0 E a, y W o O° O O y +�>+ C -a N N r _ 3 y L O I- o J d > L O. T O Y U +r R >� IA Y to O i V to C O },i y L-0 aJ al .Q a••I y L.0 N Y o L C V = t Y I. + IA D aJ = '� O £ L y L O y y R C L w L c6 d y O - 0 -0 L R '° i M 3 •� O E A M O y 3 C L Y R O C rL -1 O M '° W 3 3 O d L i+ to y , v N Y M C fO 2 C d y uY y _ C Q o Vl y 3 L >� pp Oa 0 0 a fa = 3 O 3 Y G7 y i a) u> y L t C L. { L Q. Z '° d1 y O u X al L 3 Q. J2 U a1 Q. C Q 3 y .� O L O C 3 u L Q. fa = £ r a/ y y y Y y > ° U Q ca 1— In t 3'0 to O N v d0 m CL L � C cu 0 z c v E E O c• U L a w to C v Q1 E E O U a cc L E O Z rl O M Q) to m CL � CL � H H ° O 7 O s O E O H Y C. m L6 - a .c O g OC o N y y LC ++ i E N H L 00 E 01 rn E to; O 4.: O d O .� C w O -W 4 - @ c 41 y LM O 0 y Q7 W �"1 to y y �— Y al O y (Q O 3 O d O -W "a C. '^ H C. s }' 1^ L + .C + 1 C. O H C. 'O an c L L u c0 O o V R ° w m to • 1 toil 47 L tS +. R O E 0 �= >- > u U Q- JA U H H _ ++ 3 O L "O '^ c c H O t ++ V O m pC >• i >. N > D m O > ci O Q L O 1 ^ s L o E 42 3 GJ �+ \ O O° 0 > a+ 2 i O E FA r L> a+ vi ho O C. u E L a L L °_ (p • E 3 41 U o .0 E y E ° E �, -a_ 0 V N CU cc E 4- S ° E 4+ m L f6 3 L S E 4J H s C N tw w oD cc C- L E Ol y O O W C N N 4+ m = N m O C. i t6 dl 4r i w N C. L d o a Z O 'a p 3 s iF. CJ E c +� m w J 3 C L Y d ° . W c .N 'cLS d h d V Dl t W +r a� to ° E v H- w _ ba y N L w _E •� = O Q to 4 i = O L L i+ ice+ to �F _C E O rn to r y O !' C. r E E V O u 'a vl C • N = :1.. t c c O 'C 3 �; rn pp 3 L i C ' 4L,, 00 C 'O R 4 r d td O Q 4 >' O 3 >• E c E c a� o 3 E 4 M v s ° 3 Q N " • >' �• L o u° O . N N � Q > ° O � oo u �+ w � IA 0 L a 3 3 3 C> �^ -0 t -a .- -a w C h > _ -W v 3 �' L n 4 O y O u > N + v > i0- Ln @ @ N 0 >. 3 O • L � N h >• � C � L N � d U U � 3 Y m N - O LL y c, o V to 4Y.1 4J H Q W. ti d y a N w E O L ++ +� 3 N w 0 N i v 4r Y = 47 IA Q L O 0' ' C t� tw • L C a to O `^ E Q LA > M a� E E V ra s M y m o ++ L C. E 4r L Gl s L L yd O 3. G/ O -W O m h . H c >' N *' C. �= ° + r d -W .a i E O c O C 'O c L > s ? `^ 0 O C ° c � m Z 3 V 4r E C `" -O Q • ,� L 3 u m C. ., o O o U L C. 1 oG c E R 4J L 0 y(A Q 0 4. a0+ O O v y r6 i LA C. c GJ c >• pjj C `i .c O N L y c C 0 ti Q V Q C c >' O c • f6 m 0O A 4m+ i H 4L.+ E _O d • a ° �+ N o +, +3' L a ^ y QJ L u . re '' L!1 'a 0 0 L 0 u L U 3 V G1 = p O E L. O E -a 0 m M i 'O Q. f6 o p �^ O o O O m 4L-1 d E c c L rL O s N x C R L C. O ac U s H y 41 O 4.1 L. a` C. y m- — Q t t- f 3 O' OC 3 p c O 0> 4- M b a M= V) u a o rl O M Q) to m CL V) c v E E O V L a V) tw c a W R E E O U a i u = to Q C1 'Q ° N om , y BD = p W 'a ate. = Ij >- = 00 E Y = = f6 Y L O v N = L ° s .a O " O y > a .0 � —_° a s 0 o :o " c ° 3 w t o m � 41 CU .0 CL o � @� y 3 0� •� c c Z N .a Y O • y Y L O Y R Y N N "a Y :I- R — = 'a O O > 0l i f6 i• L O = f0 m L 3 - c 75 O •a a, a y 3 => o N= Y y E y .c 0 +r E— c d4 H `� p t U , L s C 0J � R � 0 N E d E H �� •Q N = Y a to p & � N _ .F i E N fC Y 07 •� . C = •Q d N C..0 L w f0 _O ' c 3 p C C (A Y O Y p 41 Y : w N Y N N m > N = 0 ;A v •_ �+ tw 3 E O = ° s W to ° .0 O pp °' Y ° - �_ = 3 u m ° = E CL a. si N 0/ Y = s. = N �"� m O 'O >• s = E = N 3 U C m O CL u v o .° Q - r —_ r s 3 ° _ N 3 ++ v Q ° t E E @ Y y C > 3 3 >, (u L = 01 o co N O +' L C C +' L E > > c N 3 •a .0 to L s ( , Y C. d N 3 a N M p N w L eo 4. !6 L oC -a V 'a 3 y u fa � Y y ca N L i m O s a N "a N y a 'i io p p M _ _ •Q u s N Y ° O C. N = •'' E d0 O N .� GJ s O M U = � 3 N Y 01 p 3 = 'r. L O/ to = L t Y = = G/ N Y N Y w Q L L E _ O > I., i 'a to s O = ba m C. h C• _ f6 Q. u ea Q. s >, i A L= p p A> R Q y Y �+- of •a L s- p p L O N d = Q N r — d R 'a O Y M >, s C. W E a fl, r_ 0 3 u 3 3 0 .c .� c � 0 +>-, > Q. v = W 3 W O s = v O .0 pp p 4.. W C 01 i u m a s + C. O X 3 C L 3 C 'a Q C. JZ Y Y O ° y Y s M = • V 3 N V �° O O C. O L V R V _V .0 s Y @ d 41 s L d rA d 3 L y OL Y 3 = m 0) = C. Y M i+ O Q L IA 3 o� m Y a, = o '° °° o ?• Q. v 3 o c ._ > a - 0 c a •° S O C E 4- N m 3 + . = d= 'a N R m Q. .a CL O ti. 0 CU = s. .c N 3 L {j 0J i to y O 3 N > fd O >, L ,� >. O E O p (� L O i ,o 'Q p O ° 0! = y O H M fC M .= E co ca = �_ 'a > 3 f0 M R % - O � N 01 0J L S O f6 N = _ L O o u 3 s N O a N Y L y O Y N 3 s •a o O 3 o ~ N ' a-. M a Q E >. to E 3 3 O 3 O __ o y v p 3 a 0) tea r= o p W o� O 'c E p = 'a ' s -. i+ u O 3 W y N O O L C. Q� N N y V ar O 3 • O L X a 41 01 u Oto .° X t L N = .0 N r 3 y G N f6 M p 3 4�A =@ FA s. M L t •E 0J f6 Y S ++ M do M 3 N p •a • 'a 4 L �L,, 01 , o •V 0) 3� = y > d u '" L 01 L N > u M '~ 0J y w w C' N Y ;: •p C- Y O C R CL y M M N Q .0 N X = M H 3 = d L a N 0 01 E 3 & - 4., 3 N 0 H 0 y Q y c r N '6 O upi C. +�+ ui C L Q H 'a L y 0 CA O M > O N = •p N s O L y == Q p y 3 y u . a C.. N LO 0J f0 H 0/ .= C. u . o m R ° — ' 3 ° o°= m s = c o R Q• o C °' d r `^ L s = m V •� 'a a H a CA L d 'a 01 r - a E N i y a i M Op 'a ._ �' t6 C• N H O Y N f0 Y N Y o s N 3 •E d 0J >. O m +' L • a L O C � 3 d es E C. N R = O u = 0 ) 3 Y R Y = C. N O i+ In V 0J t6 a m L = @ Q '� L. y L O •_ � Y 4, m > y t0 N f6 E u q m E Q • a O p H ,= 'a 0J O N +, d = x L •Q L •� N Q. C. u Y i+ Y L 3 O �, _ = .r. O ��•+ IA = i r m d M= E E to M = L R C• M L Y = X �' 3 N R C. O '~ > O O •i, M N = �r l6 a_ d +, a s p s 3 N O d m F ' O 0) 0l 0J Gp • s 'a U E yr p Q. _ >. 4! .= O Y Y u = u N Y Q) s p s y Ql = L r 0 = E m— w y 3 p o 01 .0 Y = N y 'a - Y •^ 01 ° � Y N •a d d ysj 'a (6 O w r'=.i ba d L = o R = a N Q' ° _ « a 0 L = _ = L N 3 s _ = O L 3 L — L GJ �• 3 Y:, ++ = Gl u E s a H 3 m '� c= a a E 2 o c o .° d? W Cr _ �' . °.' Q. c u 3 0 �t UJ tin d i N E N O Z v E E O c' tx-- U i m a N _ v a) r4 E O U Q cc i a) E UJ O Z 0 Ln v 00 m a GJ M = *+ > L y > = j, &M. "' O h L N 0 4m. in 41 CL w 3 H w v o E a s r o - a a = c c (u o 3 m .m H< o N 0 3 L v == a v O M Q y° N in m v d N >= c CL d L L w tw >. ta M W u w CL 0 0 O m � w w L = d = . 'O t � N ° as E w t y L. r- 0 X W� v M = e O c i N C N O N c Oo O C O. 4+ M 0 0 C L i+ N q C7 Q. O L o (6 b•, �j = O E t c Q a° L °� s > N c +' W N > m o GO do _ _ L °. w -W > = m a G1 N M = O H O E 3 b r y v i °1 �? ° '_ .0 = C t E vi 0 -a .�- o Q H > O E 0) E Y N m m c -° 3° ° a, �; = E = 'X N m p C 0 + Z W y i c w w M V L (6 V O E N M N ? O1 L O Cl >. m Q. O L M w "° N y a+ m ,_ . E _ ( V te a, CL r w ° CO > . �_ ° c m N. m .a 3 �; o- a, o Z E , i CL ° t w ��+ 07 3 O > O N i O> L °. N Q. ar = O E N w = SS tw E L L N ++ yj a L m O O O 0 0== y u O °. } O N w ° +°' > a ++ OD 'y " ai +' a �`' u t = m = E m m 'O a _ Lm or mQ&c r> mlb-"o=-Wc-cc 1.0 O 3 = O G1 s E O i L c .� L N > +• c E m °o d s `p o= t Q W o p o �' C ; °' ' ° N WD C. CL •o a, L, 3 a, a O m Oo c m s v 0 w E �> w to O o> N y i y m N X L O N L r u O E >, ?� N 3 w Oo °. a 4/ `o 3 E 0 L a L_ c E c as c a 3 o = c = H r c a N '� „ c -° 0 3 a E y .° > L' = j L ° _ to O bd L r.+ �. °' _ }1 L H m = O. E O u .0 a 'D m O O. N c m .c �. a, w Q. 0 +� U- E m .0 '- ii - m 3 c :«. 4, r 3 > c O C i a .. � N Q m Y 'a ul O H (A a N _ v a) r4 E O U Q cc i a) E UJ O Z 0 Ln v 00 m a N C cu E E O L) U L d 14 trD C W a1 O lD a) f6 a L � C 7 O Z 0 0 L4 AD "0 =' - QJ ' R W N +�+ _ L ° N H ' ao+ 0J C N 0 u .a. y C. H _ 3 bD E L O ° 01 L LT a1 L f0 - u CL v _L •3 01 aT� N 3 d al ca > o U fp 3 p r a3+ bo N v +: O = CD Vl ++ N E i r O E '~ 4l in O L `� a/ =' oD C FA O• N L E aD _ = . v ' N a1 •'" N al c0 t0 N 3 >- .0 = R t C- O W E O X 0 O Q m C •N i 3 a+ a1 s F, E E u �. r 01 O ;, 01 > N N O 3 O L C- 3 a1 r a1 a t , bA C. , r o3D �, U t O -0 O N 0 _ '0 E - 0 3 O 0 C. f6 i m o N c u .0 to L 3 f6 p 3 - o +. L C• :+ o 01 3 'a a1 3 3 a1 N O rp co r 4 N 0 . �"" O N 'a >, H W E u 3 �" c o U O y E 3 N L 1° O .Q 0 N a N + •L c r �_> CL 3 v Q M• E to o CL L O al 3 3 CA O t t = 0 . N a, O _ N 0� Z N r y M 0 '0 0b .� C r E 3 N a1 t!, _ = 0) o 01 N u R - 0 01 C- 'p i r+ C m w u X y 0 = L a.0 �' R C= 'o O u C. N ++ N o E m m E b DiI 03 1- 3 C � J 'N CL 01 O G7 N V N U = i V 01 -w 0 '= ~' Q = U O p C- c=o L N p •0 r 'a i t >, .° 10- x.8 O = L ++ co t 3 L C ' •p {311 m >• L 3 ca $ = t ++ a > a1 N M H a/ r C O M O N M s W C. C. L 0) .� > E N 0. C- r = L `—° a1 t ° u L '0 3 0 '� a+ u 0 d ti 3 4. eo r C 01 M C Ol N r 3 3 u h0 t += U OD N L C a O1 N t >• 4/ i N O r 3 L C. R a `� = 'b 3 0 3 = R 0) m M L r '> W h 3 c 01 � 0 O E - C N > O t u C a t0 v r 4 8' C- -0 X N 01 = W L N r C C Q y � L L • L @ a1 i L a1 3 0/ Q r= 01 •V N r O 3 L al H QA r N ''' O N " N u 0= V E O N L +' C. to 4l Lu 0J = OD = al 3 N +0,, O a 01 O L m ;E r O Q- i 0 C O d N o ,C = 01 LU 3 E _ C 0 v '0 C. t -0 y L L E u cs v '0 0 . r t = E r C m L- O O + L i c 3 OC U as C a = C. O d 3> O C- ' a a a1 E .� TO = °= � 01 � ' N L +r N .0 � � as+ - 0 0/ � c a 0 E 3 V E = vi + '^ O L N W O L 'a Q: C. _ > 3 L O QJ L O 'a N O p >, 3 c 3 = ° L a O p ' r O eo =° Ol y L E r r In `� p > C. E r N E u � i o= f L N 01 r i C O =w- al W. O1 �` = N i ,= N L .0 O 3 R o> t H a+ = p • 01 L y N O O J aJ = a1 >. u OD N L A r L > • L a1 ca 3 -0 Q. N L }' d E 1:2 V N L 01 CL 'a OD '6 = r y u 'O = �c 0 u t= u O t N E a1 O = to y dD 0 = b0 C r C. oD 01 oD u 3 _ u o=� O r = o o C. 3 L E a1 > -a L L 0) Cr !^ a1 3 J 3 r t 3 ca 3 f rQ 3 �— c v c a m 0 c _> 9A #A O in .2 w 0 O lD a) f6 a L � C 7 O Z 2 Q) E E / / / ƒ > E \ < cr 2 ±� E j z / k 2 � | E 2 2 f ) C / $ / 2 ■ � § ■ B . C o R / k E E �2 u o § 0 to cu / ° 0 c 0 0 § f §7 2 E 2. w 2 f ( § / / - & CL E I — \ o 5 J w k k ' = = | m 0 W w ° C 2 0 § M § 2 2 c o o to k 2 r k 2 2 — ' 7 2 o m 2 0 w 0 to _ �k / C L 'f 2 c k� tn CA §_ u� m c s k 0 # c E 2 u 2 i 2 r 5 2 © 7 . § \ E 2 0 a $ -a t k 0 k CC 2 2 2 vi 00 � o o o k g f 2 0 oj o m# ® o o 2 / � - k �_ § 2 § \ k @ k k a. k o u §§ k / S� 2 / 2 n 0 J 3/ k/= 3 2 k E / k 2 APPENDIX III Researched Material Topics The study effort included extensive research into, and presentations by experts, on the following topics: • Private On -site Health Systems and Community Health Systems • Review of state codes • Review of how other community's have address systems • Expert testimony from AOSE and Health Department representatives • Land Use Assessment Programs, including Sliding Scale Assessment • Review of state codes • Review of how other community's implemented systems • Expert testimony from Assessment professions • Transfer of Development Rights Programs • Existing enabling State Code, and proposed legislation • Rural densities and lot sizes of neighboring jurisdictions • Urban Development Area boundaries, and its enabled state code use and requirements • Input from rural areas property owners, active farmers as well as landowners Rural Areas Report and Recommendation Appendix IV: Organization Submitted Materials Includes submissions from: Committee for the Preservation of Rural Life in Frederick County Preserve Frederick Valley Conservation Council Shenandoah Valley Network Potomac Conservancy Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation Blue Ridge Association of Realtors Frederick County Farm Bureau Winchester- Frederick County Economic Development Commission February 19, 2009 Committee for the Preservation of Rural Life in Frederick County (PRL) Rural Plan reas Viabili Submitted to the RA Subcommittee to the Frederick County Board of 11/17/2008 Mission and Purpose Mission of the Rural Areas Subcommittee The RA Subcommittee was formed in late July by the Board of Supervisors. Its mission is to evaluate the County's rural areas, identify issues that may impact our rural character and agricultural economy as well as the County's fiscal responsibilities, seek input from citizens, identify all potential resolutions to overcome impacts, and forward recommendations designed to preserve the community's rural areas into the future. The RA Subcommittee created to address land development issues in Frederick County has identified a set of five (5) critical issues for consideration. • Agricultural Economy • Community services and facilities • Transportation • The Rural Areas — UDA relationship • Land Development and Design The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is the guiding document for long range land use and economic planning. Any significant changes to the vision or direction of the economy or land use of the county must coincide with changes to this state mandated document. To further the RA Subcommittee's mission, the Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County (PRL) is submitting this set of recommendations to the Subcommittee as a unified set of plans that will: • Support the long term planning strategy of the Comprehensive Plan • Support agriculture and help farmers resist development pressure • Keep the overall economic costs of RA land to the County low • Prevent the fragmentation of farmland into nonproductive uses • Preserve open space and the rural environment • Eliminate non - essential road improvements in rural areas that encourage development 1 Mission of the Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County The Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County (PRL) was formed in June 2008 to give Frederick County landowners a voice and work with the Board of Supervisors to find practical solutions to preserve the rural character of Frederick County and to find alternatives that will encourage smart development when it does occur. The Board of Directors represents a significant number of landowners with several thousand acres in agricultural production: Marcus Adams James Douglas John Marker Bob Boyd David Frank Roy McDonald Claire Boyd Tim Gano Loretta McDonald Harman Brumback John Good, Sr. Charlotte Messick Betsy Brumback Mary Good Charles Orndoff, Sr. Frank Brumback John Good, Jr. Joline Orndoff Bob Carpenter Greg Hewitt Mary Smith Sarle J.D. Cline Danita Hewitt Tom Sarle Margaret Douglas Linda Hyre Joe Snapp Jim Douglas Diane Kearns William Lee Whitacre In addition to the board members listed, there are other landowners and organizations that support the positions of the PRL, including the Frederick County Farm Bureau and the Top of Virginia Builders. 4 Goal #1- Support the Long Term Strategy of the Comprehensive Plan Th( the • "Include the promotion and support of local value of livestoc►c, poultry, and agriculture in general economic development policies and activities" — Aside from tax treatment, there are no significant County programs for farmers. The PRL proposes that the Board of Supervisors should become serious about protecting agricultural production in Frederick County by investigating funding mechanisms for some form of PDRs, Conservation Easements, Transfer Development Rights (TDRs), and Short Term Conservation Easements (available today within the Virginia State Code) • "Methods of protecting groundwater quality in the rural areas should be examined and pursued" —The PRL proposes that community waste systems be implemented under aegis of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to protect groundwater, as has been done in other Virginia counties with soil problems 3 Farmland is critical to the long term strategy of the Selected statisticS on Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Plan Agriculture in Frederick articulates four goals for the RA district: County Maintain agriculture as a significant portion Average size of farms: 156 acres of the county's economy The percentage offarms operated • Maintain the rural character of areas outside by a family or mdivrduaZ 890Yh of the UDA Average age of principal farm , operators: 57years old Ensure that land development activities in the Average value of agriculturaL RA district are of appropriate quality products sold per farm: $30,059 Average value of crops sold per acre • Protect the rural environment for harvested cropland $388 The Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of The value of nursery, greenhouse; strategies to implement these goals. The PRL would floriculture and sod as a percentage of the total market - -value of like to draw attention to the following: Th( the • "Include the promotion and support of local value of livestoc►c, poultry, and agriculture in general economic development policies and activities" — Aside from tax treatment, there are no significant County programs for farmers. The PRL proposes that the Board of Supervisors should become serious about protecting agricultural production in Frederick County by investigating funding mechanisms for some form of PDRs, Conservation Easements, Transfer Development Rights (TDRs), and Short Term Conservation Easements (available today within the Virginia State Code) • "Methods of protecting groundwater quality in the rural areas should be examined and pursued" —The PRL proposes that community waste systems be implemented under aegis of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority to protect groundwater, as has been done in other Virginia counties with soil problems 3 • "An effort should be made to blend new construction in with existing surroundings and minimize negative impacts on the environment" — The PRL has proposed that the principles of conservation design be implemented to encourage traditional rural "hamlet" patterns. • "Regulations should be developed which are aimed t rotectin a ricultural o erations and Frederick County is the #1 apple and peach producing county in Virginia U p g g P preserving prime agricultural land" —The PRL has affirmed the proposed change in the Preservation Set Aside to 60% to maintain more open space and usable agricultural land together with a reduction in minimum lot size. Farming in Frederick County The County's rural areas cover 271,334 acres, with 112,675 acres in active agriculture. Farming accounts for $21.6 million in annual sales. More importantly, agriculture preserves open space and rural vistas that contribute to the County's quality of life. Orchards, cattle and corn remain central to the economy of Frederick County. While farming in Frederick County has changed over the past two decades, moving from orchards to cattle, it is indeed alive and well, as Figure 1 indicates. Frederick County has long been associated with the apple industry and its various support services. While the number of acres in apple trees has declined 13% in the last 15 years, Frederick County retains its position as the number one apple producing county in Virginia. Frederick County also leads the state in peach production. Over the same period, the number of cattle and calves has increased 13% to over 20,000 head, and the acreage dedicated to forage has increased 38% to over 25,000 acres. Table 1 shows general farm characteristics for Frederick County. Overall both the number of farms and the number of acres in farmland have increased since 1987. These figures should be treated cautiously, however, as the Census of Agriculture's definition of a farm changed in 1997 and the census methodology changed in 2002. Many small farms have since been included, as Table 2 illustrates. Inclusion of these small farms is also a factor in lowering the average size of a local farm, identified as 156 acres in 2002. Table 1. Farm Characteristics Year 1987 1992 1997 2002 Change from 1987 -2002 Percent Change 1987 -2002 Number of Farms 555 536 568 720 165 30% Farmland (Acres) 111,116 98,142 99,926 112,675 1,559 1% Avg. Farm Size (Acres) 200 183 1 178 156 -44 1 -22% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 These figures should be treated cautiously, however, as the Census of Agriculture's definition of a farm changed in 1997 and the census methodology changed in 2002. Many small farms have since been included, as Table 2 illustrates. Inclusion of these small farms is also a factor in lowering the average size of a local farm, identified as 156 acres in 2002. Forestry in Frederick County Forest land accounts for 56% of the total land in Frederick County, or about 151,000 acres, according to the 2001 Virginia Forest Survey. This is a 17% increase from the 1992 figure of 129,262 acres. The vast majority of forest land in the County is in private ownership. The George Washington National Forest accounts for 4,431 acres of the County's forest land. As Figure 2 illustrates, the dominant forest type in the county is Oak - hickory (75% of all acreage) with some Oak -pine as well (19 %). 5 Table 2. Number of Farms by Farm Size Year 1987 1992 1997 2002 Change from 1987 -2002 Percent Change1987 -2002 1- 9 Acres 28 31 30 51 23 82% 10 — 49 Acres 141 147 146 231 90 64% 50 - 179 Acres 198 202 227 260 62 31% 180 - 499 Acres 137 106 120 138 1 <1% 500 - 999 Acres 40 37 35 28 -12 -30% 1000 + Acres 11 13 10 12 1 9% Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002 Forestry in Frederick County Forest land accounts for 56% of the total land in Frederick County, or about 151,000 acres, according to the 2001 Virginia Forest Survey. This is a 17% increase from the 1992 figure of 129,262 acres. The vast majority of forest land in the County is in private ownership. The George Washington National Forest accounts for 4,431 acres of the County's forest land. As Figure 2 illustrates, the dominant forest type in the county is Oak - hickory (75% of all acreage) with some Oak -pine as well (19 %). 5 Frederick County's average annual timber harvest value between 1986 and 2001 was $458,853. As it does in agriculture, increasing parcelization of land makes forestry more difficult. Small parcels and proximity to houses make commercial forest management more difficult. With the advent of the Forest Stewardship Program in 1978, private landowners have been encouraged to develop a written management plan. These plans are comprehensive, multi - resource management plans that can cover timber, wildlife habitat, watershed protection and recreational opportunities. Throughout the state of Virginia only 17 percent of private forest - land owners have a written management plan. These are generally owners of large (500+ acres) forests. M. Figure 2. Forestry in Frederick County MP � a Acres 160000 f 120000 80000 , Tota l 40000- Oak hickory Oak -pine 0 1992 2001 With the advent of the Forest Stewardship Program in 1978, private landowners have been encouraged to develop a written management plan. These plans are comprehensive, multi - resource management plans that can cover timber, wildlife habitat, watershed protection and recreational opportunities. Throughout the state of Virginia only 17 percent of private forest - land owners have a written management plan. These are generally owners of large (500+ acres) forests. M. Frederick County has adopted a land use tax deferral program. Taxpayers owning and operating qualifying agricultural, horticultural and forestry uses are eligible for a special annual deferment of real estate taxes on Pressure Frederick County needs to recognize that farming is not merely a way to preserve rural vistas and open space for public enjoyment. Farming is a way of life. Aside from land use valuation, current County policy provides minimal economic support for farmers. PRL feels that the best way to help farmers resist development pressure is to help farmers do what they do best ... farm. Frederick County also provides a agriculture and forestal district program. Agricultural and forestal districts are rural areas reserved for farming and timber. A district is a voluntary agreement between landowners and the County that no new, non - agricultural uses will take place in the district. From the landowner's point of view, the district provides strength in 7 Goal #2 - Support Agriculture and Help Farmers Resist Development numbers with neighboring farmers, land use taxation, protection from nuisance suits, assurance that the district will be taken into account in local planning decisions, such as rezonings, and protection in most cases from government acquisition of land or special assessments for public utilities. Landowners agree not to subdivide their land to a more intensive non - agricultural use during the term of the district. PRL Recommendations to Support Agriculture • Encourage a dynamic agriculture economy with dal incentives to keep people farming (i.e., continued tot land use valuation for taxes) • Appoint an agricultural advisory panel to work directly with the county government • Encourage comprehensive forest management and increase timber yields • Support local farmers with 'buy local' themes for schools, restaurants, food stores, etc. • Increase the benefits of agricultural and forestal districts to preserve agricultural land from development • Encourage conservation easements and an agricultural protection lease agreement program • Develop grant proposals to aid local farmers in developing or enhancing marketing and processing capabilities • Encourage use of community sewage systems to protect groundwater; current reliance on septic systems in limestone country is a growing health and environmental problem Diversification Despite the best efforts to protect and promote agriculture, the health of the agriculture industry is largely dependent on factors beyond the control of the County: competition, availability of labor, government regulations, fuel prices and interest rates. The County needs to complement its support of farming and forestry with greater opportunities for diversification in the RA district. P _ Economic activity which is compatible with agriculture should be encouraged in the rural areas. Activities such as small hotels and horse stables can play a valuable role in providing a balanced rural economy. Land based tourism and recreation particularly lend themselves to the rural environment, but their very success is contingent on the maintenance of the rural character. Rural diversification should ideally complement agriculture and should not be allowed to prejudice agricultural activities. D Goal #3 - Keep Overall Economic Costs of RA Land to the County Low The rural economy of Frederick County plays a significant role in the life and livelihood of its inhabitants. The rural areas are not a mere scenic backdrop for the urban areas, but are a source of jobs and livelihood worth preserving. The rural economy generates net revenue for the County. The taxes paid by a low- density, agricultural economy exceed the cost of services provided by a wide margin, as Figure 3 dramatically shows. Source: 2003 Study of Frederick County by American Farmland Trust Recognizing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructure Farm land, forest land, open space land, parks, and other large areas of green infrastructure in Frederick County are also valuable as possible mitigation areas for nutrient pollution credits, carbon sequestration sinks, vegetated filtration buffers, and wetlands habitat. It is important for Frederick County to assign due importance to these uses of land as part of the green infrastructure that is equally as important as hard infrastructure to the county's continued economic health. Frederick County has worked to achieve a diversified balance of industry, 10 Figure 3. Agriculture Is a Net Plus to the County Budget $3.00 L $2.50 � o y L $2.00 " 0 CL $1.00 F= a� $0.50 a� C $0.00 2 -$0.50 Commercial & Industrial Working & Open Land Residential Source: 2003 Study of Frederick County by American Farmland Trust Recognizing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructure Farm land, forest land, open space land, parks, and other large areas of green infrastructure in Frederick County are also valuable as possible mitigation areas for nutrient pollution credits, carbon sequestration sinks, vegetated filtration buffers, and wetlands habitat. It is important for Frederick County to assign due importance to these uses of land as part of the green infrastructure that is equally as important as hard infrastructure to the county's continued economic health. Frederick County has worked to achieve a diversified balance of industry, 10 commercial, and residential development, and should consider the green infrastructure of its farms and forests as an equal partner. Figure 4. "Jiost Lots in Recent Years Have Been Created in the UDA UDA RA �:. _ �. 13 782 1,094 Impacts on county services Loss of farmland to residential development adds to the Frederick County capital infrastructure costs. Capital improvements to county infrastructure from residential development in the UDA may be offset through cash proffer contributions or developer - funded infrastructure improvements, although many lots carry minimal proffers. However, review of available residential lots at this point in time in Frederick County indicates that over 92% of the lots created in recent years reside within the UDA. The County has estimated the impact of residential development at $24,000 per new household. In the RA district, roll -back taxes on a new household cover only half this amount. Currently, Virginia law provides only two legal mechanisms for recovering the impact of development from new homeowners, the use of proffers in rezonings, or the use of an untested impact fee provision in the Virginia State Code. This provision (known as HB3202) allows counties to impose fees on new building permits to cover public facilities (roads, schools, and other services) if certain conditions can be met by the County. This provision will sunset at the end of 2008. However, impact fees are certain to come up again in Richmond in the next session of the legislature. Collection of impact fees on each building permit would eliminate the burdensome proffer system which is, at best, a hit and miss opportunity to offset capital facility costs within the County. Rural landowners are prepared to pay a fair share of public facility costs. PRL and rural landowners it represents would work with the Board of Supervisors and other constituents to approach members of the General Assembly to, once and for all, provide meaningful tools to the counties to deal with 11 their development pressures. As Figure 5 shows, the County's residential growth in all districts is only one - third the pace of two years ago due to the national collapse in housing starts. The County has time to lobby the General Assembly for impact fees rather than risking the unintended consequences of "regulation by other means." PRL feels that impact fees represent the best solution to the problem of impacts on County finances, because they are a direct solution. Rezoning is a cumbersome process. The use of wholesale rezonings in the RA district would perversely penalize famers wishing to sell a few lots to cover an emergency while rewarding the type of wholesale development that destroys rural communities. Doubling minimum lot sizes, as originally proposed, would destroy approximately 40 percent of a typical farm's mortgage value, drying up credit for farmers and forcing the sale of farms to developers. 12 Figure 5. Growth is Moderating 1200 1000 p1 4YP, t) �u w 0 800 f a ❑ R5 Ln ❑ R4 E 600 �, ■ RP a _ ■ RA 400 a 3 • m 200 n 0 2005 2006 2007 12 According to Virg Goal #4 - Prevent ® the fragmentation ech of farmland into nonproductive uses Farm fragmentation is economically inefficient. The Farm fragmentation of the land base also puts pressure on farmers and foresters who face a public that is increasingly divorced from agriculture and not Ownership over the next accustomed to the sights, sounds and smells associated with working farms. decade. Current Frederick County zoning promotes farm fragmentation. Rather than encouraging traditional rural hamlets, current zoning encourages rural sprawl by dividing land into 2- and 5 -acre parcels. To get septic fields that meet minimum health standards, landowners are forced to use best agricultural land for residential housing. Larger minimum lot sizes increase farm fragmentation. Several interrelated development pressures concern the PRL. These include an aging farm population, farm fragmentation and suburban encroachment. With the age of the principal farm operators averaging 57 years old, questions of health and estate planning become important to preventing farm fragmentation. A farmer's store of value is land. It is a source of credit in lean times. It is a nest egg for retirement or college expenses. If a farm family is facing a health emergency, they will consider selling a five -acre lot for development. If faced with estate taxes, the family may be forced to sell several lots. The aging of the farm population makes these health care and estate tax pressures more intense. Since retirement assets are tied up in land, these assets will increasingly be liquidated to provide for retirement. The current practice of selling off 5 -acre RA lots for development, or 2 -acre lots with set - aside, is often a family's only choice when faced with estate taxes and health emergencies. However, as a general land use pattern, this "rural sprawl' is clearly not desirable or sustainable. One focus of PRL's policy proposals is to strike a balance between the needs of large landowners to keep an efficient agricultural holding together, while taking care of economic necessities. Smaller residential lots clustered in ways that preserve usable open space would best preserve view sheds typically defined as rural character. Rural character is only maintained through the farming of large contiguous tracts of land. 13 PRL Recommendations to Reduce Farm Fragmentation The size of the problem: ty exist, f$24K .l nouhlino the minimui ue of To deal with these interrelated pressures, PRL proposes an interrelated solution, based on the use of community waste systems. Currently County practice forbids the use of alternatives to rural septic systems, but new technology and the experience of other Virginia counties has shown that community waste systems are superior in terms of health and the environment. PRL proposes to use community waste systems to promote a more traditional "hamlet" style of rural population pattern and place development on the land least desirable for agriculture. Community waste systems would also promote key goals in the Comprehensive Plan regarding Rural Community Centers. The PRL recommendations would retain the farmer's current rights and residential density, thus retaining the creditworthiness of working farms. They would also allow farmers to develop single lots for children and grandchildren or to deal with financial emergencies. • Change the Preservation Set Aside to 60% to maintain more open space and usable agricultural land • Change lot minimums to 3/ acre and mandate the use of community waste systems to move development to areas of a property that will not consume the best agricultural land • Commit the management of community waste systems to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority at the expense of the respective homeowners on the system • Keep a small "unclustered" by -right option of up to four lots for landowners to use for emergency needs 14 Goal #5 - Preserve Open Space and the Rural Environment Agriculture is critical to preserving open space and the rural environment. The current practice of requiring large minimum lot sizes is based on the need to provide a proper drainfield for well and septic in a limestone -rich region. In practical terms, this means that the best agricultural land is developed for residential use, because it "perks" better than marginal land. As long as Frederick County's rural areas are restricted to well and septic, a pattern of rural sprawl and pressure on agricultural land will persist. Figure S. Community Systems Preserve Open Space and Farmland )rapnic courtesy or the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 15 Homes in the RA district are now built on good farmland because it perks, and because homes need drainfields far from their wells. Using community systems, homes can be built on rocky, marginal soils, which may be suitable for construction but of little value to farmers. Table 3 illustrates a representative 100 -acre rural parcel with about 20% "unbuildable" steep slopes or wetlands and 20% "unperkable" woodland and meadow. Using traditional well and septic, a subdivision would use most of the prime agricultural land as drainfield, with the rural preservation set -aside retaining little economic value for farming. Using community systems, the subdivision could be built on the rocky meadowland and the agricultural value of the property would be little affected. Community Waste Systems Table 3. Community Systems versus Traditional Septic Hypothetical 100 acre parcel before 20 -home subdivision Development using traditional septic drainfields (2 -acre minimum lot size) Development using community waste systems septic (% -acre minimum lot size) 20 acres rocky meadow 10 acres rocky meadow 0 acres rocky meadow 50 acres grain or orchard 10 acres fodder 50 acres grain or orchard 10 acres woodland 5 acres woodland 10 acres woodland 20 acres streams /steep slopes 15 acres streams /steep slopes 15 acres streams /steep slopes 0 acres residential 60 acres residential /road 25 acres residential /road Preservation set -aside 40% 75 % Community Waste Systems 16 ( '- �� Z "'- -.a.- Small community systems are well - proven .1, :. ,.. ., ,• .,,,, .ice-.. }, f and working in a number of locations in !� t' /' = °'� Virginia. The concept is to treat wastewater before releasing = couecii F t in small community systems g it into the drainfield. This has several benefits. It solves a potentially serious health `�"" and environmental problem of failing septic _:.: � €;° -I systems. (According to one local sept 1; GIM �tiliblNG �a�" s�rx L�F6E@ ' rt SE ""� pumper, as many as nine out of ten aging septic systems in Frederick County may be Graphic courtesy of the Tennessee Valley Authority failing.) With community systems, lot sizes can be reduced from five or two acres to a little as three - quarters of an acre, with the clean water pipe discharging to a good perk -able location beneath the farmer's fields. Larger systems can solve problems in areas like Gore. 16 Modern community treatment systems can economically serve anywhere from two homes to several dozen homes. Discharge permits are not required, since the treated water is discharged to a drainfield. The systems operate under an agreement between the county and the Virginia Department of health. Community septic system in Caroline County, VA Requiring community septic systems for subdivisions in the RA District (with exceptions for a small number of lots on good drainfields) would also further the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan which seeks to direct growth to the UDA. Since the cost and maintenance of these systems is comparable to the service and connection fees in the UDA, new homeowners would not have the current economic incentives provided by septic systems. Y accounts to ensure proper maintenance. The FCSA can then standardize the systems for efficiency and send the maintenance bills directly to the homeowner. This is common practice in other jurisdictions. 17 It is PRUs belief that community systems will be a workable solution as long as they are placed under the jurisdiction of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) with established fee structures and escrow "Most roads in Frederick County All anticipated major roadway improvements for Frederick County are located in the UDA and are predominantly a result of UDA residents, retail and commercial users, as well as significant through traffic on State, local and federal roadways in Frederick County. Every new resident will increase demands on the transportation infrastructure, but the demand placed on our roads by the RA is a negligible component. The current focus of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is quite properly on roads in the UDA and major arterial roads in the east. While the County has been under pressure from residents in rural areas to place roads on the 6 -year Road Improvement Program, these requests are not appropriate. Rural roads generally operate at Level of Service "A" or "B." Furthermore, road improvements in rural areas often act as a spur to development. By their very nature, rural roads will be sometimes subject to delays due to farm equipment, farm activity and weather emergencies. This is part and parcel of the rural lifestyle the county is seeking to preserve. Complaints about these roads fall into the same category as complaints about orchard spraying, cattle smells, equipment noise and dust. PRL Transportation Recommendations for Rural Areas Goal #6 - Eliminate Non - essential Road Improvements in Rural Areas that Encourage Development • The County should forego hard surfacing and other improvements in the RA District until traffic conditions fall below a Level of Service "C." • The County should encourage common driveways in rural hamlets maintained at the expense of the homeowner to reduce the number of secondary roads dedicated to the County. • The County should consider collection points ( "kiss and rides ") for school children in rural areas as is being done in Warren County. Virginia law has long provided mechanisms to assess transportation impact fees on new building permits, which is currently done in Stafford County. PRL recommends that Frederick County investigate the feasibility of transportation impact fees for necessary road improvements. M The PRA, Rural Viability Flan: Summary Preserving the rural character of Frederick County requires more than simply changing the development rules in the RA district, although land use reform is important. The Committee to Preserve Rural Life in Frederick County (PRL) has a number of interrelated proposals to support the long term planning strategy of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. The County needs to promote and support local agriculture in general economic development policies and activities. This could include: • Funding mechanisms such as PDRs, Conservation Easements, Transfer Development Rights (TDRs), and Short Term Conservation Easements (available today within the Virginia State Code). • Incentives to keep people farming (i.e., continued land use valuation for taxes) • An agricultural advisory panel working directly with the County government • Encouraging comprehensive forest management and increasing timber yields • Increases in the benefits of agricultural and forestal districts to preserve agricultural land from development • More encouragement for conservation easements and an agricultural protection lease agreement program • Developing grant proposals to aid local farmers in developing or enhancing marketing and processing capabilities. 2. The County should use proven community waste systems in rural areas to protect groundwater and human health and preserve agricultural land. Community waste systems should be: Standardized to one or a few systems selected by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Installed and maintained under the aegis of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Paid for by connection fees and yearly maintenance fees billed directly to the homeowner. we] 3. The County should develop regulations aimed at protecting agricultural operations, Preventing farm fragmentation, and preserving prime agricultural land. These should include: • Making the Rural Preservation Subdivision the standard for by -right development option • Changing the Preservation Set Aside to 60% to maintain more open space and usable agricultural land • Changing minimum lot sizes to 3 % acre and mandating the use of community waste systems to move development to areas of a property that will not consume the best agricultural land • Retaining the current 1:5 density to maintain the asset value and credit- worthiness of farms • Retaining a small "unclustered" by -right option of up to four lots for landowners to use for emergency and family needs • Using the principles of conservation design to encourage traditional rural "hamlet" patterns which blend into the rural viewscape. 4. The County should work with rural landowners to develop an equitable funding mechanism for capital facility costs. With the housing market at a virtual standstill, there is no reason for haste. PRL proposes a direct funding mechanism along the lines of an impact fee assessed at the time a building permit is issued. • While the current impact fee provisions in the Virginia State Code are inadequate, the issue will be before the General Assembly again in the next session; PRL will work with the Board of Supervisors to lobby the General Assembly for meaningful tools to deal with these financial pressures. PRL will support the Board of Supervisors to resolve transportation issues like inappropriate rural road improvements, private drives, and school bus collection centers. • PRL will support the Board of Supervisors in implementing transportation impact fees in accordance with existing Virginia law. The PRL is prepared to engage in discussion of the recommendations listed above. Further, we have access to experts in several areas that would enhance the knowledge base of some of these important recommendations. We would be willing to prepare a presentation to the RA Subcommittee on any of these subjects. 20 poffi FI conservancy CONSEIMMON MEMORANDUM To: Board of Supervisors' Rural Areas Subcommittee CC: Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director Frederick County Conservation Easement Authority From: John Gavitt, Heather Richards, Wendy Hamilton/Preserve Frederick Pat Felling, Kelly Watkinson, Seth Coffman/Potomac Conservancy Chase Milner, Beth Stem/Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation Megan Gallagher /Shenandoah Valley Network John Eckman, Kathryn Pfeifer/Valley Conservation Council Subject: RA Subcommittee — Potential TDR Sending Districts Date: December 2, 2008 As conservation and historic preservation groups working in Frederick County, we appreciate the attention being given by the Rural Areas Subcommittee to available options to protect water quality and other natural resources, maintain prime farm and forest land, and preserve historic battlefields and other rural landscapes in the County. The discussion of potential Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs at the Rural Areas Subcommittee meeting November 20 highlighted the need to define one or more specific "sending districts" within the land zoned Rural Areas. These sending districts would represent land deemed a high priority for permanent conservation, achieved by the transfer of development rights to an area targeted for more intensive land uses. It is the mission of our organizations to protect priority natural and historic resources for future generations. We met this week to craft a vision of where Frederick County might create sending districts for a TDR program and to help inform a local Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. Our recommendations apply only to those parcels currently zoned Rural Areas. We agreed that priority criteria, rather than lines or parcels on a map, would allow the County to fine tune the recommendations. Finally, we agreed that the sale of development rights in a sending district under a TDR program or the purchase of development rights through a PDR program, must feature a permanent conservation easement, of the same high quality required for a donated conservation easement under standards set by the federal IRS, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation. Potential TDR Sending Districts/Prioriiy Lands for Conservation. We recommend the creation of two primary sending districts in Frederick County: • The Cedar Creek watershed; • The Opequon watershed. These two watersheds encompass some of the most critical natural and historic resources in Frederick County: drinking watersheds vital to county residents, including sensitive karst lands; prime agricultural soils and large forest blocks, including agricultural and forestal districts; public lands, including the George Washington National Forest, Cedar Creek Battlefield and Third Winchester Battlefield; and land protected by donated or purchased conservation easements. Within the two primary sending districts, we recommend the following criteria to establish which parcels should be eligible to sell or transfer development rights. Only parcels which meet at least one of the following criteria will be eligible to participate in a TDR or PDR program, ensuring that the County is protecting the most strategic and vital lands. The criteria are as follows: • Parcels currently zoned RA (as noted above); • Blocks of land greater than 100 acres; • Parcels containing 50 percent or more of prime or statewide important agricultural soils; • Parcels containing 100 acres or more of contiguous mixed hardwood forest; • Land within the designated core areas of the Cedar Creek or Third Winchester battlefields (no minimum size); • Parcels of at least 50 acres adjacent to public lands, including the GW National Forest; • Parcels of at least 50 acres adjacent to land already under conservation easement. Second Tier Potential Sending Districts/Priority Lands The Rural Areas Subcommittee may wish to recommend a second tier of potential sending districts to reflect the growing clusters of protected lands outside of the two key watersheds. These are areas with a combination of public land and private land under conservation easement. Small sending districts could be drawn around the following clusters of already protected land. These should employ the same criteria for land protection as the primary sending districts: • Sleepy Creek • Hogue Creek • Lucas Woods Preserve /Tuscarora Trail • Red Bud Run • Second Winchester Battlefield • First Kemstown Battlefield We should note that the protection priorities represented by the criteria above are areas of common concern for our organizations. Each organization may have additional areas where it will be focusing its other conservation and preservation program efforts. 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to working with the Sub- Committee and the Board of Supervisors in the development of an effective program that will help preserve critical natural and historic resources in Frederick County. We would encourage the County, as it continues this discussion, to include other entities within the County government framework as well as other stakeholder groups who may be helpful in advancing the goals of this planning effort. 3 03 M UE RIDGEASSOMTION OF REAL TORS ; INC. Clarke, Frederick, 'EYlamen Counties, and the City of Winchester REALTOR 1.41 Garber Line Winchester, Virginia 22602 7elepbane (540) 667-2606 Facsimile (540) 662 -5986 rvutw bluersdgerealtors. corn VIA: Hand Delivery MEMORANDUM TO: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors' Rural Areas Subcommittee FROM: REALTOR@ Anna McDonald, 2008 President Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ Winsome Earle- Sears, Chief Executive Officers Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@. -. DATE: November 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Frederick County's proposed zoning changes and growth management tools On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@, we respectfully submit the following commentary and recommendations for the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' consideration. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In this memorandum we provide a summary of the proposed zoning changes and growth management tools that are being considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Rural Areas Subcommittee. Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 2 of 19 We raise concerns that the proposed zoning changes: (1) are likely to decrease property values for landowners in the Rural Areas, (2) would result in an inequitable financial impact on certain land owners in order to address a County -wide issue, (3) may result in reduced property tax revenues for the County, (4) are presented without any supporting evidence to show that the changes will successfully accomplish the County's goals, and (5) may be less effective than other approaches that the County should consider. In addition, we also comment on and raise concerns about the alternative tools for growth management that are being considered by the County. r a r r? In June of 2008, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors directed staff of the Department of Planning and Development to draft zoning ordinance changes for the County's Rural Area Zoning District and prepare an implementation strategy for the changes. The changes included provisions to decrease the permitted lot density from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres and provisions to change the rural preservation subdivision requirements. A red -lined version of Article V of the County's zoning ordinance, which regulates the Rural Areas District, was prepared. The implementation strategy included a proposed "grace period" for property owners who were in the process of subdividing their property.' Subsequently, and apparently due to strong opposition to the changes by affected landowners, the County Board of Supervisors created a. Rural Areas Subcommittee to study growth and development trends in the rural, areas and gather ideas to address issues of concern. The Subcommittee met numerous times between July and October to collect and present information relative to the Rural Areas. A presentation was prepared which summarized growth trends and related issues for consideration. County of Frederick, Department of Planning and Development.Memorandum from Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director, dated June 18, 2008, page 2. ' Presentation entitled "Review of Frederick County's Rural Areas" which can be viewed fi`om a link on the County's website, http: / / www.co.frederick.va.us/ planning/ SpecialProjects/RA/RAstudy l 2 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 3 of 19 The presentation suggested the following; 1. The Rural Areas are experiencing significant growth pressure and are likely to continue to see such pressure. 2. Development within the Rural Areas results in a high tax burden to the economy, due to infrastructure costs and other public service, and results in a loss of the agriculture economy. In order to address the County's perceived concerns with development in the Rural Areas, the Subcommittee is now in the process of evaluating a number of ideas to address these concerns. These ideas are discussed in the public materials accompanying the October 10, 2008 memorandum from the Department of Planning and Development staff. The Ideas include: clustering, Transfer of Development Rights, Purchase of Development Rights, alternative taxing techniques., large lot zoning, and modifications to the regulation of on -site sewage systems. ANALYSIS The County's Department of Planning and Development staff have prepared the majority of the material relative to the proposed zoning changes and the alternative tools being considered by the Subcommittee. While it appears that the original proposed changes to decrease the maximum density have lost their initial urgency, this option remains in the mix of potential approaches being discussed by the Subcommittee. Our analysis therefore includes both a discussion of the formal proposal to amend the lot density requirements, and a discussion of the additional tools being considered to address development issues in the Rural Areas. The analysis of the additional tools is of a more general nature, since the information presented is limited in substance and does not offer details concerning the implementation or adoption of necessary regulatory changes. CHANGES TO LOT DENSITY REQUIREMENTS` The County's original proposal included a change in the permitted lot density in the Rural Areas District, from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres. It also included an increase from 40% to 60 %, in the requirement for the amount of land that must remain intact as a contiguous parcel during a subdivision for rural preservation lots (the current "clustering" option). 3 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 4 of 19 issue The proposed zoning changes will Likely have the effect of reducing land values for property owners in the Rural Areas District. The proposed change will cut the permitted lot density in half, from one unit per five acres to one unit per ten acres. For a property owner who wishes to subdivide and develop his property, this change has the effect of halving the number of units that may be developed. The County has not offered any information to overcome the obvious assumption that such a significant reduction in development potential will result in a meaningful reduction in the value of the property. The proposed change will decrease property values for the owner who plans to subdivide its property and sell the resulting lots, as well as for the owner who intends to sell the property for subdivision and development by someone else. It will also affect the property owner who has no immediate plans to sell or develop the land, but would like to borrow against its value in order to finance a farm or business. In effect, the proposed zoning changes will impose a burden on property owners in the Rural Areas District in order to preserve the rural character and environment of the County for the benefit of its residents as a; whole. Recommendation. The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS® requests that the County study the effect of the proposed changes on property values and development potential. The Association may be able to provide support for such a study, through market data statistics on newly constructed homes on parcels of different size. Issue The proposed zoning changes are designed to address a County -wide problern but the resulting financial impact will be born by only those owners of property in the Rural Areas District. The County has indicated that the zoning changes are being proposed in response to concerns about (1) the. high cost of public services attributed to new home development and (2) the loss of rural character in the district. M Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 5 of 19 The County has also indicated that development in the Rural Areas is more costly to the County than development in the Urban Development Area (UDA), in which public services are more readily available and that the rural character of the County is considered to be an attractive and valuable aspect to the communities within the County. Overall, public services costs and loss of rural character are County -wide issues. It is inequitable and unfair to require property owners in the Rural Areas alone to bear the financial impact of the County's attempts to address growth management and public service cost issues that affect the County as a whole. Recommendation: The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ requests that the County provide additional information concerning the cost of public services for development in the Rural Areas on the one hand, and for development in the UDA on the other. The County should continue to examine the alternative tools (as discussed below) that do not result in an inequitable impact on property owners in the Rural Areas. District. Issue A reduction in the value of affected properties will likely be reflected in reduced property tax revenues, further exacerbating the County's financial shortfalls. A reduction in the development potential of property in the Rural Areas has the potential to lead to reduced property values and corresponding decreases in property tax assessments. A reduction in tax revenues from the Rural Areas may result in additional cost constraints on the County's ability to provide public services throughout the County'. Recommendation: The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORSO urges the County to examine the effect of the proposed zoning changes as they relate to the immediate and long term fiscal impacts on both the amount and the geographic source of County tax revenues. 5 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 6 of 19 Issue The County has not provided any documentation or evidence to show that the proposed change to permitted tot density will successfully result in reduced public service costs to the County. The information provided by the County to support a change in lot density appears to follow the simplistic logic that by reducing the number of new homes that can be developed in the Rural Areas, the County will face Less pressure on its public service costs. The flaw in this logic is that there are too many variables and assumptions in the equation that have not been addressed by the proposed zoning changes. For example., it is possible that the change in permitted density may not change the number of new housing units that are developed in the Rural Areas district as a whole, but may, instead, simply double the amount of land that is used to provide the same number of housing units at the lower density.. To the extent that the market demand for new housing in the UDA does not increase relative to demand for new housing in the Rural Areas, or if the supply in the UDA is inconsistent with the market demand, the reduction in density in the Rural Areas will simply disperse development, resulting in an actual increase in land consumption. In that case, one would expect that it would be even more costly to provide public services to the resulting sprawled development. It: is even possible that lowering the. permitted, density of development in remote areas might . be relatively more attractive to certain market segments, potentially changing development patterns and thereby exacerbating the problems with public service costs. Recommendation; The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ asks the County whether it has considered how the market will respond to the proposed zoning change and in particular on what basis the County assumes that development will be redirected to the UDA rather than further dispersed in the Rural Areas. The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS® asks the County to consider what the public service cost impacts would be if the zoning change, in fact, caused no change in the existing ratio of UDA to rural development, but instead caused the latter to consume more land in the Rural Areas. M Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 7 of 19 Issue More sophisticated tools are available to accomplish the County's goals of preserving the rural character in the Rural Areas District. In addition to the concerns over the cost of public services, the County bases the proposed zoning change on its desire to maintain the rural character of the Rural Areas District, It also specifies related concerns over the impact to the demand for county services, to the agricultural economy, and to the viewshed and rural landscape. The solution proposed is a very simple approach, but, as discussed, it results in financial impacts to landowners and its effectiveness has not been demonstrated. A number of more sophisticated tools are available that may be better suited to achieving the goal of preserving the rural character. Many of these tools are currently being examined by the County, following the initial concerns by landowners following the zoning change proposal. Recommendation; The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ urges the County to continue alternative tools for accomplishing the stated goals. Alternative tools will likely be better suited to successfully address the concerning growth patterns within the Rural Areas, while limiting the financial impact to property owners.. ALTERNATIVE TOOLS UNDER CONSIDERATION The County has provided additional materials to the Rural Areas Subcommittee for review and consideration. The materials include a list of "tools" and "ideas" to address the issues pertaining to development in the Rural Areas. The "ideas" list appears to be a complete list of all comments and suggestions by members of the Subcommittee or the public. The "tools" are listed under the heading "State - Enabled Tools for Managing Growth in the Rural Areas." The list includes the following measures: • Urban Growth Boundaries • Chapter 2232 Review • Special Exception Permitting m Cluster' Development Zoning • Large Lot Zoning • Conservation Easements (a.k.a.. Conditional Use Permits) • Historic Districts • Density Incentives 7 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 8 of 19 • Purchase of Development Rights Establishment of an Agricultural and Forestal Districts • Transfer of Development Rights Virginia Department of Health's health system regulations. • Implementation of a. Use Value Assessment and Taxation ( "Land Use ") • Implementation of a Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate. The materials include a brief discussion of several of these tools, as well as additional materials on Transfer of Development Rights and. Virginia's on -site sewage disposal system regulations. A "working document" chart is also included that incorporates the tools into a vision and implementation strategy. The information provided in these materials is very limited and contains no specifics as to how the tools may be applied in Frederick County. Additional review and analysis of these tools will likely be warranted should the County decide to pursue their use as measures to address development in the Rural Areas. For purpose of this analysis, a number of the tools have been grouped together for discussion purposes. Issues are noted and recommendations are made only for those tools that have been discussed by the County as potential means for addressing growth in the Rural Areas, or for those that, based upon our review, offer some potential for addressing growth. Urban Growth Boundaries Purpose(s) of Technique: Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) are used to focus growth in a contained area, in closer proximity to available public services, and to deter growth in areas outside the boundary, allowing for the preservation of open space, agricultural land, and other environmentally sensitive area S.3 Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): UGBs, when used on a regional basis, can be effective in promoting compact development in areas served by adequate public services. ' See National. Association of Realtors", Growth Management Fact Book, Second Edition (prepared by Robinson & Cole LLP: 2008) [hereinafter NAR Fntbook] at 3. Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 9 of 19 They can also be effective in deterring development in areas outside of the UGBs, provided that sufficient and appropriate development capacity is available within the UGB. UGBs can be counterproductive when used on a local rather than regional level, as this technique has the effect of deflecting development to neighboring areas. This technique is also inappropriate for areas without a sufficiently developed urban center. Critique of County Summary Memorandum. The County currently utilizes Urban Growth Boundaries in the form of its UDA. In the presentation materials, the County indicates that the UDA and the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) are the County's key growth management tools and that 5,700 acres of land have been added to the UDA and SW'SA since 1990. The County does not provide any information on potential changes to the UDA program which could help alleviate the development concerns in the Rural Areas. Issue The County should examine the current UDA program to determine if any changes to its boundary, regulations, or services provided could help address the perceived concerns about development in the Rural Areas; According to the County- provided statistics, the Rural Areas account for approximately 89% of the County's land area, and, since 1990, approximately 30% of the new home development has occurred in the Rural Areas. In reviewing these statistics, it would appear that the use of the UDA has been effective, in that the majority of the development (70 %) is occurring in the targeted growth areas, which occupy a small proportion of the County's land (11 %). Apparently however, the County remains concerned with the amount of development occurring in the Rural Areas. Rather than adopting zoning changes that will likely have the effect of decreasing the value of land in the Rural Areas, the County should consider revising the UDA program in ways that will better allow it to achieve the goal of encouraging development to locate in areas with available public services. 4 Presentation, st p - a note 1.. N Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 10 of 19 Some options to consider would be adding land to the UDA, increasing the potential for development within the UDA (by increasing densities or allowing a broader variety of development types, including. multi- family and mixed use development), or facilitating the delivery of new housing within the UDA by expediting permitting. Recommendation: The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ requests that the County assess the effectiveness of its UDA program, including a review of any opportunities to modify the program to address their concerns. The assessment should include an analysis of the development opportunities within the UDA and a market study to better understand the growth trends from the perspective of potential consumers. Chapter 2232 Review Purpose(s) of Techniques Chapter 2232 Review refers to Section 15.2 2232 of the Code of Virginia, which establishes the legal status of a comprehensive plan. Virginia authorizes counties to review any public service proposals to determine if they are consistent with an adopted plan. E f fectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s). Consistency review, such as the Chapter 2232 Review process, can be a useful exercise for a County with a well - developed comprehensive plan. Such review will have limited effectiveness in the cases where a County has not prepared a thorough comprehensive plan or does not regularly update the plan. Critique of County Summary Memorandum. The material provided by the County does not include any substantive discussion of how the Chapter 2232 review currently addresses development in the Rural Areas, or how the review may be adjusted to address development in the future. A critical review of the comprehensive plan would also be necessary in order to determine how thorough and up -to -date the plan is with respect to its use in a consistency review. S pecial Exception Permitting (aka Conditional Use Permits)` Purpose(s) of Technique: "Special Exception" or "Conditional Use permitting can be utilized to address specific uses that require particular evaluation in order to assess and minimize the potential for detrimental impacts upon surrounding properties and the community. 10 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 11 of 19 A regulatory body, in allowing for a special exception, has the opportunity to include conditions to minimize the particular impacts of the proposed use. Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s); A'special exception or conditional use permit has the potential to be an effective means of controlling any adverse effects of a particular development. However, the use of these permits also has the potential to invite the abuse of discretionary authority. The use of such permits as a growth management strategy "raises serious questions when there is no authorization for growth management in the first place. " Critique of County Summary Memorandum. The materials provided by the County state that Special Exception Permitting (or Conditional Use Permits) allow the County to impose conditions for mitigation of development. The materials suggest that the use of this tool could allow the County to add requirements to a development approval, which potentially may deter growth in the Rural Areas in situations where the requirements are burdensome. The County currently utilizes Conditional Use Permits in the Rural Areas. The list of uses that require a Conditional Use Permit are included in the Article V of the Zoning Crdinance. The list does not include residential, single - family home development. Further, the County is limited in its ability to condition the approvals or require mitigation, as the conditions must be reasonable and enforceable to satisfy constitutional limits. Therefore, it is unlikely that conditional use permits could serve as an effective tool to address County -wide growth trends. Any proposal by the County to expand the use of conditional use permitting for purposes of exacting mitigation for residential development will require further review and analysis. Cluster Development Zoning Purpose(s) of Technique: Cluster development zoning is a tool used to cluster development in a smaller area of a parcel while allowing for larger areas to be kept in a natural state, either for agricultural or environmental protection. s Blaesser, Brian, "Special Use Permits: The `Wait- and -See' Weapon of Local communities," 21 Zoning & Plan. G. Rep. 69 (1998) 6 § 165 -51. 11 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 12 of 19 Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): Cluster zoning is an effective tool for the preservation of open space.' It is not, however, generally considered to be a growth management tool, given that cluster zoning allows for the same number of housing units to be developed as compared to a traditional development. Critique of County Summary Memorandum: The County utilizes clustering in the Rural Areas District, allowing for lot sizes to be reduced to 2 acres, and providing for a 40% requirement for protected open space. The proposed zoning changes under consideration by the County would increase the required percentage of open space to 60 %. Cluster zoning can be an effective means of preserving open space on a parcel -by- parcel basis. The clustering results in the preservation of larger contiguous areas of undeveloped land, which is consistent with the goals of the Rural Areas district. However, cluster development does reduce overall growth. in the Rural Areas, as the same number of building permits will be issued for a cluster development as for a conventional subdivision. In addition, the public service costs for cluster development may be reduced as compared with public service costs for standard subdivisions because of relatively shorter roads and shorter utility extensions within the clustered development. But these potential cost savings within the subdivision itself are relatively minor compared with the cost of extending utilities and improving roads that connect the rural subdivision (whether cluster or conventional) to other developed areas in the first place. Therefore, while it can be helpful in preserving open space and rural character, cluster zoning is unlikely to be the answer to the County's problem of high public service costs for development in the Rural Areas. Large Lot Zoning Purpose(s) of Technique: Large lot zoning is used to minimize development density by requiring lot sizes of 5 acres or more. It is typically utilized to preserve rural character or protect environmentally sensitive land. 7 NAR Factbook at 64. 12 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 13 of 19 Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): Large lot zoning has limited potential for achieving the stated purpose. While it may result in preserving tracts of land, large area lot zoning is often viewed as one of the principal causes of urban "sprawl" in growing areas, as it pushes development further away from urban centers when growth pressures create the demand. Critique of County Summary Memorandum: Large lot zoning essentially equates to the measures that the County has already proposed for decreased lot density. As previously noted, large lot (or low density) zoning reduces property values by reducing the development potential of affected properties. Refer to the discussion above for additional details. Conservatio Easements Purpose(s) of Technique Conservation easements are legal tools used for preserving open space or protecting natural resources. They are strictly voluntary from the landowner's perspective.. They typically involve a land trust or government entity acting as the easement holder. Often, the landowner can benefit from tax incentives for providing the protection. Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): Conservation easements are effective for specific properties, as the allowed uses of the land are well established and they provide a means of enforcing the easement rights.. However, their effectiveness is limited by the willingness of landowners to agree to such restrictions on their properties, in exchange for receiving what is often below - market consideration for providing the easement. Critique of County Summary Memorandum; The County states that it is actively pursuing conservation easements to protect and preserve the rural landscape. However, the: County cannot force unwilling property owners to enter into conservation easements. As such, their use has limited potential for addressing the County's concerns with the impact of development in the Rural Areas. 8 NAR Factbook at 42, citing Colorado Growth Management Toolbox. 13 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 14 of 19 District Zoning (Agricultural / Forestal /Historic) Purpose(s) of Technique: Zoning districts can be utilized to promote a specific interest. Historic districts can include enhanced review criteria to provide protection for historic elements. Agricultural or forestall districts can be used for specific areas as a means to promote land preservation. In Virginia, agricultural and forestall districts are commonly used in conjunction with tax incentives, such as the Use Value Assessment, to promote landowner interest in creating such districts. Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): Agricultural and Forestal district zoning can be effective for limiting development on large tracts of land for a defined period of time and with landowner cooperation. Historic districts can be effective for regulating development to protect historic . features, including visual character and architecture. However, historic districts have limited potential to control growth or to preserve "rural character" in an area without historic significance. Critique of County Summary Memorandum: Frederick County has created agricultural and forestal districts and encourages property owners to participate in the expansion of, and establishment of, historic districts. The County provides little detail. as to how the creation of these districts can translate to growth control in the Rural Areas or whether the use, expansion, or modification of the districting program can be a means of future growth control. Density Incentives Purpose(s) of Technique: Density incentives are used in combination with a number of other zoning tools, as a means to encourage their use. In particular, density incentives are commonly used in combination with cluster development and Transfer of Development Rights programs. Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): The additional units allowed by the density incentives often result in a financial benefit to the property owner or, at the least, mitigate increased costs associated with a more complex development process. As such, their use is often very effective in promoting the associated tool to which the incentives are attached. Critique of County Summary Memorandum: The County does not include a discussion of the use of density incentives in Frederick County. 14 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 15 of 19 However, these incentives should certainly be considered as a means of controlling growth in the Rural Areas. In particular, it may be possible to factor density incentives into the UDA development requirements to promote UDA development over that in the Rural Areas.. Similarly, density incentives may be utilized as part of the proposed Transfer of Development Rights program, especially in the early stages of the program as a means to encourage its use. Transfer of Development Rights /Purchase of Development Rights Purpose(s) of Technique: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) are incentive- -based preservation techniques for conservation or agricultural land. These techniques provide a means to fairly compensate the landowner for the potential development value that is foregone when the landowner sells his or her development rights to either a developer for use at another location, or to a unit of government or non - profit land conservancy or trust in exchange for limiting the use of the land to those uses that preserve the rural character. Effectiveness in Achieving: Purpose(s): TDR programs are successful where the jurisdiction promoting their use has created a strong market for development rights. A successful TDR program requires effective enabling legislation, and the program must be implemented properly by the local jurisdiction. A PDR program requires a source of funding for the development rights purchases and requires careful planning to ensure that limited resources are used to acquire development rights in ways that will be most effective in accomplishing programmatic goals while not impeding desirable development patterns. Critique of County Summary Memorandum; The materials provided by the County include a brief discussion on TDR and a copy of legislative materials associated with a joint committee studying TDR in the Virginia General Assembly. The materials state that TDR is currently enabled by the Commonwealth of Virginia, but that no localities have exercised the right to implement a TDR program. 9 NAR Factbooh at 49. 15 L L e 3 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 16 of 19 The joint committee is in the process of "examin[ing] ways in YYhich the existing TDR legislation may be modified to make it more appealing to localities.i TDR and PDR programs are tools that are well suited to address the concerns over growth in the Rural Areas. Issue The pCounty has not provided any documentation to suggest that the use of a TDR program under the current enabling statute has been given appropriate consideration. A TDR program may be the optimal solution for funneling growth from the Rural Areas into the UDA, assuming appropriate locations are identified. The materials provided by the County do not include any substantive discussion on the establishment of a TDR program under the current, statutory authority. The County appears to be awaiting the results of the General Assembly's subcommittee that is reviewing the TDR program, with the expectation that new tools may be available in the future to facilitate the use of TDR. To establish a successful TDR program, the County will need to undertake an assessment of market conditions, review the development potential of sending and receiving areas, and may need to examine the current zoning regulations and processes. It is a relatively significant undertaking for the County.. However, a TDR program provides a market -based approach that offers the potential for more equitable treatment of property owners than the. large lot zoning approach currently proposed by the County. The County should give priority consideration to the implementation of such a program. Recommendation: The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ requests that the County draft the framework for a TDR program for further review and consideration by the Subcommittee and members of the public. The framework should consider a TDR program as currently enabled by statute. The TDR program should be a voluntary one in which landowners are encouraged, but not required, to participate. The County should also track any potential changes to the enabling statute in order to be prepared to take advantage of any changes that may serve to enhance the effectiveness of such a program and its attraction to property owners. 10 Virginia Genera[ Assembly, .House Joint Resolution 195, 2008. 16 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 17 of 19 Virginia Department of Health health system regulations Purpose(s) of Technique: The Division of Qnsite Sewage. and Water Services within the Virginia Department of Health, is responsible for regulations governing onsite wastewater treatment (referred to by the County as "health system" regulations). The Mission of the Division is "`to protect public health and ground water quality. "" Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s): Wastewater treatment system . regulations are an effective means of controlling the construction, use, and maintenance of onsite wastewater treatment systems. Critique of County Summary Memorandum: The County lists the Virginia "health system" regulations as a state- enabled tool to control growth. The materials provided by the County include several pages that discuss the Virginia regulations and the regulations adopted by several neighboring counties. The materials include an assessment of several changes that the County may consider with respect to its regulation of health systems. The changes would appear to have the effect of limiting development opportunities. Issue Health system regulations are intended to protect public health and environmental quality and are a poor choice of tool for managing growth. The regulation of on -site health systems has an indirect effect on growth management. However, these regulations should not be viewed as a primary means of controlling growth. For one, the creation or modification of health system regulations for use as growth control measures may be challenged if they are not premised on the protection of public health and ground water quality in accordance with the enabling statutory authority. Secondly, on -site health systems tend to require a certain amount of land (2 acres or larger is suggested in the materials), but the amount is not large enough to act as an effective means of growth control. In addition, the actual design and siting of these systems are very site - specific. Recommendation. The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS® urges the County to abandon the use of "health system" regulations as a means for growth control in the Rural Areas. " http: / / ww.vdh. state. va. us/ EnvironmentalHealth /Onsite /iiidex.htift 17 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 18 of 19 Should health or environmental factors warrant a change to the County's regulations, this should be explored independently by the County in the context of those particular factors. The Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS® requests that the County seek an opinion from the County Attorney relative to the use of septic system regulations for growth control. Property Tax Relief Purpose(s) of Technique: Property tax relief can be used to compensate an owner of land who chooses to forgo development opportunities in order to maintain land in agricultural use or as open space. Effectiveness in Achieving Purpose(s). Property tax relief can be an effective tool to compensate a landowner who is willing to forgo potential development opportunities and maintain the rural character of his or her land. If the housing market is sufficiently strong, the value of the tax relief may not equate to the economic benefit of selling the land for development. In addition, the tax relief comes at the expense of the County or locality, effectively constraining the funding for public services. Critique of County Summary Memorandum: The materials provided by the County include a discussion of the Use Value Assessment and Taxation program, and a Sliding Scale Property Tax Rate, the former of which is currently employed in Frederick County, The Use Value Assessment allows the County to tax property based on its use, as opposed to its fair market value. This reduces the real estate tax on a land that is used as farmland or open space. The Sliding .Scale Property Tax Rate would allow the County to reduce the property tax rate for a landowner who agrees to forgo his option to develop his property. Both taxing techniques provide some value to landowners in the Rural Areas in consideration for their commitment to preserving the rural character of the County. However, neither of these approaches is likely to be a significant enough attraction to deter a property owner who is seriously considering the development of his or her land. The County has not provided any significant detail as to how the Use Value Assessment program is currently employed in the Rural Areas, or how the County would propose to increase its use as a means of deterring development in the Rural Areas. 18 Frederick County Commentary and Recommendations Page 19 of 19 In particular, the County should evaluate the extent to which the program has been effective in deterring development of farmland that was otherwise likely to be developed (based e.g. on the development of other similarly situated properties in the same area), and should consider the corresponding reduction in property tax revenues in a cost - benefit analysis that compares the effectiveness of this technique to potential alternative approaches involving public expenditures such as PDR, or market -based techniques such as TDR. Conclusion We thank you for allowing us to submit this document for your perusal and consideration. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns about this material. C: Board of Supervisors and Planning Commissioners John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Hon. Frank Wolf, 10t Congressional District Hon. Jill H. Vogel, 27 Virginia Senatorial (commonwealth) District Hon. Beverly Sherwood, 29 District, Virginia House of Delegates Hon. Clifford (Clay) Athey, Jr., 18 District, Virginia House of Delegates Ed Yost, Esq., Blue Ridge Association of REALTORS@ Counsel John Broadway, Esq., Virginia Association of REALTORS@ Counsel 19 To Whom It May Concern: Frederick Farm Bureau Members held their annual meeting in October and voted to carryover their existing resolutions pertaining to the Rural Area development proposal, plus added one more. The new resolution states that we support community based septic systems if the county Sanitation Authority agrees to take them over and maintain them. Our existing resolution states that we are opposed to any change in density but we would support an increase in open space to 60% or greater. You can accomplish this by reducing lot sizes to save open space and by using alternate septic systems that are approved by the Virginia Department of Health. We believe that in order to save farmland, the farmers need the flexibility to use their investment in their land as a financial too, in their operation. Because of this we think the By -Right lots should be increased from 2 lots to 4 lots. (Based on 100 acre parcel.) We strongly support the purchase of development rights of farmland and the transfer of development rights. We do support slowing growth county wide including urban areas not just rural Farm Bureau feels that we should take a closer look at our water resources and infrastructure as you approve any proposed development plans. Frederick County Farm Bureau would like to thank John Marker and Margaret Douglas for representing us at your meetings. I thank you for your time and the effort you have put into this. Please feel free to call my anytime. @ 540 869 -2182 Thank You, Paul Anderson, pres. Frederick County Farm Bureau WINCHESTER FRFE)ERICK COUNTY I .G I I A EDC DATE: December 10, 2008 TO: Eric Lawrence, AICP Planning and Development Director, Frederick County FROM: Patrick Barker, CEcD Executive Director RE: Agribusiness Support EDC As I am aware of Frederick County's rural area study, I am writing to provide an update on how the EDC is preparing to engage this economic sector. In the late 90s, the EDC Strategy did contain an agribusiness component. Due to the graduation of the tourism effort and waning participation of the agribusiness community, the EDC ceased related activities around 2000. A couple of months ago, several local agribusiness stakeholders queried if the EDC would restart its agribusiness effort. Chairman Crosen and I then held a meeting with several key agribusiness stakeholders. We solicited these individuals' thoughts on the agribusiness community's current state. A summary of those findings is enclosed. From these findings, several scenarios on how the EDC might engage the agribusiness community were developed and reviewed by the EDC's executive committee. A listing of the scenarios is enclosed. At their December 5th meeting, the EDC endorsed the recommendation of the executive committee. This recommendation, by unanimous vote, stated that the EDC would facilitate and fund a maximum of three (3) meetings of the agribusiness community with presentations by applicable resources, like the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Due to its public funding and thus the need to always show effectiveness and a high rate of return, the EDC will evaluate the performance of each meeting and the overall program upon the completion of the final meeting. In addition to this action, the EDC endorsed a willingness to execute more involved activity with the agribusiness community (scenarios C and D). This execution would, however, only occur with additional funding outside the EDC's existing allocations by its funding entities. If you require additional information, please let me know. Your Move Our Commitment. Agribusiness Stakeholder Meeting Wednesday, November 5'' Winchester Equipment Present Patrick Barker I Roger Crosen I Doug Rinker I Diane Kearns I Bob Carpenter Liz White I Kitty Hockman What is working • Direct marketing • Biz card handout • Direct to customer on own • Internet • Word of mouth • Newspaper • Trail rides • Festivals • Agri - tainment • Green industries (nurseries) • Community supported agriculture • Educational Tours • B &B • Niche Foods • Xmas Trees What are the needs • Wineries (none in WFC) • Sundowners tie into existing community • Tie into retail market • Broad message of assets to community • Sole focus on agri- tourism /tainment • Assistance /partnership with new crops • Marketing • Financing • Association with business inquiries • Connecting suppliers to buyers • Alternative energy • Grants assistance • Regional approach • Make agricultural more profitable • Connection to VT Ag Research Unit better (T. Wolf) • Labor to do work for agribiz Your Move. Our Commitment. Scenarios for EDC Agribusiness Involvement Option A - Status quo, no involvement Option B (Executive Committee Endorsed & EDC Approveds) - Hold a maximum of three (3) cluster like meetings with appropriate speaker to highlight available resources /best practicesNirginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, etc. with an evaluation of next steps post the last meeting o Est. Direct Cost - $1,200 Total Estimate Annual Direct Cost = $1,200 Option C - All of Option B plus - Compile a directory listing products produced locally, with distribution of professional brochure to local restaurants /other appropriate entities o Est. Direct Cost - $2,000 (internal design) - Explore availability of grants for agribusiness assistance /marketing - Create website similar to httl2 / /www.loudounfarms.or.e I http / /www.hvadc.ore j o Est. Direct Cost - $10,000 (external) - Conduct awareness campaign locally utilizing website o Est. Direct Cost - $10,000 (internal design of materials) Total Estimate Annual Direct Cost = $23,200 Option D - All of Option C plus - Hire part -time rural resource coordinator to provide direct specialized assistance with agribusiness entities (i.e. Feasibility Analysis, Technical and Professional Assistance, Project Planning and Development Services) o Est. Cost - $40,000 Total Estimate Annual Direct Cost = $63,200 If decide to proceed with any option other than A how to wish to fund activities 1. Redistribution of existing funds, will require prioritization of existing projects • (Executive Committee Endorsed & EDC Approved) 2. Redistribution of existing funds and supplemental request to County 3. Redistribution of existing funds, supplemental request and agribusiness entities support 4. Redistribution of existing funds and agribusiness entities support Your Move. O ur Commitment.