Please note there are many issues that can be
pointed out within this document. The poignant
question is: Show us evidence that
Washington County is facing major problems
and help us understand why existing laws and
ordinances are needing to be restated, amended
and added to?
It is our contention this document has been taken
from the U.N. Agenda 21 document. The ideas and
rational reflect the Agenda 21 concepts in
an
amended form. Please note a statement made by
Washington County resident Paul Davis at the
Quorum Court meeting 12-8-05: "What we are
facing is an ideological difference." Private
property rights inherent in Arkansas State
Constitution and the US Constitution verses
Communist Style over-arching control.
DRAFT REPORT TO THE
WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT
PARA TASK FORCE
H.
L. Goodwin, Jr. and Randy Laney, Co-Chairmen
Jeff
Hawkins, Facilitator
Fayetteville,
AR
October
13, 2005
DRAFT
REPORT OF THE PARA TASK FORCE
TO
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT
Introduction
Table 1. Population
Estimates for Washington and Benton Counties and Arkansas 1980,1990,2000 and 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1980 Population Estimates |
1990 Population Estimates |
2000 Population Estimates |
2004 Population Estimates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benton County |
78,115 |
98,524 |
154,821 |
179,756 |
|
% increase |
|
26.13 |
57.14 |
16.11 |
|
Washington
County |
100,494 |
114,325 |
158,650 |
174,077 |
|
% increase |
|
13.76 |
38.77 |
9.72 |
|
Arkansas State |
2,286,358 |
2,356,586 |
2,678,501 |
2,752,629 |
|
% increase |
|
3.07 |
13.66 |
2.77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: NWA Regional Planning Commission |
|
|
With
adoption of resolution 2005-15, the Quorum Court authorized and directed the county judge
to establish a task force to identify issues associated with the rapid and unprecedented
growth that the county is experiencing in rural, unincorporated areas. In
recognition of the consequences of uncontrolled growth on the character, integrity, and
viability of these agricultural and rural areas, the court also asked for recommendations
on how best to protect these areas, while at the same time insuring and accommodating
orderly growth and development. With this charge, the court
appropriately assigned the name: “Protecting Agricultural and
Rural Areas” (or “PARA”) Task Force.
PARA
Organizational Framework
In early June, Judge Jerry Hunton asked nearly four dozen Washington
County citizens to participate in this effort. The Judge’s
appointees to the task force were thought to be a representative cross-section of the
areas and interests likely to be impacted by subsequent action (or inaction) regarding
future growth management. They included citizens from the business, real estate and
development, agricultural and environmental communities as well as mayors and school
superintendents or their representatives. A complete listing of the PARA Task Force is
shown in Figure 1.
The PARA Task Force’s initial, organizational meeting was held
on Wednesday, June 22nd. Randy Laney of the Washington
County Planning Board and H.L. Goodwin of the Washington County Quorum Court were
appointed co-chairs of the task force, with Jeff Hawkins of the Northwest Arkansas
Regional Planning Commission as facilitator. In addition, the following
county staff resources were made available to PARA: Karen Beeks, Quorum Court Reporter;
Berni Kurz, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service; Frank Ditmars, Road Department; Juliet
Richey, Planning Director; Shawn Shrum, Environmental Affairs Director; Melissa Wonnacott,
Arkansas Health Department; John Jenkins, Fire Marshall; John Luther, 9-1-1/Emergency
Management Director; George Butler, County Attorney and John Gibson, Country
Administrator.
In an effort to insure and facilitate a full and thorough
identification of the issues, the task force divided into the following sub-committees:
Agriculture/water quality; Infrastructure; Government Services; Economic
Development; Residential Subdivisions; Quality of Life; and Growth Areas (Figure 2).
This approach allowed more participation and involvement of members in development
of goals, objectives, and recommendations associated with those specific areas of concern.
Beginning in late June and continuing to the present, the PARA Task
Force has met every other Wednesday with subcommittee chairs meeting together on
alternating Wednesdays. Agendas for the Task Force meetings appear in
Appendix A. Three particular sessions were dedicated to the strategic
issues of decentralized sewers, protection of agricultural lands (Appendix B) and a review
of the current county planning regulations and issues associated with these regulations
(Appendix C). The task force heard and took under advisement
presentations regarding long range transportation plans; existing city and county land use
and development regulations; “step” and de-centralized sewer systems; and most
importantly methods recognized by the American Farmland Trust as tools being utilized
nationwide to protect and preserve farmland. Arkansas’ right to
farm statue was also reviewed.
Respective subcommittees met in the interim at their convenience on
numerous other occasions. Every effort was made to try and insure that
all issues affecting unincorporated areas were identified. Besides the
many task force and subcommittee discussions and meeting, public listening sessions were
held on July 5th, August 1st, and October 3rd.
These public listening sessions were considered critical in insuring the open and
free expression and consideration of comments, concerns and views of the general public.
To that end and in an effort to garner as much public input as possible, a website
was created and posted at www.co.washington.ar.us/para
and the following email address was established to receive further comments and views:
para@co.washington.ar.us.
After reviewing the county’s existing land use map created by
Juliet Richey, Planning Director, with the cooperation of Lee Ann Kizzar, County Assessor,
initial discussions centered on matters related to the rate of growth, types of
development, existing conditions and existing and likely future development patterns.
A deliberation approach was then undertaken in an effort to address the effects
resulting from what the resolution called the “collision of interests” among
agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses in rural and unincorporated
areas. The process was structured as follows: first, a thorough
identification of the issues; second, the development of specific goals and objectives,
third, a review of existing rules, regulations, and policies, and their effectiveness in
adequately addressing the issues raised; fourth, a review of the various methods and tools
employed elsewhere to ensure orderly growth and development, and to protect agricultural
and rural areas; and finally, the development of recommendations to address the identified
issues and achieve the stated goals.
Issue Identification
As might be expected, there were duplications and overlaps in issue
identification among subcommittees, as well as through the listening sessions.
There were also many concurring statements of concern, including the necessity of
balancing individual property rights with community interests and goals. There
was very little debate that uncontrolled growth is having a negative effect on the county
and that considerations should be given to managing growth in a way or ways that will have
a minimal adverse effect on agricultural and rural areas—protection of those areas if
you will.
Obviously the more agreement there is on the issues, the easier and
more acceptable it should be for solutions to be put into place. A
sampling of some of the initial issues that were identified follows:
Issues Identified
- Protecting lakes and streams, and water quality, is imperative.
- There is currently no protection for agricultural uses, or from
agricultural uses.
- There are inadequacies regarding building standards; there are no
inspectors; and there is a lack of code enforcement.
- There are inconsistent subdivision regulations among jurisdictions.
- Concern about the rights of property owners, as well as the rights of
those adversely affected by uncontrolled, and incompatible development of adjacent
properties.
- There is a lack of land use plans.
- There are no districts specifically identified for commercial and
industrial development.
- There were concerns about the adequacy of county road standards and
that there is no county engineer.
- There was concern about the lack of population density controls in
rural areas.
- Concerns with regard to possible declining property values resulting
from incompatible adjoining land uses or restriction of land use alternatives.
- There is a need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and
endangered species.
- The high cost of public services resulting from “urban” type
development of rural areas.
- Lack of site development standards in industrial, commercial,
subdivision and residential properties.
- Lack of uniformity and consistency among jurisdictions exercising
authority over developments and infrastructure in rural areas.
- Concerns over proper city/county coordination and cooperation in
growth areas.
Goal Setting
The subcommittees each developed extensive lists of issues affecting
unincorporated agricultural and rural areas that they felt warranted attention.
Once developed, the subcommittees were asked to prioritize their comprehensive
lists to four overriding issue, which were then transformed into goals. These
lists and their condensed and prioritized goals are shown in their entirety in Appendix D.
In light of staff reports on existing rules, regulations and policies
and their effectiveness (or lack there of) in addressing the issues raised the
subcommittees narrowed their focus to their respective four most important objectives.
These objections were subsequently reviewed and refined into the PARA Task Force
goals:
- Protect agricultural and rural areas and water resources
- Guide county growth
- Provide reliable quality governmental services
- Provide and enforce uniform development codes among jurisdictions
- Establish land use plan stressing use compatibility
More detailed explanations of the ultimate goals adopted by the task
force is attached in Appendix E.
Growth Management
Techniques
Growth management techniques were discussed in detail and
subcommittees were asked to prepare individual reports on tactics and growth management
techniques that would best achieve their respective goals (see attached subcommittee
reports). Of the 19 growth management techniques identified, the
following were considered to be most applicable PARA goal achievement. In no particular
order, they are:
- Adequate public facilities
- Development design reviews (uniform codes)
- Cluster and planned unit development
- Agricultural protection zoning
- Open space preservation techniques
- Neighborhood conservation districts
- Purchase of agricultural conservation easements
- Transferable development rights
- Countywide zoning
More detailed discussion of these management techniques is available
from the NWA Regional Planning Commission; a brief summary of the techniques deemed
applicable by the Task Force are presented in Appendix F.
Recommendations
Detailed recommendations of the task Force subcommittees are
presented in Appendix G. These recommendations will form the basis for
the draft ordinance(s) that PARA is charged to deliver to the Quorum Court by its December
8, 2005 meeting. The process will be comprised of the same weekly
meeting schedule followed since June and will include four committee chairs and staff
meetings and one interim meeting of the entire Task Force. Of course,
as always has been the case, the entire Task Force is welcome to the committee chairs
meetings.
Absent directions to the contrary the PARA Task Force will diligently
proceed ahead toward achievement of the products called for in articles 5 and 6 of
resolution 2005-15. There is no denying that rapid, relatively
uncontrolled growth has serious negative consequences for Washington County’s
agricultural and rural areas. We are pleased to be of service to the
Quorum Court in its efforts to chart an acceptable course and develop specific
recommendations and solutions for addressing these difficult issues. As
Judge Hunton so aptly stated at the beginning of this effort, “Doing nothing is not
an option”. The character, integrity, and viability of our
agricultural and rural areas must be protected.
The intent of this PARA Task Force is and has been from the outset to
structure as many voluntary and fully incentive-type and appropriate opportunities for the
residents of Washington County to protect its agricultural and rural history and character
while allowing for rational and agreed upon growth for our residents and our future
generations.
Figure 1.
PARA TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Established by County Resolution
No. 2005-15
LEGAL ADVISER: George E. Butler, Jr., Esq.
Randy Laney,
Co-Chair
Washington County Planning Board |
H. L.
Goodwin, Jr., Co-Chair
Washington County Quorum Court |
Jeff Hawkins,
Facilitator
NWA Regional Planning Commission |
Dr. Robert W.
Allen
Elkins School District |
Thomas Unger
City of Elkins |
Jay Cantrell
Washington County Sheriff's Office |
Dwayne Webb
Farmington School District |
Jane Waters
City of Elm Springs |
Chris Coker
Rural Fire Association |
Michael Gray
Fayetteville School District |
Shane Hausam
City of Farmington |
Gary
Streigler
NWA Home Builders Association |
Ron Brawner
Greenland School District |
Gary Dumas
City of Fayetteville |
Mike Tooley
Board of Realtors |
Jim Lewis
Lincoln School District |
Andy Bethell (Alt: Dick Seddon)
City of Goshen |
Greg McGee
Ozarks Electric |
Lanny Rice
Prairie Grove School District |
William Yoes
City of Greenland |
Shane Bell
Prairie Grove Telephone |
Dr. Jim D.
Rollins
Springdale School District |
Richard Long
City of Johnson |
Mike Hays
Arkansas Western Gas |
Dr. Joe
Walters
West Fork School District |
Lon Hudson
City of Lincoln |
Loyd Swope
Central EMS |
Herb Weyl (Alt. Ralph Moore)
Farm Bureau Board |
Larry Oelrich
City of Prairie Grove |
Joyce Bunch
Citizen |
Gary Proctor
Cattlemen's Association |
Patsy
Christie
City of Springdale |
Jim Newberry
Citizen |
Buddy Moore
Moore Septic Systems, Inc. |
Paul Maestri
City of Tontitown |
Sam Culpepper
Citizen |
Dr. Mark
Gross
UA Dept. of Civil Engineering |
Virgil
Blackmon
City of West Fork |
Larry Palmer
Citizen/Real Estate |
Johnny
Gunsaulis
Cooperative Extension |
Randy
Jarnagan
City of Winslow |
Herman Jones
Rural Development Authority |
Gene Pharr
Conservation District Board |
Ken W. Knies
Rural Financial Specialist |
Josh Moore
Washington Water Authority |
Tom McKinney
The Sierra Club |
Rick Johnson
County Health Department |
|
County
Staff/Resource
Juliet Richey, Planning
Director
John Jenkins, Fire Marshal
Shawn Shrum, Environmental Affairs
Frank Ditmars, Road Superintendent
John Luther, Dept. Emergency Mgmt.
Melissa Wonnacot, Health Department
Berni Kurz, Cooperative Extension
|
|
|
Figure 2.
PARA TASK FORCE SUB-COMMITTEES
June 20, 2005
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT:
Industrial and Commercial
Ken Knies, Chair
Dr. Robert W. Allen
Gary Dumas
Paul Maestri
Mike Tooley
Jim Newberry
Herb Weyl
Staff: Berni Kurz |
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Utilities/Roads etc.
Josh Moore, Chair
Thomas Unger
Shane Hausam
Greg McGee
Mike Hays
Jim Lewis
Staff: Frank Ditmars
|
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES:
Emergency Services/Solid Waste
Dr.
Joe Walters, Chair
Andy Bethel
William Yoes
Herman Jones
Jay Cantrell
Loyd Swope
Staff:
John Jenkins,
John Luther,
Shawn Shrum |
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS:
Jane Waters, Chair
Ron Brawner
Buddy Moore
Dr. Mark Gross
Larry Oelrich
Gary Streigler
Joyce Bunch
Staff: Juliet Richey |
QUALITY OF LIFE:
Michael Gray, Chair
Johnny Gunsaulis
Rick Johnson
Chris Coker
Shane Bell
Larry Palmer Staff: Shawn Shrum,
Melissa Wonnacott |
GROWTH AREAS:
Gary Proctor, Chair
Dr. Jim Rollins
Richard Long
Lon Hudson
Patsy Christie
Virgil Blackmon
Staff: Juliet Richey |
AGRICULTURAL/WATER QUALITY:
Gene Pharr, Chair
Dwayne Webb
Lanny Rice
Tom McKinney
Randy Jarnagan
Sam Culpepper
Staff: Berni Kurz,
Shawn Shrum
|
|
ADDITIONAL STAFF RESOURCES:
George Butler, County
Attorney
John Gibson, County Administrator
|
APPENDIX A
PARA Task Force Agendas
MEETING OF THE
PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL AND
RURAL AREA
(“PARA”) TASK FORCE
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Introduction of Co-Chairs.
3.
Statement of Purpose (Reading of Resolution No. 2005-15).
4.
Introduction of Task Force Members.
5.
Name Sub-Committees & Make Assignments.
6.
Judge Hunton Remarks (Overview of Current Issues).
7.
Introduction of Resource Staff.
8.
Sub-Committee Breakouts (To Discuss Approaches to Issues).
9.
Sub-Committee Reports on Future Informational Needs.
10.
Discussion Regarding Public Involvement & Input.
11.
Scheduling of Meetings.
12.
Adjournment.
/kb
MEETING OF THE
PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREA
“PARA” TASKFORCE
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
1.
Call to Order
2.
Introduction of Co-Chairs
3.
Introduction of (new) Task Force Members
4.
The Process Ahead (Jeff Hawkins)
5.
Sub-Committee Breakouts (Further Identification of Issues)
5.
Sub-Committee Reports on Issues & Future Informational Needs (if any)
6.
Scheduling of Meetings (Task Force, Sub-Committee Chairs & Public Listening
Session)
7.
Decentralized Sewers (Guest Speaker)
8.
Adjournment
/kb
MEETING
OF THE
PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREA
(PARA) TASK FORCE
Wednesday,
July 13, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
1. Call to
Order.
2. Where
We Are (Jeff Hawkins).
3. Transportation
Planning Impacting Washington County (John McLarty, NWARPC).
4. Sub-Committee
Breakouts - 15 minutes (Finalization of Sub-Committee Objectives).
5. Report
on Sub-Committee Goals and Objectives (Sub-Committee Chairs).
6.
Report from County Staff on Status of Current Regulations:
<
Juliet Richey, Planning Director
<
Melissa Wonnacot, Health Department
<
John Jenkins, Fire Marshal
<
Shawn Shrum, Environmental Affairs Officer
<
Frank Ditmars, Road Superintendent
<
John Luther, Dept. of Emergency Management Director
7.
The Process Ahead (Jeff Hawkins).
8.
Public Comment.
9.
Adjournment.
/kb
MEETING OF
THE
PROTECTING AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREA
“PARA” TASK FORCE
Wednesday,
July 27, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Status Report.
3.
Meeting Objective: Alternatives to land use planning and
regulations to get handle on growth in Washington County.
4.
Sub-Committee Breakouts (15-minutes).
5.
Report from Sub-Committee Chairs.
6.
Report on National Association of Counties Meeting.
7.
Upcoming Listening Session – Monday, August 1, at 7:00 p.m.
8.
Next Meeting Objective: Decision on strategic approach to
meet PARA objectives.
9.
Public Comment.
10.
Adjournment.
/kb
August 19, 2005
MEETING OF
THE
PROTECT AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREAS
“PARA” TASK FORCE
Wednesday,
August 24, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
1. Call to Order.
- Review of PARA Task Force Goals. (2.1)
- Review of Growth Management Techniques Applicable to
the PARA Goals. (3.1)
- Mechanisms to Protect Agriculture in Rural Areas
– Janie Hipp, University of Arkansas.
- Open Discussion by Task Force
Members Regarding Previous Agenda Item.
- Discussion on Future Meetings.
- Public Comment Period
(15-minutes).
- Adjournment.
/kb
September 14, 2005
MEETING OF
THE
PROTECT AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREAS
“PARA” TASK FORCE
Wednesday,
September 14, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
- Call to Order.
- Status Report and Meeting Objective.
3. Presentation of
Committee Reports on Tactics to Achieve Goals Using Growth Management Techniques and
Agricultural Protection
Methods.
- Open Discussion on Committee Reports.
- Next Meeting Objective.
The next full Task Force meeting is September 28. Report
presentation to Quorum Court is on October 13
- Upcoming Listening Session –
Monday, October 3, at 7:00 p.m.
- Public Comment Period
(15-minutes).
- Adjournment.
/kb
MEETING OF
THE
PROTECT AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREAS
“PARA” TASK FORCE
Wednesday,
September 28, 2005
5:00 p.m.
5th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse
A G E N D A
1.
Call to Order.
2.
Status Report and Meeting Objective.
3.
Presentation of Remaining Committee Reports on Tactics to Achieve Goals Using
Growth Management Techniques and Agricultural Protection Methods.
4.
Open Discussion on Report to Quorum Court.
5.
Next Meeting Objective. The next full Task Force
meeting is October 12. Report presentation to Quorum Court on October
13.
6.
Upcoming Listening Session – Monday, October 3, at 7:00 p.m.
7.
Public Comment Period (15-minutes).
8.
Adjournment.
/kb
APPENDIX B
Summary of Current Planning
Shortcomings
Land development within Washington County can be divided into three primary categories:
- Exemptions
- Subdivision – Preliminary and Final
- Large Scale Developments - Preliminary and Final
Exemptions (land transactions exempt from the typical
subdivision ordinance standards) were created to allow administrative review and approval
of the distribution of land among family members and to expedite the review and approval
process for subdivisions that have a low impact on existing County resources (will not
require road improvements, etc).
Problems with exemption regulations:
- Staff feels that the Quorum Court should probably look over these
regulations to determine if they are serving the purpose that the Court intended them to
serve and if the Court still feels the same about the issues as it did in 1999… i.e.,
Does the Court still feel that persons should be able to subdivide up to four lots without
adhering to regular subdivision rules (fire issues, road issues, etc.) or should it be
more or less lots, etc.
- Many roads classified as “Residential Drives” exist in the
County at this time. Unlike County roads, these roads do not have a
regular maintenance schedule; although some Residential Drives may be serviced upon
request when time allows.
Exempt splits are
treated the same on a Residential Drive as they are on an accepted and maintained County
Road. Each additional exempt split means the addition of impact on a
road not regularly scheduled for maintenance, therefore leading to possible access
problems.
Staff feels that a separate
set of more stringent exemption regulations should perhaps be written to deal with splits
along Residential Drives.
- The regulations should probably be updated to reflect the giving of
appropriate ROW on County Roads (not currently required with exemptions) and other items
needed by utility companies and staff so that the County can have the appropriate tools it
needs to deal with future growth issues.
- There is a need for more stringent requirements for proof of relation when
processing “Family Exempt Splits.” There is some evidence
that unrelated individuals have taken advantage of this exempt clause in the past.
SUBDIVISIONS
Right now subdivisions are just a basic set of minimum
standards. The minimum standards are broad and tentatively cover a lot
of ground, but generally do not encourage different types of growth one way or another.
Staff feels that the Court must begin to make decisions on what the “growth
vision” of this County should be via regulations that encourage certain standards of
growth.
Many rural residents have the preconceived notion that
living in the country equates a larger lot size. As the county code
stands right now, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet, roughly a quarter of an
acre…Four lots to an acre is not what a lot of people think of when they think of
rural living. This is an issue that has come up over and over at
Planning Board meetings since I have been here. I realize that this was
not such a large problem prior to the arrival of decentralized wastewater systems within
the County, but that density is currently allowed and is being used…I
think something the Court needs to think about is whether this is a good thing or bad
thing… Again, what is the Court’s vision for this County?
One option would be the creation of a stepped or categorized subdivision system
based upon the density desired by the developer:
- If you want to build to the density of 4 lots per acre, then no problem,
but to do that, you will need to meet a certain standard of criteria – for instance
curb and gutter - green space dedication - etc.
- If you build a more rural section subdivision- you can have smaller roads,
open drainage ditches, etc.
Broad/ minimum standards may have sufficed and worked
well in the past, but now the County can use the density that the developers are asking
for to get some things that the County needs…we just need to determine what those
are… ie. Vegetative buffers around subdivisions, preserved green space, preserved
agricultural land or woodlands, regional detention facilities, parks, playgrounds, etc?
What are our needs, our wants…our vision?
Also, there are issues with private road developments-
we need to decide where the County wants to go with this in the future. Private
roads are a hazard as far as fire and emergency safety go and hazard in general.
Usually only one or two property owners end up taking care of whole road.
The Planning Office has had many calls about this over the last few months.
Realtors also do not seem to understand the private road system and the
ramifications to the property owner who buys/owns land on a private road. Many
times realtors erroneously inform property owners/ purchasers that they are buying
property along a county road, etc. This is misleading to the public.
The Court should also look at a different set of
regulations to deal with small-scale subdivisions and replats. Right
now the standards on the books for subdivisions are a blanket regulation treating all
divisions of land (that do not qualify for the exempt process)- be it 2 lots or 1,000
lots- the same. This is a financial issue for property owners who are
not developers by trade.
Large Scale Developments
The Large Scale Development ordinance is written
somewhat effectively to deal with issues pertaining to large mining/quarry developments.
It is not written to effectively address the issues of general commercial
developments over one acre (which fall under the ordinance’s jurisdiction).
The Quorum Court should begin to look at what does the
Court think should qualify as a LSD and we sort of regulations can be enforced under the
current staffing of the Planning Department?
At this point in time all that the ordinance allows
staff and the Planning Board to look at is drainage and roads/traffic impact. Does
the public/Quorum Court feel that is adequate review for areas within the Planned Growth
Areas and the County? The current result is that developers/people who
intentionally bypass a city’s rules and ordinances will build in the County-
sometimes directly adjacent to a city limit line. Does the Court feel
that the County should be more stringent in planned growth areas and take up the slack the
City cannot?
APPENDIX C
Farmland Protection and Preservation
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
Janie Simms
Hipp Rogers, J.D., LL.M. (Agricultural Law)
University of
Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service
217 AA AEAB
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-575-6935
August 24,
2005: Presented to
Washington County PARA Task Force
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
Early
1990s – 30 million farms in U.S.
By 2000 –
less than 2 million
Causes:
Changes in structure of agriculture
Fewer, larger farms
Technology impact
Fewer farmers needed for farming work
Conversion of farmland for residential and
commercial development
1940s – 1.2 billion
acres of land in farms
By 1992 – 945 million
acres
Conversion rate of
approximately 1 million acres/yr
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
1970s - State and local farmland protection programs
began to appear
1981 – USDA conducted
the National Agricultural Lands Survey
Found
U.S. loses about 3 million acres of agricultural land/year
1981 – Farmland
Protection Policy Act passed by Congress
1994 – Federal
regulations adopted to implement the Farmland Protection Policy Act
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
Why Protect Farmland?
Ensure food security
Create economic
opportunity
Invest in community
infrastructure
Protect natural
resources
Farmland loss can = environmental
problems
Water quality concerns associated with
development
Soil erosion
Loss of wildlife habitat
Sustain quality of life
n
What the critics say…
n
Let the market decide
n
Why worry? We have plenty of
farmland
Farmland Protection &
Preservation
n
Major Farmland
Protection Activities/Tools
n
Tax Incentive Programs
n
Right-to-farm legislation
n
Agricultural protection zoning
n
Purchase of agricultural conservation
easements program
n
Agricultural districts program
n
Transfer of development rights program
n
Growth management program to protect
farmland
n
Protect farmland by enhancing ag
profitability
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Federal
Tools:
n
1981
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act
n
“minimize the
extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion
of farmland to nonagricultural uses”
n
Intent to ensure
federal programs are compatible with state and local government and private programs to
protect farmland
n
1990
Farm Bill – “Farms for the Future” programs
n
Authorized federally
subsidized loans to state and local governments for purchase of agricultural conservation
easements on farmland
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Farms for the
Future Program
n
Federal loan guarantees to match state
investment in PACE on a 2:1 basis
n PACE: Purchase of Agricultural Conservation
Easements
n Example Vermont pilot program:
n
Borrowed $23.5 million 1993 – 1995
n
State acquired easements on 44,000 acres
of farmland
n
Superceded by
“Farmland Protection Program” – 1996 Farm Bill
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
1996
Farm Bill authorized $35 million for purchase of agricultural conservation easements or
other interests in prime and unique farmland
n
NRCS
administered program
n
State
and local governments invited to apply for 50/50 federal matching funds to pay for
farmland protection transactions
n
First
round: $14,325,000 awarded to 37 programs in 17 states (around 80k
acres protected)
n
2000
Farm Bill also authorized funds for farmland protection
n
Will
farmland protection funds be in the 2007 Farm Bill?
n
Federal
funds run out quickly
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
State and Local
Tools & Techniques
n
Tool #1:
Executive Orders (State or Local)
n Creation of state level task forces on farmland protection
n Creation of PARA-like local/regional task forces for farmland
protection
n
Purpose of executive orders
n To promote consistent policy on agriculture and farmland
protection
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool #2:
State Growth Management Laws
n
Control timing and phasing of urban
growth
n
Determine types of land use permitted at
local and regional levels
n
Comprehensive approach to regulate
pattern and rate of development
n
Set policies to ensure new construction
is concentrated within designated growth areas or boundaries
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Identify lands with
high resource value & protect those lands from development
n
Some laws require that
public services (water & sewer) be in place before development approved
n
Direct local
governments to make decisions in accordance with comprehensive plans
n
Several
states have growth management laws (Oregon most aggressive) but only a handful address
farmland conversion
n
Each
state addressing farmland conversion imposes different controls in protection of land
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ex:
Oregon
n
County officials must
inventory farmland and designate it for ag in comprehensive plans
n
County governments must
enact exclusive ag protection zoning and other f’land protection policies
n
City governments
required to establish urban growth boundaries
n
Every county has
implemented ag protection zoning
n
16 million acres have
been protected as of 1997
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ex:
Washington
n
Growth Management Act
(state law) – 1990
n
Strengthened in 1991
n
All counties designate
important ag land
n
All must adopt
regulations to ensure land uses adjacent to farm/ranch land do not interfere with
agricultural operations
n
Fast growing
counties/areas must adopt detailed plans for protection of natural resource areas
n
County plans must be
consistent with all adjacent city plans
n
No urban services
extended beyond boundaries of urban growth areas.
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ex: Hawaii
n
Statewide land use plan – four
zones
n
One designated zone for agriculture
n
Ag zone – 2 million acres –
much of the land is used for recreation and open space
n
Only 0.5 million acres actually in ag
use in 1997
n
No farmland protection role for local
governments
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ex:
Vermont
n
2 growth management
laws
n
State review of
commercial, industrial and residential development projects that meet certain criteria
n
Developers must
minimize loss of primary agricultural soils
n
Developers may satisfy
requirement by paying a fee – funds used for purchase of ag conservation easements
n
Second law:
encourages local gov’t to develop plans guiding regional planning and decision
making
n
Enhancement of local
control over land use decisions
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#3: Comprehensive Planning
n
Allows counties,
cities, towns and townships to create vision for joint future
n
Encompasses master or
general plans
n
Outlines local policies
n
Identify objectives and
decision guidelines
n
Serves as blueprints
for development
n
Identify areas:
ag, forestry, resid., commercial, industrial, recreational
n
Provide rationale for
zoning & promote orderly development of services
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#4: Agricultural Protection Zoning
n
APZ – local
government land use control
n
Segments counties,
cities, townships and towns into areas devoted to specific land uses
n
Establishes standards
and densities for development within those zones
n
Stabilizes the ag land
base
n
Identifies areas where
farming is primary land use and discourages other land uses in those areas – limits
activities within those areas
n
Restricts density of
development
n
Some contain
right-to-farm protections within zones
n
May require farmers
within zones to prepare farm management plans
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
APZ is most often
implemented at the county level
n
Some towns and
cities have APZ zoning
n
Modified through
local political process
n
Changes in zoning
may affect market value of land by limiting development in an area
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
APZ
– pro and con
n
Pro
n
Inexpensive way to
protect large land mass
n
Separates farms from
non-ag land uses
n
Reduces likelihood of
conflicts between farmers and non-farming neighbors
n
Prevents suburban sprawl
and reduces infrastructure costs
n
Implemented relatively
quickly (different from PACE and TDR)
n
Easy to explain to public
n
Flexible – if
economic conditions change, zoning can be modified
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
APZ
–
n
Con
n
Not permanent –
rezoning and comprehensive upzoning can open up large areas of ag land for development
n
Generally may reduce land
values – decreases farmers’ equity in land – farmers sometimes don’t
support APZ for this reason
n
May be difficult to
monitor and enforce on a day-to-basis
n
County APZ ordinances
don’t protect ag land against annexation by municipalities
n
First
validated zoning as legitimate exercise of police power in the 1920s
n
Still
spotty regarding counties with agricultural zoning capabilities/authority
n
Runs
headlong into private property rights issues – takings of private property through
regulatory action
n
Generally
APZ statutes are in the upper NE, West, Upper Midwest and East states
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
APZ
–If APZ ordinance is the way to go – questions to be answered?
n
Supported by
comprehensive plan and local policies
n
Purpose clearly stated
n
Regulations correspond to
the stated goal
n
What land is included in
the APZ zone – is it the best farmland
n
Does ordinance restrict
non-farm development adequately and encourage farming
n
What non-farm uses
prohibited – are ag related businesses allowed
n
Does ordinance prevent or
minimize conflicts between farmers and non-farmers
n
Clear criteria for
rezoning – clear enforcement process
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#5: Cluster Zoning
n
Allows or requires
houses to be grouped close together on small lots to protect open land
n
Portion of parcel not
developed may be restricted by conservation easement
n
Can keep land available
for ag use – generally not designed to support commercial
agriculture
n
May not have large enough
areas for farmers to operate efficient
n
May have access problems
n
Best used to preserve
open space or create transitional areas between farms and resid. areas
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#6: Mitigation Ordinances/Policies
n
Ordinances requiring
developers to permanently protect one acre of farmland for every acre of ag land converted
to other uses
n
Developers place ag
conservation easement on farmland in another part of the city/county
n
May also satisfy
mitigation by paying fees – funds used then to purchase easements
n
Makes developers pay
for farmland conversion as opposed to restrict property rights of farmers
n
Guided by overall
policy of “no net loss of farmland” contained in a comprehensive plan
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#7: Incentive Based Programs
n
Differential Assessment
Laws
n
Improve economic
viability of agriculture by reducing amount of money farmers are required to pay in local
real property taxes – also known as current use assessment, current use valuation,
farm use valuation, use assessment and use value assessment – most states have these
laws
n
Circuit Breaker Tax
Relief Credits
n
Tax credits to offset
farmers’ real property tax bills
n
Only a few states have
these programs
n
School tax credits from
local governments - counties/cities reimbursed from state fund
n
Some states require
landowners sign 10-year restrictive agreements preventing farmland conversion in order to
take advantage of tax credits
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#8: Right-to-Farm Laws
n
Each state has these
laws – began in 1960s
n
Intended to protect
farmers/ranchers from nuisance lawsuits filed by neighbors moving in after the ag
operation was established
n
Generally passed during
early waves of suburbanization
n
Usually require the ag
operation to be in existence substantially unchanged for a period of time (1-3 years)
n
Some states’
right-to-farm laws restrict local governments from enacting ordinances that impose
unreasonable restrictions on agriculture
n
Some require farmers
use generally accepted ag management practices to gain protection
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Right-to-farm
laws
n
State policy to protect
commercial agriculture as an important activity
n
Support economic
viability of farming by discouraging neighbors from filing lawsuits
n
Unclear whether
right-to-farm laws help maintain land base in farming
n
Local governments are
also beginning to enact right-to-farm laws – mixed success – some challenged on
authority of local areas to protect farmers
n
Some require notices be
placed on the deed to all properties in agriculture areas warning potential buyers that
they may experience noise, dust, odors and other farming related activities
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Right-to-farm laws
n
Hallmark is protection from nuisance
suits
n Usually based on generally accepted management practices
and/or compliance with all relevant laws, including permit requirements
n Protection from complaints that arise from changes in the
neighborhood
n
Some also contain protection from
unreasonable local regulation
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Right-to-farm
laws – when determining passage of these laws
n
What type of protection
should be provided
n
On what basis should the
protection be grounded
n
What type of farming
operation should be protected
n
When should operations
be entitled to protection
n
Where should farms be
located in order to be entitled to protection
n
Which agricultural
practices should be protected
n
Zoning vs. health,
safety and welfare powers
n
Years in place before
protection granted (1-3 is the norm)
n
Usually don’t
protect “substantial” expansion – some allow expansion
n
Usually don’t
protect farms if the farm was a nuisances at its inception or is operated in a negligent
manner
n
Some jurisdictions are
incorporating farmers’ entitlement to legal costs for frivolous lawsuits
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Right-to-farm
laws
n
At least one
jurisdiction requires that any controversies arising from inconveniences or discomforts
associated with agricultural activities go to mediation before proceeding to court
n
Grievance committees
issuing advisory decisions hear controversies
n
Can proceed to court
after go through this first step designed to address neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts before
they become full blown lawsuits
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#9: Conservation Easements
n
Limit land to specific
uses and protect it from development
n
Voluntary legal
agreements
n
Created between private
landowners (grantors) and grantees such as:
n
Qualified land trusts
n
Conservation
organizations
n
Government agencies
n
Grantors may receive
federal tax benefits from donating easements
n
Grantees responsible
for monitoring land and enforcing terms of the easement
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Easements
may apply to entire parcels or specific parts of property
n
Most
are permanent – some might be term easements for a limited number of years (no income
tax deductions)
n
All
CE are legally binding on future landowners
n
Land
remains on tax rolls and is privately owned and managed
n
Limits
property development but does not affect other private property rights
n
All
states have a version of the Uniform CE Act of 1981
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Agricultural
Conservation Easements
n
Designed specifically to protect
farmland
n
Grantors retain right to use their land
for farming or other purposes consistent with agriculture viability
n
Grantors hold title to their property
n
Grantors may restrict access to
property, sell, give or transfer property as they desire
n
Grantors who are farmers also remain
eligible for state or federal farm programs
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Usually very flexible
n
Usually administered by land trusts or
other conservation-based organizations (third party)
n Education role
n Maintenance and monitoring role
n
May encompass state and local government
purchase of ag conservation easements
n
May also incorporate measures to protect
other natural resources, such as wetlands or wildlife habitat
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#10: Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement Programs
n
PACE programs
n
Landowners sell
agricultural conservation easements to governmental agency or private conservation
organization
n
Paid the difference
between the $ of the land for agriculture and the $ of the land at its “highest and
best” use – generally residential or commercial development
n
Value generally
determined by professional appraisals – some use numerical scoring system that
evaluates suitability for agriculture
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
PACE
– role of state and local governments
n
Some states have laws
allowing local governments to create PACE programs
n
Other states have
enacted PACE programs implemented, funded and administered by state agencies
n
Some states work
cooperatively with local government to purchase easements
n
Some states have
appropriated funds for use by local government and private nonprofit groups
n
Some local governments
have created their own PACE programs in the absence of any state action
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
PACE
– state/local programs have advantage over independent state or local programs
n
Cooperative
programs allow broad policies and criteria for protecting ag land
n
Allow
statewide approach and understanding as opposed to local, sometimes piecemeal approach
n
Cooperative
programs allow
n
state to set policy
while county selects farms they believe are most critical to viability of local
agricultural concerns and
n
county to monitor
easements once in place
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Nationwide,
PACE programs are very popular
n
Insufficient
funding to purchase conservation easements nationwide
n
Available
money is used quickly
n
If
federal government re-appropriates funds for these programs in the future, usually tie use
of those funds to a demonstrated commitment to farmland protection
n
PARA
work now could mean federal funding later
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Pros & Cons of
PACE
n
Pro:
n Protects farmland permanent, regardless of who owns the land
n Participation is voluntary
n Can be implemented by state or local governments or by private
organizations
n Provides farmers with cash – helping with economic side
of farming in urban-influenced areas
n Can protect ecological as well as agricultural resources
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
PACE – Pros
and Cons
n
Con:
n Can be expensive to accomplish and administer
n Rarely protect enough land to eliminate development pressure
on unrestricted farms
n Purchase of easements can be time-consuming
n Monitoring and enforcement of easements requires ongoing
investment of time and resources
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
PACE
program funding sources
n
State appropriate
n
Federal Farmland
Protection Program
n
Lottery proceeds
n
State bonds
n
Appropriation from
capital fund
n
Agricultural transfer
tax
n
Portion of real estate
transfer tax
n
Withdrawal penalties
from state circuit breaker program
n
Cigarette taxes
n
County allocations
n
Municipal bonds
n
Bounty budget reserves
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Issues
to address in setting up a PACE
n
What kind of farmland
to protect, which areas to target and how to set priorities
n
What kind of
restrictions to put on use of land
n
How much to pay for
easements
n
How to raise purchase
funds
n
How to distribute state
funds among local jurisdictions
n
How to administer the
program
n
How to monitor and
enforce easements
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool
#11: Transfer of Development Rights
n
Allow landowners to
transfer the right to develop one parcel of land to a different parcel of land
n
Generally established
through local zoning ordinances
n
Protect farmland by
shifting development from agricultural areas to areas planned for growth
n
When development rights
are transferred, the land is restricted with a permanent agricultural conservation
easement
n
Also known as
“transfer of development credits” (TDR)
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
TDR –
distinction between TDR and PACE:
n
TDR programs involve the private market
n
Most TDR transactions are between
private landowners and developers
n
Local governments approve transactions
and monitor easements
n
Some jurisdictions have created
“TDR banks” that buy development rights with public funds and sell them to
developers and other private landowners
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
TDR –
legislation may be required
n
May need special state legislation
authorizing local governments to create TDR programs
n
Some states won’t give local
governments such authority
n
Some counties and towns have created TDR
programs anyway, without special legislation
n
Local governments need to work with
their attorneys to determine whether other provisions of state law allow them to use TDR
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
TDR
- TDR programs more complex and generally less satisfactory in protecting farmland
n
TDR
programs can be complex and must be carefully designed to achieve their goals
n
Political
will to maintain and implement strong zoning ordinances and planning departments with the
time, knowledge and resources to administer complex land use regulations
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
TDR
– Pros and Cons
n
Pro:
n
Protects farmland
permanently, regardless of ownership
n
Participation is
voluntary – landowners are never required to sell their development rights
n
Promotes orderly growth
by concentrating development in areas with adequate public services
n
Allows landowners in ag
protection zones to retain equity without developing land
n
Market-driven technique
– private parties pay to protect
n
Can be designed to
accomplish additional goals – protect environmentally sensitive areas, promote growth
in certain areas, etc.
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
TDR – Pros and
Cons
n
Con:
n Technically complicated and require significant investment of
time and staff resources to implement
n Unfamiliar concept in most states
n Public education campaign necessary
n Pace of transactions depends on private market for development
rights – if real estate market is depressed, few rights will be sold and little land
protected
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
TDR
– types of transfers
n
Same owner, same parcel
transfers (cluster zoning)
n
Lot merger
n
Transfer of development
rights between adjacent properties in same ownership
n
TDR between
non-adjacent tracts in same ownership
n
TDR to non-adjacent
tracts in different ownership in same local jurisdiction
n
TDR from parcels in
designated rural “sending area” to non-adjacent tracts in different ownership in
designated “receiving area” in same locality
n
TDR from parcels in
“sending area” to non-adjacent tracts in different ownership in designated
“receiving area” in different locality
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool #12:
Agricultural District Laws
n
Allow farmers to form special areas
where commercial agriculture is encouraged and protected
n
Authorized by state legislatures and
implemented at local level
n
Enrollment and creation is voluntary
n
If created, the farmers within the
district receive a package of benefits which varies from state to state
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ag
Districts: Examples of benefits (Pro)
n
May contain automatic
eligibility for differential assessment
n
Protection from eminent
domain and municipal annexation – some allow tax relief and protection from local
regulations
n
Able to protect large
blocks of land, stabilize land base at low public cost
n
Limits on non-farm
development
n
May hinge to
eligibility for state PACE programs
n
May contain enhanced
right-to-farm protection*
n
This enhancement is
suspect after Iowa Supreme Court decision struck down portions of Iowa’s enhanced
right-to-farm protection as an unconstitutional taking
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ag districts –
Drawbacks
n
Sanctions for withdrawing land may not
be strong enough to discourage conversion
n
Limits on non-farm development may not
prevent expansion of public serves such as water and sewer lines into ag areas
n
In some states, the benefits provided
are not enough incentive for farmers to enroll
n
In some states, the procedure for
creating is long and complex
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ag District –
how do these laws work?
n
Farmers who desire to form a district
apply directly to local governments
n
Local governments review and approve
applications, some require sending to the state for final approval
n
Local governments may be required to
develop plans to protect agriculture and farmland before farms may apply to create ag
district
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Ag
Districts
n
Some states have laws
allowing local governments to create their own programs; others do not
n
Use a combination of
incentives to achieve same goals as regulatory strategies
n
Instead of controlling
land use like APZ ordinances – offer farmers benefits for keeping land in agriculture
n
Most ag district laws
don’t require local governments to plan and zone for agriculture as do comprehensive
planning/growth management laws
n
Instead set up
circumstances where farmers themselves may advocate and become involved in local planning
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Some ag district
infrastructures allow for creation of county land preservation and use commissions
n
Include farmers, extension agents and
representatives from soil and water districts
n
Instructed to inventory land, natural
resources and public infrastructure
n
Develop land use plans for
unincorporated regions of counties
n
Plans submitted to local boards for
approval
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Iowa law:
n
Farmers petition circulated to create ag
district
n
Referendum vote requiring majority of
landowners
n
If passes, then ag district created
n
Creates protective bubble around a zone
of land
n
Again, suspect in some regards due to
enhanced nuisance law protections
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Tool #13:
Create profitable agriculture
n
Some argue that the best way to protect
farmland is to keep farming profitable
n
Programs that support and enhance
economics of agriculture
n
Marketing efforts for agricultural
products
n
Promotion of educational and
recreational services provided by farmers
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Profitability
of agriculture
n
Ordinances that require
use of locally grown produce in products marketed under a local or regional label
n
Napa Valley wines need
Napa County grapes
n
County winery ordinance
n
Videos
to promote local agriculture
n
City
and town sponsorship of farmers’ markets, roadside stands and u-pick operations
– help in advertising these farms
n
Development
of public commercial kitchen facilities to serve as incubators for farm-based food
businesses
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Profitability of
agriculture
n
Some states have programs that tie
economic assistance for farmers to land protection
n State helps with management, marketing, product research and
development and pollution prevention activities on farms
n In exchange for 5- or 10-year covenants prohibiting
development
n Tie these protections and programs to grants of up to $40k to
implement new business plans, technologies and marketing strategies
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Addressing
the concerns of environmental protection related to development of agricultural land
n
Water quality impacts
associated with development
n
Soil erosion
n
Loss of wildlife
habitat
n
Some
states are linking soil and water conservation grants to farmers who enroll in
agricultural districts
n
NYC
buys agricultural conservation easements on farms in its watershed to protect drinking
water quality & supports a nonprofit organization that helps farmers implement ag best
management practices
n
Some
states provide regulatory relief to those farmers and ranchers who make efforts to create
and enhance wildlife habitat
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Minimizing
conflict between farmers and other rural/suburban residents
n
Few ordinances
completely successful
n
Difference in what
people think farming is and what it really is
n
Noise, dust, odors,
equipment, etc.
n
Some ordinances require
buyers of land in agricultural areas to be notified that agriculture is the primary
economic activity in the area and that they may experience inconvenience or discomfort
arising from accepted agricultural practices
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Agricultural
realities
n
Some jurisdictions
require a written notice recorded on the deeds to new homes:
n
“in accepting this
deed, grantees do hereby acknowledge that the surrounding land is agriculture in usage and
subject to agricultural practices; and grantees, and their heirs…are precluded from
complaining, seeking damages and/or attempting to enjoin the use of the property for
…agricultural purposes…because of nuisance which may result from such practices
as long as generally accepted farming practices are followed…further recognized that
farming operations may include disruptive noises and light for 24 hours per day during
crop planting and harvesting…this condition and agreement shall run with the
land” (Indiana)
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Agricultural
realities
n
Ensure people who
purchase houses in the zone will put up with inconveniences caused by agriculture
n
Help farmers build a
legal defense if they are sued
n
Idaho residents in one
county required to sign a “natural resource easement” when they purchase land in
an agricultural area – explicitly acknowledges their neighbors’ right to farm
n
Some
jurisdictions require setbacks of established size between new homes being build close to
farming
n
New farming operations
must also comply with setbacks from existing residences (Indiana)
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Additional
tools for Ag Economic Development
n
Planning for
agricultural viability = planning for farmland preservation/protection
n
Loan programs &
economic development incentives
n
Marketing improvements
n
Farmers markets, direct
markets and agri-tourism
n
Marketing to
restaurants and food retailers
n
Diversification
n
New products and
marketing strategies
n
Grower cooperatives
n
Reducing the costs of
production
n
Business planning &
capital investment
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
American Farmland
Trust (1997 & updates)
n
Saving American Farmland: What
Works
n The Five “I”
n
Identification; inventory; investigation;
integration and implementation
n
USDA ERS Report
(2002)
n
Farmland Protection: The
Role of Public Preferences for Rural Amenities
Farmland Protection
& Preservation
n
Presented
to the Washington County PARA Task Force
n
August
24, 2005
Janie Simms Hipp Rogers, J.D., LL.M.
Asst. Prof. & Nat.
Res. Reg. Policy Spec.
Univ. of Arkansas
Cooperative Extension Service
217 AA AEAB
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
n
479-575-6935
n
479-575-5306 (fax)
jhipp@uark.edu
APPENDIX D
Preliminary Task Force Sub-committee
Goals
OBJECTIVES
PARA TASK FORCE COMMITTEES
INFRASTRUCTURE:
1.
Uniform development codes and procedures among jurisdictions.
2.
Provisions for needed engineering and inspections services.
3.
Procedures for acquisition of R.O.W. & utility easements; and corridor
protection measures.
4.
Controlling growth by the availability of utilities and infrastructure.
AGRICULTURE/WATER QUALITY
1.
Protecting agricultural land, forests, and farms.
2.
Protecting water resources.
3.
Enforcement of existing (as well as future) statutes relative to items 1 & 2
above.
4.
Implementation of new measures, as needed, to achieve items 1 & 2 above.
GOVERNMENT SEVICES
1.
Adoption and enforcement of fire and building codes for unincorporated areas.
2.
Effective enforcement of laws relative to junkyards, illegal dumping, and
burned-out or dilapidated structures.
3.
Provision of adequate emergency services (police, fire, etc.) to keep pace with
increased demands resulting from growth.
4.
Uniformity in the types, levels, and frequency of solid waste services.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1.
Consistency among jurisdictions in defining “large scale development;”
and uniformity in the application of procedures relative to such developments.
2.
Minimize impacts of commercial and industrial land uses through development of a
clustering concept.
3.
Direct urban type uses to urban areas, and where adequate infrastructure can be
provided or already exists.
4.
Encourage methods to direct how, where, and what growth occurs.
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS
1.
Development of a land use plan, not inconsistent with other jurisdictions.
2.
Consistency and uniformity of development standards among jurisdictions.
3.
Development of measures to control residential densities, and provide a diverse
supply of housing for all income levels.
4.
Encourage development where infrastructure and public services are available, or
can economically be made available.
QUALITY
OF LIFE
1.
Protect the environment, as well as visual aesthetics and scenery.
2.
Minimize negative effects between incompatible land uses, and ensure adequate
transition between adjacent land uses and development intensities.
3.
Minimize development in environmentally sensitive areas.
4.
Balance individual property rights with community interests and goals.
GROWTH
AREAS
1.
Concurrence among jurisdictions as to respective growth area boundaries.
2.
Ensure county planning and regulatory consistency with adopted city plans and
regulations for unincorporated fringe areas.
3.
Identification of rural and agricultural areas that should be protected and/or
preserved.
4.
Adoption of a county road plan identifying future needs.
PARA
COMMITTEES - GOALS & OBJECTIVES
|
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE:
1.
Illegal dumping; junkyards; junky houses;
mandatory trash pickup.
2.
Fire protection - size of water lines to increase
capacity.
3.
Rural Fire Issue - Cooperation between smaller
towns and insurance ratings.
4.
Sewer system/maintenance.
5.
Tax districts for RMEs.
6.
Public utility model - study.
7.
Development without consulting emergency services.
8.
Lack of building code requirements in
unincorporated areas.
9.
Display of 9-1-1 address, house numbers, etc., for
timely delivery of emergency services.
10.
Do current funding levels support the overall
population growth?
11.
Decrease in grant funding.
12.
Road use and county sheriff’s department.
13.
Animal Control Issues
14.
Water funding/fire plugs (Herman), USDA funding.
15.
Solid Waste.
16.
Models used in other growing communities in the
United States.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE:
General Objectives:
Maintain balance in our recommendations (smart growth,
environmental, community preservation and compatibility with city/community planning).
Offer a clear and concise set of recommendations relative to
our county’s economic development.
Maintain flexibility (choice) in our rural
communities’ economic development options.
Specific
Objectives:
1.
Establish a classification system for different
types of industrial and commercial permits. This will allow the County
Planning Board to expand on the definition of large scale development. Enhance
authority levels on the planning board to modify permitting based on factors including
regulatory, environmental, health and safety.
2.
Develop a cluster concept for classified
industrial and commercial groups to minimize their impact on rural residents and
communities. Plans can be developed to enhance traffic patterns for
trucks and heavy equipment in areas outside the populated residential development.
Place (site) cluster areas to minimize community impact yet allow for best
utilization of (existing and future) infrastructure.
3.
Develop recommendations that maintain choice
(options) for communities in developing and establishing commercial and industrial areas.
These can enhance a local community’s tax base for community and school
revenues.
GROWTH AREAS COMMITTEE:
•
Identify growth areas.
•
Regulations from other areas that have been
through this type of growth.
•
Need regulations in growth areas that are similar
for all areas.
•
Impact of growth on infrastructures.
•
Impact Fees.
•
Identify rural and agricultural areas that need to
be protected.
•
Ways to protect farms and rural areas from
developments around it that do not like or are unfamiliar with agricultural practices.
•
Need for county road plan that identifies roads
needed for future.
•
Agricultural land trusts.
•
Rural area land trusts.
•
Zoning to Protect Areas
•
Buffering around agricultural areas.
•
Ways to recover costs for infrastructure
improvements by developers and/or city/county taxpayers.
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS COMMITTEE:
Begin studying and open up for discussion
Land Use Planning/Zoning in un-incorporated areas, particularly focusing on the
appropriateness of varying densities, and development types; i.e. rural subdivisions as
opposed to suburban subdivisions.
Study the importance of insuring developed
density occur where infrastructure and services are adequately available.
Work on comprehensive
subdivision/development regulations for the county including but not limited to:
1. Review
minimum lot sizes;
2. Review
adequacy of current setbacks from roads and property lines;
3. Look
into a requirement for buffers where different types of development or uses may conflict
due to close proximity;
4. Look
at a varying infrastructure and/or road standards based on the density of the subdivision
or development.
QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE:
1.
Question we ask ourselves, “What would make
Washington County the ideal place in which to live?”
– A safe adequate supply of water;
– Safe comfortable structures in which to live;
– Good infrastructures- roads, sewer, police and fire
protection, etc.
2.
Illegal dumping must stop. Control
of trash issues at construction sites; burning debris at construction sites; abandoned
vehicles, hazards as well as eyesores.
3.
Adequate rules and regulations that safeguards all
qualities of life.
4.
Jobs.
5.
Education - more high tech jobs are needed to
replace blue collar workers and farm hands.
6.
Recreation facilities.
7.
Affordable housing.
8.
Lot sizes in subdivisions.
9.
Traffic flow/congestion/non-flow of traffic.
AGRICULTURAL/WATER
QUALITY COMMITTEE:
1.
Look at water quality in a broad sense.
Get copies of any water studies that have been done in the County. Example:
Moore’s Creek.
2.
Construction run-off is silting up streams in the
Beaver Lake area.
3.
What is the future of agriculture in the County?
4.
Look at what has been done in other areas to
preserve agricultural land from development:
a. American farmland trust may be a good resource.
b. EPA website, type in small growth.
5.
Look at property rights of land owners and land
use restriction.
6.
Trash dumped on the side of roads is a major
problem in rural areas. It was suggested that more county-wide
clean-ups would give people a chance to economically get ride of stuff and would reduce
dumping.
7.
Odor from farming may stir up complaints from new
residents in the County. Protection will be needed for farmers
following normal good farming practices.
8.
Logging operations that are not following
voluntary BMP’s may be causing stream bed erosion.
9.
Protecting the Beaver Lake and Illinois Watersheds
must be a high priority.
10.
Rampant growth and paving of land will result in
storm water issues.
11.
Regulations need to look at ways to have personnel
attached to carry them out.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE:
1.
Charges for assessment of casting infrastructure.
One time fee per trip or cost/hour possibly to cover basics.
2.
Recoup costs for cost share for road improvements,
developers, etc.
3.
BS & UE included – 25'
Existing setback be utilized as UE; also in Planning
Regulations.
4.
Lot splits need to have BS & UE dedicated at
planning submittal time.
5.
Accessibility of lots within subdivision - lot
access from inside lot vs lots access off existing streets
6.
Questions on bonding of subdivisions - Performance
Bonds 100% of cost; 50% Maintenance Bonds
APPENDIX E
PARA Task Force Adopted Goals
PARA TASKFORCE GOALS
Revised
September 14, 2005
Goal 1:
Protect Agricultural and Rural Areas and Water Resources
Identify agricultural and rural areas, including water
resources and environmentally sensitive areas, needing protection and protect them from
adverse effects of conflicting developmental uses.
(formerly committee objectives Ag 1 & 2, QL 1
& 3 and GA 3).
Goal 2:
Guide County Growth
Encourage development where and when adequate
infrastructure can be reasonably and economically supplied in a timely and reliable
manner.
(formerly committee objectives I 3 & 4, ED 3
& 4, Sub 4 and GA 4).
Goal 3:
Provide Reliable, Quality Governmental Services
Provide adequate and reliable services (water,
emergency services, solid and liquid waste) to the residents of Washington County.
(formerly GS 3 & 4 and I 2)
Goal 4:
Provide and Enforce Uniform Development Codes Among Jurisdictions
Establish, implement and enforce, to the extent
possible, uniform development codes (fire, building, planning, health and safety) among
jurisdictions and municipalities in Washington County and enforce and implement new codes
or statutes related to Goal 1.
(formerly I 1, GS 1 and 2, ED 1, Sub 2, Ag 3 & 4
and GA 1 & 2).
Goal 5:
Establish a Land Use Plan Stressing Use Compatibility
Develop a land use plan consistent with other
jurisdictions that:
- stresses uniformity in uses;
- resolves conflicts among competing uses;
- minimizes the adverse affects of “rurbanized” sprawl and
- ensures adequate protection of uses in areas of transition between
rural/urban or other areas of differing development intensities.
(formerly ED 2, Sub 1 & 3, and QL 2 & 4).
APPENDIX F
Applicable Growth Management Techniques
Growth Management Techniques
Revised
at PARA Chair Meeting on October 5, 2005.
Techniques thought to be most applicable to PARA Goal achievement
- Agricultural Use Planning- Generally effective in preventing
conversion of farmland. There are many methods in which to achieve
effective use planning.
- Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement- Generally effective and
popular with farmers for the preservation of farmland.
- Planned Unit Developments and Development Design Review- Creating
standards with which to respond to the environments and issues of individual tracts of
land and avoid the effect of blanket regulations.
- Neighborhood Conservation Districts- A tool for neighborhoods or groups
of neighboring property owners to use to achieve shared conservation goals of many types.
- Countywide Zoning- This tool is thought to be an overriding or
“ umbrella” technique that can address many of the other techniques mentioned
herein.
Techniques thought to be somewhat applicable to PARA Goal Achievement
- Cluster Development- Use of flexible density standards to cluster
structures/homes in one area of a development, thus preserving open space. Usually
applied to single-family subdivisions.
- Growth Phasing- Phasing of growth in relation to capital improvement
projects and general infrastructure.
APPENDIX G
Subcommittee Recommendations
Government Services Committee
Suggestions for PARA Goals #3 and #4
September 10,
2005
PARA Goal #3: Provide
Reliable, Quality Governmental Services
Provide adequate and reliable services
(water, emergency services, solid and liquid waste) to the residents of Washington County.
PARA Goal #4:
Provide and Enforce Uniform Development Codes Among and Within Jurisdictions
Establish, implement and enforce, to
the extent possible, uniform development codes (fire, building, planning, health and
safety) among jurisdictions and municipalities in Washington County and enforce and
implement new codes or statutes related to Goal 1.
|
o
Goals #3 and #4 will require additional
revenue in order to effectively implement, enforce, and provide the increased
“governmental services” necessary to accommodate the extraordinary growth within
Washington County. Revenue sources from the State and local levels
should be explored.
o
Goals #3 and #4 would benefit from Washington
County adopting and enforcing uniform Fire Codes and the Southern Building Code.
o
Goals #3 and #4 would benefit from exploring
the possibility of creating a single county-wide emergency services department, a single
county-wide solid waste department, and a single county-wide fire department.
Quality of Life Committee
Tactics to Achieve PARA Goals
September 13,
2005
PARA Goal #1: Protect Agriculture and Rural
Areas
Tactic 1: Enactment
of local ordinances that will provide the necessary enforcement powers to make certain
uniform plans of development are enforced.
Tactic 2: Once
identified the sensitive areas would be protected by the enacted ordinances.
PARA
Goal #2: Guide County Growth
Tactic 1: Develop
a uniform plan of development for growth based on ability to meet the basic needs for the
area. These basic needs are: Potable water, adequate sewage disposal,
and police and fire protection.
Tactic 2: A
minimum lot size must be in place for all developments.
PARA
Goal #3: Provide Reliable, Quality Governmental Service
Tactic 1: Adequate
impact or user fees must be developed so funding will be available to meet the needs of
the area.
PARA Goal #4: Provide and Enforce Uniform
Development Codes Among and Within Jurisdictions
Tactic 1: Development
of a working committee, with a representative from all city and county groups that
exercise their planning authority. This group would be given the task of developing
uniform codes for our County.
PARA Goal #5: Establish Land Use Planning Plan
Stressing Use Compatibility
Tactic 1: The
committee set up under Tactic 1 of Goal #4 can develop the framework under which this can
occur.
Report for
the Subdivision Subcommittee
PARA
Taskforce- September 2005
October 6, 2005
- (Addressing Goals 1,2,5) Existing
Subdivision codes should be amended to address certain levels of infrastructure
requirement based on the developers proposed density level of the site.
These infrastructure
requirements could be any of the following once the subdivision reaches a certain density
level:
·
Curb and gutter,
·
Open space requirements,
·
Buffering of exterior subdivision boundaries,
·
Road and drainage requirements (possible mandatory detention),
·
Preventative environmental measures (buffering around existing or created
streams or waterways on or adjacent to the site).
·
Other infrastructural issues (see number 5).
·
Possible density levels recommended:
- Rural lot- 2 acres minimum in size
- Suburban lot- 1 acre minimum (septic allowed only on
suburban and rural lots)
- Urban lot- 8000 square feet minimum
- Possibly limit private roads to 2-3 lots maximum
- Work to streamline County requirements to coincide with Health Department
regulations.
- (Addressing Goals 1 and 5 ) Subdivision codes
should be amended to reflect possible incentives for development promoting cluster
development (leaves adequate open space to be leased for farm activities: grazing, crop
cultivation, etc).
Use of Density averaging
(instead of using straight density requirements (lot size)- take an entire piece of land
and divide by number of units proposed; factoring in green space and preserved open
spaces.
Incentives
could be the following:
·
Rapid review time by County,
·
Reduced processing fees,
·
Other monetary incentives as determined feasible by the County Attorney,
State and local law.
- (Addressing Goal 4) The County should work with
Cities within planning areas to develop unified development codes (including subdivision)
with that City when possible. Should be addressed by County working
individually with each city within the County to assess particular needs.
- (Addressing Goal 4) The County should look into
working with Cities to address building code enforcement at some level. Possible
solutions may include inter-local agreement permitting or inspections services, contract
inspection services, or other means of building code enforcement as allowable by state and
local laws (should be reviewed by County and City Attorneys).
- (Addressing Goals 1 and 5) Along the lines
of infrastructure, trade offs for regional drainage area detention basins could be
incorporated into planning/ subdivision regulations. A lot of jurisdictions are now
looking at regional detention as a better fix than individual basins, which when designed
site specific don’t always work within the scope of the larger drainage basin. The
large regional basins can be utilized as park land and green space in many instances. A
developer could offer up low-lying area for these types of projects in trade of the
incentive of being allowed a more dense development on the unpreserved lands.
- (Addressing Goal 3) Amending the
Subdivision regulations to Establish Minimum water line sizes, and minimum
established fire flows should be established based on the density and number of lots being
proposed in line with the Stat Fire Code Appendix requirements.
Goal 1:
Protect Agricultural and Rural Areas, and Water Resources
Identify agricultural and rural areas, including water
resources and environmentally sensitive areas, needing protection and protect them from
adverse effects of conflicting developmental uses.
(formerly committee objectives Ag 1 & 2, QL 1
& 3 and GA 3).
Goal 2:
Guide County Growth
Encourage development where and when adequate
infrastructure can be reasonably and economically supplied in a timely and reliable
manner.
(formerly committee objectives I 3 & 4, ED 3
& 4, Sub 4 and GA 4).
Goal 3:
Provide Reliable, Quality Governmental Services
Provide adequate and reliable services (water,
emergency services, solid and liquid waste) to the residents of Washington County.
(formerly GS 3 & 4 and I 2))
Goal 4:
Provide and Enforce Uniform Development Codes Among Jurisdictions
Establish, implement and enforce, to the extent
possible, uniform development codes (fire, building, planning, health and safety) among
jurisdictions and municipalities in Washington County and enforce and implement new codes
or statutes related to Goal 1.
(formerly I 1, GS 1 and 2, ED 1, Sub 2, Ag 3 & 4
and GA 1 & 2).
Goal 5:
Establish Land Use Plan Stressing Use Compatibility
Develop a land use plan consistent with other
jurisdictions that:
- stresses uniformity in uses;
- resolves conflicts among competing uses;
- minimizes the adverse affects of “rurbanized” sprawl and
- ensures adequate protection of uses in areas of transition between
rural/urban or other areas of differing development intensities.
(formerly ED 2, Sub 1 & 3, and QL 2 & 4).
Agricultural
and Water Quality Committee
Recommendations
1. We recommend that
the county work with the three other counties around Beaver Lake to put into effect a
Water Shed Protection Area to implement the Arkansas Source Water assessment plan. - No
Growth Management Technique applicable
2. We encourage the formation of a
watershed protection group of all the Illinois River Watershed to address pollution from
all sources. Testing the various streams in the watershed to determine where problems may
originate would be a good way to direct efforts to improve problems. -
Growth Management. Technique - Neighborhood Conservation District?
3. Consider implementing
Agricultural Protection Zoning areas to protect adjoining farms from incompatible uses
such as Quarries, housing developments, industrial developments, mines, etc. There would
need to be a process where Agricultural areas could be changed to these uses after public
input. - Growth Management Technique - Agricultural use planning
4. We recommend a Right to farm
Ordinance to protect farmers who are following generally accepted good management
practices from nuisance lawsuits. - Growth Management. Technique -
Agricultural use planning
5. Encourage the use of Conservation
easements and other devices to allow landowners to voluntarily sell development rights to
protect the rural character of the land. - Growth Management Technique
- Purchase of Agricultural conservation easements.
6. We recommend that all
developments throughout the county be subject to NPDES Storm Water Standards. Surface
run off from developments and construction sites must be managed to prevent erosion and
resulting damage to farmland and water resources.
- No Growth Management Technique applicable
7. We recommend the establishment of
a county enforcement division with the authority to implement and enforce environmental
regulations to protect adjoining landowners and the waters of the county. - No Growth
Management Technique applicable
8. We recommend that an education
position be funded to develop and promote programs to increase awareness of water quality,
environmental awareness, and agricultural conservation. - No Growth Management Technique
applicable
PARA Taskforce Recommendations
Economic &
Industrial Development Sub-Committee
November 1, 2005
The Economic and Industrial Development
Sub-Committee of the PARA taskforce in Washington County offers the following
recommendations relative to our work:
- We recommend that
communities utilize a “Cluster Concept” as it related to economic and
industrial development is Washington County. This can be further
defined with an industrial classification system to identify various classed of businesses
in terms of impact to residential communities, schools and other community amenities.
These entities should be located in areas consistent with existing and planned
infrastructure, including roadways, trash disposal, nuisance guidelines, etc.
- Our recommendation is to
ensure that any future commercial or industrial development in the county be completed in
a manner consistent with any existing planning. We do not intend to
“re-invent to wheel” as it relates to existing planning or community planning in
process. These PARA recommendations should promote community
planning that is consistent and complimentary with local community efforts. The
local communities know best what works in their respective areas.
3. A county-wide mapping effort has been reviewed
as a part of our work. The goal of this is to identify and recommend
areas that appear to be consistent with the above-referenced recommendations. A
map will be included available to the committee chairs.
- Our recommendation is to
offer a reasonable set of guidelines that reflect a cooperative effort between county and
local community planning. We also have had many discussions centered
around the environmental impact of industrial development. While the
details behind the variety of environmental issues are beyond the scope of this
sub-committee, we do recommend and encourage that all future industrial development
strive to meet or exceed existing environmental regulations. Water
usage and conservation has been specifically referenced on many occasions through-out this
effort.
Growth
Areas Committee
PARA
Taskforce- October 2005
1.
Identify appropriate growth areas for commercial industrial and residential
development focusing
particularly on potentially incompatible or conflicting uses.
2.
Identify agricultural and rural areas within extended planning areas needing
protection.
3.
Establish agricultural buffer areas to facilitate continued operation of current
enterprises.
4.
Gather and catalog planning strategies and regulations from other areas similar to
Washington County.
5.
Investigate use of construction easements.
6.
Assess county road plans and identify future road needs.
7.
Explore ways to recover
infrastructure costs necessary for growth area development to ease burden on current
taxpayers.
8.
Investigate implementing various incentive measures for conservation and
agricultural easements within growth areas, including but not limited to concepts
presented in Professor Hipp’s presentation and those endorsed by the American
Farmland Trust.