The URL can be used to link to this page

CPPC 09-08-03 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director RE: September Meeting and Agenda DATE: August 28, 2003 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, September 8, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 1) Rural Areas Study. 3) Other. Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you. Access to the County Administration Building for night meetings that do not occur in the Board room will be limited to the back door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members to parkin the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalk to the back door of the four-story wing. The door will be locked; therefore, please wait for staff to open the door. 107 North Dent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ITEM #1 Rural Areas Study Stakeholder Identification, Study Framework, and Issues Identification During the August 11, 2003 CPPS meeting, it was decided that the committee would engage in a period of issues identification and discussion prior to holding public visioning and input workshops. It is envisioned that public workshops will be scheduled for mid-November 2003, at which time the general public and stakeholders will be presented with the study framework and an outline of fundamental rural issues identified by the committee. During these workshops, opportunities will be provided in small group settings for participants to expand upon and/or refine the issues developed by the committee, and a prioritization exercise will be conducted to identify those issues of greatest interest to the rural community. In preparation for public outreach, the committee is tasked with accomplishing two distinct objectives and beginning work on a third during the September meeting. These objectives may be outlined as follows: 1) Stakeholder Identification - Although briefly discussed during the August meeting, the identities of the principal stakeholders in the rural areas study remain undefined. It is therefore necessary for the committee to clearly identify the principal stakeholders in the process. It has been acknowledged that rural residents are a distinct stakeholder, as well as members of the agricultural community. Others with a vested interest in the outcome of this study arguably include small business owners, home builders, environmentalists, and subdivision design professionals. Identification of stakeholders will ensure an appropriately targeted outreach effort and further inform the context and scope of the rural areas study. 2) Study Framework - The committee must agree upon a comprehensive outline of policy areas under which issues and opportunities may be organized, analyzed, and addressed via policy solutions. This outline will serve as the framework of the rural areas study and ultimately define the content of the Rural Areas Policy Plan. The policy areas comprising the framework may include: • "The Rural Economy" This policy area captures issues associated with agriculture, agri-business, tourism, and all other rural economic activities, to include small and home-based businesses. • "Environmental, Natural, & Heritage Resources - `The Green Infrastructure "' This policy area would involve all issues associated with the myriad resources comprising the rural areas, to include stream corridors, mountainsides, forested areas, historic and archeological sites, wetlands, flood plain, sensitive soils (i.e. limestone "belt"), as well as existing open space assets (natural, eased and man-made). The Green Infrastructure concept is being introduced as a means of organizing all of Frederick County's environmental, natural and heritage resources as a defined system intended to guide the integration of said resources into future land use planning and development activity in the rural areas. • "Land Development & Design " This policy area captures issues associated with the form of new development in the rural areas and the variables that determine and/or enable such form. Issues under this categorymay involve subdivision configuration (conservation/rural preservation design, maximum yield - 5 acre lot, clustering, etc.), health systems (conventional v. alternative systems, off-site drain fields, package plants, etc.), buffering, and the designation and use of open space areas in new rural subdivisions. Issues involving alternatives to development may also fall within this policy area, to include programs or initiatives involving purchase of development rights (PDR), conservation easements, and open space banking. • "Transportation " This policy area captures all issues associated with the rural transportation system. Issues involving surface conditions and treatments, rural road capacities and levels of service, trafficshed analysis, and multi -modal opportunities (i.e. hiking, biking, and/or equestrian trails) may be addressed under this category. • "Rural Services & Facilities" This policy area captures all issues associated with the delivery ofpublic services and amenities to the rural population. • "Rural Community Centers" This policy area captures all issues associated with the County's defined rural community centers and those rural areas that possess characteristics consistent with such centers. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a rural areas study that does not acknowledge and address issues concerning the role of rural community centers in the future of the rural areas. This policy area may be used to refine the established vision for the rural community centers, identify new or potential community centers, and address issues involving the relationship of these centers with the surrounding rural areas. It is anticipated that the referenced policy areas should provide an adequate framework to capture and address issues and opportunities identified through the study process. However, committee members are encouraged to assess whether the proposed framework is adequately comprehensive as an organizational template and guide for the rural areas study process. 3) Issues Identification - Once the study framework has been determined, the committee will begin the process of identifying and organizing issues under the designated policy areas. It is anticipated that this process will begin during the September meeting and continue through the October meeting. As noted previously, the issues identified by the committee will be presented to the public and stakeholders during workshops tentatively planned for mid- November 2003. Workshop participants will be empowered to identify additional issues and respond to the cumulative lists of issues through a prioritization exercise. Included with this agenda are "issues sheets" for each of the six policy areas identified above. Please identify and organize issues of interest using these sheets. The completed sheets may be referred to during committee discussion and will ultimately be submitted to staff to ensure that all issues are reflected accurately in the study record. Important Ground Rules for Discussion: For the issues identification process to be an effective and honest exercise for both the committee and the public, it is imperative that participants be allowed to share concerns, ideas, and observations in a judgement free setting. In many respects, this phase of the study process is similar to brainstorming, with the emphasis placed on maximizing input and ensuring that all issues of interest are considered through subsequent phases of the process. It is therefore essential that all participants suspend judgement during the issues identification phase. All issues must be considered valid. It is important to note that questions of clarification are appropriate during the issues identification phase. Recognizing time constraints, it is requested that members attempt to identify and explain issues as succinctly as possible. Again, all issues will be considered valid thereby alleviating any need to extensively argue justification. The committee will be provided ample opportunity to examine the assumptions and realities underlying identified issues during subsequent study phases. This agenda includes supplemental reading materials intended to further our individual and collective understanding of rural land use issues. Such materials will be provided throughout the course of the study process for your reference and to stimulate committee discussion. The following items have been attached with this agenda: 1. Rural Vision Statements of CPPS Members - Submitted by Jay Banks, Diane Kearns, Bill Rosenberry, Todd Shenk, June Wilmott 2. Rural Land Management Initiatives - An Overview of Initiatives Undertaken by Other Virginia Jurisdictions to Manage Rural Growth and Development; prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department for the 2003 Annual Planning Commission Retreat. 3. Virginia's Growth Management Tools. June 1999 (updated through January 2002). Prepared by the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association. 4. Article: From Ranchland to Conservation Community, Planning: The Magazine of the American Planning Association, August/September 2003, p. 26 - 31. 5. Article: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs, The Washington Post, Sunday, August 17, 2003. (Reprinted from WashingtonPost.com). Rural Areas Study Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Issues Identification: Land Development & Design Rural Areas Study Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Issues Identification: Transportation Rural Areas Study Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Issues Identification: The Rural Economy Rural Areas Study Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Issues Identification: Environmental, Natural, & HeritaLye Resources Rural Areas Study Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Issues Identification: Rural Services & Facilities Rural Areas Study Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee Issues Identification: Rural Community Centers -11 -" Vision N't-atel'"dants u PY S a," Rural Areas Subject: Rural Areas Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:40:32 -0400 From: "Jay Banks" <jbanks@leesburgva.org> To: "Abbe S. Kennedy (E-mail)" <akennedy@co.frederick.va.us>, "Chris.Mohn (E-mail)" <cmohn@co.frederick.va.us> My first initial though from last night is, if the county doesn't fix the UDA it's not going to work in these times. What do I mean? Well the UDA served well during the 70's and 80's (bad economic times hit) and became less "attractive" in the 90's. Why? The UDA is not built "green". People now are looking to communities that are built green and attractive. Our county allows (and to some degree, State Code allows) the destructive building approach used in the county, And now with National builders eyeing the county (because they look for the least restrictive areas to build in) we may see an increase in rezonings next to the UDA. There has been a move for the last decade to build green and some very nice projects have happened as a result. I think if we are to address the rural areas study we have to look at "fixing" the UDA as well. Just my thoughts for now. Jay S. Banks Urban Forester 25 W. Market St. Leesburg, Virginia 20175 Voice 703-771-2765 Fax 703-771-2724 Email ibanks(&leesbur va.org 1 of 1 8/28/2003 9:16 AM Last thought Subject: Last thought Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:44:57 -0400 From: "Jay Banks" <jbanks@leesburgva.org> To: "Abbe S. Kennedy (E-mail)" <akennedy@co.frederick.va.us>, "Chris Mohn (E-mail)" <cmohn@co.frederick.va.us> John's last comment of the night spoke to "what do we want to see as we drive around". Certainly in the main corridors setbacks the have a nice green buffer/screen along the roadway. Other measures to keep the open "rural feel" to a roadway as well. One of the arguments I handle from businesses is that they want the "visibility" to the road, but my counter to that is if you have a well landscaped area customers find you, stay longer and spend more. Jay S. Banks Urban Forester 25 W. Market St. Leesburg, Virginia 20175 Voice 703-771-2765 Fax 703-771-2724 Email jbanks(a,leesburQva.or 1 of 1 8/28/2003 9:17 AM Rural land use comments Subject: Rural land use comments Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:25:33 -0400 From: "Diane Kearns" <didi@shentel.net> To: <cmohn@co.frederick.va.us> Hey Chris This is Diane Kearns. Sorry to be a few days getting to you but we were away the rest of last week. Anyway here go some of my comments.... I think one of the biggest things we have going for us now is opportunity and diversity. Fred. Co. has land in big farms, small farms, part time farmettes, expensive residental and not so expensive residental. We have historical assets and environmental assets. We have good health care and educational opportunites available. We have places people want to recreate. I think we need to keep the diversity alive because it is attractive to more folks than a more homogeneous mix and helps us weather difficult times. Our rural land use policy needs to control development at pace which will allow it continue for number of years hence. We need to encourage the preservation of the most significant environment, historical and cultural assets but we probably can't save them all. We need to encourage diversity in agriculture, particularly on the small side, where I personally think things will go in the future. I'd like to see commercial farms as large as the market will bear, small/part time farms, farm markets so the small guys have an outlet. I'd like to see B & B's and recreational opportunities, including outdoor/sports related things as well as historical and cultural destinations. Our area will have Glen Burnie's Museum of the Shenandoah soon. I'd like to encourage a similiar thing in the county focused on rural life/natural history of the past life of the Shenandoah. Opportunities are endless around here for those who look and that, I think, is the key. Bottom line is we have many different assets, some we have some control over and relate to rural land use such as - some good view sheds - access to good hiking/biking trails (Blue Trail, Appalachian Trail) - access to decent canoeing Civil war sites/Shenandoah Battlefield. Commission's work -Belle GroveAVayside - currently still viable big and small farms -currently still viable farm markets - land available for development of residential housing - recreational opportunities such as The Cove and some we don't have much control over but affect the choices of rural land use - availability of good health care - availability of educational opportunities - proximity to high population densities I would like us to define the assets we think we have, prioritize somewhat and choose those we think we can affect and develop action plans to encourage their preservation and development for years to come. I think we need to watch out for transportation issues, public safety issues and water/sewer issues. All of these will be helped out by controlling the rate of development. ( Is there any way to set limits on the number of building permits or the like per year? Not taking away anyone's rights really, just making them get in line) That's it for now I guess. I'm looking forward to working on this. You can sign me up for wherever you think I'd be helpful. Talk to you soon Diane 1 of 1 8/28/2003 9:17 AN, "Vision" of Frederick County Subject: "Vision" of Frederick County Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:00:35 -0400 From: "William & Peggy Rosenberry" <rosenbwc@adelphia.net> To: "Mohr, Chris - FC Planning" <cmohn@co.frederick.va.us> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office: office" /> A "VISION" of Frederick County We, members of CPPS (Frederick County Planning Commission - Comprehensive Plans and Policies Subcommittee), are being asked, in a step of a process, to express our personal "vision" of Frederick County. I wish to share my vision. In the past I said that the reason taxes are going up, the reason water is scarce, the reason traffic is congested, is because of poor county planning and control of new development. As fate would have it, now I find myself a member of the county Planning Commission and being in a position to try to influence county planning, control and policies. Being in business planning professionally, I have some knowledge of, and expertise in, planning. My wife and I are retired. Our family is spread all over the country. We could have chosen to live anyplace in our retirement. We chose to live here — in Frederick County. We love this area and don't want it to change into `Fairfax County'. My wife, Peggy McCarty Rosenberry, grew up here and went to school at the old John Kerr Elementary School, Handley High School, and James Wood High School. Her parents were lifelong residents of Winchester and Frederick County. I moved to this area 23 years ago and chose to stay here. Now, my vision of Frederick County: One I see no reason why county taxes need to rise faster than the rate of inflation. The fact that county taxes are rising faster than inflation is because of poor planning. The biggest factor in increased costs is the costs resulting from the need for more schools and teachers. Driving these increased costs of schooling is the impact of new residential development. Thus, I think we need to plan and control new residential development in a way that we plan, and understand, its impact on the costs of schooling. 1 of 2 8/28/2003 9:24 AM "Vision" of Frederick County Two, I am concerned that the availability of drinking water is going to be an increasing critical resource, year by year. I see this as a national problem as well as a local county problem. The first key to managing water is to first understand water as a supply system -- where is comes from, how much is available now, and how fast the supply replenishes itself. The second key to managing water is to manage the demand. Demand for water is primarily driven by new residential development. I think it would be a significant planning mistake to permit more water demand than we think we have an assured supply to meet. Once new residential development is permitted to occur, we can't go back years later and undo our decisions allowing growth. Three I am concerned about traffic congestion. Key to traffic congestion is poor planning. Planning needs to account for the limited financial resources of the state government (supply) to provide better roads. Planning needs to account for future development (demand) in the county's Comprehensive Plan. When demand and supply are out of balance, traffic congestion is one of the results. We, in Frederick County, cannot plan and control state monies for roads, but we can plan and control new development, which results in the demand for better roads. On the other hand, even if there was the money to build roads, additional development inevitably follows new roads and we would end up just as we were before — congested unless new development is controlled. There are many other important issues facing Frederick County, but I personally see the three issues above as being strategic. I am not against new development. In fact I favor "environmentally good" industrial and commercial development and economic growth — especially when they help provide some of the taxes to pay for increased cost of schools, etc. and good jobs that improve our local standard of living. I recognize that there must be some residential growth so long as there continues to be population growth. Much of our population growth in the county is not the population growth from families who live here but is, instead, population growth from migration from metro DC. If we do not put in place controls, we'll find ourselves in the same predicament as the counties east of us closer to DC - "Fairfaxed". Growth, new development and spending need to be managed better in Frederick County, 2 of 2 8/28/2003 9:24 AM Rural Areas Study Subject: Rural Areas Study Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:40:37 -0400 From: Todd Shenk <tshenk@crider-shockey.com> To: "'cmohn@co.frederick.va.us"' <cmohn@co.frederick.va.us> Chris, Attached are some of my thoughts about things that could be done to help maintain the integrity of the Rural Areas in Frederick County. Rural areas are quickly being absorbed 5 acres at a time. However, to attempt a larger minimum RA lot size would only devalue property in the Rural areas, and outrage property owners. I think the thing that makes the RA building lot attractive to builders and developers is the ease of building permit acquisition, compared to the cost of buying an already subdivided lot in the UDA, or attempting the time and cost to seek rezoning and submission of a master development plan for a piece of property. If there was an easier method, or low cost standard RA development plan which incorporated open space that maintained a Rural appeal, yet allowed enough building density to at least be attractive, and not prohibitive for the owners, I think we would see many of the 5 acre subdivisions go by the wayside, and the owners would opt for the higher density building, which would save money on access roads, and at the same time encourage large open space in the RA that could only be used for agriculture conservation easement, parks, etc.. The loss of large tracts of Rural ground is not quickly happening because one person is buying a five acre piece of ground at a time and building a house. It happens when property owners decide to subdivide a very large tract into 5 acre lots. Once that decision has been made by the original property owner, the property becomes virtually useless for anything but a house. It is too small for a farm, and not large enough to keep the landscape looking Rural. If there was an alternative in the RA zoning that allowed without a public hearing, the building of houses on RA land at a higher density when certain provisions are met, and a basic minimum standard design is followed, and open space is proffered by the owner in a large enough quantity to maintain the rural integrity, then both the owner and the county could benefit. I would envision it working something like this ; 1. Minimum lot size to Qualify for RA density design should be at least 50 acres. ( Making it more may not make it attractive to as many owners ) 2. Maximum # of homes can not exceeded what could have been built under the entire acreage at 5 acre lot size ( i.e.. 50 acres would allow 10 building lots ) 3. Open space proffered must be contiguous and come in contact with at least 50% of any state road frontage that the property has. If the property does not have road frontage, the open space must entirely surround the home lots. Total open space proffered must be at least half of the total subject property If smaller lot sizes are chosen and half of the property is not used for lots the remaining property must be added in as proffered open space. The 50% road contact requirement will help the county maintain that rural feel while traveling on county roads, looking into a reasonable amount of open, undeveloped land. The open land can be farmed or used for any 1 of 3 8/28/2003 9:17 AM Rural Areas Study agricultural use, but future building rights will have been forfeited. The owner of this proffered open land will not be required to pay taxes as long as the land remains open. Any future use of the proffered land would require the planning commission and Board of supervisors approval, and roll back taxes for the entire exempt period would be due. 4. Minimum lot size on the developed part of the property is 1 acre, and maximum lot size is 2.5 acres. 5. A standard RA density development guideline would need to be established to determine, road standards, drainage, building design, buffers and screens and other minimum requirements to make these RA density design subdivisions of reasonable quality, but not cost prohibitive. 6 This development concept needs to be a clean guideline that can be administratively approved through the planning department for conformance to the guidelines. To make this type of alternative desirable, we can not expect the property owners to fork out the additional time and expense to go through the entire public hearing process for such a small concession. If it becomes much more complicated than building on 5 acre lots people will not use this alternative. How do we encourage people to do this ? 1. Offer the 50 o open space zero tax advantage, as soon as the property owner gets approval from the County planning department to subdivide under this plan. This way people with large tracts of land can come forward now with their plan to subdivide, even if they do not plan on building or selling for several years in the future. This way the County can be assured which areas in the county are going to continue as agricultural or open space, and which areas will most likely build out. Meanwhile the owner of a large tract of land can lessen their tax burden by 50 % of their total acreage assessment. This may even encourage some owners to continue farming their land and meanwhile enjoy lower taxes, yet have security knowing that they are approved to sell lots under a previous approved development plan. Realistically Frederick County is no longer a predominantly Agricultural County. I think what most people believe to be rural integrity is what they see while driving through the county. Call it "view shed", rural aesthetics, or whatever you want. The above Rural density/ open space plan would help keep at least 50 % of that "view shed" intact. Especially by requiring that 500 of the road fronting property be left in open space. Due to the topography in the Northwestern, and Western part of the county what is viewable is mostly what comes in contact with the road. The above plan would require a very detailed guideline of compliance, and one that is easy to enforce. With input from county planning staff, and involvement of professionals in the building industry, I believe this can be achieved. These are just some of my thoughts on possible ways to maintain rural 2 of 3 8/28/2003 9:17 AM Rural Areas Study character in the County without detracting from property values. Thanks, Todd Shenk 3 of 3 8/28/2003 9:17 AM "VISION" QUESTIONS/THOUGHTS FOR RURAL FREDERICK COUNTY June M. Wilmot August 17, 2003 While the word "vision" connotes visual, and what the county looks like, a good portion of the impact on that is economic—whether residential development, agribusiness development, infrastructure development, etc. My personal feeling is that they cannot be separated. For example, in order to preserve what is visually pleasing, we must acknowledge that resources must be generated to pay for that privilege, whether easements, development rights, etc. Likewise, to have an Urban Development Area that works (and returns the investment in infrastructure in place), we must continue to incentivize development in that area. In the obverse, we need to disincentivize the kinds of developments that we don't want in the rural area. Since being appointed to CPPS I have meandered parts of the county that I had not really seen before. The following are interim thoughts and questions as a result of those travels, principally south of Route 50 and west of Route 37. Threats: The prime agricultural lands (i.e., along Routes 622 and 628) are also prime for residential development (topography, adjacency). 2. Route 37 to the west and no 37 to the east will foster development in the west. 3. Route Hill will likely no longer be a "rural community center" with the commercial development north of 50 and the insertion of utilities. 4. If we wish to concentrate rural developments around existing communities where there is some infrastructure (principally Stephens City and Middletown), where are we if those communities don't wish that development? What can we do to make it more palatable? Pluses: 1. Many vistas. 2. Stone fences 3. Old (but still active) churches. 4. Historic structures, not all necessarily in good shape. 5. Interesting commercial developments, such as Thumpers Garden, Richards Farm Market, Marker -Miller, Hedgebrook Farm, wineries; etc. Opportunities: While we have received the directive of not changing densities, we need to incentivize the clustering of residential development. 2. We need in incentivize agribusiness development as we have incentivized other business developments in the county. 3. Pursue the potential of "value added" product development for agribusiness in the rural areas, and not force such activity into industrial (and more expensive) zones. Questions: 1. Are there "standard" subjects to be covered by policy when creating a plan? There doesn't appear to be consistency when one looks at the various area plans within the Comprehensive Plan (see NELUP and Southern plan as examples). It would not be surprising if I would lean toward adding specifically an "Economic" component to every plan developed, rather than including it in "Land Use", as is the case in the Southern Plan. It will take various zones and shapes, if desired, depending on the area under study. 2. Are the Rural Communities Centers to be re -considered in the Rural Areas Plan? 3. There are, generally, two land uses that are revenue positive for the county—agriculture and commercial/industrial. Residential is revenue negative. The measurement to be used to assess the revenue health of the community is 25% of the tax base that needs to be in commercial/industrial to offset the cost of residential growth. If there is further residential growth in the Rural Areas, further reducing the revenue positive agriculture use, does that not have to be compensated for in the UDA with more commercial/industrial in order to strike a revenue balance? Fears: 1. The horse is already out of the barn. 2. The tools are really minimal (compared to other states) or expensive. R I'm gal Land Nfianao-ement Initiatives Emi Rural Land Management Initiatives Understanding how other jurisdictions address rural growth is a good first step in determining what apes of land use initiatives may also be useful in Frederick County. Information has been prepared regarding the rural land management initiatives of the following jurisdictions: Loudoun County, Prince William County, Stafford County, Albemarle County, Isle of Wright County, Fauquier County, and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Rural Initiatives Study Department of Planning and Development, FreApArk County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Loudoun County, Virginia Rural Initiative(s): 1) Land Use Policies of the Revised General Plan* (Implementation methods) (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) 2) Multi -tier Residential Density Reduction via Rural Downzoning (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments) 3) Conservation Design Required for Rural Subdivisions (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Amendments) 4) Rural Economy Emphasis of Rural Zoning Districts (Zoning Ordinance Amendments) 5) Extensive Environmental Controls - River and Stream Corridor Overlay District, Limestone Development Overlay District (Zoning Ordinance Amendments) * All of these initiatives are proposed and supported by the policies of the Loudoun County Revised General Plan, which was adopted in July 2001. The revision of this document occurred as a comprehensive response to the rapid growth experienced by Loudoun County through the 1990s. The revision effort focused on the incorporation of "smart growth "principles into land use policy for all areas of the county and, as an overarching theme, included the integration of the county's natural, cultural, and heritage resources into a unified Green Infrastructure strategy that would shape land uses countywide. Growth Trends and Projections: Loudoun County had historically been a rural community supported by a thriving agricultural economy. In fact, from 1790 through 1960, the population remained relatively constant, consistently falling in the range of 18,000 to 25,000 persons. The beginning of the county's evolution from a rural to suburban community began in the early 1960s, a transition stimulated by the construction of the infrastructure to support Dulles International Airport and the rapid growth of neighboring Fairfax County. The pace of growth reached an unprecedented level between 1990 and 2000, with Loudoun County experiencing a population increase of nearly 97%. Loudoun County is the second fastest growing county in the nation behind Douglas County, Colorado, which presently holds the distinction as the nation's growth leader. Population growth in the county has remained strong in the current decade, increasing by 9.0% between 2000 and 2001. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapters 1 and 2) The county's growth trends are illustrated through the information presented in the following four tables. This information was obtained from the 2001 Annual Growth Summary forLoudoun County, Virginia, which was published in May 2002. Population Change 1930.2000 Year 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 19,852 20,291 21,147 24,549 37,150 57,427 86,129 169,599 Percent Change 2.2% 4.2% 16.1% 51.3% 54.6% 50.0% 96.9% Source. U.S. Bureau of the Census and Loudoun County Department of Economic Development Annual Population Change 1991-2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 89,931 92,337 97,779 104,966 112,843 121,596 132,349 141,756 156,374 169,599 184,891 4.4% 2.7% 5.9% 7.4% 7.5% 7.8% 8.8% 7.1% 10.3% 8.5% 9.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Loudoun County Department of Economic Development. Household and Per Capita Income 2001-2003* Income 2001 2002 2003* Average Household $111,383 $115,059 $118,856 Per Capita $39,791 $41,104 $42,461 Source: Loudoun County Department of Economic Development *Assumes a projected annual increase of 3.3%. Note: Income in current dollars. Housing and Population Forecast* 2000 Census 2003 2005 2008 2011 Housing Units 62,160 78,507 89,008 103,086 116,703 Population 169,599 210,572 237,892 274,744 310,510 Households 59,900 74,505 84,261 97,357 110,034 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Loudoun County Department of Economic Development *This 10 -year forecast projects an approximate 60% increase in housing units with the county's population and number of households projected to increase by roughly 58% during the same period. Summary of Rural Initiatives: Land Use Policies of the Revised General Plan: The Loudoun County Revised General Plan identifies the preservation and enhancement of the county's rural heritage and economy as principal policy objectives. Adopted land use policy encourages limitations on further residential development in the rural policy area so that the "economic, ecological, and scenic value of the countryside" can be retained. The policies of the Plan constitute the foundation for all subsequent regulatory and legislative actions pertaining to the form and density ofrural development. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapters 1 and 2) Green Infrastructure: The Green Infrastructure is the over -arching concept intended to dictate the location and form of new development throughout Loudoun County. The Green Infrastructure organizes the county's environmental, natural and heritage resources into a coherent, related system. The diverse array of resources comprising the Green Infrastructure includes stream corridors and scenic rivers, forested areas and tree stands, mountainsides, wetlands, limestone conglomerate areas, important plant and wildlife habitats, greenways and trails, scenic areas and corridors, historic and archaeological sites, and other open spaces (natural, eased and man-made) of special importance. The Green Infrastructure will guide the location, pattern and design of all future development and redevelopment projects. With the incorporation of conservation design into the development options of the zoning and subdivision ordinances, rural development proposals will be required to accommodate Green Infrastructure elements within conservation areas comprising the open space of the project. In essence, the Green Infrastructure will serve as the central organizing principle for a performance based regulatory approach relying both on conservation design and a system of overlay districts intended to protect the environmental and economic value of the county's diverse resources. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapter 5, p. 5-1) Multi -tier Residential Density Reduction via Rural Downzonin: The objective of the Revised General Plan to limit further residential development in the rural policy area of the county was achieved through a reduction of the allowable residential density in the rural area via a comprehensive downzoning. The southern 1/3 of the rural policy area ("southern tier") was rezoned to provide for residential densities of 1 dwelling unit per 50 acres or 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres, if clustered. This approach was deemed appropriate as a means of reinforcing the existing low- density development pattern in this area of Loudoun County and to ensure the retention of rural economic uses, notably those related to the equine industry. The balance of the rural policy area ("northern tier") was rezoned to provide for residential development at densities of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres or 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres clustered. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapter 2, p. 2-8) Conservation Design Required for Rural Subdivisions: Conservation design is a method of land development that conserves the Green Infrastructure elements of a site while providing for development at full density credit (gross density) on the remainder of the site. The conservation design method consists of a four step process. The first step is to identify those Green Infrastructure features of a site to be preserved (i.e. primary and secondary conservation areas). These features are organized into conservation areas comprising the required open space for the subdivision, which is 70% with the cluster development option. The remaining land is available for development, with dwelling locations specified in the unconstrained area as the second step. Street, utility, and trail locations are then introduced on the development plan as the third step. The final step is to locate lot lines. This approach results in clustered, compact development patterns that promote a variety of residential building types and a contiguous Green Infrastructure network. Fundamental to the conservation design method is flexibility in setbacks, lot patterns, lot sizes, and drainfield location. This type of development also reduces road and utility costs due to the clustered pattern of development. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapter 10, p. 10-6, 10-7) Rural Economy Emphasis ofRural Zoning Districts: The rural strategy embodied in revised policy is focused on the preservation and enhancement of the rural economy. It was recognized that the rural area's land base supports a wide array of agricultural enterprises, as well as the majority of the county's local tourist attractions, wineries, small retail and service establishments, home-based businesses, and some light industry. It was acknowledged that this broad-based rural economy has been a net -revenue generator for the County because the tax revenues of such ventures generally exceed expenditures for rural populations. A variety of policies were adopted in the revised plan to promote the rural economy, from tax incentives to tourism programs and, of course, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to more easily allow the establishment and operation of rural economy uses. In fact, the rural zoning districts adopted by the county pursuant to the revised plan are considered principally to be rural economy districts as opposed to rural residential districts. Residential land use, while permitted, is now perceived in both policy and regulation as a secondary form of land use in the rural area of Loudoun County. This was achieved through a combination of integrated approaches such as the comprehensive downzoning and the creation of new zoning categories incorporating conservation design development options and expanded provisions for rural economy uses. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapter 7, p. 7-5 through 7-12) Extensive Environmental Controls - River and Stream Corridor Overlay District, Limestone Development Overlay District Mountainside Overlay District: Several overlay districts were created to ensure that new development accommodates and protects certain "primary" natural resources. The River and Stream Corridor Overlay District (RSCOD) was adopted to protect the county's river and stream corridors, which are the largest system comprising the Green Infrastructure. The RSCOD contains river and streams draining 100 acres or more; associated 100 year flood plains; adjacent steep slope areas; a management buffer around the flood plains of at least 50 feet; a minimum no - build stream buffer (at least 150 on either side of stream, measured from scarline - 300 feet total); as well as wetlands, riparian forests, and historic and archaeological sites to the extent that they fall within the RSCOD. It is noted that the 50 -foot management buffer may be waived or modified in certain circumstances by the Board of Supervisors. The RSCOD replaced the regulations that had previously governed flood plain protection in the Zoning Ordinance. Loudoun County contains a large belt of limestone conglomerate, which is a carbonate rock subject to weathering and the formation of solution channels and sinkholes. As limestone conglomerate is vulnerable to sinkholes, cavity collapse and ground slippage and therefore cannot environmentally or structurally support land development activities without performance standards and monitoring, the county created the Limestone Development Overlay District (LDOD) to manage development within the limestone belt area. Development within the LDOD is limited to large lot or clusters so that karst features can be avoided. Moreover, the LDOD will be used to support surface and groundwater monitoring activities and the employment ofpollution prevention standards. (Loudoun County Revised General Plan, Chapter 5) Resources: 1) Loudoun County Revised General Plan (Adopted July 23, 2001); Chapters 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 & 10. 2) Revised 1993 Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance (Adopted January 6, 2003). 3) Loudoun County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance 4) Loudoun County Facilities Standards Manual 5) The 200,000 -Acre Solution: Supporting and Enhancing a Rural Economy for Loudoun's 21 S` Cen ; Rural Economic Development Task Force, November 1998. Rural Area Initiatives Study Department of Planning and Development, 'Frederick County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Stafford County, Virginia Rural Initiative(s): 1) Rural Area Residential Density Reduction via Rural Downzoning and Creation of a new Rural Zoning District (Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Comprehensive Plan Amendment) 2) Revised Proffer schedule 3) Designated Growth Areas (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) �WJUHU". W114 County Profile Stafford County's estimated population for 2001 is 99,692. The County encompasses 277 square miles, 65% of which is still forested. The Quantico Marine Corps base occupies 21% or 30,527 acres of the northern end of the county. Stafford County has had a steady increase of population since 1950 and had a 50.9 percent population growth rate from 1990 to 2000. The average annual rate of growth for Stafford since 1990 is 5.1 %. Stafford County projects that population growth will level off after 2000. Of the county's 31,405 housing units, 22,000 (64 %) are in urban areas and 8,445 are in rural areas. A majority (81,000) of the county's total population is served by public water and sewer. The approximate cost for a resident to access sewer is $3,500 and to access water $3,600. The median household income for Stafford, according to the 2000 Census was $66, 809. A majority of the working population commutes, with 61% working outside of the county. Population Chance 1950-2000 Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 11,902 16,876 24,587 40,470 61,236 92,446 Percent Change - 41% 45.6% 64.6% 51.3% 50.9% Source: Stafford County and U.S. Census Bureau Population Forecast 2000 Census 2010 2020 Population 92,446 120,180 144,216 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Stafford County Reasons for RA Initiatives: Stafford County's main catalyst for rural initiatives has been the burden of rural growth on the county's infrastructure. Specifically, the burden of by -right residential development on the county's roads and schools. The county is experiencing groundwater management and clarity issues. Issues have also arose regarding health systems as the result of residential growth not supported by public water and sewer. The County has established designated growth areas but is steadily experiencing growth outside these areas. In 1995, 2% of the total area of the county was devoted to rural residential land uses and 66% of the total land area was devoted to agriculture, forest and pasture. Prior to 1998, 95% of the growth in the county had been located in the designated growth area. Since 1998, the county planning staff has noted approximately a 325% increase in rural residential growth. This growth has mainly been in the form of major rural subdivisions (more than 5 lots) in the A-1 Zoning District. The county believes that this type of development is not compatible with agricultural uses and that efforts must be made to re -channel growth into the designated areas. Zoning Ordinance Amendment: The initiative to amend the zoning ordinance was a directive from the county Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission. The zoning ordinance changes were drafted by Stafford's planning department staff and were reviewed by the county's ordinance committee. Each potentially affected landowner was notified by mail of the proposed zoning changes. The amendment was reviewed by the planning commission and action was taken in the Spring of 2003. Due to public opposition, this amendment was not passed. Currently, the rural area of Stafford County is subject to the A-1(Agricultural) and A-2 (Rural Residential) Zoning districts. The purpose of the A-1 is to reserve areas for traditional agricultural activities and to provide for their continuation as well as preservation of areas of rural character. The current A-1 Zoning District allows a minimum lot size of 3 acres but does not have an overall density requirement. The purpose of the A-2 is to provide a transition between rural and urban areas, by allowing residential uses adjacent to growth areas at increased densities when public water or sewer is provided. The current zoning does not allow the option of clustering development. Therefore, this limits the chances that larger parcels will be preserved and thus possible available for easements. The proposed zoning ordinance changes were intended to achieve consistency between the zoning ordinance requirements of the A-1 zoning district's stated purpose. The changes were also intended to promote goals of the county's comprehensive plan including the preservation of agriculture and the enhancement of opportunities for agricultural uses, agribusiness, and silvicultural uses and to preserve rural character while still providing for rural residential uses outside of the growth area. New initiatives included providing a clustering option. With the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, the permitted density of the A-1 zoning district would be one dwelling unit per 10 acres with a minimum lot size of 3 acres. The A-2 zoning district would be reclassified to RR -1 (Rural Residential -1) but retains the same purpose as a transition zone between rural and urban areas. All existing A-2 zoned land in the County would be changed to the proposed RR -1 Zoning District. The minimum required lot area would remainl acre. The open space ratio would change from 0.8 to 0.6. This would address concerns associated with development of ___tial t .inn +t,o rre.it 0 Q requirement Permitted uses that were permittee non-resiucn�iai uses itv� iiicc�ui� un, vuia�.ii� ...� .t��.�-.-�-... allowed in the A-2 zoning ordinance would be eliminated, including agriculture, aquaculture, manufactured homes. Conditional uses such as a group family daycare, hospital, and recreation enterprise would no longer be allowed. These were not considered compatible with one acre residential development by Stafford County. The zoning ordinance amendment creates the RR -2 ( Rural Residential -2) zoning district with the purpose of providing for areas of rural character where public water and sewer utilities are not available, with limited transportation facilities and access to community facilities and to prevent premature urbanization. The minimum lot size would be two acres and the required open space ratio is 0.70. Buffer, landscaping, and sign requirements would also established for this zoning district. Other Rural Area Initiatives In addition to the proposed zoning ordinance changes, the County revised its monetary proffer schedule for all rezonings. Coupling the revised proffer schedule with ordinance changes is designed ease fiscal strains caused by rural area growth. A-1 zoned land would have to be rezoned to the RR - I Zoning District or RR -2 Zoning Districts to achieve higher density development. This rezoning would include proffers that are intended to offset fiscal impacts to the county. There are several concepts to address the issue of loss of natural resources. There are suggestions to require an environmental inventory plan. This would require developers to complete detailed studies regarding possible environmental impacts of their proposed developments. An established grade point system would be used to determine if developments could proceed based on this assessment. Ideas to save wildlife habitat areas have been contemplated. This would involve the county acquiring property or conservation easements being obtained for especially important wildlife habitat areas. Expanding upon the idea of utilization of conservation easements, there is consideration of an entirely voluntary conservation district. This would be a designated district in which homeowners who participate would receive increased tax breaks. Challenges to Rural Area Initiatives: As mentioned above, the recently proposed zoning ordinance amendment to increase density and lot requirements in the rural areas zoning districts was not adopted. There was a great deal of citizen opposition to the proposed changes based on a perceived fear of a reduction in property values. Learning form this, county planners believe more citizen involvement and education is needed from the inception of any possible initiatives. Currently, there are no specialized standing subcommittees that are part of the development of new planning and development policies. The county is considering more town hall style meetings throughout the community which would enable county planners to gain citizen input early on in the planning stages. The county planning staff also believes that a more proactive approach to policy making is needed rather than reactive. Resources: 1) Stafford County Zoning Ordinance, www.municode.com 2) Proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 3) Proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan Contact: Kathy Baker and Aaron Schriber, Stafford County Department of Planning and Development, 540- 658-8668 For instance, a 200 acre parent tract in existence prior to 1980 could subdivide into a maximum of five lots (minimum of 2 acres in size). The minimum size for any lots created after those five would be 21 acres. The county also allows rural preservation subdivisions with a minimum preservation tract of 40 acres and no more than 20 development lots within the subdivision. The Board of Supervisors must approve rural preservation developments seeking more than 20 development lots. The gross density allowed is 0.5 dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACEh The Acquisition of Conservation Easements program was started three years ago and has been successful. There is more interest to participate in the program than there is funding to support it. The ACE program is designed to provide financial incentives for lower income landowners to protect family farms. Landowner can voluntarily sell a conservation easement to a public agency who will hold it in trust for perpetuity. The difference between the value of the property before the easement minus the value after the easement is first calculated to determine how much the landowner might be paid. This amount is then adjusted according to the amount of income a landowner makes. Any landowner in the county can apply for ACE but the Board of Supervisors decides which applications to accept. The applicants are chosen based on the established ranking evaluation system. The ACE program guidelines are included in the appendix of the County code. Specified in the code are its purpose, applicability, committee creation, eligibility, ranking criteria, and program funding. Resources: 1) Albemarle County Website, www.albemarle.ora 2) Albemarle County Code, www.albemarle.or /ag ttorney Appendix A.1 Acquisition of Conservation Easements Chapter 18 -Zoning 3) Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 4) Joan McDowell, Principal Planner, 434-296-5823, jmedowellnalbemarle.org Rural Initiatives Study Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Albemarle County, Virginia Rural Initiative(s): 1) Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) (Including an amendment to the County Code) 2) Land -Use Value Taxation and Agricultural and Forestal Districts 3)Growth Management Tools (Designated Growth Areas and the use of the Neighborhood Madel for Efficient Growth in designated areas.) 4) Comprehensive Planning for Rural Areas (Addition to the Comprehensive Plan of a Rural Areas Chapter.) SUMMARY Demographics.• Albemarle County is 726 square miles in size and had a population of 84,112 in 2000. The annual growth rate in 2000 was 2.1 percent and the growth rate from 1990 to 2000 was 23 percent. The median household income was $50,749 according to the 2000 Census. Rural Area population growth rates range between .78% and 2.19% annually. Population ChanLye 1950-2000 Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 26,662 30,969 37,780 55,783 68,040 84,112 Percent Change 16.2% 22% 47.6% 21% 23% Source: U.S.Census and Albemarle County Annual Population Change 1991-2000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 69,500 70,300 72,400 74,300 75,900 78,400 79,500 80,700 81,600 84,112 1.8% 1.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.1% 3.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 2.9% Source: U.S. Census and Albemarle County Reasons for RA Initiatives: The main catalyst behind rural initiatives in the county has been concern for the water supply resources and a desire to preserve rural character. The diminishment of farms and forests and the suburbanization of the rural areas are concerns as well. Since 1985, the rate of creation of new lots in the Rural Areas of Albemarle County has remained steady. It peaked in 1990 with creation of 340 lots. In 2000, 259 new lots were created. Between 1985 and 1999 the largest number of lots created were between 2 and 4.99 acres. The total acreage of farmland in the county has been declining as well as the number of farms in the county. Many of the county's historic resources are located in the rural areas as well as the majority of the county's parks and natural areas. Designated Growth Areas: Most recently, the county has implemented Designated Growth areas and identified them in their comprehensive plan. Extensive studies have been conducted and plans for those Designated Growth areas have been completed. Those development areas comprise about 5 percent of the total area of county. The county gave priority to planning for growth in the designated areas as a means of ensuring efficient land use, as this was only a small portion of land area relative to the rest of the county. The Neighborhood Model concept was developed for the Designated Growth Areas from this planning. The Neighborhood Model calls for protecting the RA by increasing development capacity in the Development Areas to form a clear edge with the rural areas. The county has a policy of not extending public water or sewer into areas outside the development areas. Rural Areas Planning Overview: The county's approach to comprehensive planning has changed over the years and has not always directly addressed rural area development. In 1980, the county comprehensively downzoned portions of the county that previously allowed higher density residential development and villages to the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. Prior to this, unlimited residential development with a 2 acre minimum lot size was permitted. The Rural Areas Zoning District is intended to focus on agricultural uses as preferred uses. Later changes to the comprehensive plan led to a focus on resource protection in the rural areas, and the inclusion of cluster development (Rural Preservation option). The county has adopted an Open Space and Critical Resources plan. It identifies important resources and discourages the loss of important open space. Having planned for more intensive growth in the designated areas, the focus has shifted to planning in the rural areas. Albemarle is in the process of reviewing information that will lead to the writing of a Rural Areas chapter of the comprehensive plan. There is a focus on citizen involvement in this process. Albemarle is holding public presentations to gather input in writing the Rural Areas section of Comprehensive Plan. Albemarle has identified guiding principles for comprehensive planning of the rural areas including recognizing that agriculture, forestry resources, land preservation, land conservation, water supply resources, natural resources, scenic resources, historical archeological and cultural resources are all defining aspects of rural character and equal components of the rural areas, developing tools to direct residential development into Designated Growth areas. The county's current RA (Rural Areas) zoning allows for conventional development of parcels into 5 or fewer lots of less than 21 acres and the location of five or fewer dwelling units on those parcels. Rural Initiatives Study Department of planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Prince William County, Virginia Rural Initiative(s): 1) Emphasis on Concentrating Growth in Development Area (Comprehensive Plan revision) 2) No Sewer Extensions outside of the Development Area (Comprehensive Plan revision -Change in Sewer Plan) 3) Change in Health System requirements (Revision to County Code Chapter 23) SUMMARY Demo ra hies• Prince William is the third most populous county in the state, its estimated population for 2001 is 298,707. The growth rate from 1990-2000 was 30.2 percent. Housing units also increased at a comparable rate of 31.2 percent. The average annual population increase from 1991-2000 was 2.6 percent. The rate of population growth has slowed to around 1 percent since 1999. The county is 338 square miles in size and has an annual household income of $65,960. Located within the southern portion of the county is the Quantico Marine Corps Base. Year Population Change 1950-2000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 22,612 50,164 111,102 144,703 215,686 280,813 Percent Change 27.5% 121.8% 121.5% 30.2% 49.1% 30.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Prince William County Housing Unit Change 1950-2000 Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Housing Units 5,755 13,207 29,885 46,490 74,759 98,052 Percent Change 62.3% 129.5% 126.3% 55.6% 60.8% 31.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Prince William County Annual Population Change 1991-2000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 220,626 225,735 231,537 240,237 246,595 253,487 260,313 268,894 277,359 280,813 2.2% 2.3% 2.5% 3.7% 2.6% 2.7% 2.6% 3.2% 3.1% 1.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Prince William County From 2000 to 2001 and 2001 to 2002 the population has changed 4.9 percent. Households and Housing Units 200-2001 Income 2000 2001 2002 Number of Households 94,570 99,154 103,941 Housing Units 98,052 102,810 107,798 Source: Prince William County and U.S. Census Bureau Population Forecast 2000 Census 2002 2005 2010 2015 Population 280,813 317,009 328,400 363,300 384,300 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Prince William County. INITIATIVE SUMMARIES: Comprehensive Plan Revision: The main catalyst behind changes in rural areas policy was the fiscal impact of residential growth in the rural areas. The county was unable to maintain established level of services due to the sprawling low density development patterns. In 1996, the Comprehensive Plan review started with the county's Board of Supervisors assembling a task force that drew from citizens, the County's Strategic Plan, its Capital Improvement Plan, and the its budget. The task force presented its recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then held a series of public work sessions and public hearings. The 1998 comprehensive plan was crafted on five general goals relating to strong economic growth; affordable, practical, and fiscally sound residential and economic growth; Prince William as an attractive, "livable community"; and cost effective and Plan - based transportation systems. From this, Prince William put together a package of initiatives to address rural area growth with the update of their Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Maior features of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan: • Sets aside one-half of the county (100,000 acres) as a Rural Area (the "Rural Crescent) • Future development of the Rural Area is limited to agricultural, forestal, and 10 -acre residential uses (consistent with existing zoning) and residential clusters (proposed zoning changes). • Delineates the Development Area and limits public sewer service to the Development Area. • No further extensions into the RA for sewer or water were allowed once this boundary line was established. Growth Area: The Development Area consists of the portion of the County that is already developed or expected to be developed commercially or residentially at higher densities than the rest of the county. The Development Area encourages ill for cost-efficient development that takes advantage of existing facilities. Employment and commercial centers and suburban residential housing is intended to take place in the Development Area. Rural Area (Rural Crescent): The Rural Area contains agricultural uses, open space, and two federal parks. It is intended to preserve the county's agricultural economy and resources, the quality of life, the groundwater supply and rural character. It allows for agricultural or estate land uses and it also allows for convenience retail. Semi -rural residential development is proposed only in the Development Area, either mid -County between the Manassas and Eastern Prince William county areas of population concentration or at the edge of these areas. The comprehensive plan places emphasis on following established policy relating to the Development Area and the Rural Area (RA). The County's Rural Area is predominantly zoned A-1 (Agricultural). There are some portions of the RA that are zoned for rural residential uses, RR 7.5 and RR 5. The RR 7.5 and the RR 5 districts are designed to encourage and transition the appropriate use of real property in those areas designated for resource management or low density single-family development, including providing for large -lot single-family development along with certain generally compatible special uses in a rural setting. It is the purpose of these districts to encourage land owners to protect the environment, conserve natural resources and limit the type and density of development so that a harmonious relationship of land uses in rural areas is insured. These zoning districts are no longer allowed in the RA. The current zoning ordinance still contains a set of general regulations that apply to all three zoning districts. These general regulations address accessory uses, accessory buildings and structures, height regulations, yard encroachments, and generally permitted uses. This specifies home occupation, religious institutions, and group home regulations for example. Also included in this section are cluster development guidelines and design standards for all three zoning districts. The A- I Agricultural Zoning District is intended to implement the agricultural or estate classification of the comprehensive plan. The district is designed to encourage conservation and proper use of large tracts of real property in order to assure available sources of agricultural products, to assure open spaces within reach of concentrations of population, to conserve natural resources, prevent erosion, and protect the environment; and to assure adequate water supplies. The intent is to encourage private land owners to protect these values and thereby create an environment favorable for the continuation of farming and other agricultural pursuits; to preserve prime agricultural land, forest land and/or open space; and to reduce the demand for costly public facilities and services that are inconsistent with the character of the rural areas within Prince William County. Specifically, permitted uses by right in the A-1 Zoning District include agricultural uses, lodging houses, nursery and related uses, stables, tack shops, temporary sawmills, one -family dwellings, rural cluster development, and timbering. Rural Cluster development is permitted in the RA on A-1 zoned land. In order to develop as a cluster development, a minimum parcel of 100 acres is required and the density requirement is one dwelling unit per 10 acres. The minimum lot size is 3 acres and the maximum is 5 in the cluster development, open space shall be no less than 50 percent and no more than 70 percent. Changes in Health System Requirements: As part of the rural initiatives, the county implemented more restrictive regulations on health systems. The county requires 100% drain field reserve and does not allow drainfield easements. The comprehensive plan established Level of Service standards for public services—roads, schools, parks and recreation areas, fire and rescue facilities and libraries with five chapters of the comprehensive plan addressing this. This established the relationship between the demand for public services created by new development and the County's fiscal ability to provided those services at the standards set in the comprehensive plan Resources: 1)Prince William County website, www.co.prince-william.va.us 2)Prince William County Zoning Ordinance, www.co.prince-william.va.us/coatty/code 3)Prince William County 1998 Comprehensive Plan 4) Terry Rixse, Planner, (703) 792-6830, trixse2pwc ogov.ora Rural Initiatives Study Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Fauquier County, Virginia Rural Initiative(s): 1)Designated Service Districts, Villages and Settlements- Citizen/Community Based Planning 2) Rural zoning district policies and regulations a. Reformatted Zoning Ordinance has two proposed rural districts b. Sliding Scale Zoning in Rural Districts c. Overlay District Grow Trends and Projections: Fauquier County, with a 2000 population of 55,139, includes the incorporated towns of Warrenton, Remington, and The Plains. Fauquier County had a 13.1% change in growth from 1990 to 2000, only a 1.3% annual average growth rate. Growth between the decades1970-1980 and 1980-1990 were 36.1% and 35.8% respectively, a 3.6% annual growth rate. While the most recent decade (1990-2000) shows a relatively slow rate of growth (1.31% ), the most recent census figures 2000- 2001 indicate a 4% population increase. The county's growth trends are illustrated in the following tables. Population ChanLyes 1950 - 2000 Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 21,248 24,066 26,375 35,889 48,741 55,139 Percent Change .99% 13.3% 9.6% 36.1% 35.8% 13.1% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census 1940-2000 Household and Per Capita Income 1999 Income 1999 Median Household 61,999 Per Capita 29,000 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 3 Total Housine Units Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Housing Units 5,964 7,305 8,437 12,565 17,716 21,046 Percent Change 12% 22.5% 15.5% 48.9% 41.0% 18.8% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census1940- Census 2000 Overview: Fauquier County is approximately 40 miles southwest of Washington DC and borders the Washington SMSA. Fauquier is bounded to the west by Culpepper and Rappahannock counties, to the south by Stafford County to the north by Loudoun, Warren, and Clark, and to the east by Prince William County. Fauquier can be accessed by four major highways including Routes 28, 29 ,55, 211 as well as Interstate 66. The county is made up of 442,000 acres, or approximately 600 square miles. The County attributes the rate of growth in recent decades to have been driven by the real estate economy. Summary of Rural Initiatives: Fauquier County policy provides "dis-incentives" for large rural subdivisions. The densities are restrictive, open space requirements are extensive, and subdivisions over seven (7) lots require central water be required. Therefore, there are many large rural subdivisions, yet only six lots are built upon. The 1992 Fauquier County Comprehensive Policy Plan has had over 20 amendments and a newly assembled version is near completion. Chapters on the Rural Areas, Service Districts, and Villages and Settlements were re -written in 1999. The Board of Supervisors appointed an Ordinance Regulatory Advisory Committee in 1996. After seven years of revision and study, including the hiring of a consultant, the newly Reformatted Zoning Ordinance is near adoption. Vision Progress -with Reverence to Heritage..... The established vision statement of the county speaks to preservation of the physical beauty, historic heritage and environment of the county, while ensuring that population growth and development is a positive force on the general welfare of the community. 1. Service Districts Villages and Settlements The Comprehensive Policy Plan's residential goals and policies concentrate and guide growth in designated Service Districts, Villages and Settlements. The goal is to provide for a range of housing types to meet the needs of current and future residents and to promote the development of residential surroundings with safe and healthy surroundings, thereby protecting the quality of life of the county residents. The service district concept has been part of the Comprehensive Plan since 1992. Fauquier County has 9 service districts, and Warrenton and Marshall were the first districts to complete plans. Citizen groups formed of county residents promote the desires of their districts. Over the years, studies have been amended and the smaller districts have developed their plans. The Village zoning districts reflect the existence of small communities which historically have provided social and economic services to the rural areas. There are twenty nine (29)recognized village districts and eleven (11) settlements in Fauquier County. Regulations are designed to recognize the mixed use character of the village, encourage rural service functions, and to provide for appropriate expansion of the village while maintaining its rural qualities. Home occupations are allowed by right. Cottage industries are allowed where appropriate. The following residential zoning districts are established in Fauquier County. Residential Village (V) Residential District (R-1)-- one dwelling unit per acre Residential District (R-2)-- two dwelling units per acre Residential District (R-3)-- three dwelling units per acre Residential District (R-4)-- four dwelling units per acre Townhouse (TH) Residential District Garden Apartment (GA) Residential District Manufactured Dwelling Park (MDP) Residential District In addition to the above conventional residential zoning districts, Fauquier has also established in their "Special and Overlay District Regulations" a Special Development—Planned Residential Development (PRD) district. Development within the residential zoning districts, (R-1,2,3 and 4) may be done either as conventional subdivisions involving creation of lots strictly in accordance with the subdivision lot and building requirements of their zoning district, or they can be developed as a cluster subdivision whereby lot and yard size requirements may be reduced in exchange for open space and other amenities that will benefit both the residents of the development and enhance the overall quality of development in Fauquier County. In the R-1 residential districts a minimum of 25% of the gross site is required for open space. In conventional development, a development of 25 or more lots in the R-1 requires 50% of the designated open space configured for contiguous usable recreation purposes. In higher density residential districts the open -space requirement decreases, yet for each residential district, 50% of that open space must be configured for contiguous usable recreation purposes. In all residential districts where a subdivision is created using the cluster provisions, a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the gross site area shall be in open space, unless a special exception can satisfy other possible standards within their ordinance. 2. Rural Zoning District Policy The Rural Zoning Districts embody most of the land area of Fauquier County. The Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies in the rural areas are: to protect and preserve farming and agricultural lands, woodlands, open spaces and the scenic beauty of the County. Goals and policies also exist to protect and preserve critically and environmentally sensitive areas and resources, and to direct growth to the designated Service Districts. Fauquier County engaged the services of a consultant team comprised of Earth Design Associates, Couglin, Keene & Associates, and the Natural Lands Trust to analyze the rural areas land use plans and to make recommendation on ways of strengthening the planning efforts in the rural areas. The findings were summarized in a 1995 Rural Areas Land Use Plan Report, in which the consultants noted Fauquier County as a state and national leader in planning and implementing rural area protection. Fauquier feels that to maintain the rural areas, agriculture and the agricultural based economy must be sustained and enhanced. Agriculture must be anchored in laws and governmental policy that shape the pattern of urban and suburban development and to channel new residential, commercial and industrial facilities into those areas that do not conflict with the conduct of agricultural affairs. To promote the agricultural economy, Fauquier believes in the need to pursue for the following: 1. Retain land use taxation where major sectors of agriculture are allowed, which is critical to ensure that farmers do not find it necessary to sell their land to developers because they can not pay real estate taxes. 2. Develop and further refine the overlay district which limits density in specific areas based on the established presence of sensitive environmental and cultural resources. Encourage the private assembly of prime agricultural land through private land trusts. Initiate a Comprehensive Development Rights Acquisition Program 3. PDRs could allow properties to be purchased and help form a green belt around the existing Service Districts, providing a buffer to the rural areas and permanently fix the service district boundaries. 4. Consider a Leasing of Development Rights, which allows any public body to acquire easements in real estate of not less than five years duration as are designated to maintain the character of land as open space. 5. Create a Fauquier County Agricultural and Forestal Land Trust, a private non-profit organization which would work closely with the County to offer a vehicle for landowners who want to protect their farms in a private trust. Where new residential development is permitted to occur, it is the intent of the Fauquier County zoning ordinance to regulate development in such a manner as to minimize negative impacts, including land use conflicts between agricultural uses and new residential development. Strict land use and design control over all new development in rural areas is a major objective. Already over 30% of the county's rural areas are subjected to restricted use due to their voluntary placement in Agricultural and Forestal Districts, or placement within an open space easement. The Reformatted Zoning Ordinance maintains only two rural districts: Rural Conservation (RC), and Rural Agriculture (RA.). The Rural Conservation District (R Q is established to preserve and protect mountains which are environmentally sensitive, have physical limitations, and contain much of the County's timber resource. Regulations are designed with emphasis on minimizing adverse environmental impact to these areas, while providing for compatible, very low density residential uses. While still allowing for limited new residential development in the RC district, it is the purpose and intent of the ordinance to encourage and direct new residential growth into designated Service Districts and Villages. Between 1980 and 1990, 70 to 75% of the County's growth occurred in the Service Districts, suggesting that the policies have been effective. In 1990, the County adopted the requirement for non -common open space in the rural areas. This mandates that in the Rural Agricultural(RA ) and Rural Conservation (RC) zoning districts, one of the lots must contain at least 85% of the total acreage of the parcel. Lots are based on a sliding scale zoning density, whereby the number of new lots created from a parcel is determined by the size in acres of the parent parcel. The sliding scale has been in use since 1981, yet change has recently occurred. It is now recommended that the special exception process for major residential development in RA and RC districts (allowing up to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres) be eliminated. Residential, home occupations, community recreation, wholesale uses of agricultural products, forestry, public utilities and agriculture uses are allowed by right in the RC District. All other uses require special exception by the BOS, or special permitting by the BZA. The sliding scale density exists for both for all Rural Area Zoning (RC) and (RA). The sliding scale density shown below is used to determine by -right lots: Size of Parcel (acres) 0- 9.99 10- 19.00 20- 34.99 35- 54.99 55- 79.99 80- 104.99 130- 154.99 155- 179.99 180- 204.99 205- and above Number of Lots Permitted 1 2 rd 0 9 10 10 plus one additional lot for each additional 50 acre For residential subdivision, the property owner is required to place 85% of the parcel in open space for parcels greater than 30 acres. Now, it is recommended that subdivisions 30 acres or greater must include a general delineation of the area reserved and notes with the recorded plat reflecting that 85% must remain in open space. The common open space is designed in such a way that the subdivision lots and roads do not divide or restrict the parcels existing or future agricultural or related uses and activities. Drainfields which are classified by the Health Department as experimental are prohibited in rural areas, unless it is the only method to correct an existing home's failure. 7 -Lot thresholds exist in the subdivision ordinance. It requires divisions of 7 lots or more to complete a hydro -geological study to substantiate adequate groundwater is available for drinking water purposes. Permitted well locations and number must be located on the final plat before it can be County approved for recording. The Rural Agriculture District (RA) is established primarily to preserve and protect the agricultural economy of the County open spaces, the scenic beauty of the County and environmental resources. The RA zoned district in Fauquier County contains most of the areas where significant agricultural lands, open space or woodlands exist. Carefully regulated residential development is allowed, however it is the purpose of their zoning code to direct residential growth into Service Districts and Villages, and minimize land use conflicts between agricultural uses and the limited residential development allowed in the district. The sliding scale density for the RA zoning district is the same as in the RC zoning district. The 85% open space requirement is the same, and the general criteria for open space selection is the same as in the RC zoning district. Many of the allowed uses are the same, however Equestrian facilities, government and civic parks and recreation uses are by right in the RA and require special permitting in the RC . In the RC district many uses are permitted by special permit of the BZA, and in the RA, many uses require special exceptions from the BOS. Many additional uses require special permits from the BZA. The required open space within the Rural RC and RA districts shall provide for a minimum of 85% of the gross parcel acreage as open space unless a special exception is obtained. This is platted and recorded with a deed of easement to the County as permanent open space. To qualify for open space, the land must be contiguous, shall be at least 25 acres, and shall meet at least one of the following general criteria: 1) Agriculturally significant for production of crops, livestock or livestock products. 2) Suitable for production of Forestal products including timber, firewood, Christmas trees and other wood products for sale or farm use 3) Significant scenic, natural or historical value. The non -open space land must meet certain criteria as well, so as to minimize the loss of natural resources, environmentally sensitive areas, and predominant or unusual geologic features. After 25 years, deeded open space may be changed or modified by a 75% vote by the BOS upon petition of the owner. A vote to make changes shall be based on a positive finding that I) The opens pace uses are no longer possible and are in conflict with a duly adopted Comprehensive Plan, and 2) Substitute open space is at least of equivalent usefulness and acreage and would better comply with the duly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Overlay Districts The Rural Areas Land Use Plan also recommend the use of environmental and historic overlay districts. These tools can be used to manage unique attributes such as specific agricultural/forestal district areas, woodlands, historic buildings or land, valuable views, unique vegetation or habitats ,water supply/resources (ie: potential reservoir areas), sensitive wetland and associated resources and mountainside resources. Overlay districts should: 3) Identify a minimum acreage size for the initial parcel, then allow smaller contiguous tracts to be added within a specified distance. 4) Establish the specific purpose of the district, preferred locations and the resources being preserved. 5) Establish necessary restriction 6) Provide incentives. The County needs to develop incentives for the use of this option, consistent with the Code of Virginia, and properties with an overlay district classification could become primary areas fro a purchase of development rights program. These tools create an additional set of requirements to be met, especially when valued resources protected by an overlay would be impacted by proposed development. Historic districts and special districts along scenic roads and by -ways are the most common overlay district categories. In conclusion, the County of Fauquier has utilized their Comprehensive Plan policy amendments as a catalyst for the newly formatted zoning regulations. Some chapters of the Comprehensive Plan are reviewed or revised every five years. A number of overlay districts are included to promote the Vision of the County residents. Overall growth has been well managed in recent decades as a result of policy implementation. It is apparent in my research that a clear vision, formulated by citizen committees, County officials and planning staff has assisted the policy direction and regulatory reformation in growth management and environmental protection. Resources: Contacts: Zoning Department, Holly Meade; Community Development Planner, Kristen Slawter; and Board of Supervisors Chairman Harry Atherton. website: www.co.fauquier.va.us, and the existing and County of Fauquier newly formatted zoning ordinance Chapter 8, Rural Areas Land Use Plan, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, 1999 U:\Abbe\Retreat Feb 8_2003\Fauquier County Rural Initiatives_fmal.doc Rural Initiatives Study Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Isle of Wight County, Virginia Rural Initiatives: 1) Managed Growth Concept * (Revisions to Comprehensive Policy Plan) 2) Rural Service Areas Rural Agricultural Conservation District Sliding scale zoning Clustering/ Density Bonus options Village Centers (Ordinance Amendments in 1997) 3) Resource Conservation District 4) Development Service Districts *Land Use Policies in the Comprehensive Plan: The Managed Growth Concept was adopted in 1991 in Isle of Wight County as a chapter revision to their Comprehensive Plan, with the assistance of Redman -Johnston Consultants. In 1997 revisions to their Zoning Ordinance followed. Growth Trends and Projections: Isle of Wight County includes 319 square miles ofrolling terrain and fertile ground. The county has experienced a moderate population growth from 1990-1996, averaging a 2% increase. As of 2000, the county population is 30, 390, an 18.7% increase from 1990. Most of the growth is occurring in the North end, the James River area. This growth is primarily a result of the transportation network around the bridge to Suffolk. Projections for the Hampton Roads region population show it increasing by 440,358 persons over the next twenty five (25) years. Isle of Wight is anticipated to nearly double its 1990 population in the year 2015, ranking it the second highest growth rate among Hampton Roads jurisdictions. The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) projects a growth rate of less than 10% per decade through the period 2000-2020. This growth rate is substantially lower than the rate of growth evident during the recent 28 year period 1970-1998 which averaged 17.7% per decade. Population Changes & Projections 1970 -*2010 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 *2010 Population 17,200 19,500 21,500 25,603 30,390 35,239 Percent Change 13.4% 10.26% 19.08% 18.7% 18.54% Source: Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan, * Projected Per Capita Income Income 1984 1988 1992 1996 Average Household 11,650 14,969 $17,858 $21,466 Percent Change 28.48% 19.3% 20.2% Source: Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan Overview: Isle of Wight, Virginia, has a strategic location between Hampton Roads and Richmond in southeastern Virginia. The county's position gives it access to the business centers and the inter- modal transportation centers of Norfolk, Virginia Beach and Newport News. Over half of the Isle of Wight labor force commutes out of the County each day for employment, primarily to Newport News and Suffolk. Nearly two million people live within an hour's drive, and because of the central location on the mid-Atlantic coast, it is within a day's drive of more than half of the entire US population. Summary of Rural Initiatives: Managed Growth Concept The goal of growth management in Lancaster County is to guide future development into an efficient and serviceable form which is protective of the County's predominantly rural character. Objectives include directing the majority of future development to areas already served, or proposed to be served, with adequate public facilities such as sewer, water roads and schools; and to limit future suburban sprawl in rural and agricultural areas where adequate public facilities do not exist or would not be cost-effective. The County Land Use Concept Plan Map identifies locations most appropriate for development as well as areas where development should be limited to protect rural character or protect sensitive environmental resources. This plan provides the basis for targeting future investment in public infrastructure to support development in appropriate locations. Isle of Wight County includes three major categories of land use in their growth management concept, which are: Rural Service Areas, Resource Conservation Areas, and Development Service Districts. Rural Service Areas Within the Rural Service Area there are the Rural Agricultural Conservation Districts, and the Village Centers. The Rural Agricultural Conservation districts include most of the land outside of the Development Service Districts, and is dominated by agricultural land and forested areas. While the tendency is for new development to be configured in a linear fashion along the roads, the cluster model is preferred for rural development. Agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and scattered residential development at low density is considered appropriate land use. Two options are available for residential development in the Rural Agricultural Conservation District: One option is Sliding Scale Zonin and the other is Clustering. A property owner must have a minimum of twenty (20) acres in order to subdivide. a.) Sliding Scale: In this option, density is determined by the size of the parcel. Most subdivisions are formed by sliding scale zoning. A. Base density for the first 20 acres is 1 dwelling unit/10 acres B. 40 acres required for each additional lot; ie 2 lots/20 acres; 3 lots/60 acres; 4 lots/ 100 acres The disadvantage of this approach is that it causes the creation of large lot subdivision which are consumptive of agricultural lands. b.) Clusteringl Density Bonus: Through this approach, lot sizes can be reduced in return for setting aside permanent open space. This allows for lower land costs, and decreased road construction costs to the developer, and allows for community benefits through the provision of open space, conservation of farmlands and rural character, and reduced infrastructure maintenance. Open Space Preservation increases the allowable build -out as follows: 1 dwelling unit (du) /10 acres with 50% open space set aside 1 du/8 acres with 60% open space set aside 1 du/5 acres if 70% open space set aside For example: 100 acre tract Preserve 50%, yield 10 lots Preserve 60%, yield 12 lots Preserve 70%, yield 20 lots A property owner with a 100 acre farm can create 20 lots (1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) provided they are clustered on 30 acres, set back 200 feet from a county road, and are located on a single access road with driveways. The homes would have to be screened from County roadway view to protect rural character. Homes would also have to setback from active agricultural operations to minimize farming impacts on home sites. Control of the open space land can be left with the original property owner or dedicated to a homeowners association. Base density is calculated on the amount of "net -buildable" land present. Constraints such as wetlands are not included in the base density calculations, and minimum lot sizes are a function of soil suitability for septic tank systems. Village Centers Within the Rural Areas there are several existing villages and crossroad settlements, providing a number of important community functions. They are centers for rural residential development and provide commercial services for surrounding areas. Depending on the location and existing scale of development, these centers accommodate some portion of the future growth of the County. Zoning inside the Village Centers requires the minimum residential lot size to be 30,000 s.f. These rural village centers range in scale from a fork in the road to rapidly expanding communities. Many have historic qualities. The need for central water and sewer is not anticipated in the Village Centers. Where land application of waste water is a feasible treatment technology, these systems can allow greater clustering of residences and opportunities for commercial use. Any central water or sewer system eventually provided should only serve the development within the immediate proximity of the Village Center and not extend into the rural area. The comprehensive plan recommends that the extent of each of the twelve Village Centers be delineated with specific planning and design studies by the County. Resource Conservation Districts These areas are dominated by sensitive environmental features such as wetlands, flood districts, streams and stream buffers, unique habitat areas, and Resource Protection Areas as defined by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Appropriate land use includes wetlands, farms and forest uses, open space greenways, trails, and limited park facilities. In most cases, only passive recreational uses and low density residential design is appropriate if development design is protective of environmentally sensitive features. In this district all environmental impacts should avoided, and when impacts do occur, mitigation measures are employed. State and private conservation organizations are encouraged to actively pursue programs to purchase and acquire easements for privately owned lands in the Resource Conservation Areas so they can be preserved. Development Service Districts There are three major Development Service Districts. These are the Newport, Windsor and Camptown Districts. Each corresponds with the location of the major County transportation corridors and existing or planned future Hampton Rads Sanitation District (HRSD) sewer and water service areas. Areas designated as Development Service Districts have, and are expected to continue to serve as the principal residential, commercial and employment centers of the County. Development pressures are highest in these districts. Existing or planned transportation systems, sewer and water facilities for residential, industrial and commercial uses is either in place or has an opportunity to be put into place. Current revisions to the ordinance regarding the three major Development Service Districts are underway. With the pace of growth in the north end of Isle of Wight County, design guidelines that will address architectural characteristics, setbacks, buffers and access points are in the process. Highway Corridor Overlay Districts are in place primarily to manage the aesthetics of the corridors in the three major Development Service Districts. A 70' average setback occurs. The consensus within the County is that the adopted Managed Growth Concept has been a good growth management tool; some controversy with landowners of 15 acre tracts w/no ability to subdivide has occurred. Currently the new zoning ordinance is in review and up for adoption in January of 2003. Resources: Contact: Beverly Walkup, Senior Planner bwalkup@isleofwightus.net Isle of Wight Website- www.co.isle-of-wight.va.us. Economic Development Planning & Zoning Department Comprehensive Plan, Isle of Wight County, Virginia Zoning Ordinance, Isle of Wight County, Virginia U:\PC RETREAT\2003 PC Retreat\IOW.wpd i Rural Initiatives Study Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia Jurisdiction: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Rural Initiative(s): 1) Urban Growth Boundaries/Village Growth Boundaries - Establishment of areas to maintain unique, distinct and compact communities by growing outward from urban and village centers to growth boundaries. 2) Growth Tracking 3) Preservation and Protection of Agricultural and Conservation Land Growth Trends and Projections: From 1950 to 1980 Lancaster County's population increased by 127,000 people. By 1990 over 422,000 people were living in the county, and in 1994 it was one of the 10 fastest growing areas of the US. (U.S. News, 1994, p.69).The growth has been from local population, as well as newcomers who work in Lancaster County, Greater Harrisburg, Wilmington, Delaware and Greater Philadelphia - - all within a 45 -minute drive of the county. Growth from 1980-1990 was 17%, and from 1990- 2000, 11%. The current population is 470,658. The land area is 984.2 square miles. Lancaster County's population changes since 1970, and projections through 2030 are illustrated in the table below. Year 1970 Population Changes & Projections 1970 - 2030 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population 319,654 362,346 422,822 470,658 509,726 548,980 585,487 Percent Change 13.36% 16.7% 11.30% 8.3% 7.7% 6.65% Source., Lancaster County Economic Development Division Household and Per Capita Income 1999 Income 1999 Per Capita $20,398 Median Household $41,445 Source: Lancaster County Department of Economic Development Summary of Rural Initiatives: The catalyst behind the rural initiative(s) was to gain some control of the suburban sprawl that was perceived to be destroying the character of the community and eroding the quality of life in Lancaster County. Several policy documents are in place, and community initiatives have occurred to guide and direct the growth of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Some of the most directive policy documents are: the 1990 Comprehensive Policy Plan - "ReVisions" policy document which serves as a growth management strategy with 6 key focus areas; the 2000 Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report - (a 2002 update will soon available); and Envision Lancaster County - A Smart Growth Initiative. Urban Growth Boundaries/ Village Growth Boundaries Development pressures have risen steadily over the past 40 years, and Lancaster County has been confronted with commercial, industrial and residential growth pressures. A growth management plan was established to direct growth to urban areas having a full range of public facilities and services and to protect agricultural and resource lands. In the "ReVisions" chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, these thirteen future growth areas were defined by an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), evolving around existing developed areas. The Comprehensive Plan Policy - "ReVisions" outlines a future where Lancaster City and the county's numerous small towns are vibrant hubs of activity, sprawl is contained, agriculture remains the backbone of the economy, air and water is clean, natural and cultural heritage is protected and preserved, and people live in safe communities. The "ReVisions" policy component has been the guiding growth management tool for the County and the 60 individual municipalities within its boundaries. Lancaster County includes Lancaster City, 18 Burroughs and 41 Townships. Lancaster County has been pro -active in managing growth since the early 1990's. The focus of the plan is to direct growth to Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs), having a full range of public facilities and services and to protect agricultural and resource lands. The first UGBs were established in Lancaster County during 1993, and by the end of 1998, 22 of the 26 targeted townships had established UGBs. Eleven townships adopted Village Growth Boundaries (VGBs). The "ReVisions" policy document/Growth Management Strategy focuses on 6 key focus areas which include: 2. Protecting and Preserving_ Natural and Cultural Heritage by: • Limiting development impacts on farming areas- to ensure the viability of the farming industry • Retaining natural, cultural and historic resources - to protect unique heritage and community assets • Minimizing dependence on the automobile -to maintain environmental quality Encouraging Clean Industry - to improve air quality Providing Riparian buffers along streams - to improve water quality 2. Revitalizing the Urban Communities by: • Expanding home ownership - to increase property values • Redeveloping vacant and under utilized properties - to efficiently use infrastructure and protect resources • Locating public educational and cultural facilities in town centers -to establish and maintain a sense of community • Finding new uses for historic buildings -to preserve the historic fabric of the community • Streamlining regulations- to provide incentives for private sector investment 3. Developing Livable Communities by: • Including permanent publicly accessible open space -to provide outdoor recreation opportunities for all • Reflecting the pattern, character and scale of the county's traditional communities -to preserve heritage and uniqueness of place • Integrating a variety of housing and mix of uses- to enhance community vitality • Maximize use of public infrastructure and services- to reduce costs by building compact developments with interconnected streets and sidewalks - to provide for walking ,biking, short auto trips and use of mass transit 4. Creating a Sustainable Economy by: • Retaining, expanding and attracting businesses -to provide jobs and a stable tax base Expanding the agriculture and manufacturing sectors -to provide family - sustaining wages Linking employment centers with affordable housing -to reduce dependence on the automobile Developing heritage tourism facilities -to maximize the presentation and preservation of historic and cultural resources Celebrating, Investing in, and Mobilizing the Talents of Human Resources by: • Providing diverse educational opportunities- to ensure an educated and informed citizenry • Investing in cultural institutions and facilities - to celebrate our people and places Provide for public displays and observances - to promote tolerance, diversity, and understanding Provide access to a full range of human services - to meet the needs of all citizens • Invest in youth -based organizations and activities - to build leadership for the next generation 6. PromotingStrom Leadership. Awareness Responsibility &Involvement in Communist Issues by: • Making citizen participation the cornerstone of community decision making and planning processes- to ensure that the community's wishes are reflected in community plans and projects • Forming partnerships, coalitions, and networks- to facilitate exchange of ideas • Providing education about planning issues - to develop an informed citizenry and electorate • Promoting regional planning and cooperation- to reduce the duplication and cost of services • Using community indicators- to access the success of programs Growth Tracki Another tool that Lancaster County uses to guide future growth is growth tracking. The Growth Tracking Report evaluates the growth that has occurred both within and outside the UGBs and VGBs. The Growth Tracking Report was first produced by the Planning Commission showing information on development that occurred in Lancaster County from 1994 - 1998. An update was produced in 2000, and a 2002 update will soon be available. The new growth tracking report will include data covering the past 8 years. The report includes data on development in the UGBs, and the VGBs; a Growth -tracking Map; Development outside the Growth Boundaries; Residential Development; Conversion of Ag and Conservation Lands, etc. (See attached September, 2000 Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report.) A. Development vs. Preservation Individual localities adopted their portions of the UGBs at various times during the 1993-1998 time period. From 1994 to 1998 a total of 2,708 acres of conservation land, both inside and outside UGBs and VGBs were converted for development. However, 13,610 acres of farmland and parkland were permanently preserved during 1994-1998.12,358 acres were protected by perpetual easements held by the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board and the Lancaster Farmland Trust. Another 1,252 acres of parkland and open space areas were acquired by public, semi-public, and non-profit organizations. At the end of 1998, 273,615 acres of farmland outside the growth boundaries were protected by effective agricultural zoning. No more than one lot can be subdivided per each 20 acres of contiguous land. 10,551 acres both inside and outside the UGBs and UGBs were protected by open space zoning at the end of 1998. B. Residential Development In the 5 year period 9,683 dwellings were constructed. 75% of new dwellings were built inside growth boundaries, and 25% were built outside the growth boundaries. 90% of the new dwellings inside growth boundaries were connected to public sewer and 88% were connected to public water. The amount of farmland that was converted for development outside of the UGBs and VGBs was 2,822 acres. The amount of farmland conversion for development outside of the growth boundaries averages 564 acres annually from 1994 to 1998. DWELLING DENSITIES Location Dwelling units/acre Average Lot Size UGBs 4.3 u/acre .23 acre lot VGBs 1.8 du/acre .56 acre lot Outside VGBs & UGBs .8 du/acre 1.25 acre lot Source: 2000 Lancaster County Growth Tracking Report Preservation and Protection ofAgricultural and Conservation Land Lancaster County has been confronted with commercial, industrial and residential growth pressures that have occurred in metropolitan areas of the US. However, almost two-thirds of the county, or 388,000 acres are currently in farm use. The 4700 farms average 86 acres. The strength of the farming sector suggests that fanning is a vital component of the local economy. Farm gate sales rank first in the Northeastern US, and dairy, cattle, poultry, and crops are the leading enterprises. The open space the farms provide contributes to a thriving tourist industry. The presence of the Amish community is a major contributor to the tourist industry. Farmland protection techniques have been integrated in Lancaster County to help channel growth away from productive farmland. The techniques used include: agricultural zoning, agricultural districts, the purchase of development rights, and urban growth boundaries. A. A. a icultural Zoning In 1976, East Donegal Township adopted the first agricultural zoning ordinance in the county. By 1994, 39 of the county's total 41 townships had adopted agricultural zoning ordinances. Most Townships have adopted a zoning standard of one building lot per every 25 acres owned. For example: A homeowner with 100 acres would be allowed to subdivide up to 4 lots and a total of 8 acres, retaining 92 acres for the farming operation. Three townships have adopted a standard of one building lot per 50 acres. Zoning is not permanent, and may be changed through a petition to the Township. The key ingredient here is the farming community to remain in farming. Farmers may not easily sell out for development, thus the value of their land is limited. On the other hand, there is a recognition that agricultural zoning serves to separate farming (which is essentially an industrial land use) from potential conflicts with residential and commercial development. Presently, it is not politically popular for elected township officials to openly favor the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses. If the fann economy sours for several years, pressure for re -zonings out of agriculture could become more common. B. Agricultural Securi , Areas In 1981, the Pennsylvania legislature authorized townships to create "agricultural security areas" similar to agricultural districts formed in Virginia. An agricultural security area must be at least 250 acres in size but the land does not have to be contiguous. These areas provide landowners three major benefits. 1. A strengthened Right to Farm. Township supervisors agree not to enact nuisance ordinances that would restrict normal farming practices within the security area; 2. Greater protection against eminent domain; approval from the state Agricultural Lands Condemnation Acceptance Board and the township must be sought from government bodies seeking to condemn land. 3. Landowners in a security area have the option to apply to sell their development rights to the County Agricultural Preserve Board. In March of 1997 there were 30 security areas comprising over 120,000 acres. Relatively little land in security areas has been developed. The ability to sell development rights has not been the most significant part of the success of the areas, because of limited public funds to buy development rights. However, the interest in selling development rights has compelled many farmers to apply to join security areas. C. Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) or Conservation Easements A nine member Agricultural Preserve Board was established by the County Commissioners to develop and administer farmland protection programs. The board determined that the county should pursue a PDR program and accept the donation of development rights. For the donation of a perpetual easement, a landowner may receive a deduction for federal income tax purposes. There are no tax incentives for the donation of less than a perpetual easement, such as a 25 -year easement. In America, a landowner owns a bundle of rights that go with the land, such as water rights, air rights, the right to sell the land, the right to pass it along to heirs, the right to use the land and the right to develop it. Any of these rights can be separated off from the bundle and sold or donated. Under a PDR arrangement, the farmland owner voluntarily sells the development rights (also known as a conservation easement) to a government agency or private land trust and receives compensation in return for the restrictions placed on the land. The farmer maintains title to the land and can sell or pass on the farm with the land use limited to farming and open space. This easement is placed on the deed and runs in perpetuity or for a time specified in the easement document. The easement typically prohibits residential development except for the owner, the owner's children, or farm labor. Public access is not usually allowed, nor dumping of garbage or the removal of soil. The first donation of a perpetual conservation easement by the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board received was in 1982. In 1984 the county purchased it first conservation easements using an allocation from the county general fund. Between 1984 and 1988, the Board offered only $250/acre for perpetual easements of 25 -year term easements. The Board then authorized the use of appraisals to determine easement values. Between 1989 and 1997 the Board received 305 easement sale applications and purchased 150 on 14000 acres at an average price per acre of $2000.The Board currently holds 215 easements totaling over 19,000 acres. Of these 215 easements, 38 were donated by landowners. Funding from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Farmland Protection increased easement purchases in 1989- 1996. Pennsylvania approved the issuing of $100 million in bonds to purchase easements on farmland throughout the state. The bond money was spent by 1994, since then the state funds have come from a two -cent a pack tax on cigarettes which as generated about $22 million a year. Lancaster county had to develop program guidelines and receive approval from the state Agriculture and Preservation Board. The county had to appropriate its own funds. The county commissioners allocated $1.75 million for farmland preservation in 1996 second only to Sonoma County California. The Preserve Board used the strategy to preserve farms that are either close to each other, or to preserve farmland to help create urban growth boundaries. This allowed large blocks of land to preserve farming which helps the farm support businesses remain profitable. Bypurchasing development rights on farms fairly close to development has helped to create the UGBs and VGBs which will limit sprawl out onto productive farmland. These growth boundaries encourage more compact development which is cheaper and easier to service. An UGB is drawn through a agreement by a city or village and surrounding townships with the aim of providing enough buildable land for the next twenty years within the boundary; and services will not be extended beyond the boundary. The boundary maybe changed upon review every three to five years. In Conclusion, this report details some of the policy direction of Lancaster County's growth strategy. No real obstacles to the Growth Management Plan have been occurring in Lancaster County. There is much citizen participation through a task force, and public private initiatives promoting education and awareness to the citizens. Strong community based planning is at the core of the initiative. The county works with each municipality to pursue the objectives of the plan. Staff representative, Susan Frey commented that the "one on one" contact with each municipality, and education through citizen organizations has been an asset in the citizen support of the growth management plan. Resources: Lancaster County Pennsylvania website, found at www.colancaster.pa.us. GIS and Farmland Protection: The Case of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 1997 2000 Growth Tracking Repo Lancaster County Zoning Ordinance Contacts: Planner Mary Frey: frgy2co.lancaster.pa.us; Lyn Marie Blackman, Senior Planner; James Cowhey, Deputy Director for Community Planning UAAbbe\Retreat Feb 8_20031Lancaster Co. PA Rural Initiatives.wpd fffrot Management 'oohs Virginia's Growth Management Tools Prepared By The Virginia Chapter of The American Planning Association June, 1999 Updated January, 2002 Contents L Report Overview 2 II. Fundamental Planning Tools 7 • Comprehensive Plan 8 • Zoning 10 • Subdivision Regulations 12 • Capital Improvement Program 13 III. Addressing Adequate Public Facilities 14 • Fiscal Impact Analysis 15 • Level of Service Standards 16 • Conditional Use Permitting 17 • Conditional Zoning (Proffers) 18 • Cash Proffers 19 • Land Use and Utility Coordination 20 • Impact Fees 21 • Targeted Development Areas 23 IV. Rural And Natural Areas Preservation 25 • Conservation Easements 26 • Purchase of Development Rights 27 • Land Assessment and Taxation Program 29 • Agricultural and Forest Conservation District Program 30 Appendix A Tools For Revitalization 31 • Revenue Sharing 32 • Enterprise Zones 34 • Empowerment Zones 35 • Tax Increment Financing 37 • Density Incentives 39 Virginia Planning Legislation Matrix 40 As of January 13, 2002 SECTION I REPORT OVERVIEW VADA: It's Mission and The Issue of Growth Management The Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association (VAPA) is a professional organization of over 1,000 practicing planners in the public sector, private sector and academic institutions, along with lay members of local planning commissions and boards. The Mission Statement of the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association reads: Our mission is to promote planning as a foundation for effectively addressing the physical, economic and social changes taking place in Virginia. The Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association is committed to increasing awareness about planning's many benefits, and enhancing its practice throughout the Commonwealth. VAPA has a long history of education and participation in the evolution of land use and planning practices in Virginia. VAPA addressed the challenges of growth in a 1992 edition of its magazine, Planning in Virginia, that reported on the creation of the Commission on Population Growth and Development by the 1989 Virginia General Assembly. That Commission, expanded in 1990, published 14 findings and recommended 10 planning goals to prepare the Commonwealth for the impacts of population growth and development. In 1997, VAPA used Planning in Virginia to revisit the topic of growth and development with an issue entitled "Managing Growth Toward the 21st Century". This issue reflected upon the proposal, "The Virginia Strategic Planning Act" (HB 1068, 1995 GA Session), which came from the work of the Commission on Population Growth and Development. It reported on how the proposal was defeated "for fear that sound planning at the state level would somehow diminish the authority of local governments".1 It also reported `while it was clear local governments needed additional planning tools and other resources at their disposal, in the end, the Commission simply agreed that local governments should be encouraged to coordinate their efforts with regional and state agencies".z In 1999, VAPA held its annual conference in Charlottesville and focused much of its agenda on the fast -paced rate of growth in the Commonwealth. In a participatory forum involving 150 attendees, VAPA asked: • What is "the" most pressing planning issue currently affecting your jurisdiction? • What tools do you currently use to deal with that issue? • If you could have one additional tool, what would that be? • What should be the role of VAPA in the growth management debate? "The Commission on Population Growth and Development, " Planning In Virginia, 1997 pg. 3 z Ibid. As of January 13, 2002 The participants characterized their most pressing issues as: • The lack of consistent information about growth and how to manage the pace of growth. • A growing realization by the general public of the adverse impacts of growth: visual sprawl, transportation and traffic issues, high-density development on rural farmlands, and the problems of landlocked and built -out communities. • The problem that growth, in particular residential growth, was outstripping the ability of localities to provide quality services. • The "hidden costs" of development and the delay localities may have in realizing the revenues promised by new growth. The conference participants also agreed that underlying their most pressing issues was the lack of leadership at the state level on growth management, and the general public's perception that problems relating to growth are solely a local issue and the result of poor planning. The participants indicated that localities were using a complete range of planning tools authorized by the state. It was clear though, that the use of these tools varied depending upon the most pressing problems facing a locality, such as preservation in the Shenandoah Valley and revitalization in Northern Virginia. The use of these tools also depended on whether or not the locality began its land use planning early enough so as not to have let growth outstrip its resources. When asked to name their "wished for" tool, participants at the 1999 conference surprised many with a call for leadership in addition to the more traditional interest in other tools, such as impact fees and the transfer of development rights. The participants described leadership in the form of the body politic, local government officials and citizens. They expressed the need for a greater role by the state and recognition of the benefits of planning, as well as legislative strategies to carry out a state policy on growth and development. Lastly, the participants called on VAPA to take an aggressive educational and information dissemination role. A suggested focus was educating planners and local decision -makers about the planning tools that exist and how they are being used. Another focus was interacting with other associations and disciplines on planning issues. This report, Virginia's Growth Management Tools, is a product of the direction VAPA is given by its members. The report contains three sections that address existing tools and approaches that are used by Virginia localities, along with their description, enabling authority, limitations, and needs. Creating this "tool kit" is an ongoing effort by VADA, and is updated periodically. It has been presented to a joint meeting of the House Committee on Counties, Cities, and Towns and of the Senate Committee on Local Goverment. The `tool kit" has also been posted on the VAPA website (www.vaplanriing.org) and made available to interest groups and the general public. It was updated in January of 2002 to reflect legislative activity since its initial distribution. In addition to the tools provided in the following section of this report, VAPA has examined Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO). Since neither of these tools is currently enabled in Virginia, they were not included in this "tool kit"; however, each is briefly addressed in the introduction of the sections on rural and natural area preservation and addressing adequate public facilities. The tools that are currently available As of January 13, 2002 in Virginia are briefly described in the following paragraphs and are addressed in detail in the balance of this report. Fundamental Planning Tools: These are the basic tools of planning and are used by nearly all Virginia localities. The tools include the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision regulations, and capital improvement budgeting. When developed prior to the onset of continuing growth and development and when used properly, these tools can effectively guide the growth of a locality. Addressing Adequate Public Facilities: These tools address the impacts created by growth with an emphasis on residential land development. They include coordination between land use and utilities, level of service standards, use of fiscal impact analysis, conditional or special use permits, conditional zoning along with cash proffers, and impact fees. The common limitation of these tools is that the majority can only be applied at the time of a rezoning and are ineffective with development that is "by -right" or does not require legislative action by the local government. Rural and Natural Area Preservation: These tools deal with the retention of sensitive environmental areas through such techniques as conservation easements and the purchase of development rights. The retention of agricultural land uses and forestal lands is assisted through special districts created for them and through land use assessment and taxation programs. These tools have limited applicability in urbanized and suburbanizing localities and are often cost prohibitive for a locality to undertake. A fourth set of tools is included in Appendix A. The tools are applicable primarily to urban areas and focus on revitalization. Because this report was created for the purpose of examining tools available in addressing new growth, this fourth set is provided in an appendix and is simply descriptive in nature. Addressing tools for revitalization is a subject unto its own and encompasses financing strategies such as tax increments, the promotion of economic development, incentives, and the role that public investment in infrastructure has in directing growth back to urban areas. Further work on these matters may be a later endeavor of VAPA. Looking Ahead: Future Virginia Legislative Sessions During recent legislative sessions, an expanding economy and an increase in the amount of residential development in high growth communities has renewed interest in planning and land use legislation. It is anticipated that legislation affecting land use, growth, development, and planning will continue to be introduced at future Virginia General Assembly sessions. The general public has become increasingly frustrated, as noted in the 1998 report, Guiding Growth in Virginia: Local Incentives for Revitalization and Preservation by the Environmental Law Institute, which stated: "Increasing public concern about unsustainable land use patterns shows a need for the Commonwealth to affirmatively support local initiatives to guide growth. Virginia localities tend to use existing community revitalization, economic development, land use planning, and conservation tools in a piecemeal fashion, rather than developing approaches that emphasize the inter -relationship among As of January 13, 2002 these areas. Moreover, Virginia General Assembly authorization of approaches for guiding growth has been haphazard. In some cases the Virginia Code authorizes incentives only for specific localities. In other cases authorization for innovative approaches is ambiguous".3 During the 2001 Legislative Session, the General Assembly decided to try to avoid the conflict and controversy that comes before it each year by the introduction of legislation that both proposed to limit and to expand the powers of local government regarding planning and land use development. It created the Commission on Growth and Economic Development via joint resolution HJ 671. Although the Commission was not able to develop legislative proposals for the 2002 General Assembly, it has recommended that the Commission be continued and that it pursue a comprehensive approach on such matters. This action is consistent with a recommendation put forth in a joint position paper created by VAPA and the Virginia Society of the American Institute of Architects that was presented to the Commission in August 2001. The position paper called for a comprehensive assessment of the Commonwealth's planning and zoning policies and statutes and urged the Commission to monitor the progress of the Federal Community Character Act, which, if passed, would provide funding for such an assessment. Recommended Planning Enhancements VAPA recommends the following specific enhancements to existing authorities and one additional, new authority to increase local government's ability to address the impact of growth and development. • Consistency: § 15.2-2232 (Legal Status of a Plan), § 15.2-2284 (Matters to be considered in applying zoning ordinances and districts) and § 15.2-2285 (Preparation and adoption of a zoning ordinance and map and amendments thereto) should each be amended to require that the zoning (and rezoning) of land be consistent with the locality's comprehensive plan; • Consolidation: §15.2-2297, §15.2-2298, and §15.2-2303. The language addressing conditional zoning (proffers), should be consolidated into a single section and be made applicable to all localities; and, Impact Fees: The enactment of local impact fee programs/ordinances be authorized for water, sewer, roads, schools, fire stations, libraries and other essential public facilities for all localities. (The issues and details such as phasing, from a cash proffer system to impact fees, and the establishment of level of service standards associated with such a program would need to be addressed as a part of such legislation and VAPA stands ready to assist in such an endeavor). Leadership In addition, as noted previously, the "one additional tool" needed is that of leadership. A major charge of the 1990 Virginia General Assembly to the Commission on Population Growth and Development dealt with determining an appropriate state presence in planning. In 1991, it was 3 "Guiding Growth in Virginia: Local Incentives for Revitalization and Preservation" Environmental Law Institute Research Report, November 1998. As of January 13, 2002 described as better coordination and cooperation between local, regional, and state levels of government, along with a single state agency to provide comprehensive data and technical assistance to local governments. In 1999, VAPA members characterized it as leadership that promotes planning along with economic development, enabling smart growth, coordinating state (growth and development) activities, and providing advisory and non -regulatory services. Specifically, VAPA recommends that the Commonwealth designate an agency, or office, responsible for the coordination, facilitation, and dissemination of information pertaining to growth, its management, and the mitigation of its impacts. This agency would coordinate, facilitate, and disseminate information pertaining to the activities of state and federal agencies. In addition, it would assist local governments if state and federal agencies would acknowledge and follow local comprehensive plans. VAPA agrees that any responsibility and powers given to, or exercised by, the Commonwealth should be in the nature of advice, coordination, facilitation, and the providing of technical assistance and should not create new regulatory authority to be enforced by the Commonwealth. Guidelines VAPA recommends these actions under the following guidelines: • That any new enabling legislation be made available to all localities and not be limited by size, geographic location, or rate of growth; and that all enabling legislation should be permissive and not mandatory. • That any new enabling legislation, which allows the use of tools such as impact fees, require, as a perquisite to enactment of a local ordinance, the gathering and analysis of appropriate data; the creation of local goals, objectives and policies; and the description of an implementing strategy. In addition, these policies should form the basis for an amendment to a locality's comprehensive plan. • That a local enacting ordinance and program be consistent with a locality's comprehensive plan. + And that enabling legislation which allows the use of tools, such as impact fees, should pemut them to be applied at the time of actual impact (i.e. prior to the issuance of building permits), with the local prerogative to limit their imposition to earlier stages of project review and approval, such as at the time of site plan/plan of development review, subdivision, or zoning. As of January 13, 2002 SECTION II FUNDAMENTAL PLANNING TOOLS Four tools are identified in the following pages that are fundamental to an effective local government planning process. Utilized in a complimentary and interrelated manner, they provide the necessary link between a local government's planning/growth management policy and implementatiori. The extent to which the tools are used and to which the policy directions of comprehensive plans are supported by zoning and subdivision regulations/decisions and capital improvement Programs is inconsistent among local governments. The comprehensive plan is required, however, Virginia law provides a rather loose nexus between the adoption of policy represented by the plan and actions taken to implement the plan, particularly zoning change initiatives that would support plan intent. Local governments have considerable authority when it comes to utilizing the tools described in this section. However, it would generally assist localities for the General Assembly to enhance and tighten the relationship between the guiding policy of the comprehensive plan and the implementation tools. A consistent limitation is the lack of political support that localities require to update implementing ordinances so that those ordinances can more effectively work to implement current trends, updated plans and policies. Most localities are operating under zoning ordinances originally adopted twenty years ago and that have been amended over time for specific purposes. Little or no effort has been made in most localities to fully update the ordinances and bring them in line with new plans, policies and conditions. Not surprisingly, it can be politically unpopular and administratively difficult to adopt a new zoning ordinance or to comprehensively rezone land. However, this is one of the most effective tools a locality can apply to bring proposed land uses in line with current policies and conditions. As of January 13, 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Description: For the purposes of this report, a comprehensive plan is defined as an official public document adopted by a local governing body that is used as a policy -guide to facilitate the orderly development of the community. The plan is developed by examining existing conditions and needs, considering opportunities and alternatives, and adopting goals and objectives which taken individually or collectively will further the orderly development of the community. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2-2223 et seq. sets forth the legal status of the plan. This section requires that upon adoption, the plan shall control the general location, character and extent of each feature shown on the plan. Further, no street, public park, school, etc., shall be constructed or established until its location has been approved by the local planning commission as being substantially in accord with the plan. Utilization: • Every governing body is required to adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its Jurisdiction. Plans are to be reviewed at least once every five (5) years by the local planning commission to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan. While the governing body uses the plan on a regular basis for rendering decisions on land - use issues, other local officials, public agencies, community developers and the general citizenry consult the plan for guidance. • The plan has no direct regulatory effect and most localities use it is a guide to rezoning and capital improvement decisions. The plan is implemented through the adoption of local ordinances, such as zoning and subdivision regulations, capital improvements program, an official map and mineral resource map. Within the comprehensive plan, there may be components addressing such matters as economic development and housing programs. Limitations: A few problems associated with the plan's lack of use include: • Insufficient guidelines in the plan resulting in a failure to render confidence in decision- making • Not updating the plan as needed • Ignoring the plan when it does not support a position on a particular zoning matter • Decision -makers not familiar with plan's content • Inconsistencies between plan and implementing ordinances; • Failing to gain the support during plan development by vocal and/or influential interest groups. As of January 13, 2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Continued) Enhancements: A locality can enhance and strengthen their comprehensive plan by: • Reviewing the plan as required and updating the plan on a regular basis. • Requiring consistency between implementing ordinances, such as the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations and the comprehensive plan • Making more frequent use of the plan and its policies in local decision-making, thus rendering more confidence in the plan. As of January 13, 2002 ZONING Description: Zoning is a primary land use regulatory tool that divides a locality into specific districts and lists uses permitted in those districts. The text of the zoning ordinance provides for uniform regulations throughout each district and generally spells out the substantive restrictions on land use and development within those districts. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2-2280 et seq. provides that any locality may classify any of the territory under its jurisdiction into districts of such number, shape and size as it may deem best suited for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Section 15.2-2284 directs localities to apply reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of property, the comprehensive plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change and the current and future requirements of the community. Utilization: • All cities use zoning as a tool to regulate land use while a few towns in the state do not have a zoning ordinance. In addition, at least ten counties, primarily located in the southwest portion of the state, do not regulate land use in all or a portion of the land within their boundaries. • Property owners contemplating a use for their property that is not allowed within the existing zoning district can petition the local govemment for a "rezoning" to allow the proposed use. Local governments typically refer to the comprehensive plan, as well as other plans and studies, to determine if the rezoning request is appropriate and consistent with local policies. • Local government rezoning actions must be founded upon a credible planning rationale or risk being held invalid by the courts if challenged. The most typical government initiated rezoning is a downzoning of residential property where the rezoning results in a lower residential density. In a court of law, the party challenging the land use decision of a local governing body bears the burden of proving that the decision should be invalidated. Downzoning is one of the most effective tools a locality can apply to bring proposed land uses in line with current policies and conditions. • Zoning is one of the few tools discussed in this manual that is applied at the time of development. Limitations: • Historically zoning has been and still is seen as a tool for preventing incompatible uses from co -existing. As such, present zoning legislation operates from the perspective of the present and not the future. 10 As of January 13, 2002 ZONING (Continued) • Zoning ordinances regulate only those land use elements specifically authorized under the enabling legislation. This primarily includes the regulation of land use, size, height, bulk and removal of structures, dimensions of land, water and air space to be occupied by buildings, structures, and uses, and the excavation of mining soil and other natural resources. • Most localities are operating under zoning ordinances originally adopted twenty years ago and that have been amended over time for specific purposes. Little or no effort has been made in most localities to completely rewrite the ordinances and bring them in line with new plans, policies and conditions. • It can be politically difficult to initiate a downzoning or complete update of a zoning ordinance. The City of Suffolk revised their entire zoning ordinance so that it will better implement their recently adopted comprehensive plan. The process has been contentious and the outcome is uncertain. Enhancements: Zoning ordinances should be consistent with comprehensive plans and the nexus between the guide and the implementation device could be strengthened within the enabling legislation. Local governments can enhance their local zoning ordinances by: • Updating their ordinances in stages so that they are implementing current policies and reacting to current trends and conditions. • Incorporate more flexible zoning categories that incorporate performance standards and do not exclude uses as much as they encourage compatible co -location of uses. 11 As of January 13, 2002 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Description: Although the ownership of land is a protected right under the Constitution, its division is not so much a right as a privilege. The division of land results in more intense and different land uses, which have impacts on surrounding land and communities. Consequently, most jurisdictions use subdivision regulations to permit the orderly division of land into parcels or lots for development. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2-2240 et seq., requires that every locality adopt a subdivision ordinance to assure the orderly subdivision of land and its development. The ordinance must have reasonable regulations and provisions that apply to or provide for such things as standard plats; a coordinated networks of streets; provisions for public facilities, drainage and flood control; fees and enforcement and in counties and the City of Suffolk, family subdivisions. Utilization: • Subdivision regulations provide for the direct control and standardization of land development. Used in conjunction with a well -organized zoning ordinance, the coordination between development and supporting infrastructure occurs. Such a complementary relationship is sometimes politically difficult to achieve. • A benefit of subdivision regulations is that they can be applied at the time of development. Limitations: Subdivision of land is a "by -right" allowance for a landowner and, as such, the review of a subdivision proposal is a ministerial act by a local govemment. Therefore, the landowner is only obligated to meet the applicable subdivision (and zoning) regulations in order to subdivide. If these regulations or the underlying zoning of the property do not reflect the intent of county planning policy, then the subdivision itself may not be consistent with current policies but most be approved anyway. Enhancements: • It is critical to successful implementation of current planning policy that the subdivision ordinance fully reflect the intent of that policy and that there is complimentary linkage of the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. Clear stipulation of this in the Virginia Code may be warranted. 12 As of January 13, 2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (BUDGET, PLAN) Description: The multi-year scheduling of public physical improvements that help guide a locality's decisions on how to allocate funds. The scheduling is based on needs identified in the comprehensive plan, studies of fiscal resources that are available and the choice of specific projects for construction during the next five years. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2-2239 provides that any local planning commission may prepare and submit a capital improvement program (CIP) to the governing body or official charged with preparation of a local budget. The preparation of a CEP is not required but, if a locality chooses to exercise that right, the code further requires that the CIP be "...based on the comprehensive plan for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years." Utilization: • The CIP provides a mechanism for estimating capital requirements; planning, scheduling, and implementing projects; budgeting high priority projects; developing revenue policy for proposed improvements; monitoring and evaluating the progress of capital projects; and simply informing the public of projected capital improvements. • Localities use the CII' to support growth through the calculated sizing, timing, and location of public facilities such as roads, school improvements, parks and recreation enhancements, attractions, water and sewer facilities and drainage improvements. • Section 15.2-2232 of the Code requires that any proposed public improvement not shown or included within the comprehensive plan shall be subject to a public hearing and deteimination by the local planning commission that the facility is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Note: This determination was commonly known as a 456 Review Process prior to the recodification of Section 15.1 to 15.2). Limitations: • Localities often fail to establish the need and policy for CIP projects in the comprehensive plan and the CIP becomes a wishlist of desired public projects rather than a careful evaluation of public expenditures to guide development and redevelopment. Enhancements: • Localities must clearly establish the need and policy for the CIP project list in the comprehensive plan and local Planning Commissions must ask how the CIP implements the comprehensive plan. 13 As of January 13, 2002 SECTION III ADDRESSING ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES This section describes the different tools available to local governments to finance and pace the construction of public facilities to keep up with the demands of new residential development. It includes tools that can direct growth in areas that can provide the necessary infrastructure for development and curb growth in areas intended to remain rural. It also includes tools that link the adequacy of public facilities with new development. These tools include provisions for a fiscal impact analysis, level of service standards, controlling permitted land uses through zoning, offsetting costs of public services as a part of new development through cash proffers and impact fees and controlling growth areas via land use and utility coordination and targeted development areas. These tools are all enhanced by a strong comprehensive plan that clearly articulates a locality's land use policies and a solid fiscal impact analysis which shows the costs of public facilities needed to service new development. These tools are almost all limited by Virginia law, which allows tools that ensure adequate public facilities, such as level of service standards, to be applied if a rezoning is required for development. Virginia law does not allow a local government to adopt what is known as an adequate public facilities ordinance (APFO) or "concurrency" ordinance. An APFO, as practiced in other states, would allow a local government to apply level of service standards at time of plan review and/or building permit issuance. An APFO would help to ensure that adequate public facilities are in place when development occurs and requires that service standards be adopted within a comprehensive plan and that a capital improvement program be adopted. An APFO also requires a commitment from the locality to fluid a capital improvement program that supports development where appropriate. 14 As of January 13, 2002 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Description: A Fiscal Impact Analysis is used to project the operating expenditures and capital outlays :;r public services required to serve a proposed development offset by the revenues a government expected to receive as a result of the development. Authority: VA Code, Sections 15.2-2223-2280 allows any locality to incorporate fiscal impact analysis into their planning, zoning and land use decisions both as a formal model and an informational guidance for decision-making. Utilization: Localities use a fiscal impact analysis to examine the short and long term fiscal effects of land use and development and utilize the information provided by the analysis in a variety of ways, including: • In the plan review and rezoning process, to gauge the impact of any development and to assist in the short term planning for new public facilities. • In the long range planning process, to test alternative patterns of development (growth scenarios) and to assist in the setting of level of service standards. Several of the high growth jurisdictions applied fiscal impact studies as part of their update process to their comprehensive plans to test alternative patterns of development including Loudoun, Prince William, Chesapeake and Fairfax. Chesapeake routinely uses fiscal impact modeling to examine the costs and revenues associated with all proposed rezoning applications. Limitations: • This tool is primarily used to gather information as a basis for employing other tools such as level of service standards and is not in itself used to regulate development. Although the tool can be used as an informational item at the time of development plan review, it cannot be used to stop or postpone development of land already zoned. 15 As of January 13, 2002 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Description: Level of service (LOS) standards specify the public facilities needed for new residential developments in an effort to determine if those facilities are adequate to support a proposed rezoning. Authority: VA Code, Sections 15.2-2223-2280 allows any locality to incorporate level of service standards as a means in determining adequacy of facilities for future development. This does not apply to land already zoned for development. Utilization: Level of service standards are typically set out in a guidance document or comprehensive plan for public facilities such as schools, roads, libraries, parks, public transit, water and sewer systems. An example of localities recently amending their plans to utilize LOS include: • The City of Chesapeake requires all rezoning applications to be subject to level of service standards for roads, schools and sewer capacity. If the proposed development fails any of the standards articulated in the plan, the staff recommends denial of the application. The policy exempts a development that will have minimal impact on schools and roads. • Prince William County has linked the demand for public services created by new development with the County's fiscal ability to provide those services at the level of service standards set forth in the plan. If the development does not meet the LOS established in the plan, either a proffer for improvements or cash proffer can be used to offset the impact. • James City County has also adopted a version of a level of service policy. Limitations: • This tool can only be applied if a rezoning of the property is required for development and cannot be applied, by Virginia law, on land already zoned for development. This tool requires a sophisticated technical analysis and fiscal impact model in order to set the level of service standards and criteria. Enhancements: • Enabling legislation that would allow localities to adopt Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO) and permit localities to apply level of service standards at time of plan review and building permit issuance. 16 As of January 13, 2002 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTING Description: Once land is zoned for specific uses, a locality may use a conditional use permit to assess and mitigate potential adverse effects of a zoned land use Authority: VA Code, Sections 15.2-2286(3) and 15.2-2297, allows all localities to place specific conditions on a use proposed to mitigate any negative impacts the use may have on adjacent property owners or the general public. HB2324, adopted in 1999, expressly prohibits localities from requiring use permits for certain types of single-family subdivisions in districts where such uses are permitted by right. Utilization: Conditional use permitting is a common administrative land use tool for many localities and allows a use -specific review on a case-by-case basis of a particular type of use that meets the zoning restriction for that area, but requires a higher standard of review and may have an impact on: • Property values • Cause excessive traffic on existing roads • Overload existing infrastructure and • Effect public health and safety, etc. • Localities have been moving away from allowing a broad category of uses in zoned areas and requiring "conditional" or "special" uses as a tool for guidance decision making for potential adverse impacts of residential and commercial development. • Conditional use permitting can be applied at the time of development. Limitations: • HB2324 limited some localities, such as Fauquier County's, use of the tool. However, HB2324 does not eliminate a local government's ability to require a special use or conditional use permit for residential uses in non-residential districts such as agricultural zones or for special types of development such as planned developments or town centers. 17 As of January 13, 2002 CONDITIONAL ZONING (PROFFERS) Description: In general, conditional zoning occurs when a local government rezones property upon the condition that the property owner accept certain restrictions. These conditions "run with the land" and subsequent property owners must comply with the conditions as if they were a restrictive easement or covenant. In Virginia this has evolved in some communities to an extremely complex system of expectations and site-specific negotiations between the locality, the property owner and the community impacted by the proposed development. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2 —2296-2297 enables all localities to accept non-cash and non -mandatory proffers that are reasonably related to a rezoning request. The ability of some localities to accept cash proffers is discussed in the next section of this report. Utilization: Conditional zoning is used extensively by Virginia localities to mitigate the impact of development and win community support for a project. This results in the approval of rezoning applications that might otherwise be denied. A wide range of proffers are accepted and consequently enforced as a condition of development. Examples include: • Road improvements: turn lanes, road widening or reconstruction, intersection improvements, construction of new roads; • Parks and Recreation: land dedication, bicycle trails, playgrounds; • Architecture and Design: style, additional landscaping, buffers, tree preservation, specific design features; • Development timing: development restricted until certain public facilities are constructed either by the applicant or the locality, annual phasing of units on a non -cumulative basis t aid in capital improvement planning; • Environmental Issues: noise limitations, specific environmental standards; • Use and density limitations: limitations on permitted uses and density. Limitations: Pursuant to the Code, proffers authorized under these sections must: • be related to the rezoning itself, specifically, to the physical development or operation of the property. • be in keeping with the comprehensive plan. • not require cash payments or mandatory dedications for public facilities except for certain street, sidewalk, curb, gutter, sewerage, and drainage requirements allowed in sections 15.2-2241. • Cannot require the creation of property owner's associations with the express purpose of payment (?) for maintenance of public facilities. (From Karen S.) 18 As of January 13, 2002 CASH PROFFERS Description: A cash proffer is a voluntary offer of money, submitted as part of a rezoning application to offset the impact of a particular development. Authority: VA Code, Sections 15.2-2298 -2303 allows only those localities defined in the statute as "high- growth" localities accept cash proffers. High-growth is generally defined as any locality that had a population growth of ten percent or more from the most recent decennial census year. Utilization: • Cash proffers are used to mitigate the impacts of the new development by providing a funding source for new roads, schools and other public facilities required to serve the proposed development. • Virginia Code does not require localities using a proffer system to develop clear guidelines for proffers, however Prince William County, Loudoun County and the City of Chesapeake have connected the proffer system to level of service standards through their comprehensive plan. Limitations: • This tool can only be applied if a rezoning of the property is required for development and cannot be applied, by Virginia law, on land already zoned for development. Because most localities have significant land zoned for suburban development that is not subject to cash proffers, this tool will not substantially finance necessary capital facilities until the long term. • Cash proffers are voluntary and cannot be mandated. • Cash proffers are only a supplemental revenue tool to be used in conjunction with the locality's capital improvement program, and cannot be relied upon as guaranteed funding since they are dependent upon the rate of growth. • The authority to implement a cash proffer program is not available to all localities. Enhancements: • The ability to accept cash proffers should be made applicable to all localities and local programs should be based on clear guidelines and level of service standards. 19 As of January 13, 2002 LAND USE AND UTILITY COORDINATION Descriptions: Extensions of water and sewer lines significantly affect the timing and density of development. Land use and utility extensions should be coordinated in order to achieve the desired land use pattern. Development required to use public water and sewer will occur in a more orderly pattern adjacent to existing developed areas. Authority: 15.2-2283(vi) 15.2-2232 and other PAlIc water and sewer required Chesterrleld County Availability: All local governments Utilization: 4 Chesterfield: Planned Growth Area Doferred, 1. Public water and sewer is Growth required for development Area in the planned growth area. 2. Public sewer is required Publio water in areas planned for non required residential and higher density residential development. Septic tanks are required in designated areas for residential lots of 2 acres or more. Deferred Growth Area - no planned water and sewer extensions in this area where development is deferred. Hanover: • Planned growth areas require public water and sewer. • Timing of development depends on planned extension of public water and sewer trunk lines. Example: • Sewer line planned to serve development, which conflicts with the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission may reject sewer line extension - not in substantial accord with comprehensive plan,-Va. Code (15.2- 2232). Plane Growth Rural Area 20 Hanever County Planned Growth Area - public viater and scwor ZM2 requieed 1997• �uaz 2aa�- 20or reloped Area ` Proposed Sewer Line 1 l As of January 13, 2002 IMPACT FEES Description: An impact fee is a charge or assessment imposed against new development in order to generate revenue to fund or recover the costs of reasonable public facility improvements necessitated by the development. Authority Chapter 22, Article 3 of the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2119 enables counties, cities, and towns to charge a fair and reasonable fee for connection to a water or sewer system. There is no other specific guidance or parameters specified. In practice, this fee includes the actual cost of connection and a portion of the capital cost of the local facility. VA Code, Section 15.2-2317 -2327 specifically authorizes a county with a population of 500,000 or more (Fairfax County) and adjacent localities to enact an impact fee program for roads. Utilization: • Impact fees for water and sewer (tap fees) are used extensively by all localities with public water and sewer systems. • Impact fees for road improvements are not being utilized in any of the Northern Virginia localities authorized to implement the program. Those localities have complained that the administrative procedures required to implement road impact fees are cumbersome. In addition, Northern Virginia localities are authorized to accept cash proffers and have not found it necessary to implement impact fees as an alternative. • Impact fees are assessed at the time a building permit is issued for new development and are not limited to a rezoning application. The amount must be fair, reasonable and related to the cost of the facilities needed to provide the service. The essential components of an impact fee program include: • delineation of the service area • development of a facility plan (for the service being provided) • adoption of a capital improvement budget/program; and, • tracking procedures. • The program should be based upon land use and population projections in, and otherwise consistent with, a locality's comprehensive plan. The program is adopted by ordinance and must be reviewed periodically. 21 As of January 13, 2002 IMPACT FEES (Continued) Limitations: Impact fees cannot be applied to any development with previously approved proffers for off- site road improvements. Impact fees can only be used for capital projects and cannot be used for operations, repair, or maintenance. • Impact fees are only a supplemental revenue tool to be used in conjunction with the locality's capital improvement program, and they cannot be relied upon as guaranteed funding since they are dependent upon the rate of growth Enhancements: • The authority to establish an impact fee program should be made available to all localities, as currently exists with the water and sewer connection fee authority Impact fees should be able to be applied to all new development, collected at issuance of the building permit. Credits should be provided in cases where a development has previously paid fees through proffers • A prerequisite to any locality establishing an impact fee, is the adoption of an amendment to its comprehensive plan through which the goals of the program are described, the needs determined, and the associated capital improvement program established. An impact fee program can benefit a locality by providing additional revenue to offset the impact of development and facilitate the construction of new public facilities. An impact fee program can benefit a developer by providing a set fee that can more easily be incorporated into project costing. A final benefit, also to the developer it that the fee is uniformly assessed, thus removing a difference in development costs between two similar properties, one subject to proffers and the other not. 22 As of January 13, 2002 TARGETED DEVELOPMENT AREAS Description: A targeted development area or service area designates a specific area of land for development and growth. Local governments can utilize its on criteria in defining a targeted development area and the areas are designated within the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2-2232 and 2283 (legal status of plan and zoning) allows any locality to designate areas for various types of public and private development, use and density. Utilization: There are several different ways a locality may institute a targeted development area. Some of the most popular tools include: • phasing of tiered growth boundaries around a developed area for five to twenty years into the future, • creating service districts in a county, and • growth boundaries dividing urban areas from rural land. Targeted development areas and service districts are effective means of guiding development and are identified in a locality's comprehensive plan. Localities that utilize this tool include: • Fauquier County, who first designated service districts in 1967, is guiding growth towards more compact development and preserving their agricultural lands by limiting the extension of water and sewer outside the service districts. • Virginia Beach, which adopted the Greenline in 1979 to run east and west through the city's center. The land area to the north of the line is designated for urban development and services. The area immediately to the south is a transition area. The land lying south of the transition area is zoned agricultural. To complement the Greenline, Virginia Beach adopted a Purchase of Development Rights program to purchase acres in the agricultural zone for open space. (See discussion on PDR's) The City has purchased over 4,000 acres as part of this program and has succeeded in maintaining growth in the northern area for over 20 years. • Prince William County, who introduced a Rural Crescent into their comprehensive plan in 1998, designating a band of rural development along their western boundary and targeting their growth along the eastern boundary of the county and the interstate corridors. This idea is being considered by adjacent counties and may result in a regional effort to create a greenbelt of agricultural land around Washington DC. • Westmoreland County amended their comprehensive plan in 1999 to identify two Primary Growth Areas and six Secondary Growth Areas. 23 As of January 13, 2002 TARGETED DEVELOPMENT AREAS (Continued) Limitations: Targeted development areas and service districts are created within the framework of a comprehensive plan and are applicable to guiding future development. They are not applicable to land already zoned. A comprehensive downzoning is required if the land zoned exceeds the density guidelines of the targeted area. 24 As of January 13, 2002 SECTION IV RURAL AND NATURAL AREAS PRESERVATION This section describes the different tools available to local governments to preserve the State's agricultural and natural, open space resources. Several tools are available in Virginia to aid in the preservation of these lands. This section of the report reviews voluntary conservation easements, purchase of development rights, land use assessment and taxation programs and agricultural and forest districts. Each tool provides a unique strategy to preserve rural and natural areas. These tools, like those that can ensure adequate public facilities, are enhanced by a strong comprehensive plan that clearly articulates the value of open space and farmland preservation to the community, and indicates those areas to be preserved. A common limitation of these tools is the funding they require to both administer the program, publicize it and often operate it. For example, lack of information limits the use of voluntary conservation easements and lack of funding limits the purchase of development rights. A common tool used by other states but not authorized in Virginia is the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). TDR programs take the development potential of one parcel and transfers it to another parcel; therefore preserving the undeveloped parcel and increasing the density on the receiving parcel. Under such a program, "sending areas" and "receiving areas" are identified in a locality's comprehensive plan along with a statement addressing the public purpose of redistributing density. For example, the sending area may continue to be used for agricultural purposes; a receiving area may need increased density to support public transportation initiatives. A limiting factor to implementing a TDR program is the frequent lack of community support for increasing density in the receiving area. 25 As of January 13, 2002 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS (also Open Space or Scenic Easements) Description: A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land by recording deed restrictions that prohibit development in order to protect its conservation value. Conservation easements allow a property owner to continue to use the land within the terms of the easement and to sell it or pass it on to heirs. Authority: VA Code, Section 10.1-1009 et seq. allows any locality or land trust (defined in Sections 10.1- 1700-5) to accept and hold a conservation easement. In addition, Sections 10.1-1801.2, enacted in 1997, created a fund to assist landowners with the costs of preparing and conveying conservation easements. Utilization: • Conservation easements are used to preserve farmland, watersheds, wildlife habitat, forests, and historical lands. Each easement is unique in terms of acreage, description, and duration. These details are negotiated between the property owner granting the easement and the organization that will be holding the easement. Primary easement holders in Virginia include the Virginia. Outdoors Foundation (VOF), the Va Department of Historic Resources, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and local organizations such as the Piedmont Environmental Council and James River Association. Limitations: Many people do not understand the flexibility and benefits of conservation easements. These include: • By placing their land under easement they are not opening their land to the public. • The property maintains private ownership. • Segments or whole parcels may be placed under easement. • Some or all of the property rights may be deed restricted. • The easement may be held in perpetuity or for a set number of years. • The financial benefits of conservation easements can be substantial in reduced real estate taxes and inheritance taxes if the conservation is donated. 26 As of January 13, 2002 PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Description: Special service districts created to allow a local government to purchase development rights that are then dedicated as easements for conservation, open space or agricultural production. Such service districts allow the locality implementing the program to impose special assessments on a specific area within its jurisdiction for the purpose of acquiring development rights that may be beneficial to the community. Authority: VA Code, Section 15.2-2403 allows any local government to initiate a purchase of development rights program however funding such a program may be limited, as in the case of counties, by constitutional authorities to incur debt. Utilization: The City of Virginia Beach is the only city to fully adopt and fund a PDR program. The City enacted its Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) in 1995 as a non -development option for property owners located in the City's designated rural area. The property owner voluntarily nominates his property for inclusion in the program. A commission reviews the applications and rank them based on (1) the quality of the farmland, (2) circumstances supporting agriculture, (3) likelihood of conversion to nonfarm use, (4) environmental quality, and (5) historic or scenic value. Once eligible properties are determined, the City Council approves the purchase of development rights and directs the City Manager to proceed with negotiations with the landowner. Once the development rights are purchased, the property cannot be developed for non-farm purposes for a pre -determined period of time. After this period, the property owner may request the local government to repurchase the development rights. The Program has several dedicated funding sources: a dedicated $ 0.015 property tax; partial revenues of a local cellular phone tax; and payment in lieu of taxes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These three sources provide approximately $ 3.5 million in annual funding. Landowners participating in the program are paid through installment purchase agreements of twenty- five years maturity. Limitations: • The program requires a dedicated source of stable revenues. Most local governments simply do not have the funds required for such a program and counties are fiuther restricted in that they cannot incur debt. Albemarle County is considering a lease purchase program that would depend on an annual appropriation by their Board of Supervisors inorder to implement this program within their constitutional limitations. 27 As of January 13, 2002 PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (Continued) Enhancements: Enabling legislation for a transfer of development rights program that would relieve local governments of funding the purchase of development rights if a "receiver" were available to utilize the development rights. 28 As of January 13, 2002 LAND USE ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION PROGRAM Description: The Land Use Assessment and Taxation Program uses discounts in property tax assessments to promote and preserve the agricultural and forestal land uses and open space. Authority: VA Code, Sections 58.1-3229 through 58.1-2344 allows any locality, which has adopted a land - use plan, to adopt an ordinance to provide for use value assessment and taxation in certain districts. Utilization: The program's purpose is: • to ensure a readily available source of agricultural, horticultural, and forestal products, • to conserve natural resources, preventing erosion and protecting water supplies, • to preserve scenic natural beauty and open spaces, • to promote proper land -use planning and the orderly development of real estate for the accommodation of an expanding population, and • to promote a balanced economy. According to the Commissioners of the Revenue Association of Virginia 1998 Statistical Abstract, about half (70) of the 136 counties and cities that are listed have parcels in a Land Use Assessment and Taxation Program. Rollback taxes must be paid with the property is removed from the program. Limitations: Many jurisdictions have the personnel to process the applications but often lack of the resources to verify the information provided by the property owner. Consequently, the honor system is often used. Enhancements: None provided. 29 As of January 13, 2002 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST CONSERVATION DISTRICT PROGRAM Description: The Agricultural and Forest Conservation District Program is a voluntary program in which farmers, foresters and landowners form an Agricultural and/or Forest Conservation District for the purposes of conserving areas that are rural and agricultural. The property owner continues to hold fee simple title to the land, but the easement restrictions run with the land, for a set term of years. The agreements usually include exceptions that permit the landowner to withdraw from the program under certain circumstances. Authority: VA Code, Sections 15.2-4300 et seq. allows any locality to adopt an Agricultural and Forest Conservation District Program. Land lying within a district and used in agricultural or forestal production is automatically qualified for a land use assessment pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 32 of Title 58.1 regardless if a local ordinance pursuant to 58.1-3231 has been adopted. (See the discussion on Land Use Assessment and Taxation) Utilization: • Agricultural and Forest Conservation Districts are typically initiated by one or more farmers to protect their fames from nonfarm development. They are promoted by a locality as a means for encouragement. These districts can also be used for the purpose of minimizing the impact of incompatible development in agricultural areas and can be made more effective by incorporating a PDR program. • An added benefit for using Agricultural and Forest Districts for a conservation tool is that it usually opens discussions between local government, farmers, foresters and landowners to impalement fiuther types of land protection. Limitations: • Agricultural and Forest Conservation programs can include limitation of clearing for non- fanning onfanning development, which prohibits government agencies from taking or condemning lands for roads or other purposes. • No local ordinances may be passed in an Agricultural and Forest District that would unreasonably restrict or regulate farming practices, other than to provide for health and safety of the public. 30 As of January 13, 2002 APPENDIX A TOOLS FOR REVITALIZATION Tools for Revitalization are used mostly with urban areas and are incentive -based to encourage developers to redevelop underutilized sites or reinvest in communities already served by basic infrastructure. As the purpose of this report is to examine tools available to address new growth, this section is provided as an appendix and is simply descriptive in nature. Revitalization tools should not be ignored when a community engages in planning its future course. Revitalization can help manage growth by directing it into areas already served by public utilities, roads and schools thus avoiding the construction of expensive infrastructure into areas which, in tum, would hasten new development. Appendix A describes the strengths, weaknesses and use of the following tools for revitalization: the sharing of revenues between localities, enterprise zones, empowerment zones, tax increment financing, and density bonuses. 31 As of January 13, 2002 REVENUE SHARING (Tax Sharing) Description: The sharing of revenues between jurisdictions involves the transfer of some portion of a locality's revenue receipts, with the individual political subdivisions retaining full autonomy over tax rates applied within their jurisdiction. Revenue- sharing programs have been employed to offset some perceived inequitable consequences in an area from the nature and pattern of development and to address problems caused by local reliance on the property tax. Authority: Section 15.2-3400, Code of Virginia authorizes all localities to include provisions establishing long-term, permanent revenue-sharing agreements settling annexation or govemmental transition issues. Further, Section 15.2-1301, Code of Virginia permits all local governments to enter into voluntary economic growth -sharing agreements for purposes other than the settlement of boundary change or transition issues. Finally, there are specific jurisdictions that have been granted authority by the General Assembly to enter into revenue-sharing arrangements with regard to economic development [Section 15.2-6214, Code of Virginia (City of Clifton Forge and Alleghany County) and Section 15.2-6407, Code of Virginia (the localities in Planning Districts 4 and 5)]. Utilization: • For settling annexation issues: City of Radford -Pulaski County, City of Charlottesville - Albemarle County, City of Franklin -Isle of Wight County, and City of Lexington - Rockbridge County. • For annexation and economic development purposes: City of Radford -Montgomery County, City of Franklin -Southampton County, City of Bristol -Washington County, and City of Bedford -Bedford County • For economic development purposes: City of Clifton Forge -Alleghany County, Cities of Buena Vista and Lexington -Rockbridge County, and the jurisdictions of Planning Districts 4 and 5. Limitations: • Negotiations to reach a revenue-sharing agreement are very complex and require a considerable amount of time and patience because of their long-term and permanent nature. • In all but a few circumstances, a revenue-sharing program that calls for a county to transfer monies to a municipality is considered a general obligation debt of the former and thus, requires referendum approval by county voters. 32 As of January 13, 2002 REVENUE-SHARING (Continued) • The most common form of revenue sharing in use in Virginia today requires review by the Commission on Local Government and approval by a special three-judge court, which could take at least nine months. • Revenue-sharing agreements generally require the receiving jurisdiction to surrender permanently some governmental or functional authority (e.g., a city's right to revert to town status, some portion of the capacity in municipal water and sewer systems, etc.). • Localities that have low property tax rates and growing capital needs often cannot "afford" to enter into revenue-sharing arrangements. 33 As of January 13, 2002 ENTERPRISE ZONES Description: • d a by +1, c+a+P f".,de c n "econornic- Av distressed, distinct .Ml enterprise zone is eiuie�. y - VU.ate a a _ d, - geographical area of a county, city or town as designated by the Governor". The Enterprise Zone Program is a state and local partnership in which both parties seek to improve economic conditions within a targeted area of distress. Authority: Section 59.1-274 of the Code of Virginia allows for the governing body of any county, city or town to make written application to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). The Governor may approve, upon the recommendation of the Director of DHCD, the designation of up to fifty areas as enterprise zones for a period of twenty years. Two or more adjacent jurisdictions can file a joint application. Each county, city and town is limited to a total of three enterprise zones but the proposed zone area must meet at least one of the following criteria: • Have 25% or more of the population with incomes below 80% of the median income of the jurisdiction, • Have an unemployment rate 1.5 times the state average, or • Have a demonstrated floor area vacancy rate of industrial and/or commercial properties of 20% or more. Utilization: In 1999, there were 47 designated enterprise zones in Virginia. These zones are dispersed throughout the state with the greatest concentration being in Central and Tidewater Virginia. Local incentives vary but Virginia provides the following four state incentives to private enterprise to encourage job creation and investment within enterprise zones. • Ten year general income tax credit against a business's state tax liability in an amount up to 80% in year one and 60% in years two through ten. • Real property improvement tax credit equal to an amount of up to 30% of qualified zone improvements with a maximum amount not to exceed $125,000 within a five-year period. • Investment tax credit against a business's state tax liability for businesses investing $100 million and creating 200 jobs. • Job grants for jobs created by business start-ups and expansions by existing firms in amounts equal to $1,000 per zone resident hired and $500 for any other job per year. Limitations: • The Governor must approve enterprise zones in order to qualify for the incentives listed above and the total number of zones allowed is limited by the General Assembly. 34 As of January 13, 2002 EMPOWERMENT ZONES Description: An Empowerment Zone is a community characterized by poverty, unemployment and general distress. A local government and its State must nominate a local area meeting the required size, population and poverty criteria. Selected Empowerment Zones are awarded block grants from the Department of Health and Human Services under Title 20 of the Social Security Act. Authority: Empowerment Zones were established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Title XIII, Chapter 1). The 10 -year initiative instituted funding, designation procedures and eligibility criteria for creating both Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. Utilization: Each Empowerment Zone receives $100 million and each rural Empowerment Zone receives $40 million from Title 20 of the Social Security Act to be used for economic development, human resources development, and community development. In addition, Empowerment Zones are eligible to apply for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds. These cost free bonds provide a source of capital for all schools in Empowerment Zones. The money may be used for school capital improvements, teacher training, equipment, curriculum development, and other school related needs. Virginia has one designated Empowerment Zone in Norfolk/Portsmouth. Limitations: Empowerment Zones are very unique and selective sites. As such, there are very few throughout the country and not widely available to local governments as a tool. For the first round, President Clinton announced on December 21, 1994, three rural and six urban Empowerment Zones. Round II, authorized under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, designated five rural and fifteen urban Empowerment Zones. When no more fiords were available under Title 20, the Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded over $200 million to two additional urban jurisdictions called Supplemental Empowerment Zones. 35 As of January 13, 2002 EMPOWERMENT ZONES (Continued) Federal Contact Virginia Contact USDA EZ/EC Team Norfolk Works Reporters Building, Rm. 701 201 Granby Street 300 7`h Street, SW Ste. 100A Washington, DC 20024 Norfolk, VA 23510 1-800-6454712 or 202-619-7980 Phone: 757-624-8650 Website: www.ezec.gov Attn: Eleanor Bradshaw 36 As of January 13, 2002 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Description: Tax increment financing is a redevelopment fielding strategy that uses the expected increases in tax revenue from the redevelopment of an area that is blighted from dilapidation, deterioration, and/or inadequate public utilities. Based on the earmarking of a projected expanding tax base, bonds can be sold or loans can be granted for improvements to an area that assist private reinvestment to occur. The financing acts as a catalyst that is quickly replenished from the resulting development. Authority: The Virginia State Code, Section 58.1-3245 through 58.1-3245.3, has authorized the use of real estate tax increment financing to promote private investment as part of the blighted area redevelopment program since 1988. The Code states that it is within the public interest of local governments to provide public facilities (such as roads, water, sewer, safety services, parks, and schools) to blighted areas. The Code requires jurisdictions to establish a Tax Increment Financing Fund for each project. Increases in real estate taxes attributable to the development project, as determined by a base assessment value, are paid into the Tax Increment Financing Fund and used to pay the principal and interest on loans for development costs. Utilization: Few jurisdictions in Virginia utilize tax increment financing. Virginia Beach currently uses the tool in the area of the Lynnhaven Mall shopping complex. The financing will be used for public acquisition of property and public improvements (which will result in the lease of parking spaces, improved traffic flow, improved transit service, and improved storm water management practices) associated with the expansion of the mall. According to Virginia Beach the advantages of this financing are: • It allows the incremental increase in real estate tax revenues from new development, redevelopment or expansion to pay for public investments/infrastructure needed to attract private investment; • It provides another tool for job creation; • Property owners pay no more than the normal tax rate; • Tax increment bonds are not counted against the City's annual charter limits; therefore, they do not detract from other needed infrastructure financing; and • In effect, the new development pays for itself with property taxes, while other benefits and taxes flow to the community at large. 37 As of January 13, 2002 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (Continued) Limitations: • Tax increment bonds are inherently less secure than General Obligation Bonds, as they apply to only a small portion of the City, which typically means higher interest costs; • Tax increment financing districts may be seen to potentially divert future property taxes from other uses; and • If tax increment financing districts proliferate and take up too much of the tax base of the community, then the tax base available to support the locality's general fund could be impaired. 38 As of January 13, 2002 DENSITY INCENTIVES Description: Discussion a'oout influencing development to occur in accord with goals and objectives of a community frequently involves ideas of positive incentives. Many times, the most positive incentive to developers is increased and/or "replacement" density. Incentives maybe applied through the rezoning process and/or directly through provisions of the Zoning Ordinance text. In the rezoning process, a locality's Comprehensive Plan may be constructed so as to provide density ranges for an area that may be planned for residential use or intensity ranges (i.e., ranges of building square footage) for nonresidential use. For example, the range may be 5-8 dwelling units to the acre. Deciding density of a zoning approval is a matter of the extent to which the objectives as specified in the Comprehensive Plan are met by the zoning proposal, which may include credit for offsetting impact on public facilities. Beyond this approach are incentives that may be directly incorporated into a locality's Zoning Ordinance. Incentives may be structured to foster affordable housing, dedication of land for highway improvements, reservation of land in open space, dedication of land for public uses, such as school, library or fire station sites. In compensation or as an incentive for the dedication of land for public purposes, the developer is allowed to recoup the dwelling units or nonresidential square footage attributable to the dedicated land area on the portion of the parcel remaining after dedication. The benefit to the developer is no net loss in density and the increased marketability of a project due to its proximity to a valued public facility. Authority: Existing planning and zoning enabling legislation sets forth broad purposes and objectives which allow localities to establish density ranges and the criteria to be satisfied in order to develop at certain densities. In the legislative act of rezoning, there is opportunity and the discretion to facilitate implementation of local objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Similarly, zoning enabling legislation allows construction of ordinances that promote specific purposes. The degrees to which different local governments have structured credits in Ordinances to provide incentives has not been studied as part of this information effort. Flexible zoning, such as planned unit developments or planned developments allow opportunities for reduced lot sizes, setback, etc., in return for land set aside for environmental or other public purposes. Other Information: When applying density credits, the extent to which density may be awarded will reflect the priorities of the community as may be set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Purposes are therefore varied and should be left to the discretion of the local governing body (ex: open space, preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, land area for public facilities, land for public roads, affordable housing, etc.). 39 As of January 13, 2002 Virginia Planning Legislation Matrix IPOP% ige Change '90 '90-'98 Loudoun 50.0 67.1 R E/U .. R E/U EN EN E/U E/U E/U E/U EJU E _..... E/U E E!U _ ,, E/U Legend ._.... -.... Fluvanna _ ... 21.3 .. ..... 49.4 R .. E/U R E17 E ......._... El? .._._.....� ... ........ ...... t.. Spotsylvania_ 66.7 45.8 _ RE1U _ . R E!U EIU E/U - .... .....-._.. E/U EIU _.._.._ EIU ......... E/U .......... E/U ... No .. ...... E/C :.. E :, E!U ........... E/U ....._ E Enabled - _ . Powhatan 17.4 43.2 R ? E!U R E/U E ElU EIU E/U E/U EN E!U No ENE E/U E/U EN Using Tool _ Stafford 51.3 42.2 R ,.., EIU -, R ._ Liu . _ _.. E , E EIU EIU �E E/U E/U No - E E :_ E/U FJU EIC Considering York 19.7 38.5 R � E/U � R -- FJU E/U E .ElU E!U FJU E EIU - No EN�� E E E E/P =Partially Zoned Greene 35.0 35.9 R E/U R FJ? :_. E E!? E/U El? E El? E/? No E!? E E!? -!-- E1? E/? = Unknown _. _........... ... .. - _.._ Greenville- ... - -20.9 30.7 R . ...... '. E/U _._... R EI? __ E --.........E!? ........_E/U......... En . _.. No -E(7 ..E7.... .....No...... Et?......... E E!? Et? No=NoAuthority- 25.6 29.5 R OU U ! R EtU E EIU EtU EIU E!U E E ...... No E ._. E -_ E ',, E ................_.._. _....._ _ ........__. King George ..... 28.3 .. ... 27.4 R EIU R _ Et? E Et? ........... E/U .. E/? E- EI? ER No E!? E E/? _ E!? _ James City 53.6 26.5 R E/U R E!U _ E/U EIU EIU .EIU E/U EIU E/U - NoE E E E Goochland 20.4 25.8 R E/U !, R E(7 E E!? E/U E/U E .. E/? E!? No EI? E E/? E/? - New Kent _ 19.0 25 R E!U:- R E!? E E/? E/U E1? E ! Et? Et? No _ _.. E!? E Et? ! Et? ..._..... ..._...__.. ....... Bedford ...30.7 ........ 22.7 R _ .... E/U _. __........ R .-...... E/U E ._...._ E __ . ElU __.. EIU ... _ _...... ... E ........ E ._ E _. No E_ E EIU E Louisa 14.0 21.4 R ! E/U R E1? :.___ E - Et? E/U E/? E_ F/7_ „ _„ _ E/?..... _ No....... E ........ E { .... E/7 .__........ _..:._._ __. ......... _ _............ Frederick 33.9 20.8 ....:. R .... '. EJU I R ___.. E/U E E/U E!U E/U .. : E/U E/U E/U ; No - E E E/U ElU Prince William 49.1 20.5 R ElU R E/U E/U EIU E/U E/U E/U ..- EN E/U E E E EIU E/U Richmond 4.8 19.1 R E!U R .d E/7 E Et7 E/U E/7 No E/7 E!7 No El? E El? E!? - Culpeper -- 22.9 _ 19 R E/U R - - EIU E __,...:E/UElU - E!U E/U E!U E/U No E E E/U E/U Orange-„ 18.6 18.6 R E!U R El? E E/? E/U EJU E E!7 E/? - No E/? E Ell E1? Amelia 4.5 18 R E/U R E/? E ! E/? E/U E/7 No EI? Et? : _ No .. H? ... E - ........ E/? E!? _. ......._. .... __.. ._............. ...... Chesterfield .... 48.2 .. 17.3 R...........'.. ...;._.. ElU R - E!U - E ............ E/U E/U ......... E/U ......._ EIU EtU E/U _.__._.. No E E E/U E King William..,....., 16.9 17.4 R �: E/U R..,..., E/? , E En E!U E/U EIU E!? E/7 No E/? E � E/? �; E/? Isle of Wight 16.0 16.8 R ! E/U R E/U VC DU E!U EIU E/U E!U EN No E E 00 EIU Gloucester 49.9 16.4 R E/U R Et? ! E Et? E/U E/? -El? - E E%? E!? No EI? E E/7 ! Et? Warren 33.3 15.2 R E/U - R FJ? E E/? E/U E Et? Et? No j EI? E E/? Et? Alhemarie 22.2 15 R E/U R E/U E ! E/U E/U E/U E/U E/U. E/U No E/U E/C E/U EIU Caroline 7.3 14.8 R EIU R E!7 E E/7 E/U E/U No - E/7 E/? No EI? E E/? EI? Botetourt 7.4 14.3 R E/U R E/U E ' E E/U E/U -�E/7 No E E No ..... E/U .. E E/U E/U _. . __..._._ Buckingham 9 -9.6 13.7 R. ... .. ;.. FJU R- E/? - - E ..... FJ? ..........E/U � � No E/7 E/? No EI? E E/? E/7 Fairfax37.1 13.5 R E/U R E/U E E/? E/U EIU E/U j E/? E/7 E Et? E E/? E/? Augusta - 8 1. 13 R E/U R E/U : E E/C E/U EIU No E!U EIU No E/C E E/U E/U Henrico 20.5 12.9 R E/U - R E/U E E E/U E/U E EE!U No E E ! E/U E/U Charles City -6.1 12.9. R E!U R _ Et? E E/? E/U -, E/? E E/7 E/7 No E/? E E/? E/? Franklin 10.7 12.6 R E/P R E/U E E E1U E/U E E/U EIU No E E E/U E/U Craig 10.7 ...11.7 R E/U.............. R E/7 E ,.....__E/7 E!U E/? E Et? E/7 No EI? E Eh Et? ...._.___., Middlesex 12.1 11.3 R - E/U - R E!? E E/? E/U E/? E E/? E!? No ......_.... E/? _......._._... E E!7 ........;. E77 ........ .............. _.. ............. _..... ......_. Fauquier_ ......_..... 36.1 .............. 10.7 .._.......... R .....:_. E/U ._. R .._ _. __ _....:._.. EIU ..:.......... E/C EIC ......... E/U .E ............ ElU ..._........._ E/U __.... E/U No E/U E/C E/U E/U ._ Dinwiddie -1.3 10.5 R EIU - R FJU E E E/U E/U No E/U E/U No E E - EIU - E Prince George 6.5 10 R _ E/U R EI? E E!? E/U --EIU _ E!? No E/? E/7 No Et? E E/7 _! Et? Rockingham 0.8 10 R E/U R E/U E E/U E!U E E/C E/C No E/C E E/U E/U Prince Edward 5.3 9.9 R E/U R E!? E E!? E/U E!? No Et? E/? No E!? E E!? El? Rappahannock 8.7 9.8 R - E/U - R _ E/? - E E!? - - E/U E/U E E!? E!? No E/? E E/? E/? Shenandoah 14.6 9.6 R E/U R ElU E E E/U E/U EIU E/U EtU No E E - E/U E!U Floyd 3.5 9.4 R E R E/? E Et? - E- E/? No Et? Et? No ER - E E/7 E/? - Northumberland 7.1 9.4 R E/U R E!? E E!? EIU E/? No E!? E/? No E/? E E/? E/? Nelson 4.7 8.9 R E/U R Et? E _ E/? E/U E/? No E/? El? No _ E/?_ _E _ E!? E/? Prepared by VAPA 1 July, 1999 Virginia Planning Legislation Matrix Prepared by VAPA 2 July, 1999 Pop % Pop % /"/,// Ve�- Mathews 4.4 8.7 R ElU R E!? ! E E/? E/U Et? No EI?.. E/? No � E17 �- �-- E _. EI? -. E/? � � s � � Washington � . -1.3 . 72 R EtU R - � E/? '� �-� E � � �EI? E/U E!7 No E!? EI? No E/7 E E/? �: E17� Legend ....... Appomattox 2.7 6.8 R EIU R E/? E E/? FJU E/7 No E/? E/1 No E/7 E,. E/7 : E!? R -Required Rockbridge 2.5 6.fi R `.- E/U R E/7 E E/7 E/U El? No ... Ell E!? No- E/7 E El? E/7 E = Enabled _ Madison 16.8 6.3 R I E/U R E/? -, E E17 EIU E!? E E!? EI? _ No E(7 - - E E/? `,� Eh EIU = Using Tool _ _ --, Mecklenburg -0.7 6.2 R ! E!U R E/7 _ E E/7 EN E/7 No E/7 E/T No E/7 E '; E/? : E/7 EIC = Considering _ Pae 4 11.8 6 R ;.. E!U R --- E/? _- E ....._E/? E17 E/U En E E!? E/7_ _ No E!? E Eh E/7 - EI? Unknown . Campbell P. 4.7 5.8 R EIU F2 ...... E/7 E E!U Eh No EI? EST ... No ....._ E!? .... E ;. E/? :.. E/7 ..... ..... Clarke 21.4 5.fi R E/U R E/U E : E/U E/U ..E EtU. E/U No EIC - E E/U E/U .. ......__ Patrick -1.0 5.5 R E/U R . E/? .E/C E E!? E/7 No ... E/? ........ E(7 ...._ .. No ...... E(7 E E/7 E/7 _....... ....... _._............. ... ..... ....... _ _....... Lunenburg -5.8 ......... 5.5 .;. R ,,, E/U ........... R ._ _. Ef7 ,......... E E/7 -,E/U E/U E/? No E/7 E17 No ER E E/? Et7 Su 5.3 R ;. E/U, R EI? .., E - E!7 EIU E!7 No E/? E/7 No _ _ E/T E E!7 -- E77 ........., Westmoreland _1.6 10.3 5.2 R EIU - R E/U -� EIC EIC E/U EIU No E/U E/U - No E/U E E/U E _. Amherst -- -1.9 R EIU R EI? L..._ E E/? E/? No Ell E/1 No _ E17 E E/7 E/? Essex -2.0 .,_5.1 5 R E/U 1. 1.... R El? ! E .,_,.._EIU E/7 E/U E!7 No E/? E/? No-- E/7 E E/7 E!? Carroll -2.5 4.9 R E RE/7 E E!7 EIU E/? No EI? El? No Et? E EI? _. „ E/? Charlotte -4.7 4.9 ._;_ R E/U R -- E( 7 E -EI? EIU EI? No E/7 E!? No E/? E E/7 EI7 Brunswick 2.3 4.6 R ` E/U R EI7E E/? E!U E!? No E/T E/7 No €n E _. EI? E17 - Lancaster 7.6 4.4 R EIU! R Ell - E EI? EIU E!? No E17 E/? No E/? E E/? Et.? King and Queen 5.4 3.8 R EIU R E/? E El? EIU E/7 NoE/7 E/7 No E/7 E E/? ! E/? Arlington 12.0 3.7 R E/U R EIU E E EN EN E E E E E E ; E E - Bland 2.63.6 R !. E/U R........,,,,_,., E/7 �. E Ell E E/? No Et? ... E/7 No _. E!? ........... E _-- E!? ......; E/7 ...._._ .. _.......... Wythe -- - -0.2 - 3.1 R ! E - R E/7 E E!? -- E EM No Ell EI? No E!? E E/? E)? Pittsylvama......_. 15.8 3.1 R ....... EIU,_ R ....... E/? ......_ E : _......._E/7 - .......E/U En No EI? E!? No E/7 .. E E!7 E!? __............... ...._....... ...._.__ Montgomery 16.4 2.7 R E/U R EIU ', E - E EtU EtU E E E No E E E/U EIU Halifax-......._ _5.1 2.3 R E/U :. .. R E/U : E/U ,E No E/U E/U No E/C E E E _..._ ....................... Roanoke 8.8 1.9 _ R ` E/UR �': E/? E E/? ..EIU £!U FJU EIU E!7 EI? No E/7 E E!7 E!? _ Bath � -18.1 1. 9 R E/U R E/7 E E!? EIU EI? No Ell ...E E/7 No E/? _.. E E/? � _• Et? Tazewell ..._..._... -9.0 1.8 R E R _.._. E ! E E E No E No. E E E E Accomack 1.4 1.7 R E/U R E E E E/U _E EIU E E E No E E E/U E/U ......_ ............ Russell -9.7 ... 1.3 R-- E R -- - .... E E E E E No E E No E E E E Smyth -3.0 1.2 R E R E/? E E!? EIU E/7 _ No E/7 E/? No EI7 E Et7 _ - � El7 Cumberland- -0.7 0.3 R E/U R EI? E E/7 E/U E!T E E/? ER No E/? E E/4 Et7 Pulaski -2.1 0.1 R EIU ' R FJ7 E E/? EIU El? -: No E17 E/7 No E!? E -E E/? E/7 Nottoway- 2.2 ....0 R EIU R --- E/7 E E!7 E/U E!? No Ell E/? No E/? E/7 E/?--- Southampton -6.3 -0.6 R E/U R El? E EI? EIU E/? No E/7 E/7 No E!7 E El? E/7 Giles -8.1 -0.8 R E/U R E/7 E E/? E E/7 No EI? E/? No EI? E : EI? E/? Grayson -1.8 _ _..-1 R EIU ', R E/? E E!7 E E/7 No E/7 E!7 No E/? E Ell E!? Henry - -1.2 -2.3 R E/U R El? E - E/? E E17 No E17 E/? No EI? E EI? E/? Wise -9.8 -2.5 R EIU R E E - E E E No E E/P No E E E E Scott -7.4 -2.6 -R E R E/7 E ' E/? E E!? - No ...... E!? ........ No E!? E ....._ E!? _._... E/?- ... __.. .. ........ Northampton .. -10.7 .. 2.7 R ..., EIU _.. ', R _._ ._- E!? __ E E/7 ....... _ E E/? E EI? Ell No E!? E Ell Ell Lee -5 .6 -2. 8 R E/U R op E No E E/P No E......... £ E_.... .... . E ..... Sussex - - -5.8 -32 R E/U R .....,..E E/? , ...... E ...---...E Et7 ........._E E El? _ No PJ? E/T No E/? E EI? _ EI? Dickenson - -11.0 -4.1 R-- E R E E E E E No E E No E E E E Highland -10.3 -5.2 R E/U R EI? E E/? E E/? No El? El? No Et? E EI7 E!? Alleghany -8.1 -6.3 R EIU R E/? : E E/? E E!? No E!? E/? No E_ /? E E/? E!? Buchanan 17.5 -7.7 R E R E E E E E No : E E No E E E E Prepared by VAPA 2 July, 1999 Virginia Planning Legislation Matrix IigeChange Pop 90 90 -'98 ._ Cities......._ ..... __._....... _.. .. .......... _...... ....._..... _. ........ ._ _.. Chesapeake 32.8 31.3 R E!U R E/U E/U - E/U EIU E/U E/U E/U--E/U No E E EN E Manassas Park 3.2 29.4 R E/U R E/? E I E/? E!U E!U -E E E17 E E/7 E E/? E Legend Manassas 81.1 26.4 R E/U R E/U :. E E/U - E!U E!U E/U EE E E E E E R=Required Suffolk 9.5 20.3 R E/U R E/U E/C E/U E/U EIU E/U EIU E/U No E(C E E/U E E = Enabled Frederick 24.2 14 R EJU R E/U E E .EIU E/U E EIU E No E/U E E/U E E/U Using Tool Franklin 7.6 10.4 R EIU R .. . E/? E E/? E/U E/U No E/? E/? No- E17-- _ E El? E E/C Considering Virginia Beach 49.9 10 R E!U R E/U E E/U EIU --ElUE/U E!U EIU E/U E/U No E/U E!U E/U E/U E/? =Unknown _- Harnsonburg._ 56.1 8.9 R ElU R Et7 E ........ E!7 --E EI? E/T - No E/? --E .....-, E!? E Alexandria 7.7 6.4 R E/U R El? E E/7 E/U -_ E!7 E ! EI? E/T -E E/7 E Lexington __.,,,... - -4.6 . 5.8 ., R,,...,, �. _ E/U R „�, E!7 ,.., E E/7 - E/U E/7 No E/? E/7 No E/7 E E!? E Colonial Heights 2.7 5.5 R E/U R _ E!7 - E E/? E/U ...... E/7 .. E E!? E(? - .......-. No __.. E/? _ E ....... E/? . _.... E __._....... .. .......... -- Falls Church 0.7 _ 5.5 ..4.9 R E/U .....: R E/7 - E E/? E/U E/U E E/? E17 E EI? E E/7 E - -- Williamsburg_. 16.8 R E/U R EJU E E ....E/U ..._E!U E _EIU -E.. ....No_ - ..E._._ E _..... E .......... E Newport News ..... P _...... 18.3 4.2 R _ EJ - R E!? - E ........ E/? EIU EI? E EI? E)? No E!? E E!? E Poquoson- 26.1 4.1 R E/U R E/? E - E/7 ...__E/U .....E/? --E Et? E!? No - .._E!?......_ ......._.... --- E ....-- E!7 E - _ ....... ........ Fairfax 1.2 4 R..... E/U R --- E/? E, _., E/7 E/U E/7 E E!? E!? EE/? E._....... E(7 E --- Salem -0.8 3.7 R E!U R ME Ef? E/U--E!? No E/? E/? -.......No. E17 E E/7 E Winchester ._.... 8.6 -2.2 3.2 -2.5 R E/U R ...- EIU E _ _ _ E/U EIU OU E E E/U No E E E/U E _ Galax R.__. EIU R E/7 ".. E E/� ......E/U __........E/7 No E/? E!?. No E/?- .._E_.._..... E!? E,...... Hampton - 9.1 2.4 R E/U R EIU E „_ E E/U E/U E/U E/U E/U No E/U E E/U E Bedford 1.4 2.3 R EIU; R E/7 E E!? E/U --......E(7 ...EEl7 E/7 No E/9 E._..-- E!?-- E .... Waynesboro _ ... _21.0 0.1 ..... R _.._:._.. E/U .: .. R .._.... E!? _.... E _......... E/? E/U E/? E EI? El? No E/? E Ei7 E _ Emporia 13.2 -0.1 R E/U R E/7 E E/? ........ EIU E(? ............ E : EI? __..._... E!7 No E1? E E!? E Lynchburg -1.0 -0.9 _-...- . R _...._.... E/U R _............. E/ v ..�..... E .......... E/? E/U Eh E E/? E%? No E!? E - E/7 E -' Radford 20.5 1.3 R E/U R EI? E E/? ......._. .. E!U .......... E/7 E E/? ........ E/? __.. .... .... No .......... E/? ..... E ............ E/? . E ......_... ..._._.. __....... . _... _._._... Buena Vista 4.6 -1.8 R - E/U R Ell E E/7 E/UE/? No E/7 E/7 No E!7 E E/? E Norton - -10.7 -2.2 R E/U R E/U E E E/U E/U No E E!P .No E - E - E E _.. . Hopewell -1.3 -2.5 R E/U R E/7 - E_. E!? E/U E!? No FJ? E/? No E/? E . E/? E Roanoke -3.7 -2.9 R E/U R E/U E E EIU E/U - No E E No E E E/U E Martinsville -11.0 -3.1 R E/U -, R EIU. E E E/U E/U No E E No E _ E- E E Danville 16.2 -4.1 R E/U R E/U EIU E -- E/U E/U E E ....E No E E - .ElU- EIU --- Richmond -7.5 -11.9 -4.3 R E/U - R E/? E E/? EIU E/? : E E/7 E!? - No E/? E E!? E Staunton -4.6 R EIU R E/7 E E/7 E/U E/7 E E/7 Ell � No E/7 _ E � E!? E _ .... ., Covington -22.9 --0.6 -4.7 R E/U R E/? E E/7 E/U E/7 No E/? E/? No E/? E El? E Portsmouth -4.8 R E!U R E/? E E/7 _ E/U E17 E - E/? E!? No E/? E E/7 - E Bristol -3.2 -5.1 R EIU R E!? E E/? E/U E/? No E/? E/? No E/? E E/7 E Charlottesville 1.1 -5.6 R E/U R E/? E E/7 E!U - E/? E E/? E!? No E/? E : - E/? E - .Petersburg -9.8 6.2 R - E/U R E!? E E/? E/U E/? No EI? E/7 No E/7 EE/7 E Clifton Forge -7.3 -7.2 R ._..... E!U R ............. EI? .._,..._ E :..__... E/? E!U Eh No E/? E/?_ No E/? E -_- ER E Norfolk -2.2 -17.6 R E/U......... R E/U E E .........E/U . .....-E/U ,........_E ..._E_ ...E . F........... F_.................. ..._._. ___ _.......... Prepared by VAPA 3 July, 1999 ArticlpLey 26 Planning August/September 2003 his northwest Colorado county is famous for two things: its western heritage and the Steam- boat Ski Area. The link between the county's ranch history and Steamboat Springs's main economic engine, tourism, has been well documented. A 1994 study showed, for in- stance, that ranch open space was a major draw for visitors. But with rising population and second home construction, the ranches are rapidly disappearing. Over the past decade, county and city offi- cials, tourism leaders, and local ranchers have worked together to preserve the remaining agricultural open space. A major step was the county's adoption in 1995 of two regulations that encouraged clustering. Curious about how well the program worked, I visited several developments pro- duced as a result of these regulations and interviewed planners and ranchers involved in the program. How it "corks The county's Land Preservation Subdivision Exemption program allows homes to be clus- tered on smaller lots than the base zoning permits, in exchange for preservation of at least 100 acres of open space. The LPS pro- gram gives landowners an alternative to subdi- viding their property into the standard 35 - acre lots that state statute allows with no county subdivision review. At the same time, the county revised its Minor Development Subdivision Exemp- tion, which applies to subdivisions of up to four lots. The MDSE process also allows smaller lots in exchange for preserved open space. The original intent of both programs was to aid ranchers by allowing them to sell off small parcels, while preserving most of their prop- erty as ranchland. Although the focus is on preserving agricultural lands, the programs also emphasize preserving environmental re- sources and maintaining the visual character of the rural landscape. LPS participants are allowed a base density of one lot per 35 acres, plus one bonus lot for every 100 acres preserved. For example, the 285 -acre Blue Valley Ranch, which applied American Planning Association 27 By Susan Ernst Corser outt Coon A close look at one Colorado county. By taking advantage oftheLPSprograrn, Creek Ranch was able to sell its lots ata premium, while preserving over 1,200 acres of ranchland. for an exemption in 1999, was allowed 10 lots in exchange for its 200 acres of preserved open space. Eight lots would have been permitted under regular zoning. The resulting lots aver- aged eight acres each. Seventy percent of the property was preserved. The upshot So how are the LPS and MDSE programs work- ing after seven years? The first question is whether or not landowners are actually using them. The answer is clearly yes, as indicated by a study completed in March by Routt County planners John Eastman and Caryn Fox, the department director. The study was conducted in response to developers' concerns about the more stringent approval requirements for LPS subdivisions and the presumed difficulty of marketing the smaller lots. Of the 535 new lots created in the county's agriculture/forestry zone between 1996 and 2001, over 29 percent were LPS lots or MDSE lots with preserved open space. Over 75 per- cent of the total 5,432 acres within the LPS projects were preserved as open space. In terms of profitability, LPS projects appear to come out even with, or possibly ahead of, 35 - acre subdivisions. The study compared sales 28 Planning August/Seprember 2003 When Cluster Alone Is Not Enough On his website, land -use consultant Randall Arendt says he takes to heart the message of renowned ecologist Aldo Leopold that one should "think at right angles to one's profes- sion." For Arendt, that translates to some tart opinions about planning conservation com- munities. "Don't mix up conservation design with clueless cluster," he says. Arendt defines conservation planning as "the art and science of designing with nature for people." Q Why are you so hard on clustering? A. To my mind, cluster development is a very primitive progenitor of conservation de- sign. They really shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Conservation design aims higher than just saving a few wetlands. It aims at creating an interconnected network of open space. The word cluster makes people think of the old planned unit developments that really didn't conserve much at all. Q Where can we see the most conserva- tion communities? A. There are hundreds spread across the U.S. Livingston County, Michigan, near De- troit, has preserved over 1,000 acres by using conservation principles. London Grove Town- ship in Chester County, Pennsylvania, has preserved 500 acres in the last two years or so. There are concentrations in the Midwest and in eastern Pennsylvania. Q. Why in those places? A. Because people there understand that con- servation is not rocket science, and that it doesn't take the kind of money that you need for some- thing like a transfer or purchase of development rights program. What you do need is a commit- ment to trimming bloated lot size. Q What's wrong with TDR? A. Theoretically, it's a great planning tool. But only a few places have adopted it in the last 35 years. What kind of solution is that? Q Name some good examples of conser- vation development. A. The Fields at St. Crois in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, is one. It has its own tall grass nursery. Also in the Midwest, there's Tryon Farm in Indiana, not far from Chicago. An- other is the Ponds at Woodward in Kennett Township, Pennsylvania. The Brandywine Conservancy has a protective easement on two-thirds of a 120 -acre development. Q What about in the West? A. One of my favorite projects is the Ranch at Roaring Creek in Carbondale, Colorado, where a degraded trout fishery have been restored. The best subdivisions not only save land but also undo the damage that had been done. Q Is there a minimum size for this approach? A. No, even parcels under five acres can benefit from a conservation design, particu- larly if they're along a greenway corridor. Q Are there any really bad examples? A. Some communities are certainly greener than others. But I'm comfortable with differ- ent shades of green, and I always try to work with people who are willing to experiment and to follow the four -step design process I recommend. Q Which is? A. The first step is to do a site analysis, then a map that shows where the best soils are, the most significant woods, scenicviewsheds. Cata- log the trees. Then comes a site visit. Finally, set design standards for the quantity and qual- ity of open space. Q Where does new urbanism fit in? A. Some new urbanists are more comfort- able with conservation design than others. In developments I'm involved with I like to com- bine the two, in effect to ratchet up new urbanism to make it greener. Q How do you respond to critics who argue that any development that replaces farm- land is intrinsically bad? A. It's a judgmental thing. Sure, I'd rather keep the farm. But ifit's a chemically dependent, polluting farm, I'd want to replace it with an organic farm. That may not be practical, though. People still want to sell their land. Often, the critics don't see the significance of what we're doing by preserving open space. They don't understand that the hydrology has been im- proved, that wildlife corridors have been pro- tected. There are many examples where farm- lands and orchards have been protected and continue to be used 15 years after subdivision. Q What should state governments be doing? A. They should look at Pennsylvania's model subdivision ordinance and consider piggybacking on it. They can also do what Massachusetts did and reclassify cluster de- velopment so it no longer requires a special - use permit. And they can follow Michigan's example. It now requires all local govern- ments to offer conservation design as an option in their codes. Q Can local governments do this on their own? A. Yes, if they adopt development and design review standards that are consistent with conser- vation goals. But that's as rare as hen's teeth. Ruth Eckdish Knack, AICA Knack is the executive editor of Planning, figures for two adjacent subdivisions, Deerwood Ranch, with 35 -acre lots, and the Creek Ranch LPS, where lots average 14 acres. The average selling price of the Creek Ranch lots was 66 percent higher than the Deerwood lots. It must be noted that Creek Ranch offers many amenities to its buyers, including a common barn and ranchhouse, trails, and a trout stream. These amenities may explain the higher prices, although they also represent added costs to the developer. A key selling point for Creek Ranch is that the smaller parcels require far less upkeep. At the same time, residents enjoy the benefits of 1,280 acres of preserved ranchland. That's a definite attraction to certain types of buyers, says real estate agent Joan Shenfield. "The LPS buyers tend to have a different profile than 35 -acre buyers and don't mind covenants, homeowners' associations, and shared amenities." When the conservation bonus and site de- sign savings are factored in, wrote Caryn Fox in her summary, "LPS offers a clear profit advantage over typical 35 -acre lots." Fine-tuning As the first LPS projects were completed, some glitches in the regulations became apparent. For instance, one developer who had received a large - lot exemption decided to split the remainder parcel (the preserved open space) into several lots, which he then sold back to the homeowners, defeating the purpose of the program, In 2000, the county revised the regula- tions to require that the remainder parcel be owned by one entity. The revision also pro- vides stronger criteria governing the use and design of the open space. Another revision came about in response to the construction of a golf course on a remain- der parcel. The new language excludes from density bonus calculations any land used for commercial recreation. Other revisions limit the number of remainder parcels, discourage gerrymandered boundary lines, and require that adequate water supply be obtained prior to approval. A requirement that water rights remain with the open space was added after one owner sold the water rights needed to irrigate the hay meadows. The regulation was also changed to exclude from the density bonus calculations any land encumbered by a pre-existing conservation ease- ment or agreement. Each clustered lot must be five to seven acres, ensuring that about 80 percent of the property remain open space. The preserved open space is protected by means of a development agreement that re- stricts further subdivision for 40 years. i Resubdivision before that time is permitted only under certain conditions, such as urban development encroaching on the property or in response to changes in the comprehensive plan. Do ranchers benefit? There has been some criticism of the program because the exemptions are being used almost exclusively by developers. "The program was intended to give ranchers a way to sell off smaller parcels without breaking up their prime agricultural land," says county exten- sion director C. J. Mucklow. In fact, only one of the 16 LPS or clustered MDSE projects approved to date was developed by the origi- nal ranch owner. But, while LPS may not be used as much by ranchers as originally hoped, there is no doubt that it is creating a pool of leasable agricultural lands. In all but three of the approved projects, the open space is leased by a rancher for grazing or hay production. Two of the remaining proj- ects use the open space for wildlife habitat. The third use is the golf course mentioned above. American Planning Association 29 The Creek Ranch plan shows the site remainderparcels, gained by clustering housing. Creek Ranch lots, which average 1 4 acres, are smaller than those of neighboring Deerwood Ranch, yet sell for 66pereent more. A key attraction: a restored trout stream. Lots may be smaller, but many houses are biggerand more expensive. Much of the lowland seen here is preserved ranchland. Moreover, ranchers clearly benefit from being able to enlarge their operations with- out having to buy more land—an impor- tant factor in a county where land develop- ment value far exceeds production value. Essentially, the homeowners are making it possible for the ranchers to continue to raise cattle. That's not to say there aren't conflicts. Fencing is probably the most difficult issue. Colorado law requires landowners to share the costs ofmaintaining common fences. Thus, 30 Planning Augmt/Scprember 2003 Routt County. Between 1987 and 1997, Routt County lost 69,000 acres, or 13 percent, of its farmland, while the average size of its farms decreased by 30 percent. The smaller farm size indicates the gradual conversion of large, working ranches into small hobby "ranchettes," says Susan Corser. For more information about Rourt County's Land Preservation Subdivision Exemption regulations, contact Caryn Fox at cfox@co.routt.co.us. The county's website is at vaww.co.routt.co.us. Reach Corset at spcorser@springsips.com. Getting greener. For more on Randall Arendt's work, contact him at rgarendt@cox. net, or see his Rhode Island firm's website, www. greenerprospects.com. Arendt is also the vice-president for conservation plan- ning at the Natural Lands Trust in Media, Pennsylvania (www_natlands.org). Reading. Rural by Design, by Randall Arendt, published by APA in 1994; is available for $52.95 (paperback, for mem- bers) from Planners Press. His 1999 book, Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances (published by Island Press with the cooperation of APA the Natural Lands Trust, and the Ameri- can Society of Landscape Architects), is $42.50 from Planners Press. The book includes 11 case studies in nine states. A companion CD-ROM with model zoning and subdivision ordinances is $25. The steps. In an article titled "Improving the Subdivision Review Process," published in spring 2003 issue of the Planning Com- missioners Journal, Arendt sur marizes the key steps needed to ensure greener subdivi- sion. (1) Require a context map and detailed existing resources and site analysis map. (2) Conduct a sitewalk with applicant, planning staff, planning board, and abutters. (3) Re- quire a sketch plan. Growing smart—and green. Conserva- tion development is also covered in the Grow- ing Smart Legislative Guidebook, available on theAPA website: www.planning.org. A chap- ter on innovative land -use regulations and incentives. "In essence," says APA researcher Stuart Meek, FAICP, "the incentives give you greater density if you convey land to a public or nonprofit entity." The chapter encourages the conserva- tion of natural features, Meck adds, by allowing cluster development and facilitat- ing the creation of compact neighborhoods and interconnected streets and blocks. if the remainder parcel or neighboring ranch- land is adjacent to 20 lots, the rancher must negotiate with 20 different property owners, many of whom may not even live on the property. If those owners don't uphold their end of the bargain, the rancher faces legal action or ends up fixing the entire fence, the more likely outcome. The LPS regulation partially addresses this issue by requiring homeowners' associations to take responsibility for building and main- taining all perimeter fences and for maintain- ing interior fencing as well if there is a poten- tial conflict. Domestic animals, particularly dogs, can also pose problems when rural subdivisions move in next to grazing cattle. The LPS regu- lation addresses pets only in terms of wildlife harassment. To some extent, however, LPS projects can avoid friction by using the open space for hay production rather than livestock grazing. Irrigation ditches are also potentially trouble- some. If a ditch crosses numerous small lots, the rancher must work with multiple land- owners or a homeowners' association to nego- tiate maintenance and water rights. A solution is to locate residential lots away from the ditches. The ever-present danger of fire is worsened in LPS subdivisions whose covenants restrict livestock grazing on residential lots. A related issue is the spread of noxious weeds to neigh- boring pastures. The LPS regulation requires developers to provide all residents with the Guide to Small Scale Agriculture and Rural Living, which is published by the county ex- tension service. Finally, there is the longstanding conflict between residents' recreational activities and the needs of ranchers. Off-road vehicles, in particular, are hard on the land. Rancher Dean Rossi, who for several years grazed cattle on the Creek Ranch remainder parcel, says the leases are attractive to ranch- ers, "as long as there are some restrictions on what homeowners can do in the pastures." Creek Ranch allows hiking and horseback riding throughout the property, but motor- ized vehicles are allowed only in the winter. The larger picture Despite what C.J. Mucklow calls "the hassle factor," LPS seems to work. "LPS projects pro- vide ranchers with affordable opportunities to lease land and grow their operations," he says. A key to the program's success is that it is part of a larger conservation program, aimed at keeping local ranches intact. Over the past decade, conservation easements have been placed on over 41,000 acres of the county's ranch- land. The easements have been donated to local land trusts or bought by them with funds Open space is not trouble-free. Weeds like whitetop (above) and Dahnation toadflax are easily spread to neighboringpastures. Inset: the historic homestead on the Catamount Ranch. n from the county's purchase of development rights program and other sources. This arrangement is essential to the LPS program. Without a supply of intact ranches, there would be no ranchers left to lease the American Planning Association 31 remainder parcels. The lesson here for other counties considering cluster programs is to look at the larger picture of how their rural areas function—for agriculture, forestry, or wildlife habitat—and how clustering will al- low these functions to continue. Does preserving agriculture equate to pre- serving the county's rural character, one of the objectives of the program? The answer is yes and no. None of the LPS projects is entirely built out, but those that are partially built clearly indicate that LPS alone will not preserve existing development patterns. Most of the houses are much farther apart and signifi- cantly larger than the county's traditional 1,000- to -1,500 -square -foot ranch houses. The new houses at Creek Ranch, for ex- ample, range from 5,000 to 8,000 square feet and are too far apart to resemble the pattern of traditional ranches. The regulation does contain provisions aimed at protecting visual character. These provisions call for minimizing the impact of houses seen from public roads and open spaces, limiting clusters to a maximum of 10 houses, and avoiding building on ridges. In addition, more attention is being paid to preserving the original ranch structures. For example, the developers of the Catamount Ranch LPS won listing of its circa -1890 home- stead on the county's historic register. All in all Routt County's LPS program has been rela- tively successful in protecting viable agricul- tural lands. But much of the success has come about because the program has worked within the larger framework of other agricultural preservation programs, such as the conserva- tion easement program. The LPS program has set forth and fol- lowed guidelines aimed at preserving the deli- cate balance between ranching and rural resi- dential uses. Among them: avoiding development in prime agricultural lands, keep- ing open space intact, and maintaining irriga- tion water rights. While LPS may not be able to preserve every inch of the county, it is ensuring that certain things stay the same. Instead of a landscape carpeted with 35 -acre ranchettes, we are beginning to see a different pattern, marked by clusters of houses interspersed with large working ranches. Susan Corset is a land -use consultant and former planning commissioner in Steamboat Springs, Colo- rado. She is secretary of Routt County's Purchase of Development Rights Citizen Board. washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs wash ingto n post.com wysiwyg://76/http://www.washingtonpost....wp-dyn/A4106-2003Aug l0language=prin Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs Flurry of Lawsuits Viewed as Backlash By Michael Laris Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, August 17, 2003; Page A01 Tucked inside the historic, red -brick court complex in Leesburg, a judge and a team of clerks are digging their way through an onslaught of paper that could determine the future of the nation's second -fastest-growing county. At issue is a law -- passed by Loudoun County supervisors in January after three years of raucous debate -- that blocks construction of more than 80,000 homes worth tens of billions of dollars. The strict building curbs within the law were a backlash against the kind of suburban expansion that has spread around American cities for decades. In Loudoun's case, the population nearly doubled in the 1990s, transforming rural landscapes, spurring costly school construction and prompting some of this region's toughest land use controls. Those, in turn, have been matched by a muscular response. Opponents filed more than 200 lawsuits in January and February to overturn the measures, launching one of the broadest legal challenges to a local government in Virginia history. Many challengers in this fall's countywide election say incumbents elected in 1999 on promises to stop sprawl went too far. But not everyone who opposes the new law is waiting until November. Their blizzard of filings has overwhelmed court staff members. The chief clerk is searching for money to develop an electronic system to manage all the paper. Officials are struggling to execute a judge's requirement that 100,000 to 300,000 pages of documents be placed in an evidence depository for use by the plaintiffs. The presiding judge has ordered both sides to find common issues that can be argued together to save time. Amid the flurry and stacks of mustard -yellow folders are three cases, filed under nondescript names: MHF, Locust Grove and Roland. The suits, over three slices of a 517 -square -mile county, offer a glimpse behind the political theatrics of Loudoun's growth debate and show a range of interests stirred into action by the far-reaching regulations. What the files omit, in their carefully crafted language about constitutional rights, arbitrary environmental overlays and sewer lines, are the stories of the people who brought the suits. There's Donald Virts, born on his family's farm near Loudoun's Quaker village of Waterford, a cattle rancher who's watched small operations like his die off for decades. There's George Calomiris, a Washington architect who snagged his historic weekend retreat an hour from Washington by scanning computerized real estate listings. And there's Ahmad Abdul-Baki, the scion of a prominent Palestinian family of bankers, who came to the United States to get a master of business administration degree from George Washington University in 1971 before launching a life, and a series of businesses, as an American. Cattleman Kicked Twice Her hoof -- a wrecking ball backed by 1,400 pounds of muscle and blood -- flew back and shattered 1 of 6 8/18/2003 10:21 AM washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs wysiwyg:H76/http://www.washingtonpost....wp-dyn/A4106-2003AugIVlanguage=prin Donald Virts's right knee. The purebred beef cow always had been a bit skittish but not dangerous. When Virts tried to separate her and her newborn calf from the rest of the herd, she seemed to aim for him. "She meant to kick me. She was all the way by me and kicked me," Virts said. He crawled 200 feet to the barn lot to get to his truck. Surgery and excruciating pain forced him off his feet for a couple of months and made him confront the long-standing financial problems of his cattle operation. "I'm glad it happened," he said. "Instead of selling that cow for hamburger, I should have kept her here like a queen." He decided to sell a handful of three -acre lots to pay off creditors. "I got out of debt," Virts said. "I couldn't do that now, not with the new zoning." As Virts sees it, it's Loudoun County, with its restrictive new zoning rules, that has kicked him now. The new rural zoning -- which covers a swath of western Loudoun more than five times the size of the District -- sharply reduces the number of homes that can be built per acre. The old rules allowed one house per three acres. Now, the county allows one home per 10, 20 or 50 acres, depending on location and whether homes are clustered to save open space. County officials say Virts's interpretation is wrong. While the new rules cut the maximum number of houses allowed on Virts' 346 -acre Meadow Hill Farm from 114 to 33, he can still sell lots of various sizes to buttress his finances in hard times, or to cash out, they said. Officials added that while they shrank the size of potential subdivisions, they provided an important bonus in return: Landowners were given the right to launch a series of businesses, everything from nurseries and pet farms to upscale spas, without seeking special permission from the county. Still, the idea that Virts, or others in Loudoun's tiny community of traditional farmers, would run a mud bath, or emu farm, or even a boutique vegetable operation is a laughable notion for some. "They are confusing the word 'fanning' with the word 'gardening,'" said Virts's son Dennis. Donald Virts bought the land more than 30 years ago from Arthur Godfrey, the ukulele -loving television pioneer, rancher and environmentalist. Virts stayed with the land even as sinking commodities prices and rising land values ushered most county farmers out of agriculture. He turned down big money for the farm in the late 1980s, before the recession and real estate crash, and kept farming through the 1990s, when Loudoun's population doubled and $1 million homes popped up in subdivisions on former farms. "The worst thing is, I didn't stop," he said Then, in December, his wife, Mary Jane, the woman who made the work worth it, died after a struggle with cancer. "I was with her day and night," Virts said. A month later, county officials voted to approve the new building restrictions. He deferred to his children on legal challenges. "The kids are going to have to fight this. I got other things on my mind," Virts said. His son Dennis, who 2 of 6 8/18/2003 10:21 AM washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs wysiwyg://76/http://www.washingtonpost....wp-dyn/A4106-2003 Aug I Vlanguage=prin gave up farming to become a real estate broker several years ago, took the lead. Donald Virts, who had retreated into the solitude of his drafty stone house, now is back to his fields. His knee still burns. Thieves stole 15 1,200 -pound rolls of his hay. Heavy March snows collapsed his barn roof, sending splintered beams crashing down on his cattle, killing four and crushing the bones of others he had to finish off. "It just got to where I couldn't shoot 'em anymore, and I had a neighbor come in," he said. Later, a shortage of large -animal veterinarians left Virts to perform a makeshift Caesarean on a cow carrying the farm's next generation. And he's added a new element to his routine -- a mile drive from his farm to Mary Jane's grave. The Wrong Target When George Calomiris needs to get away from the zoning battles and the market studies and the schmoozing, he sets off from his 16th Street office, drives over the Potomac River, past the shiny vacant office buildings on the way to Dulles, up to Leesburg on a speedy toll road, then west to a farm called Locust Grove. "Three days a week I'm out there on my tractor, feeding my cattle. It's cathartic. It's uncomplicated. It's a simpler life, and it beats the hell out of the rubbish I deal with in Washington, D.C.," Calomiris said. As an architect, the idea of exposing the stones and oak log beams erected in his country home around 1800 had a deep allure. So did the setting at the base of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Nestled among pines, the home's red and green trim matches a big holly tree. Cows, sheep, goats and a donkey mill about in the pasture. Calomiris also was sure the property he bought in April 1995 would make a nice investment. "The Greenway was coming," Calomiris said, referring to the toll road that opened five months after his purchase, helping bring rural western Loudoun within commuting distance of urban job centers. Calomiris wasn't alone in recognizing the growth potential. That year, a few miles east of Locust Grove, builders began erecting the first of 1,100 homes planned for a development to the north, south and east of the town of Round Hill, population 500. The project came to symbolize the type of swift construction critics said was marring Loudoun's countryside. "It was the fulcrum that lifted the whole movement," said Joe Maio, founder of the political action committee Voters to Stop Sprawl. From his home on six acres near the project, he helped engineer the 1999 landslide victories by growth -control advocates. The next year, the Sierra Club named the Round Hill development one of the worst pieces of suburban planning in the nation. Loudoun officials say their new building restrictions are meant to prevent such projects from overwhelming the county's rural character. Calomiris's spread lies in a part of the county where he would need 30 acres to support more than one house. He has 21. Like many landowners fighting the new law, he argues that county officials have unfairly slashed the development allowed on his property, sapping its value without compensation. He wants the law thrown out. 3 of 6 8/18/2003 10:21 AM washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs wysiwyg://76/http://www.washingtonpost....wp-dyn/A4106-2003Aug16?language=prin "I went from being able to build six additional houses someday -- when I'm 85 years old -- to zero ... This isn't Russia, is it? You don't want people taking stuff away from you without saying 'please.'" Calomiris doesn't limit his critique to county supervisors. He blasts his fellow travelers in the development world, who he says built unsightly homes and lifeless communities in Loudoun's countryside, and the "basically tacky people" who have rushed to embrace such "blight." "I know I wouldn't do anything as horrible as has been done in Round Hill. I understand the negative reaction to that. It's ugly," Calomiris said. "They don't have to look tacky. You don't have to use that same pitched roof." Calomiris argues that architects play too small a role -- or no role at all -- in many housing developments, and local governments do too little to induce developers to create well-designed communities. The large houses on large lots in his own neighborhood are prime examples, he said. "You look around me and you got that Fairfax County look," he said. In Loudoun, Calomiris said, officials aimed at the wrong target. "They absconded with a portion of my estate because people around me had done such a lousy job of developing," he said. Vowing to Be Different Ahmad Abdul-Baki has been here before. Last time, in Texas's boom-and-bust'80s, it was tanking oil prices and a fire sale of foreclosed properties that dashed his investment plans, he said. Now, it's Loudoun officials and their strict new building curbs that are the problem. But this time, Abdul-Baki promises things will be different. "You learn from your past," he said. After Loudoun's new lineup of slow -growth leaders was elected in November 1999, Abdul-Baki and his colleagues at Greenest LC, went on a buying spree: On Nov. 30, Greenvest purchased 1,000 acres near Dulles International Airport. The following year, it picked up more than 1,400 acres in the same area. While Loudoun supervisors painstakingly fashioned hundreds of pages of new building restrictions, Greenvest kept buying. Between July 2001, when the supervisors approved a county plan that slashed the number of homes allowed in Loudoun, and January 2003, when they passed the zoning ordinance that actually enforced the cutback, Greenvest purchased more than a dozen additional parcels. Now, the company owns or has under contract 5,500 acres in Loudoun, company officials said, making Greenvest the county's biggest landowner. While many Loudoun landowners feared the impact of the new regulations, executives at Greenvest saw an opportunity. The privately held company, which specializes in turning raw, undeveloped land into homesites, and a home-building company that executives also run, have combined revenue of about $100 million a year, Greenvest officials said. "Our vision is long term," Abdul-Baki said. "We're not looking at this for tomorrow. Tomorrow is 15 or 8/18/2003 10:21 AM 4of6 washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs wysiwyg://76/http://www.washingtonpost....wp-dyn/A4106-2003Augl Vlanguage=prin 20 years down the road." The plan in Loudoun is simple enough: to be the indispensable supplier of home-building lots in the fast-growing and affluent county, selling as many as 1,000 sites per year over the next 15 to 20 years -- mostly near the airport, where company officials say growth belongs -- bringing in revenue of more than $1 billion. But the county's new law has brought that to a halt, at least for now, by limiting home building in the area because of what officials say is a lack of services. Abdul-Baki acknowledges his plan's execution is certain to be far from simple. "You have to allow for dips and changes that slow down that equation," he said. "Otherwise you're a fool." Abdul-Baki knows about dips. After graduating from business school and becoming a Wall Street banker in the 1970s, Abdul-Baki was drawn into what seemed like the limitless real estate opportunities gushing from such Texas oil centers as Houston. "In the 1980s, the 'what ifs' weren't a part of it," Abdul-Baki said. Then came the crash. "You've seen property devalued 90 percent overnight. What do you do? How do you cope with it?" Abdul-Baki said. Abdul-Baki's early investors, many based in the Middle East, saw their hopes of a big payoff in the U.S. market dashed. Bankruptcy and ugly court battles followed. "He had to start all over again, right from scratch, working from his home," said Wael Seifi, a Jordanian developer who worked for him. He found a new frontier in Virginia, where he would try to benefit from the forces that sank him in Texas. This time, he'd be on the buyer's side, picking up foreclosed properties or other deals from Resolution Trust Corp. and various lenders. "That's what got us started here," Abdul-Baki said. "When you buy things that are cheap, you can sell them for cheap, and you minimize risk." Abdul-Baki met Jeffrey Sneider, a local developer, and they co-founded Greenvest, which went on to partner on some projects with Starwood Capital Group -- a Greenwich, Conn. -based investment company that specialized in collecting what the industry calls distressed properties and now has $7.5 billion in real estate assets. As the Washington region grew in the 1990s, Greenvest expanded to feed the appetite for new homes, taking on projects in Montgomery, Prince George's, Prince William and Fairfax counties. The developers made big plans for Loudoun. "I think in terms of a Reston or a Columbia," said Jim Duszynski, Greenvest's chief executive officer, adding that the company spent millions of dollars building water and sewer pipes that could connect to existing treatment facilities and could serve 32,000 new homes. Abdul-Baki was named after his grandfather, an Arab nationalist and Palestinian leader who was exiled 5 of 6 8/18/2003 10:21 AM washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Landowners Battle Building Curbs wysiwyg:H76/http://www.washingtonpost....wp-dyn/A4106-2003Aug16?language=prin to the Seychelles islands by the British and later battled Israeli forces over Jerusalem. He appreciates the multicultural business he's built. "I'm an Arab Muslim, and my partner is a Jew. We're both American," Abdul-Baki said. He said his work as a developer is about more than profit. "You are developing or building ... a living community, which has challenges and history and which is amazing," he said. Even before the flurry of lawsuits challenging Loudoun's new building restrictions, Greenvest and other developers had sued the county over rejected housing projects near the airport. One Greenvest case is before the Virginia Supreme Court. Greenvest filed 22 suits, more than any other company. They seek to, among other things, overturn rules preventing developers from hooking homes to water and sewer lines, including the one the company built. Without them, even modest development can be impossible, the company argued in a representative case filed over a $2.86 million, 175 -acre parcel west of Dulles called Roland. The company officials also are pursuing their fight on the political front. Sneider is abehind-the-scenes organizer of opposition to the current supervisors, and company executives are important campaign donors. "We're in support of regime change," Duszynski said. County officials have expressed little sympathy for Greenvest's predicament. "Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you," said Supervisor James G. Burton (I -Mercer). "When you're dealing with land speculators, you never know how it's going to turn out." Abdul-Baki said he's ready. Texas taught him the importance of diversifying his holdings and funding projects with as much of his own capital as possible, which, he said, protects him from outside pressures. Indeed, within about a month after slow -growth proponents were elected in Loudoun in 1999, Greenvest nabbed 1,000 acres beside Charles Town, W.Va., a city of 3,000 a few miles from Loudoun. The project, called Hunt Field, is a model of what Abdul-Baki said he hopes someday to create in Loudoun. It also provides an alternate source of building lots -- and income -- while the Loudoun investments are held up by county officials. Greenvest paid about $5 million for the West Virginia property. The 3,200 homesites approved in the development -- including 2,100 single-family lots ranging from a tenth to a quarter of an acre, as well as townhouses and condominiums -- will sell for about $175 million, the company says. "I have the ability to sit and wait and wait and take my time," Abdul-Baki said. "Ten years, hopefully, is the first of 50 more years of growth here." © 2003 The Washington Post Company 8/18/2003 10:21 AM 6 of 6