Loading...
CPPC 01-12-04 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM a6�.i7i:' .wXa rr '` C t.Y,iLv1U,.,,t +:tkuf.M 4. �F7$ .•, • •. . TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning DirectA!)- Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner DATE: January 5, 2004 RE: January Meeting and Agenda 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting on Monday, January 12, 2004, 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. Issues Identification: Natural & Heritage Resources and Development Design 2) 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 park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalks to the back door of the four-story wing. The door will be locked; therefore, please wait for staff to open the door. Attachments 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 File Copy ITEM #1 Rural Areas Study Issues Identification: Natural and Heritage Resources and Development Design Overview - The Study Process to Date As a preliminary step of the rural areas study process, the CPPB has identified seven distinct policy areas that will serve as the framework for analysis and policy formulation. Prior to seeking broader public input through community and stake holder work sessions, the CPPS is undertaking discussion concerning each policy area in order to establish a fundamental set of rural issues that require attention during the study process. These issues will be shared with the full Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at a retreat scheduled for Saturday, February 7, 2004. The retreat will provide an opportunity for the Commission and Board to collectively discuss the committee's preliminary work, respond to the proposed study scope, and offer additional direction and/or recommendations concerning particular policy areas or issues that require public and stake holder input. The preliminary efforts of the CPPS and the input of the Commission and Board will lead to the initial and arguably most important round of input from the public and stake holders. A series of community work sessions will be scheduled for the general public during April 2004, which will be complemented by presentations and discussions with particular stake holder groups, such as the Farm Bureau, Frederick County Fruit Growers Association, Community Consensus Coalition, Winchester Wheelmen, and Top of Virginia Builders Association. The input received during these meetings will complete the issues identification process and result in the prioritization of identified issues, which will enable the CPPS and staff to articulate policy objectives and begin the policy formulation process. A matrix outlining the schedule and principal benchmarks of the Rural Areas Study process has been attached for your reference. Summary of 12/8/03 Discussion Review of Rural Economy and Rural Community Centers Issues: The committee began the meeting by reviewing the issues identified during the October discussion concerning the Rural Economy and Rural Community Centers policy areas. With regard to the Rural Economy issues, it was recommended that issue 410 be clarified to emphasize that a regional perspective is necessary in the effort to create and sustain new relationships between the local agricultural community and the market. Indeed, as originally written, issue #10 focused exclusively on the local market and therefore failed to identify the more expansive regional market as the appropriate context for such new relationships. The language of Rural Economy issue 410 has been amended as follows: 10) The "structure" necessary to create and sustain new relationships between farmers and the iocul regional market should be established to promote a new perspective on the future of agriculture in Frederick County. Specifically, the County should explore and institute the policies, programs and staff necessary to develop such relationships, perhaps in collaboration with Virginia Tech and the Economic Development Commission. Moreover, it was recommended that Rural Economy issue #11 be revised to acknowledge the potential for tourism and the expanding retired population of Frederick County as catalysts for new economic opportunities in the rural areas. The language of issue #11 has been amended as follows: 11) Approach to the rural economy must be future oriented and therefore focused on facilitating economic opportunities that transcend what Frederick County has historically known in its rural areas. To employ this approach the rural areas must be viewed as a desirable location for new business activity, particularly those businesses that support tourism and complement the emergence of Frederick County as a retirement destination. Through its dialogue, the committee agreed that the future model for the rural community centers needed to be defined. Indeed, it was noted that these distinct places should be viewed as the critical pieces of the overall rural areas puzzle. Discussion of Rural Areas Study olicy Areas - Transportation and Public/Community Facilities: The identification of issues involving the Transportation and Public and Community Facilities policy areas was the principal focus of discussion during the December 8, 2003 meeting. The following issues were highlighted: Transportation: (1) Policies for the rural transportation network need to be clearly articulated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and must identify how rural infrastructure and improvements will interact and complement the system envisioned for the Urban Development Area (UDA). Such policies and the identification of inter -relationships should ultimately form a countywide transportation plan that will be regularly updated. No such plan currently exists. (2) Data explaining land use and development activities in the rural areas is difficult to assemble due to the variety of agencies and technologies involved in the regulation and oversight of such activities. A more comprehensive and centrally managed data tracking system is necessary to enable effective policy formulation, which should include, but not be limited to, information concerning the following: rural demographics, health system approvals and types, traffic -shed conditions/rural road trips v. capacity, and acreage of resource areas existing and developed. (3) By -right residential development is not accompanied by improvements to the rural transportation system that are necessary to either improve level of service conditions or achieve system enhancements (lane additions, etc.). To address the transportation impacts that accompany new residential subdivisions, a rural residential rezoning option may be appropriate as a method to realize improvements necessitated by new development at particular densities. Such a process would enable the County to accept proffered improvements to the rural transportation network. (4) Frederick County is not currently enabled to assess road impact fees on new residential developments that stress the rural transportation network. Authority to enact an impact fee program is desirable as a means of mitigating the transportation impacts of new rural development. (5) Alternative modes of transportation are not overtly accommodated in the rural areas. The rural transportation system should be improved to include a contiguous network of bicycle, pedestrian/hiker, and equine (horseback) facilities that would be designed and constructed to link with similar facilities within the UDA. (6) No form of transit is currently available for disadvantaged and place -bound rural residents, who are therefore dependant on often unreliable means of transportation to accomplish essential tasks (basic medical care, grocery shopping, etc.). Development of a transit system targeted to serve this segment of the rural population is worthy of exploration. Public and Community Facilities: 1) The expansion oftelecommunications facilities (broadband cable, etc.) should be encouraged as a means of stimulating rural economic growth and to enhance the quality of life for rural residents. 2) Technological improvements in alternative health systems have enabled virtually any piece of land to be developed for residential use, regardless of soil quality. As such, the natural capacity of land to support residential development is increasingly irrelevant as alternative systems theoretically allow maximum build -out of rural land not otherwise constrained by environmental features (steep slopes, flood plain, etc.). 3) The health system requirements applicable to new residential development in the rural areas of Frederick County reflect the minimum standards of the State Code. Some jurisdictions have imposed more stringent health system standards through their local code, which is an option available to Frederick County. 4) Localized rural service areas may be the most effective means of providing public water and sewer service to rural community centers experiencing private health system failures. Exploration of this service delivery option would inherently require consideration of package treatment plants and the incorporation of such facilities into the overall public system. 5) Clustering of residential development in the rural areas may create greater demand for public services, which could be an unintended and potentially costly outcome of a seemingly preferred development option. 6) The presence of premier medical and cultural facilities in the Frederick County - Winchester area has attracted a growing population of retirees, many of whom are choosing to settle in the rural areas. Special attention must be given to the unique needs and demands of this emergent population set. 7) Basic services and conveniences such as groceries, medical care, and fuel sales are increasingly rare in the rural areas, to include the rural community centers. Incentives are necessary to promote the re-establishment of such uses within the rural community centers and elsewhere in the rural areas to enable efficient access by the rural population. It is requested that CPPS members review the above issues to ensure that the committee's discussion was accurately captured by staff. Please identify any clarifications or additions that you believe are necessary to more precisely convey the interests and concerns of the committee regarding the rural economy and rural community centers. Primer for 01/12/04 Discussion Natural and Heritage Resources and Development Design: There is an accelerating loss of critical resource lands to inefficient low density development, often referred to as sprawl. The cumulative effects of this development pattern have had significant impacts on the environmental resources of the region. Recognizing this trend, sound planning and innovative land -use practices are arguably essential to the conservation and protection of the natural and cultural heritage of Frederick County and the surrounding region. While individuals may feel that their actions only have minor impacts on the environmental resources of a region, every part of the natural system is related and therefore affected by even the most discrete land use decision. Moreover, there are competing, but not mutually exclusive, land use interests influencing environmental integrity. Indeed, farmland preservationists seek to protect prime fields and orchards, environmentalists work to preserve woodland habitats, and developers must find sites for new subdivisions. In light of these realities, a quote from Representative Tayloe Murphy of the Virginia State Legislature regarding the problems of the Chesapeake Bay is especially relevant: "Every individual and seemingly isolated action has consequences. Most activities that affect the bay and other public resources are of little apparent consequence in themselves: a subdivision here, a road there, a filled wetland, a new field cleared from a forest - but as they are added together, they have the effect of an avalanche that starts with a few pebbles rolling down a hillside... There are simply too many of us doing too many things in the bay's vicinity to continue with the notion that our individual actions make no difference." As noted in last month's agenda, approximately 30% of all new residential dwellings are developed on rural lands outside of the UDA in Frederick County, with fully one half of the County's population residing in the rural areas. Rural area development is served almost exclusively by on- site private well and septic systems, and with the continued population growth in the rural areas of the county, impacts on environmental resources will inevitably increase and existing resources will continue to be stressed. More innovative land -use practices including conservation subdivision design can assist in the mitigation of these impacts. Natural and Heritage Resources The application requirements for rezoning petitions include the submission of an impact analysis statement. The location of site constraints and features are addressed in this analysis, and depicted on the plan. An estimate of the amount of area in 100 year flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes over 50%, mature woodlands, prime agricultural soils, and soil conditions that may create construction difficulties are expected to be noted in the analysis. It is noted that an impact analysis statement is not required for master development plan, site plan, or subdivision applications - each of which is used to govern by -right development proposals. Many of these environmental features are documented through the County's Geographic Information System (GIS). This technology and its various applications, to include mapping, are an invaluable tracking tool for these significant environmental resources. Additionally, many of Frederick County's heritage resources are documented through the existing Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County (adopted in 1992), the Frederick County - Winchester Battlefield Network Plan, and the National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Over 1,800 properties are documented in the Rural Landmarks Survey, and many are historically significant. Several areas of the County have been identified as having potential for designated historic districts. There are over 12,000 acres of land in Frederick County located within recorded Civil War battlefields. However, substantial battlefield land has been lost to development within the UDA and the rural areas. Of critical importance is the preservation of core battlefield land. The submission standards for rezoning and master development plan applications require that the location of historic sites - to include core battlefield land - and structures be described in the impact analysis statement. Battlefield management plans have been adopted for Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and Kernstown battlefields, as well as Star Fort. Indeed, as per the Frederick County - Winchester Battlefield Network Plan, the "critical mass" of resources for a local battlefield park network will consist of land within the Cedar Creek, Third Winchester, and Kernstown battlefields. Efforts are underway to protect local battlefield sites and create both a local and regional battlefield park network. Although the current approach to land use planning in Frederick County has made substantial progress in protecting and preserving our natural and cultural heritage, it is reasonable to assess the effectiveness of the current policy framework and determine whether there is a need for a "new paradigm" of development design that may achieve more sustainable development. Indeed, under the County's existing development process, the conservation of a contiguous system of natural and heritage resources is difficult outside of the legislative process. The rich tapestry of the rural areas is bound by its diverse natural and heritage resources; keeping this tapestry intact for future generations will arguably demand elevating conservation as a principal objective of by -right subdivision design. Develovment Design Sustainable development integrates long-term environmental viability, non -exploitive economic development, and equity across populations, space, and time. "Sustainable development meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (The Practice of Local Government Planning, Third Edition, Ch. 7, p. 151) A "conservation focus" on development design, or the "Growing Greener" approach, is an emerging philosophical basis for land use planning. Conservation design gives one the ability to link actions on specific parcels of land to larger regional systems, a method for organizing land use actions that enables a community to visualize and shape the future of its land area. Conservation design can achieve a regional system of resource amenities by orienting development to focus on the resources of the subject site, as well as the resources of the adjacent land. The detailed assessment of resources and the integration of those resources will allow for new developments to add to an overall, larger contiguous open space system. Conservation subdivision design should assist in the local review and approval process by identifying and addressing environmental and heritage resources as the initial step of design, thereby enabling a pro -active approach to conservation. When employed, conservation design results in a variety of open spaces. These open spaces may be mature woodlands, farm fields, formal greens, wetlands, and/or active recreational facilities. The Four -Step Approach to designing conservation subdivisions is firmly based on detailed site information provided in a Site Analysis Map together with a Context Map regarding potential linkages to resource areas on adjoining properties and the surrounding neighborhood in general. The primary purpose of this design approach is to provide landowners and developers with their full density in a way that conserves the most special features of the site, and also helps to protect an interconnected network of conservation lands extending across the community. The four steps of the conservation design process are as follows: Step 1: Identifying Conservation Area Step 2: Locating the House Sites Step 3: Aligning Streets and Trails Step 4: Drawing in the Lot Lines Alterative methods of designing for the same overall density while also preserving 50% or more of the site create more attractive and pleasing living environments that sell more easily and appreciate faster than conventional house lot and street developments. Today, golf course developments offer comparable open space to conservation subdivisions; however, golf courses are managed for only one kind of activity and are not usable open space to everyone. Additionally, the greens are uninviting to most forms of wildlife. The four -step approach in conservation design shows how a community can use this technique to outline the open space first and to let its size and location become the central organizing elements driving the rest of the design. The next three steps are to locate the houses around the open space, to trace in streets and trail corridors, and finally to set the lot lines. Conservation zoning is fundamentally equitable because it allows landowners and developers to achieve full density under the current zoning and even to increase that density through bonuses enabled by different "by -right" options. At the beginning of the application process for conservation design, two key maps are submitted by the applicant: (1) a context map of the property showing major resource areas or features that cross parcel lines on the adjacent lands; and, (2) a detailed site resources/site analysis map of the proposed development identifying all the special elements of the natural and cultural landscape. The site analysis map is perhaps the most important document in the conservation design process because it provides the information base upon which every major design decision turns. Landowners should be consulted in this process, as they will often know exactly where the largest trees are located, where wildlife can be seen and heard at different times of the day and year, where seasonally damp areas can be found, and where the most favorable soil conditions are likely to be. The landowner may well know the locations of meadows, woodlands and any historic features on the property, and is likely to be very helpful in identifying what gives the property its special character or significance. In essence, through the site analysis map, the features of a given site that are of greatest value to the rural character are identified, and their perpetual conservation enabled. Frederick County has existing environmental mapping showing steep slopes, soils, farmland, wetlands and flood plains. Additional maps with data including historic and cultural features, views into and out from the site, and groundwater recharge areas can be mapped as resources. Resource areas are grouped into two categories. The first, Primary Conservation Areas, includes inherently unbuildable lands that are unfit for development. Frederick County's primary resources would include the flood plains, steep slopes, wetlands and hydrologic features. Other resources may be captured by Secondary Conservation Areas, which include noteworthy elements of the property that are not wet, flood -prone, or steep, but that still merit consideration for conservation. Such features include historic sites and features, wildlife habitat and corridors, woodlands, meadows and pasture land, and distinctive viewsheds. The buildable land will be those areas not limited by the basic constraints of the Primary Conservation Areas (wetlands, flood plains, and steep slopes). Residual land to be considered for conservation would be placed within the Secondary Conservation Areas, which will typically consume roughly half of the buildable land on the site, leaving the remainder for dwellings, yards and streets. In total, approximately 70% to 80% of the gross land area of a conservation subdivision will be permanently protected in designated conservation areas, with the remaining land supporting the full density permitted by ordinance. Priorities for conserving or developing certain kinds of resources should be grounded in policy and based on an understanding of what is more special, unique, irreplaceable, environmentally valuable, historic, or scenic. A ratings approach can help to reduce inconsistency in choices, although subjectivity will not be totally alleviated in the process. However, the experience of those who practice conservation design indicates that it will often be clear which features are the most noteworthy for preservation within each category. Nevertheless, policy guidance articulating the value of given resources is essential to shaping a valuable conservation network. Staff will share a CD -Rom presentation at the January 12, 2003 meeting that includes a variety of images that will help explain the conservation design process. Other Issues for Consideration: In addition to the general design concepts discussed above, staff would submit the following administrative issues associated with rural land use for consideration: 1) Holding requirements for family lot subdivisions (i.e. time frame that family lots must remain in direct family ownership). 2) Regulation of existing non-conforming/substandard lots. 3) Codification of a new paradigm of development design that maximizes resource and open space conservation will require corresponding flexibility in dimensional standards (i.e. minimum lot size, setbacks, etc.) and the location of private health systems. Sunnlemental Reading Materials: The following excerpts from Growing Greener, by Randall Arendt, have been attached to further our understanding of the conservation design approach: 1) The Community Resource Inventory: Nine Elements to be Included 2) The Four Step Approach to Designing Conservation Subdivisions General information relevant to the Rural Areas Study and comprehensive planning: 1) ARTICLE: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation, The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), December 21, 2003. 2) ARTICLE: Residents Struggle to Walk Away from Traffic, The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), December 28, 2003. 3) ARTICLE: Loudoun Board could Scuttle Land Program, The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), January 4, 2004. 4) ARTICLE: Dream Homes Come with Rural Wake -Up Call, The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), January 5, 2004. RURAL AREAS STUDY Process Schedule and Benchmarks December 23, 2003 Year Month Benchmark Settin Staff AUG Study introduction and open discussion. CPPS CM SEP Establish policy areas for study; identify stakeholders. CPPS CM 2 0 0 3 OCT Issues identification — Rural Economy and Rural Community Centers. CPPS CM NOV No Rural Areas Discussion Annual CIP Review DEC Issues identification — Transportation and Public Facilities. CPPS CM Issues identification — Natural & Heritage Resources and Development Design. CPPS AK 2 JAN 0 Service learning students — prepare draft newsletter and citizen survey. PD ST/CM/AK 4 PCBOS Retreat — overview CPPS issues to date; verify process and study goals. PC/BOS CM FEB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------- Issues identification — Rural Areas/LTDA Relationship; discuss draft survey. CPPS CM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Service learning students — complete and mail newsletter with survey. ---------- ------------- PD ST/CM/AK Review PC/BOS input; set format(s) for public and stakeholder input sessions. CPPS CM MAR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------- ------------- Service learning students — begin compilation of survey results; assist with public input PD ST/CM/AK session preparation. APR Conduct public and stakeholder work sessions. MISC. ALL SITES STAFF 2 0 Staff to compile and report results of input sessions and citizen survey to CPPS; staff to 0 MAY prepare draft policy objectives based upon cumulative input, which will be presented CPPS CM/AK/NS 4 and discussed by CPPS. JUN Staff to prepare and submit draft policies — with supporting analysis — to CPPS for CPPS CM/AK/NS review, discussion, and refinement. JUL Staff to revise draft policies per CPPS input and submit to CPPS for review, discussion CPPS CM/AK/NS and preliminary endorsement; set format for final public and stakeholder input sessions. AUG Draft policies presented to public and stakeholders for review and comment. MISC. ALL SITES STAFF Staff to compile and submit public comments regarding draft policies to CPPS; final SEP adjustments discussed and endorsed; CPPS to offer recommendation concerning draft CPPS CM/AK/NS Rural Areas Policy Plan (RAPP). ABBREVIATION KEY SETTING: Describes the locus of action for a given process benchmark. CPPS - Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee PD - Planning Department PC - Planning Commission BOS - Board of Supervisors MISC. SITES - Public Input Sessions Conducted at Miscellaneous Sites in Rural Areas STAFF: Identifies the principal planning staff member(s) responsible for managing completion of a given process benchmark. CM - Christopher Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director AK - Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner NS - New Staff Member ST - Service Learning Students U:\Chris\Common\Rural\RAS 2003\Project Schedule and Benchmarks.doc OCT 10/6/04 — tentative joint PC/BOS work session for draft RAPP discussion. PC/BOS CM NOV 11/17/04 —tentative Planning Commission public hearing. PC CM DEC 12/15/04 — tentative Board of Supervisors public hearing. BOS CM ABBREVIATION KEY SETTING: Describes the locus of action for a given process benchmark. CPPS - Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee PD - Planning Department PC - Planning Commission BOS - Board of Supervisors MISC. SITES - Public Input Sessions Conducted at Miscellaneous Sites in Rural Areas STAFF: Identifies the principal planning staff member(s) responsible for managing completion of a given process benchmark. CM - Christopher Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director AK - Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner NS - New Staff Member ST - Service Learning Students U:\Chris\Common\Rural\RAS 2003\Project Schedule and Benchmarks.doc 22 The Community Resource Inventory: Nine Elements to Be Included If the Comprehensive Plan in your community does not yet contain a very detailed inventory of its natural, cultural, and historic re- sources, consult a good how-to book that focuses on this kind of document. One recent example of such a book is Where We Live: A Citizen's Guide to Conducting a Community Environmental Inventory, published by Island Press (Harker and Natter 1995). The following list provides a basic description of the principal re- sources recommended for inclusion in the community inventory and sources of readily available published information where such data may be easily obtained. 1. Wetlands and Their Buffers. Lands that are seasonally or perma- nently wet constitute one of the most basic resources in any community. These should be one of the first kinds of resources to be identified, together with dry, upland buffer areas around them. These buffers perform a number of significant functions, such as filtering stormwater runoff, providing critical habitat at the land—water interface, and offering opportunities for wildlife travel corridors. They also provide opportunities for informal walking trails for use by residents of the immediate neighbor- hood. A good general idea of wetland location can be determined by consulting the medium -intensity soil survey maps published by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (for- merly the Soil Conservation Service). Soils that are classified as "very poorly drained" fulfill most people's definition of wet- land, as they comprise soils in which water is ponded at the sur- face for at least three months of the year. Other soil types that are sensitive due to their seasonally high water table are called "hydric," where water is typically within 6 or 12 inches of the GROWING Gr�LENER surface during the late winter and spring.These soils also do not meet minimum standards for septic system installation and should generally be avoided for construction if other more suit- able places are available on the property for development. How- ever, these soils will support homes without basements when wastewater is treated off -lot. Another good source of wetlands data is the National Wetlands Inventory maps published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Inte- rior. 2. Floodways and. Floodplains. The maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) constitute the most accurate and readily available data on the location of floodways and floodplains in most communities. Floodways are the areas where floodwater is expected to move at relatively high veloc- ities, such as along the edges of rivers and creeks, or where floodwater is channelized. Floodplains are those areas expected. to be inundated with two or more feet of water at least once during the time period that is specified (typically 100 years). 3. Moderate and Steep Slopes. Most communities will find it helpful in achieving their resource conservation objectives to identify two different categories of slopes. Due to their high potential for erosion and consequent sedimentation of watercourses and water bodies, slopes with gradients over 25 percent should be avoided for clearing, regrading, or construction. Slopes of be- tween 15 and 25 percent require special site planning and should also be avoided whenever practicable. Although slope maps are not published, they can be easily prepared by a sur- veyor, engineer, planner, or landscape architect working from readily available topographic sheets printed by the U.S. Geolog- ical Survey. 4. Groundwater Resources and Their Recharge Areas. The term agriifer refers to underground water reserves occupying billions of tiny Chapter 3. Comprehensive Plan Update 23 spaces between sand grains and other soil particles, including 6. Productive Farmland. Maps showing the location of soils rated as gravel. They are "recharged" with surface water seeping down- being "prime" or "of statewide significance" can be obtained ward through coarse sandy or gravelly deposits and at low from the county conservation districts. Because these maps are points in the landscape where wetlands frequently occur. typically reproduced on aerial photographs in the county soil 5. Woodlands. In areas where the majority of original forest has survey, it is relatively easy to isolate the instances of these soil long been cleared away for commercial agriculture, woodlands types that occur on unwooded parcels where farming actually may be described as remnants, often located in lower -lying areas occurs or where it could take place without the need for mas- with relatively damp soils or on the steeper slopes. Despite— sive tree clearing. In certain regions where the vast majority of and perhaps because of—their small areal extent, these wood- land is wooded, the fields, meadows, and pastures take on an lands play a particularly pivotal role for wildlife in such areas. In added significance—at least in local terms—regardless of the other more densely wooded areas, key distinctions will involve productivity of their soils. In such areas, these open fields con - those woodlands that comprise the largest, oldest, and healthi- stitute much of what people generally consider to be "rural est stands of mature native trees, as differentiated from younger character," and they are often highly prized for their scenic second -growth woodlands, conifer plantations, or forests over- value in maintaining a sense of the country landscape. In such grown with invasive vines such as Japanese honeysuckle, rosa cases it is recommended that small fields down to five acres in multiflora, greenbriar, oriental bittersweet, and wild grape. In area should be mapped. At the suggested mapping scale of 1 recent years concern has risen among conservation biologists inch = 1,000 feet, this would be an area about an inch long and and others who point out that decreases in the number of some one-quarter inch wide. species of "neo -tropical" songbirds (that summer in this coun- 7. Significant Wildlife Habitats. Habitats of threatened or endangered try and migrate to Central and South America every fall) have wildlife species should be mapped, at least in their general loca- been caused in part by both the reduction and the fragmenta- tion, wherever possible. Such information is available from a tion of our temperate woodland habitat. statewide Natural Diversity Inventory, typically produced by the The best sources for defining the extent of woodlands, Department of Natural Resources. Although the exact location hedgerows, or tree lines are vertical aerial photographs that are of such areas is deliberately not revealed on the published maps commonly available through county offices of the USDA Nat- (in order to protect the sites from collectors, poachers, and other ural Resource Conservation Service. These may be ordered as unauthorized people), the generalized data provide at least a enlargements at working scales (such as 1 inch = 100 feet) and "warning flag" clue to local officials that any development pro - are indispensable in accurately locating not only tree stands but posed in that area should be laid out with extreme care. Likely even individual trees (in meadows or fields, or alongside roads). wildlife travel corridors linking the areas used as food sources, Aerial photos can also be helpful in locating the relative posi- homes, and breeding grounds should be mapped whenever pos- tions of coniferous and deciduous trees, even when the latter are sible. Anecdotal information from local game wardens and in leaf, due to the darker coloration of conifers as registered on sportsmen can be invaluable in this regard. Also, it is an unfor- black-and-white film. tunate fact that the places where such travel corridors cross 24 roads are likely to be those with the greatest occurrence of road kills. 8. Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Features. Because published documentation on the location of buildings or other resources with historic, archaeological, or cultural significance is far from complete, landowners and local historians or historical groups should always be consulted after a review of official lists such as the National Register of Historic Places and the historic or ar- chaeological site inventories compiled by state and county of- fices of historic preservation and cultural resources. In most cases, old buildings, ruins, cellar holes, abandoned roads, stone walls, burial grounds, or other resources will be of local rather than county -wide or regional importance. In areas that wit- nessed battles, skirmishes, or troop movements during the Rev- olutionary War or Civil War (or other notable conflicts), it is likely that many such lands will remain entirely unprotected. Earlier sites, such as areas used for burials or encampments by Native Americans or prehistoric peoples, should also be mapped wherever they have been documented. "Windshield surveys" can be a useful source of local information about historic and cultural features. When undertaken, the best results usually occur when teams of two people conduct the surveys, as de- scribed in item 9. 9. Scenic Viewsheds from Public Roads. Most communities have not conducted scenic viewshed surveys, but many of them could do so quite easily with local volunteer help. At least two people are needed: one to drive and one to annotate a map as they go along. The most helpful type of base map is one that shows ex- isting buildings and the patterns of field and forest. When this information is displayed on a topographical sheet with the ground contours indicated, sight -line limits can be fairly accu- rately estimated.Tips on conducting scenic road inventories ap- pear in Chapter 12 of Rural by Design (Arendt et al. 1994), a GROWING GR FFNF12 comprehensive resource book on rural planning available from the American Planning Association. Although scenic viewshed protection does not provide sufficient grounds for denying sub- division approval in a conventional subdivision, it can play an important supporting role, supplementing other features of sec- ondary importance. Official Maps of Conservation Lands, Parklands, and Trails A time -tested technique that enjoyed more prominence during the early decades of planning and zoning is the Official Map. The pur- pose of this technique, which is explicitly authorized under most states' zoning enabling legislation, is to provide notice to landowners and intending developers that the municipality has identified certain areas or corridors for future acquisition to serve public needs, typi- cally street connections and parkland. Although land can be identi- fied on Official Maps many years before its intended acquisition, mu- nicipalities are legally obliged to purchase that land, at fair market value, within twelve months if the landowner specifically notifies the governing body of his or her intent to build, subdivide, or otherwise develop the land. If within those twelve months the municipality fails to initiate a purchase -and -sale agreement, or to begin condemnation proceedings, the designation is deemed null and void. Community -Wide Map of Potential Conservation Lands This relatively new approach is loosely related to the Official Map. Unlike its more formal counterpart, the Map of Potential Conserva- tion Lands does not identify land earmarked for public acquisition. However, it is similar in that it identifies those parts of undeveloped properties where the municipality has preliminarily determined the Chapter S. Conservation Subdivisions Sketch Plan: Applicants should always be strongly encouraged, if not required, to submit a Sketch Plan showing at least the general lo- cation of proposed development areas and conservation areas. In some states, the enabling legislation does not allow local govern- ments to require Sketch Plans in addition to the Preliminary Plan and the Final Plan. In such states this step should remain voluntary, as a separate procedure. Sketch Plans cost little to prepare because they involve virtually no engineering input except for a general knowledge of soil and slope conditions (which are pertinent for septic systems and street alignments). In their most basic form they ntay consist of simple "bubble maps" drawn on clear overlay sheets placed on top of the Existing Resources/Site Analysis Map, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as "Sketch Plan Over- lays." However they are produced, Sketch Plans provide an excel- lent opportunity for mutual communication at a very critical stage of the subdivision process, before large sums are expended to meet the substantial engineering requirements for detailed designs. Most applicants are understandably. reluctant to modify their proposals after they have been heavily engineered because those documents represent a sizable investment of funds. Conceptual Preliminary Plan: This book recommends that munici- palities return to the original intent of Preliminary Plans, as first envisioned in most states' enabling laws. Although many commu- nities have since blurred the distinction between the "preliminary" and the "final" plan, the first document had originally been in- tended by legislatures to be fairly conceptual in nature and not costly to produce. On the other hand, the purpose of the Final Plan was to supply the highly detailed drawings on which construction decisions would be based. Because developers sometimes choose to exercise their legal right not to submit Sketch Plans, this book's model ordinance lan- guage for preliminary plans defines them as essentially conceptual 65 in nature, requiring them to provide approximate dimensions and to show approximate locations rather than very precise ones.These Conceptual Preliminary Planstare essentially the same documents as the optional Sketch Plan and they serve a similar purpose: to permit discussion on the overall concept prior to preparing ex- pensive engineering drawings that are really not needed by mu- nicipal officials until later stages.When preparing Conceptual Pre- liminary Plans, applicants should be strongly encouraged to follow the special four -step design approach for laying out conservation subdivisions, as described and illu1 strated in the next section (and detailed in the model ordinance language in Appendix 3). The Conceptual Preliminary Plan is followed by submission of a Detailed Final Plan in the next 90 -day period. Extensions to these two periods can usually be negotiated between the applicant and the municipality fairly easily when there is an indication of good faith on both sides. The Four -Step Approach to Designing Conservation Subdivisions The design process for conservation subdivisions is firmly based on the detailed site information provided through the Existing Re- sources/Site Analysis Map, together with off-site data shown on the Context Map regarding potential linkages to resource areas on ad- joining properties and the surrounding neighborhood in general.The primary purpose of this design approach is to provide landowners and developers with their full legal density in a way that conserves not only the most special features of the proposed development site, but that also helps to protect an interconnected network of conser- vation lands extending across the community. The heart of this design process can be summarized as four sequential steps beginning with the all- important identi tcation of the conservation land that should potentially be 66 Figure 5-2. EXISTING REsovacEs: This 50 -acre site will be used to illustrate how a basic conservation subdivision can be designed using the four -step ap- proach. This is the same site that was employed in. Chapter 4 to show how five different potential development -and -conservation options could be im- plemented under the model zoning provisions in Appendix 3 of this book. protected. Those steps, which are illustrated in Figures 5-5 through 5- 10, are: (1) identifying conservation areas, (2) locating house sites, (3) aligning streets and trails, and (4) drawing in the lot lines. "Yield Plan" to Determine Density As an alternative to deducting certain percentages of various kinds of constrained land—in order to determine the net developable acreage on any given tract—ordinances can establish procedures for prepar- ing a simple "Yield Plan," as illustrated in Figure 5-3. Under this approach, applicants submit a lightly engineered sketch showing the maximum number of lots they could reason- ably expect to achieve through a conventional layout, given the presence of fundamental building constraints such as wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes (over 25 percent). In unsewered areas, the planning commission would then require that a 10 percent 0 100 200 Feet IV�1 GROWING GREENER Figure 5-3. YIELD PLAN. sample of lots, of its choosing, be tested for on-site septic suitabil- ity. If all these lots pass, the number of lots shown on theYield Plan is approved; but if any lots fail they are deleted and another 10 per- cent sample is required. Again, local officials would select those lots to be evaluated, focusing on those that appear to be the most mar- ginal or dubious. Figure 5-3 is aYield Plan and Figure 5-4 illustrates what the prop- erty would look like if that Yield Plan were implemented. C?aapter 5. Conservation Subdivisions Figure 5-4. CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION: This bird's-eye perspective illustrates how the property would appear if the Yield Plan were built. Step 1: Identifying Conservation Areas Step 1, involving the delineation of lands to be conserved, is divided into two parts. Part 1 is to.locate the inherently unbuildable parts of the property that are wet, floodprone, or steep (Primary Conserva- tion Areas). Part 2 involves selecting a certain proportion (usually at least haW of the remaining relatively unconstrained land and desig- nating that as a Secondary Conservation Area. The choice as to which elements of the site are to be so considered should be guided by clearly ranked criteria for determining conservation areas, which are discussed later in this chapter. In general, the features that are se- lected for inclusion in Secondary Conservation Areas are those which are the most sensitive environmentally, the most significant histori- cally or culturally, or the most scenic. This property's Primary Conservation Areas are fairly straightfor- ward, consisting of well-defined wetlands and floodplain, often bor- dered by steeply sloping ground (see Figure 5-5). Some of these un - buildable areas also include Secondary Conservation Area elements, such as mature woods in the bottomland hardwood forest and on the 0 100 200 Feet 166_ 1 North b 2 3� _o 67 ME F wetiai St .., 1- ..........._... Figure 5-5. PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS. steep slopes that were passed over by timber harvesters because of their limited accessibility. Secondary Conservation Areas also include the upland wood- lands, the "Great Oak," two wildflower meadows, a couple of ser- pentine rock outcroppings, a family cemetery, the cellar hole of the original farmstead, and a stone wall and hedgerow running across the middle of the property (see Fig. 5-6).The rural character of the site, as seen from the township road, is also defined by the open views into 68 0 100 200 Feet _ Norti� h historic , family ceme1y ' _ views Into property bottorriland �r R:farmhouse hardwoods ; #pundation _ upland I �o qr5, , r meadow woods wildflower I 0 meadow serpentine a rock outcrop o° 3 upland woods I meadow ::. 3+:Lsn:x•:jL+;r wildflower;:,:: ..;.; I i stone wall meadow and hedgerow - meadow I great oak i upland woods I I meadow I upland hottomland woods hardwoods ' Figure 5-6. SECONDARY CONSERVATION AREAS. the upper meadow and by the wooded buffer just to the south of that: opening. Typically, very few of these elements would be preserved with a conventional layout, as illustrated in the Yield Plan showing the baseline density under the preexisting zoning ordinance (see Fig. 5-3). Coincidentally, this is the general approach used by designers of highly successful golf course developments, with the basic distinction that here the subdivider preserves natural areas such as fields, mead- ows, and woodlands and creates informal open spaces such as neigh - GROWING Gk_vENER borhood commons. Expressed in simple terms, designers of conservation subdivisions substitute greenways for fairways and provide community greens in place of putting greens. Whether one is interested in building homes around a facility for a single sport, or arranging them in a parklike setting full of natural features that all can enjoy (including wildlife)•; the only practical way is to begin by defining the open space first. When the first sketch is attempted, the site designer should not be reluctant to "greenline" more land than he or she thinks will even- tually be designated as open space. This will ensure that no poten- tially desirable area is prematurely left out, excluding it from consid- eration in the design process. This exercise will quickly identify the likely core areas of futuie development on the property. One should then work outward from those cores, careful to recommend for development only those other areas that appear to be least important to conserve when looking at the site as a whole (including its relationship to resources existing on neighboring parcels). Step 2: Locating the House Sites As with golf course developments, the next design step is to identify potential house site locations. Since it is well known that most pee- ple prefer (and are often willing to pay extra) to see open space from their windows, it makes economic sense to create as many view lots as possible and to provide usable open space within convenient walk- ing distance from all the other houses. One obvious way.to maximize the number of view lots is to min- imize their width and maximize the livability of the homes built on them through creative modifications (such as designing houses with a windowless side wall virtually abutting one side lot line, and an- other sidewall containing windows facing onto a wider side yard -- and toward the "blind" side of the next house). Another way to increase the number of houses with views is to design several flag -shaped lots with long narrow strips of land cou.- (;11,gpter 5_Co,aservatiota Saibdivisions necting them with the street.These lots are especially useful in odd corners of a neighborhood, such as at the end of a cul-de-sac or along a sharp curve in the street. Although they are essentially vari- atious on wedge-shaped lots common in such situations, they often provide more usable yard space than do wedge -lots since their slt;tpe in the area where the house is situated tends to be more rec- tangular. Although flag lots are most appropriate in relatively low-density subdivisions where the overall density is one acre or more per dwelling, these "flag lots" can also be useful at higher densities and should generally be permitted in all developments, with certain're- strictions.To curb potential abuses, they should be limited to no more than 15 or 20 percent of the total number of lots (for instance), and Mien the "flag" portion is less than 10,000 square feet the planning commission should be authorized to require adequate visual screen - in4= between adjoining lots (particularly those that share a front—back boundary). Although it is rarely possible to design layouts so that every house lits a view over major open space, it is often feasible to give most houses a view of at least a minor open space, such as a small neigh- borhood common or village green, or several acres of trees and grass around a small pond doubling as a stormwater retention facility, at- tr;tctively landscaped with native species such as red -twig dogwood shrubs. Once the Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas have been delineated the remaining lands that stand out as the most logical places to situate the house lots and streets are called Potential Devel- "I"neat Areas (see Fig. 5-7). Step 2 involves locating house sites within these Potential Devel- opment Areas in a way that maximizes the number of homes enjoy- ing direct views of the conservation land (see Fig. 5-8). It is clear that identifying house sites before lot lines and streets al- 11)\vs building locations to be carefully selected so that natural, his - 0 100 200 Feet North 69 Figure 5-7. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS. torical, or cultural features worth preserving, including large trees and prominent rock outcrops as well as historic or cultural features such as stone walls, cellar holes, battle trenches, and archaeological remains, can be avoided. Because it is not always possible to draw the Sec- ondary Conservation Areas sufficiently large to include all these fea- tures, some of the less significant areas might fall into those parts of the site slated for development. However, the flexibility of this design approach enables the majority of such features—and all of the best ones—to be designed around. 70 0 r Figure 5-8. LOCATING HOUSE SITES. Step 3: Aligning Streets and Trails After the conservation land has been at least tentatively identified and potential house sites have been sketched in, the third logical step is to determine the best way to access every residence with a street system (see Fig. 5-9). This part of the exercise essentially involves "connect- ing the dots." Readers should note that the single -loaded streets (with houses on one side only) in the conservation design are not longer or more expensive than the double -loaded streets serving the same 0 100 200 Feet 7—"r-1 North a ! li? i Figure 5-9. ALIGNING STREETS AND TRAILS. GROWING Gt.,�ENER number of lots in the conventional layout on the Yield Plan illus- trated in Figure 5-3. Areas with relatively level or rolling topography pose few street de- sign challenges from an engineering standpoint, with the major con- siderations being to avoid crossing wetlands and to minimize the length (and cost) of new access streets. There are further considera- tions from an environmental perspective, such as avoiding large trees, mature tree stands, or wildlife habitats. Sometimes it is possible to split Oiapter 5. Conservation Subdivisions the travel lanes so that they curve apart forming an elongated, boule- vard -style island between them, where a certain large tree or other natural or historic feature may be preserved and given visual promi- nence. (When the preservation of large trees is involved, it is essential that the entire area under the canopy's outer "drip line" be kept undis- turbed from heavy construction equipment, which can easily cause permanent damage to root systems. To achieve this, temporary con- struction fences should be erected ten feet beyond such drip lines until all construction activity has been finished in the tree's immedi- ate location.) An excellent example of tree and woodland preservation in a new conservation subdivision is "Garnet Oaks" in Bethel Town- ship, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, where the developer's site de- signer carefully aligned streets to avoid impacting major trees and where all contractors and subcontractors were required to attend a special training seminar on tree conservation practices cosponsored by the Morris Arboretum and Realen Homes. Step 4: Drawing in the Lot Lines The fourth and final step is the easiest, once the conservation areas have been delineated, the house sites located, and the road alignments deterinined (see Fig. 5-10). At this point in the design process, draw- ing in the lot lines is usually little more than a formality (and one that is unnecessary in condominium developments where all land is jointly owned). Clearly the most significant aspects of a development, from the viewpoint of future residents, are how their houses relate to the open space, to each other, and to the street (see Fig. 5-11). Lot lines are the least important element in the development design process, yet they and the street pattern are typically the first items to be set down on paper. Maintaining livability on the somewhat smaller lots needed in con- servation subdivisions does not pose much of a design problem in zon- ing districts where the normally required lot is one or two acres. The 71 Figure 5-10. DRAWING IN THE IAT LINES. challenge increases as density rises and lot sizes become more compact. As mentioned above in Step 2, lot lines in high-density, single-family developments can be drawn fairly close to side walls with few or no windows, enabling larger and more usable side yards to be provided on the opposite side of the house. This approach can be taken further by building on one of the side lot lines ("zero -lot line" construction). The issue of appropriate lot depth is directly related to the pres- ence or absence of open space along rear lot lines. When conserva- 72 Figure 5-11. Bird's-eye perspective illustrating a conservation subdivision using the four -step design approach. tion land is located immediately behind them, there is good justifi- cation for shortening proposed house lots, as the open space visually extends the perceived depth of back yards. Therefore, a logical argument can be made to reduce both the width and the depth of lots where houses are located off center (i.e., closer to one side line, thereby maximizing one side yard) and where lots abut conservation areas behind them. In developments with pub- lic sewerage or with private central treatment facilities (such as "spray irrigation"), where zoning densities might allow one dwelling per 20,000 square feet of land, 75 percent open space can be achieved by designing house lots of 5,000 square feet. These smaller, village -scale lots are often deemed to be more desirable than conventional half - acre lots by several distinct groups of potential home buyers—such as empty -nesters, young couples, and single parents with a child or two—who want some private outdoor living space but who also wish to minimize their yard maintenance responsibilities. This is es- pecially true when the lots back up to protected open space, which psychologically enlarges the dimensions of the actual lot. GROWING GREENER Architects, landscape architects, and site designers have for many years recognized that the most efficient use of a house lot occurs when the house is located "off center and up front." Equal side yards generally produce two functionally useless areas on lots nar- rower than 80 feet, and front yards are practically useless in any case because they are so much within the public view. Unless homes are located along heavily traveled streets with considerable traffic noise, there is little need for deep front setbacks to provide buffering. Placing homes where front porches or stoops are within conversa- tional distance of sidewalks helps create conditions for friendlier neighborhoods, where passersby can exchange pleasantries with residents sitting on porches on weekend afternoons or summer. evenings. Note on Design Sequence for Village Layouts The above sequence of steps is generally modified in situations where a more formal, neo -traditional, or village -type layout is de- sired, as in Option 5 developments. In such cases, Step 2. becomes the location of streets and squares followed by the location of house sites. Whereas the relationship between homes and open space is of the greatest importance in more rural conservation subdivisions, the relationship between buildings, streets, and squares is the dominant design consideration in the neo -tradi- tional approach to site design. Both design approaches place more emphasis on the designation of public open space and on the pro- vision of sidewalks, footpaths, and trails—in an effort to foster a pedestrian -friendly community atmosphere—compared with conventional suburban "cookie -cutter" layouts offering just house lots and streets. Technical Notes on Street Design A number of more technical recommendations regarding street de- sign considerations are provided below. Many of these points can be washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation washingtonpost.com wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost .... p-dyn/A 173 84-2003 DecMlanguage=pri n Developers Find Payoff in Preservation Donors Reap Tax Incentive by Giving to Land Trusts, but Critics Fear Abuse of System By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, December 21, 2003; Page A01 Mike Kahn, a Florida business consultant and former golf pro, advises celebrities and sports stars how they can save millions in taxes: Buy a golf course and prohibit building on the fairways. "You make virtually risk-free easy money," Kahn's Web site says. He explained in one Internet posting how an investor paid $2.4 million for a golf course and reaped $4.8 million "in pure tax savings." Kahn will not identify the buyer but describes him as one of many who made big money -- and got to keep the golf course as well. "People who do it generally keep it quiet," he explained in an interview. "It sounds like a money grab." It is all possible, Kahn explains, through a common environmentalist's tool called a "conservation easement." Easements are permanent deed restrictions that limit some types of intrusive development -- such as dense subdivisions or strip mines -- while often permitting limited construction. Landowners "donate" the easements to a nonprofit land trust or a government agency that, in effect, certifies that the restrictions are meaningful and provide some public benefit, such as preserving open space or protecting wildlife. That allows the donor to seek federal income tax deductions for the reduction in the land's market value. VAv9r9,11�Ih6 By taking such steps to limit construction, the owners of vacation resorts, country manors and dude ranches can seek big write-offs, too. Pennsylvania developer Kenneth C. Hellings says he restricted building on "unusable" portions of his new subdivision and took "a shocker" of a tax deduction. Luxury -home builders in North Carolina paid $10 million for a tract in the mountains, developed a third of the land, then claimed a $20 million deduction. Such tax bonanzas have become a little -noticed byproduct of the maturing environmental movement, which increasingly entwines preservation of land with preservation of wealth. Without question, conservation easements have done much good. Conservationists credit them with making preservation the fastest-growing arm of the environmental movement, fueling a boom in land conservation and helping to protect more than 6 million acres nationwide. Easements have helped safeguard fragile ecosystems, critical watersheds, land bordering national parks and some of the nation's most stunning vistas. "There is an enormous amount of good that has been done," said Rand Wentworth, president of the Washington -based Land Trust Alliance. "Ninety-nine percent of these transactions are good, solid conservation." 1 of 8 12/22/2003 2:01 PM washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/A17384-2003Dec20?language=prin But as easements have proliferated, so have problems and abuses. The Senate Finance Committee earlier this year opened a wide-ranging inquiry into easement practices at the Nature Conservancy, the world's largest environmental group. The committee's investigation followed a Washington Post series that revealed the Conservancy had repeatedly bought scenic properties, added development restrictions, then resold the land at reduced prices to Conservancy trustees and supporters. The buyers, some of whom retained the right to build houses on the land, in turn gave the Conservancy cash donations that supplied them with hefty tax write-offs. After the series, the Conservancy board banned such sales. Now conservationists are wrestling with other ethical concerns about easements. Stephen J. Small, a leading easement consultant and former IRS attorney, warned that "some things are starting to get out of hand" in an address delivered at a conservationists' gathering earlier this year in Sacramento. "We are getting calls from people who are totally misinformed about conservation easements and the potential tax benefits," Small said. "Lawyers and accountants and promoters and investors are giving them bad information, telling them they can do this or that and claim a big deduction, and there aren't enough people out there telling them they can't." Conservation easements have been around for decades but only gained prominence after 1976, when Congress made them tax-deductible. Today, easements are held by a host of government agencies, national environmental groups such as the Conservancy and about 1,260 local land trusts -- nonprofit corporations devoted to conservation. Those trusts often operate behind closed doors as they decide which tracts to protect -- and therefore which landowners get the tax breaks. The trusts also decide how much building can be done. The benefits often go to the wealthy, and routinely to board members and staff at the land trusts. And although the development restrictions are publicly described as lasting "in perpetuity," conservationists privately fret over whether this is true, partly because easements continue to face court challenges. Enforcement is also a problem. Surveys of land trusts around the nation, often conducted by the land trusts themselves, show that hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of easements have been violated or altered at the request of landowners. Many of the owners have already pocketed the tax savings generated by the easement. Many easements explicitly allow additional development if the land trust approves. Meanwhile, companies and individuals claiming huge write-offs face little risk of audit. In the past two fiscal years, an IRS program aimed at identifying inflated deductions taken for easements and other non-cash gifts to charities produced thousands of leads but, because of competing priorities at the agency, did not produce a single audit, according to the General Accounting Office. "It's complete smoke and mirrors," said John Echeverria, a former general counsel of the National Audubon Society. "Donations of conservation easements generally do not really give any value away." Echeverria, who now directs the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, in favors preserving land through more time -tested processes, such as restrictive zoning and the issuance of building permits. Easements, he says, have "the potential to undermine the cause of environmental protection itself." Fearful of damaging the land -trust movement, many conservationists are reluctant to broadcast the flaws 12/22/2003 2:01 PM 2of8 washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/A17384-2003Dec2O?language=prin in easements. They ruminate instead on easement shortcomings in the dry text of academic studies and legal journals. An April 2000 survey of 18 New England land trusts and easement -holding public agencies, for example, found that 14 acknowledged that they had discovered one or more easement violations. Most said they had agreed to alter restrictions in one or more existing easements. Another study, in 1999, discovered that almost half of the protected tracts examined in the San Francisco area were not regularly monitored to make sure the restrictions were being followed. "Failure to adequately monitor easements results in the public paying for nonexistent benefits," stated the report, by the Bay Area Open Space Council. A third study concluded bluntly: "There are serious threats to the use of easements." Some tax specialists say deductions generated by easement donations increasingly are attracting the attention of affluent families seeking tax shelters. Small, the conservation lawyer, estimated in a recent land -trust newsletter that a third of his potential clients "think they can get away with something by donating a conservation easement." Some developers argue that land separating homes in subdivisions qualifies for tax breaks; others produce land appraisals that appear wildly exaggerated. Although Small turns such clients away, he believes that an increasing number of abusive deals are quietly being made, sometimes facilitated by nonprofits with questionable credentials -- what are known as "rogue land trusts." Small reserves particular scorn for developers who donate easements on golf courses, then seek tax breaks for preserving open space. All but a few such easements, he said, are on their face "ridiculous." He wrote in a recent e-mail to other conservationists, "This is a very, very bad direction the land trust business is going in and we need to stop it." How It Works Conservation easements generally work this way: Landowners amend their deeds to permanently restrict some types of intrusive development -- such as shopping malls or hotels -- while often continuing to allow construction of homes or other limited improvements. The owner then finds a nonprofit land trust or a government agency willing to take the easement as a gift. By accepting the gift, the land trust in effect certifies that the restrictions are meaningful and benefit the public. That allows the donor to seek federal income tax deductions and, in some cases, reductions in federal estate taxes and local property taxes. In many communities, the land trust becomes the sole entity responsible for monitoring the site and suing if violations are uncovered. Easement donors can seek tax deductions for any loss of property value caused by the restrictions. That value is generally established by appraisers hired by the donor. Propelled by such savings, conservation easements held by the local land trusts have grown more than fivefold nationwide since 1990, to an estimated 12,000 today. Local land trusts hold easements totaling 2.6 million acres, more than double the land they own outright. There are no reliable figures on the total value of the conservation tax breaks. But legislation to expand allowable deductions that passed the Senate this year would sacrifice more than $1 billion in additional 3 of 8 12/22/2003 2:01 PM washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/A17384-2003Dec20?language=pnn tax revenue over the next decade, according to the Senate Finance Committee. Unlike restrictive zoning, which is customarily established by public bodies working with land -use experts, easement restrictions often are initiated by individual landowners. The deals are made with private nonprofit corporations that may be simply a handful of local residents. Filed at the courthouse as deed amendments, the easements usually go unnoticed. A recent survey by the Land Trust Alliance, a national trade association for conservation organizations, found that half of all trusts are run entirely by volunteers. Half have annual budgets of less than $27,000. Such organizations decide which tracts to preserve and who will pocket the tax savings "with no public input whatsoever," Echeverrmia wrote in a recent analysis. He describes the process as "a gross fraud on the U.S. taxpayer." Land trusts say easement donations have helped many cash -poor families retain farms and ranches they otherwise might have sold to developers. But some of the biggest and best-known easements have been linked to major corporations and some of the nation's richest individuals, from Ted Turner and David Letterman to the Rockefellers and DuPonts. University of Utah law professor Nancy A. McLaughlin, writing in a recent issue of the Idaho Law Review, described the use of tax incentives as "upside-down." "It provides upper-income donors with disproportionately greater tax savings than middle and lower-income donors," she wrote. To be sure, McLaughlin and many other environmentalists -- including those pushing for reform -- support easements and say they have done much good. While acknowledging a small but significant number of abuses and legal uncertainties, the proponents say most easements have never been violated. They add that although easements occasionally are amended, the environment rarely has been harmed and that amendments often increase conservation values. Most donors give out of a desire to protect land they cherish, and most ultimately lose money on the transactions, proponents say. "Most in the land -trust community meet their ethical responsibilities, and well," Vermont Land Trust president Darby Bradley said in an October address to other preservationists meeting in California. Bradley nonetheless called for improvements, saying, "We must do better." Big -Buck Deductions There are mounting concerns about the size of the tax deductions that donors claim, based on the assumption that easements lower property values. Some academic researchers believe easements can increase property values by making neighborhoods more exclusive and scenic, with less density. Real estate ads sometimes tout easements as a selling point. "Landowners may well be receiving double compensation, according to a recent analysis by Purdue University professor Leigh Raymond and University of California at Berkeley professor Sally K. Fairfax, writing in Natural Resources Journal. Donors can pocket the tax breaks, then profit as well from the appreciation of their new, trophy -home sites. The authors described that possibility as "troubling, to say the least, given the involvement of public funds in financing their original transactions." 4 of 8 12/22/2003 2:01 PM washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/A17384-2003Dec2O?language=prin In the Great Smoky Mountains near Asheville, N.C., investors two years ago bought 4,400 acres, placed an easement on 3,0000 acres and thea began developing 350 home sites and an 18 -hole golf course on the remaining property. A master plan for the development, called the Balsam Mountain Preserve, shows that the easement area is broken up by the fairways and home sites, which spot the land like mushrooms on a pizza. Investors paid about $10 million for the land and shared in a tax write-off "in the $20 million range," said James A. Anthony, a partner in the South Carolina development firm of Chaffin/Light Associates. The deduction was based, in part, on an appraiser's assessment of how much the land would have been worth had they filled the acreage with 1,400 homes, Anthony said. Far from a liability, the easement has become a marketing tool. Sales literature describes the subdivision as "a community within a park" and the undeveloped portions as maintained "for the quiet enjoyment of members." Anthony said: "It does add value to the remaining land. Kind of like a limited -edition print -- the fewer you have, the more the value." Appraisers factored any appreciation into their calculations of the tax benefit due the investors, Anthony said. The firm is considering placing an easement directly on the golf course once it is completed, he added. Broad data about the reliability of claimed deductions are scarce. But a 1984 IRS study examined 42 deductions for easement donations and determined that all but one appeared inflated, resulting in overvaluations totaling nearly $32 million. According to a GAO report on the study, "The taxpayers generally overvalued their conservation easement deductions by an average of about 220 percent." Setting values continues to prove nettlesome. In the case of Brandon Park, the personal retreat of chemical heiress Wilhelmina duPont Ross, New York state officials and federal officials came to different conclusions. Visitors to the family estate in the Adirondack Mountains pull up at a gated and guarded entrance. The road then winds through a 27,000 -acre private forest dotted with nine ponds and traversed by 10 miles of the St. Regis River. The grounds feature at least 16 homes, cabins and other buildings, linked by more than 60 miles of roads and trails, court records show. In 1978, Ross gave the Nature Conservancy an easement restricting commercial development on the remote site and requiring that it remain forever a "natural and scenic area." Backed by an appraisal, she claimed that the restrictions slashed the property's market value by 44 percent. That qualified her for a federal income tax break of more than $1 million -- $2.5 million in today's dollars. Two decades later, during a local property tax dispute, a panel of state judges pointed out that Ross had retained the right to build 10 additional homes, mine gravel pits, drill for oil, cut trees, subdivide the land and expel the public. They pointed out that local governments already heavily regulated development of the estate, meaning that Ross actually had "parted with very little" when she donated her easement. "Any further development of the land was unlikely, even if the land was not subject to the conservation easement," the court ruled in 1999, rejecting requests to slash her property taxes. 5 of 8 12/22/2003 2:01 PM washingtonpostcom: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/Al7384-2003Dec20?language=prin Ross died in 2000. Her lawyer, H. Dean Heberlig Jr., explained that, unlike New York officials, federal authorities factor in a property's potential future value when establishing tax breaks. The IRS initially challenged the deduction, he said, but ultimately agreed that $1 million "was an appropriate deduction." The IRS said it could not continent publicly on an individual tax case. A Conservancy spokesman said his group strongly believes easement donors give up "real value." Policing Conflicts Preservationists laud the grass-roots nature of the easements: Decision-making devolves into the hands of private groups that know their community best. But that approach also makes the easements difficult to track and police. Raymond and Fairfax describe conservation easements in general as protecting a patchwork of partially developed tracts, using restrictions largely designed by the landowners to meet their own needs. "Conserved land thus comes under protection because it is available to a land trust, not necessarily because it is an appropriate parcel to conserve," they wrote in their analysis. "The land owner, rather than the trust, drives the process. Moreover, during negotiations private landowners ... generally define the nature of the protection on the land to suit their own priorities." Small, who wrote the federal income tax regulations on conservation -easement donations while working for the IRS in the 1980s, says that at the time he and his colleagues expected land trusts to reject abusive transactions and police the process. Regulators thought that charities would turn away easements that allowed too much building or were designed solely to benefit the wealthy, he said. Today, however, organizations often are responsible for policing restrictions on property owned by their own officers, directors and donors. On an Internet discussion list, land -trust officials from across the country recently spoke out fervently in defense of employees and board members who donate easements to their own nonprofits. Tom Bailey, executive director of Michigan's Little Traverse Conservancy, wrote on Oct. 9 that land trusts should "make every effort" to persuade insiders to donate. "I certainly hope that a board member's having an easement on their land would not be considered a conflict!" Bailey wrote. "Or a staff member either.... "Certainly when enforcement issues are involved, the board member would be required to abstain from discussion or decisions on the case. But let's not get carried away with this conflict stuff." The Medina Summit Land Conservancy of Olio holds easements on four properties owned by its trustees and two more deals with trustees are in the works, said its executive director, Chris Bunch. The North Branch Land Trust of Trucksville, Pa., is in charge of enforcing easements on farms owned by its president and its board secretary, who say they received tax deductions exceeding $300,000. The secretary, Ed Zygmunt, said, "I personally don't see any conflict of interest." Increase in Problems Studies funded by land trusts show monitoring and enforcement problems are widespread and growing worse. 12/22/2003 2:01 PM 6of8 washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/A17384-2003Dec2O?language=prin The 1999 survey of San Francisco -area easement holders, for example, found that only half of the preserved tracts in the region were regularly monitored by the nonprofit or government agency holding the easement. Many of the existing monitoring programs were inadequate, the survey said. And even that monitoring discovered violations at 14 percent of the sites. "Problems are more likely to occur with second -generation landowners," added the report, by the Bay Area Open Space Council, a regional group of land trusts and conservation agencies. "Further changes of ownership in the future should be expected to increase the number of violations." Nearly a third of the organizations surveyed had no list of the easements they held, and some failed to record the original condition of the restricted properties. "Years may go by without any documentation on the easement," the study said. "Without proper, timely, and consistent monitoring, easements are difficult to defend legally, and violations become practically impossible to remedy." Many of the nonprofits also could not afford to defend an easement in court if necessary, the report concluded. One California environmental group, Defense of Place, used data from the study to estimate that easement violations nationwide exceed 2,700. The group's director, Jason Kibbey, warned: "If you just let conservation easements unravel over the next 20 years, the movement is over." Government agencies, which also hold thousands of easements, have their own problems. Conservationist Edmund Stiles found that his home of Hopewell Township, N.J., holds more than 400 easements, 103 of them stuffed into a box in the township hall basement. He visited a few dozen and found that 80 percent of the easements had been violated. Most were minor, he said, but in one case, a bridge had been built on the protected land. "Governments don't like enforcing easements," Stiles said. "It's a difficult thing politically." Hopewell zoning officer Robert Miller said the township has no one to monitor easements, so it depends on residents to report suspected violations. That happens about once a week, he said. A voluntary survey of New England conservation groups and public agencies by the Land Trust Alliance in 2000 found that a third kept no records on inspections of land protected by easements. Of 18 organizations participating, 11 admitted to having amended one or more easements already on file at the courthouse. Many of the easements reviewed during the survey were poorly written, making them difficult or impossible to defend in court, the report said. An Alliance study in 1999 identified 498 easement violations nationwide, but its report struck a positive stance. It called 383 of the violations "minor." The 115 "major" violations included 32 cases of surface alteration, 28 of vegetation cutting and 18 of logging. In 25 cases, "prohibited/unauthorized" structures were built. The report stressed that 93 percent of easements in the study appeared to have avoided violations. Statistics show that more than half of all new nonprofits fail in their first decade. Over time, there may be no one to enforce many easements. And even when a land trust survives and has ample financing, it faces murky laws, according to a 1998 survey commissioned by the INNW Fund, a California preservation 7 of 8 12/22/2003 2:01 PM washingtonpost.com: Developers Find Payoff in Preservation wysiwyg://13/http://www.washingtonpost....p-dyn/A1?384-2003Dec20?language=prin foundation. Some survey participants noted that easements are still relatively untested, and "not enough time has passed to determine whether they will hold up legally in perpetuity, as intended." In a broader sense, some lawyers and environmentalists question whether it is wise for today's conservationists to impose their will on the future. Ecologists may one day determine that farmers do more damage than housing developments, they argue, or decide that conservation efforts would be more effective elsewhere. University of Virginia professor Julia D. Mahoney, writing last year in the school's law review, described the easements as foolhardy. "We lack the technical competence to make land -use decisions for future generations," Mahoney wrote. 'Unusable Acres' Hellings, the Philadelphia developer, said he has not spent much time weighing the philosophical implications. He has been busy building. A few years ago, Hellings rolled bulldozers onto a historic 450 -acre Chester County, Pa., farm and transformed it into an upscale commuters' subdivision, featuring 163 home sites on 100 acres surrounding an 18 -hole golf course. Only after the plan was complete, Hellings said, did his lawyers hit on a way to capitalize on a leftover flood plain and some steep hillsides, a scattered jumble of land that Hellings describes as 131 "unusable acres." Using guidance from a local land trust, Hellings's lawyers wrote an easement covering a dozen islands of protected land, one as small as six -tenths of an acre. Then they placed a second easement directly on 220 acres of the golf course, including the fairways, bunkers and putting greens. The easements were accepted by the Brandywine Conservancy, a well-established Pennsylvania land trust. A Brandywine spokesman said the easements helped to protect sensitive natural resources, including water quality, and ensured that the golf course would remain "permanent open space, forever." The easements mandate that the preserved areas "shall not unreasonably interfere with the business operations and they authorize mowing part of the 131 acres for "temporary overflow parking." The open space boosts land prices, Hellings said, and has become a valuable sales tool. Hellings would not say how much his tax break, calculated with the help of an appraiser, totaled. He described the final figure as "a shocker." "It is nice to have when tax time comes," he said with a smile. "It was a bonus." That bonus came as a surprise to West Bradford Township Manager Jack Hines Jr., who pointed out that under township ordinances Hellings would have had to dedicate at least 60 percent of his development to open space, anyway. "I don't know how you could take a tax write-off for that," Hines said. "He shouldn't have gotten anything." Researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report. © 2003 The Washington Post Company 8 of 8 12/22/2003 2:01 PM washingtonpost.com: Residents Struggle to Walk Away From Traffic Pagel of 4 wash ingtonpost.com Residents Struggle to Walk Away From Traffic Obstacles Put People Behind the Wheel for Short Trips By Katherine Shaver Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, December 28, 2003; Page COI About 900 residents in Sterling's Westerley subdivision live a five-minute walk from a grocery store, a bank and three restaurants. In another few minutes, they can stroll to the movies, the dry cleaner or dozens of other businesses. But when Westerley residents need a quart of milk or a quick bite to eat, most hop in their cars, SUVs and minivans, further crowding congested Route 7. That's because, for a half -mile between their homes and dozens of shopping and eating destinations, Route 7 has no sidewalk and no crosswalks. Their only options: run across six lanes of traffic or walk on a narrow dirt path worn into the grass that often becomes a muddy mess a couple of feet from vehicles zooming past. "You can't [walk] anyplace except in the community," said Bob Villegas, president of the Westerley Homeowners Association. "You'll see ladies with baby buggies on that dirt path. It's very dangerous." Traffic planners say Westerley residents aren't the only ones driving short distances -- and adding to the region's notorious traffic congestion -- because walking and riding bicycles are not safe options. An estimated half of the vehicles filling Metro parking lots belong to commuters who live within a short bus ride or walk of the stations. Parents driving their children to neighborhood schools add unnecessarily to morning traffic jams, particularly on side roads, often because their children would otherwise have to walk or ride their bicycles in the street. The Washington Post this week continues a series of articles on how traffic problems might be eased relatively simply and cheaply in an era when big and expensive solutions are less feasible. Reducing traffic by getting more people out of their cars is often as simple as building a sidewalk, painting a crosswalk, installing better streetlights or paving a bike path. All of them are relatively quick to do and cost little compared with widening roads, adding Metro lines or building more Metro parking garages. Making it easier for people to walk or ride bicycles might not make a huge dent in the traffic spurred by constant population and job growth. However, it could cut out some short vehicle trips, give people alternatives to stewing in backups and open up Metro parking spots. Most important, traffic planners say, making walking and bike riding easier would improve the region's air quality. Getting rid of unnecessary car trips would reduce vehicle emissions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35099-2003Dec27?language=printer 12/29/2003 washingtonpost.com: Residents Struggle to Walk Away From Traffic Page 2 of 4 Studies have shown that people will forgo driving if they find it easy and pleasant to walk, said Reid Ewing, a research professor in transportation and urban planning at the University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth. Better walking conditions also would make it safer for those who can't drive, such as children and older people. But Ewing said reducing the number of short vehicle trips isn't the only reason to make walking and biking safer and easier: "You do it for quality -of -life reasons, to make the population healthier, and you create more sense of community so people aren't just driving past each other in cars." More Cars, Fewer Walkers Despite the potential for cutting out some vehicle trips and improving air quality, people are walking less and less. Thirty years ago, more than 60 percent of U.S. schoolchildren walked or rode bikes to school. Today, that number has fallen to about 13 percent, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Walking has decreased for many reasons. Affluence has made two -car families the norm. In some of Washington's outer suburbs, household vehicles outnumber licensed drivers. That makes it more convenient to drive to the corner grocery store than walk. Many parents also say increased traffic and news accounts of child abductions have made them leery of letting their children walk or ride their bikes to school. Development patterns tailored to driving also have discouraged walking. Newer schools sit on large plots of land, removed from neighborhoods and often along busy roads. Today's subdivisions often are built far from shopping. Many neighborhoods built after World War II, when planners believed that the family car had replaced the need to walk, have no sidewalks. County officials often require a developer to install sidewalks, but the sidewalks end just beyond the developer's property line. On Sterling's Augusta Drive, leading into the five-year-old Westerley subdivision, the sidewalk runs along only one side. Residents on the other side must dash across four lanes of 35 -mph traffic with no crosswalk in sight. Students trying to walk between the subdivision and Dominion High School a half -mile away have a sidewalk near the school, but it ends about halfway home, requiring them to trudge through the grass or cross the street to reach another sidewalk. John J. Clark, Loudoun's transportation director, said the county now requires sidewalks along any new major road. Adding a sidewalk later costs three to four times as much, he said. Counties such as Loudoun used to consider sidewalks unnecessary, he said. But as development has exploded along once - rural roads, he said, the county has begun to see the importance of supporting walking. "We're getting smarter," Clark said. "We really haven't been smart enough on issues like this. You need to build pedestrian facilities from Day One, when you build the road." Test in Takoma Park Older neighborhoods often fare no better. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35099-2003Dec27?language=printer 12/29/2003 washingtonpost.com: Residents Struggle to Walk Away From Traffic Page 3 of 4 Laura Kriv, 39, said she drove her daughter, Nesha Ruther, to pre -kindergarten at Rolling Terrace Elementary School most days last year because no sidewalks connected their Takoma Park home with a paved path leading to the school. Walking in the street and weaving around parked cars with Nesha by the hand and her younger child in a stroller felt dangerous, Kriv said. But a few improvements over the summer made all the difference, Kriv said. After Rolling Terrace was chosen as a test case for the state to find ways to make walking to school safer, Montgomery County installed more sidewalks on neighborhood roads, improved road signs and added crosswalks near the school. The total cost: $218,600 -- about the price of two new stoplights. This fall, Kriv and her daughters traded in a five-minute drive for a 15 -minute walk most mornings. "That walk to school is a really good time just to walk and talk without having an agenda," Kriv said. "I don't want to depend on my car for everything." Consultants who have analyzed the pedestrian improvements near Rolling Terrace said it's too early to measure how many car trips are being saved. Kriv said she notices more children walking to school this year, and more neighbors of all ages walking and riding their bikes. Monica Ettinger, another Rolling Terrace parent who helped lead the charge for more sidewalks and better crosswalks, said some parents also had to be persuaded to get out of their cars. "We tried to educate them on the idea that one less car at pickup can make a big difference," Ettinger said. "If four cars pull in and they don't move, we can be backed up by 15 to 20 cars onto three roads within minutes." Metro Lots Congested The reluctance of many Metro riders to walk or ride bicycles to nearby subway stations concerns traffic planners because those commuters are taking parking spots that could be used by people who live farther from the stations. Some Metro riders said they have little choice. Jeff Tignore lives a 10 -minute walk from the Fort Totten Metro station. He took Metro to his old job downtown. But he drove rather than walked to the station because lumpy or missing sidewalks, along with poor lighting and the deserted feeling around the station, made it seem unsafe to walk, especially in the dark. Many of his neighbors still drive to the station, where the parking lot fills up by 8 a.m., he said. "Right now, we're not receiving the benefits or convenience of living that close to a Metro stop," said Tignore, an advisory neighborhood commissioner for the Fort Totten area in Northeast Washington. "I know a couple people who walk to the Metro, but most people I know drive to work or get driven to the Metro." Tignore, a lawyer, said he now drives to his job in Southwest Washington. He could take the Metro, he said, but it still seems easier to drive to work than to walk to the Fort Totten Station. Planners have known about the problem for years. A 1994 Metro study of license plates in subway station lots found that about half the vehicles came from homes within two or three miles of the station, many well within an easy walk or short bus ride. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35099-2003Dec27?language=printer 12/29/2003 washingtonpost.com: Residents Struggle to Walk Away From Traffic Page 4 of 4 That particularly concerns officials keeping an eye on the region's air pollution. People who could walk or take a short bus ride to Metro stations take parking spaces from drivers living farther away. If those people forgo taking Metro because they can't park at a station, their vehicles create that much more air pollution on their longer commutes. Freeing Metro station parking spaces also would allow the subway system, now packed during rush hours, to operate more efficiently, said Richard Stevens, Metro's director of business planning and project development. If riders didn't feel the need to arrive so early to get a parking space, he said, they would have more flexibility to ride outside the rush period, when Metro trains have more room. Making it easier for Metro riders to walk to stations also would ease crowding in Metro's Kiss and Ride areas. About 10 years ago, fewer than 5 percent of riders at suburban stations got dropped off or picked up at a Kiss and Ride area, Stevens said. Now, it's 10 percent to 15 percent, probably because fewer people are able to get parking. Improving sidewalks and adding crosswalks near bus stops also could increase bus ridership by about 3 percent, or 5,000 bus trips per day, Stevens said. That, too, could help reduce traffic. "I think it's a matter of priorities and where people want to spend the money," Stevens said. "It makes good sense for people to be able to walk, not just to transit, but to many other types of activities. We just don't make that easy to do." TOMORROW: Paying to drive faster. © 2003 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35099-2003Dec27?language=printer 12/29/2003 washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Board Could Scuttle Land Program wash ingtonpost.com Loudoun Board Could Scuttle Land Program Effort to Preserve Undeveloped Property in Fast -Growing County Decried as 'Fluff and 'Waste' By Michael Laris Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, January 4, 2004; Page C04 A relatively small but intensely controversial program to prevent home building has emerged as an early focus of Loudoun County's new Board of Supervisors, which will hold its first meeting tomorrow. The effort, launched two years ago after decades of debate, pays landowners not to build homes on their property. The former board blocked billions of dollars' worth of future home construction as part of a campaign to slow development in Loudoun, the nation's second -fastest-growing county. But a more modest land preservation effort -- the so-called Purchase of Development Rights program, which has paid out $8.9 million -- has fueled some of the new board's sharpest rhetoric. Program architects tout it as one of the old board's key accomplishments. Members of the new GOP majority, however, say jettisoning the tax -funded program is a top priority. The program symbolizes the chasm between the county's old and new boards - - and between the vocal poles in Loudoun's long-running debate over development, the environment and the role of government. "The way we see the world, there's not a free piggy bank for every wild, harebrained idea that comes along. That's what they've done for the last four years," said newly elected Supervisor Stephen J. Snow (R -Dulles). He Page 1 of 2 Z80� A+r rsv »P Pre rr ltta+} a Y td,l Open an ONInge Savings Account described the program as an example of the "feel -good waste" and "esoteric fluff stuff' that he said have put Loudoun in a financial hole and don't benefit his suburban constituents. That's not how Supervisor James G. Burton (I -Blue Ridge) sees it. "If you have no vision, and you can't see beyond the end of your nose, and you only think in terms of dollars and cents, then I could see how you'd be opposed to it," said Burton, who was reelected in the county's rural west. He argued that the program is an efficient and cost-effective element of a long -tern plan to preserve Loudoun's fast -fading environmental riches. County officials, anticipating hostility toward the program by the incoming board, rushed to complete a final purchase Dec. 31, hours before the new board took control. "We got our papers in just under the wire," said Alfred P. Dennis, whose family owns 125 acres along the Potomac. "The land is owned by five different owners. Getting them all together on the same page has been difficult." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52695-2004Jan3?language=printer 1/5/2004 washingtonpost.com: Loudoun Board Could Scuttle Land Program Page 2 of 2 The county paid members of Dennis's family, including a nephew and two sons, $4.2 million not to build scores of houses on the former dairy farm. The county also secured the right to run a public trail through the property, which includes Civil War entrenchments and connects with a series of other protected properties and parks in a fast-growing section of the Leesburg area. Dennis, 88, a retired Navy officer and former U.S. diplomat, said his mother first built a house on the property in the 1940s. While his relatives will benefit, Dennis said he will not receive any county money. "We're happy as a clam," Dennis said. "We'll have the knowledge this land will never be developed." Mike Kane, who was hired to run the county program after launching a similar effort in Bucks County, Pa., argued that paying for development rights is cheaper than paying to build the schools and roads needed to support new subdivisions. Officials estimate the county must spend about $37,000 on the capital projects associated with each new home, Kane said. So far, the development rights program has prevented more than 500 future homes on more than 2,500 acres in Loudoun, he said, adding that such development would have translated to some $19 million in school and other costs. "Preservation costs about half of what development does, and even more so, you get the benefits of preserving the land," Kane said. His former bosses in Bucks County -- two Republicans and one Democrat -- successfully ran for reelection in November on their record of preserving open space, he said. "They touted it as a cornerstone of their time in office," Kane said, adding that he hopes the new county board will give Loudoun's program a chance. "I would hope they'd take a closer look." But Snow said he and his GOP colleagues, as they stated in their campaigns, believe it's time to stop using tax funds to subsidize what he characterized as often wealthy landowners who may not have had plans to develop their property anyway. He also rejected arguments about the supposed fiscal benefits, saying the county ends up without anything tangible. "Why don't we just buy the land and call it a regional park and let the people go use it?" Snow asked. He said the county should take a market-oriented approach. "If they want to sell their land, sell it," he said. © 2004 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52695-2004Jan3?language=printer 1/5/2004 washingtonpost.com: Dream Homes Come With Rural Wake -Up Call wash ingtonpost. com Dream Homes Come With Rural Wake -Up Call Lured by Large Va. Lots, Many Find Big Challenges By Steven Ginsberg WASIlII1gl.Ut1 Post JLd11 Vvlllel Monday, January 5, 2004; Page A01 Carolyn and Paul Brubaker's million -dollar home, with its five bedrooms, wraparound deck and stone fireplaces, was so gorgeous that it was featured on the cover of a real estate magazine. Its 7,400 square feet was five times the size of their former Old Town Alexandria townhouse. The vista from its perch on Bull Run Mountain also was vast; the family, for instance, could see a dozen Fourth of July fireworks celebrations, including the one on the Mall some 40 miles east. And to have a yard! Ten acres of woods and meadow mocked the boxed -in city life they had lived for so many years. It was everything the city wasn't and exactly what they wanted. But it turned out to be nothing like what they had imagined. "Within three months, we both knew we had to move," Carolyn Brubaker said. "Within five months, we had sold the house." The Brubakers are part of a mini -migration of families who have headed west to the huge lots and enormous houses that are a byproduct of policies in Prince William and Loudoun counties designed to preserve rural areas and protect open space. But like many other families, the Brubakers -- instead of finding peace and quiet -- found themselves ill-equipped to manage or afford the rural life. Getting anywhere, even to buy milk, was a haul. They couldn't find a nanny who would come to the house, so they opted for day care in Reston, 45 minutes away. They bought two new four-wheel-drive vehicles to navigate the Pagel of 3 :"fiyv Ir R i I 1Ih6 ZA0vAft I0 Open an Orange Savings Account ING. DI RC CT -11174=-r %11 snow. Their mends never visited. And neither of them felt comfortable. Carolyn, going through a difficult pregnancy and at home with a 2 -year-old, fretted about whom she could call in an emergency, and strong, 6 -foot -2 Paul was spooked by the strange nighttime noises. Then there were the costs of the property: The landscaping estimate was $12,000. A decent fence just for the three acres they cleared would run at least $40,000. It cost $6,000 to get the right water -treatment filter for their well. They shelled out $20,000 to set up the security system (a house with a wraparound deck has all those entryways) and $8,000 to put cheap mini -blinds on about 50 windows. And the monthly utility bill was about $550. "The homes out there are beautiful, and when you go out there you're sucked in and think, 'Isn't this perfect?' " Carolyn Brubaker said from the smaller home in Vienna in which the couple now lives. "It was kind of a rude awakening." After lifetimes of hearing neighbors through the walls, living in small spaces and being surrounded by concrete, people such as the Brubakers are finding that the enchantment that lured them to the outer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54723-2004Jan4?language�pnnter 1/5/2004 washingtonpost.com: Dream Homes Come With Rural Wake -Up Call Page 2 of 3 edges of Northern Virginia can be short-lived. Reality soon sets in. "It's the American daydream," said EM Risse, president of Synergy/Planning Inc., a Warrenton -based company that tracks land -use and population patterns. People "wander out there on a Saturday and never figure out what the real consequences are. Most of them don't have the slightest idea what they're going to do with 10 acres." Adventurous urbanites have long been around to buy land for dream homes when farmers were ready to sell, but recently that market combination has gotten a big boost from local governments seeking to control growth and protect open space. Four years ago, Prince William officials restricted development in an 80,000 -acre area called the Rural Crescent to one home per 10 acres, prompting builders to put up big homes on large lots. Last year, Loudoun County officials dropped the one -home -per -three -acre zoning that had guided building in much of the county's rural area; instead, they limited development in the western part of the county to one home per 10, 20 or even 50 acres, depending on location. Government officials and real estate agents also have said that rising property values and escalating taxes have led many landowners to sell to buyers who take advantage of low interest rates to grab their dream properties. Developer Frank Smerbeck of Kustom Kastles said his business has shifted from small -lot subdivisions in the inner suburbs to large -lot developments in areas farther from the city. "This is the next progression," Smerbeck said, adding that he has built on about 70 large lots in the past year, including in three communities in Prince William. On the face of it, Risse said, lots that are 10 acres and larger make sense for all involved. Counties use them to slow growth; developers can make an easy profit; and buyers are enticed by the amenities of luxury properties. But he said the lots also add up to a "catastrophe" for the region, because they force growth farther from job centers. And those who find that they like the 10 -acre lifestyle often push for the services and infrastructure that local governments thought they could avoid having to provide. Real estate agent Kathleen Kennedy, with Weichert Realtors in Prince William, said many people stay on the large lots for a short while, then head back toward the city. "It's a pattern. They start out, say, with a condo in Alexandria and then maybe they move to Fairfax, Oakton or Vienna with a townhouse. Then they want a dream home on 10 acres, but once they get up to 10 acres and spend a few weekends mowing [the lawn], they move back to a smaller lot." Many people, to be sure, love their new lives on the land. After 12 years in Oakton, Harold and Franzine Henderson bought a big spread last year in Loudoun -- 122 acres with a pond plus woods and views of mountains and sunsets. And the ceilings were high enough for the 18 -foot Christmas tree Franzine had always wanted. Still, certain things have taken some getting used to. "We weren't fully prepared for the impact of the weather," Harold Henderson said. When it snows a couple of inches, he said, it takes him two trips up and down his driveway with his new snowblower to clear it. For bigger storms, they rely on neighbors to plow them out, even though the Hendersons each got new four-wheel-drive trucks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54723-2004Jan4?language=printer 1/5/2004 washingtonpost.com: Dream Homes Come With Rural Wake -Up Call Page 3 of 3 The Hendersons also have found that they have to do a lot more planning. It's no fun forgetting to buy something at the store when the closest one is 20 miles away. And it takes about eight hours to mow the four acres of grass. Henderson said he's learned that the chores never end. "I still get some golf in, but not as much," he said, adding that he views maintaining his property as his new hobby. Developers said many of their customers look to land for privacy and space to explore such hobbies as making wine, growing flowers, riding horses and stargazing. But Robert Farr, a chili -pepper farmer who moved to a 10 -acre property in Loudoun in 1998, said he doubts would-be astronomers will be able to see even the Big Dipper in a few years. "People who come to the country are almost uniformly scared of the darkness," he said. "They turn their porch lights on and leave outside lights on all night, and slowly but surely it obliterates the night sky." Kristin and Doug Barhan said that they can still see the stars and that they love having 10 acres outside Haymarket where their dogs and 14 -month-old daughter can play. They also love the privacy they never could have enjoyed on their postage -stamp -sized lot in Manassas. Not that it's all been what they expected. They had their dreams of keeping a perfectly manicured yard, but "my husband attempted [to mow] it and it was all crooked and wormy and it was just terrible and it took him eight hours," Barhan said. Since then, they've paid someone else to do it. They also hired a cleaning lady. And after five years, they haven't gotten around to doing some of the things that attracted them to the land in the first place. "I had all these visions of doing a garden and stuff, and we haven't done any of that," Kristin Barhan said. "I don't really feel like a farm girl yet." © 2004 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost. com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54723-2004Jan4?language=printer 1/5/2004