| 
|
By Elizabeth Dietzmann
Recently I had an interesting conversation with Joseph Hankins of the Conservation Fund’s FreshWater Institute. For those of you who may not be familiar with the group, it has an informative Web site at www.freshwaterinstitute.org. As stated on the Web site, the Freshwater Institute combines applied research, engineering design, and economic development strategies to demonstrate a new vision of conservation that achieves a balance between economic growth and environmental goals. Naturally, with that mission statement, I assumed that Joe would be a fan of decentralized clustered systems—and he is. However, I was surprised to hear that he shared my view that while decentralized technology is less costly and more versatile than gravity sewer, it may be a contributor to urban sprawl if it is not utilized as part of a comprehensive land-use plan. In fact, there is a growing backlash in many parts of the country against decentralized technology precisely because it is so versatile and cost-effective that developers are eager to use it without considering the big picture.
The anti-sprawl movement is gaining momentum in many parts of the country. Loudoun County, VA, has made headlines in a prolonged and heated dispute over lot size. Loudoun County’s controversial rural zoning ordinance has been the product of three years of deliberations and public protest, which has included sheep and goats at the county commission offices. Under the new ordinance the existing lot size of 3 acres was changed to much larger lot sizes. The ordinance was recently tossed out on a technicality by the Virginia Supreme Court, which has caused a modern-day land rush as developers hurry to get subdivisions platted under the old zoning ordinance. A second new zoning ordinance, which the county planning commission began reviewing in January, is not quite as restrictive as the first one but would achieve largely the same goal: to radically limit home building and preserve the rural nature of the west part of the county. A Jan. 8 article in The Washington Post summed up the new ordinance: “The ordinance proposes to divide the western part of the county into two large areas. In one, the proposal would allow lots of 10 acres each, and in the other lots of 20 acres each, as long as developers clustered their homes and preserved open space. Lot size would fall to 7.5 and 15 acres respectively in the two areas if developers agreed to pay the county a cash fee of about $37,000 per home. With neither clustering nor cash payments, minimum lot size would rise to 20 and 40 acres respectively.”
This new “anti-sprawl” ordinance has received widespread support from the folks already living in Loudoun County. I am sure the western part of the county looks much like it did 200 years ago with its stone farmhouses, rolling horse pastures, and quaint, unpaved roads. Who could blame the people who already have their piece of paradise for basically wanting to shut out newcomers? That is the typical NIMBY mentality. And the Loudoun County folks are willing to take pretty draconian measures in order to preserve it. At least they have the courage to come right out and say, “Hey, we don’t want that many new residents, and we are willing to limit our property rights in order to preserve things the way they are.” The problems start when communities are both anti-sprawl and pro-property rights. Make no mistake, there are many rural communities like this in the United States. As Joe Hankins pointed out, only two out of 50 counties in West Virginia have countywide planning and zoning, and West Virginia is by no means unique. The majority of people in rural areas do not want to be told what to do with their land. Just try to get easements signed for a rural water or sewer
project!
So for counties or townships like this, the easy solution is to control growth through infrastructure or service function limitations. They do not have the courage to plan, because planning and zoning can be a political hot potato in a strong property rights climate, but it is easy to use restrictions on sewer as de facto zoning. That has worked fairly well. Developers are simply told that they cannot build new subdivisions until central sewer is extended into an area. Central sewer is controlled by local government entities and is expensive to build, so until the political climate changes, growth is indirectly controlled. However, decentralized cluster technology is changing this. With the wide acceptance of decentralized technology by regulators and the management models put forth by the EPA, developers have a great new tool in their toolbox. They can circumvent the de facto zoning by installing affordable clustered systems. This panics the locals, who are suddenly faced with the growth that they hoped to avoid. In addition, as Joe Hankins and I discussed, because these developments are being built in unincorporated areas where there is not any planning and zoning, they are going in without thought to big-picture issues of watershed protection, land use planning, green design, or water reuse, to name a few.
I witnessed this situation firsthand a couple of years ago. A developer planned a high-end subdivision in a rural county that encompassed a fragile watershed adjacent to a high-growth tourist area. The county had no planning and zoning and thus had no effective way to resist when the regulatory authorities approved the decentralized clustered wastewater system. The developer claimed, and rightly so, that his wastewater system was going to produce a high-quality effluent and would not have any negative impact on the local waterways. He wrapped himself in a “green” mantle and proceeded to take advantage of the cost effectiveness, flexibility, and versatility of the decentralized technology. The sad thing was that because the county had no planning and zoning, there was no way to insist that the developer make the entire project “green.” The roads and driveways were all paved, the houses all had large, fertilized, watered yards, and the roof gutters still drained off the backs of the lots. Ironically, other than the decentralized wastewater system, there was nothing “green” about the project, and the opportunity to create a project that truly did not adversely affect the watershed was lost.
Situations like this are causing a backlash against decentralized technology. Decentralized clustered technology is perceived as “bad” because it “allows” unbridled growth. So local county governments are banning the use of clustered systems, which has the effect of forcing developers to install septic systems on larger lots. And because these septic systems are being installed in counties where land-use restrictions are frowned upon, it is unlikely they will be operated under a comprehensive countywide septic system maintenance program. In addition, large lots really defeat the purpose of preservation of green spaces and land conservation.
There is a really typical example of this scenario in Michigan. Webster Township is located about 15 minutes northwest of Ann Arbor, a bustling university town (and home of Zingermann’s, the best deli in the Midwest). The township is predominantly rural and “has no settled community within its boundaries to serve as a nucleus.” (This and the following quoted passage are taken directly from the “Webster Township Master Plan, Revised August 31, 2005,” which is in the review-and-approval process as we speak.) Basically, Webster Township is a bedroom community for folks from Ann Arbor who want to live in its rustic, sylvan setting. And more and more folks are headed that way. Webster Township has experienced accelerating population growth over the past few years. Rough estimates are that the population could increase 110% over the next 30 years from today’s numbers. According to the Webster Township Master Plan:
“Since its organization as a township in the 1800s, Webster Township has been a major agricultural producer in Southeast Michigan. ... In recent years major changes have occurred in the local economy. Land values have increased rapidly, especially in areas of large tracts of farmland. Large-scale farming has been a declining industry in Washtenaw County and neighboring areas. As a result, local agricultural services have been going out of business. Old farms are being divided into residential lots or are being sold for this eventual purpose. Residents are moving into previously farmed areas, creating conflicts with existing farming operations. Few successors are available to take over existing farms when the older farmers retire. Overall market conditions locally, nationally, and internationally have not been good, especially for family farmers. The neighboring urban centers, at one time major markets for local farmers, are now attractive as employment centers for people who want to live in the convenient ‘rural’ area in Webster Township. As a result, large-scale family agriculture as we know it today has, at best, a limited and problematic future in Webster Township. Township policy is powerless to stop or significantly change these economic trends. Some farming operations are likely to continue, especially as interim uses. It is the intent of the Township to encourage this continuation of farming operations as areas evolve to residential use. Some limited farming and special niche product agriculture might even be more or less permanent. This type of agriculture can be encouraged. However, the trend is conversion of old farms into residential developments over a long period of time.
“The policy issues before the Township are: how to manage this conversion so that waste of land is minimized; how to minimize conflicts between existing uses and new development; and how to retain some vestiges of the rural character that has been created by the existence of the older farms.
“Privately owned central water and sanitary sewerage systems are not desirable because they would permit urban development (residential densities greater than one dwelling unit per acre) in an area that is rural in character, and where such densities would be incompatible with existing natural features and existing agricultural operations. Even more serious is the fact that the Township would have the ultimate responsibility for operating and maintaining a private, central system, in the event the owner would fail to do so [italics added].
“Webster Township has extensive areas of natural features, consisting primarily of woods, stream corridors, and wet soil areas. These areas are important for their environmental value and for their contribution to the rural character of the Township. ... These areas should be protected from intensive human pressure by regulating the types and densities of uses that are permitted in fragile areas. Preservation of the continuity of stream corridors and related wooded and wet soil areas is especially important.
“Single-family detached dwellings should be the only type of dwelling unit permitted in rural residential areas (excluding accessory dwellings), in order to preserve and promote the rural character of Webster Township. ... Each lot outside the urban residential area should have its own well, septic tank, and drain field, approved by the County Health Department. Wells and/or sanitary sewerage systems that serve two or more dwelling units (not including accessory dwellings) will not be permitted [italics added]. ...
“Clustering is intended to preserve natural features, increase open space, and reduce developmental costs. Clustering of dwelling units will be permitted in the designated rural residential areas according to the Open Space Preservation Residential zoning provisions, if approved by Webster Township. Clustering is the concentration and grouping of the dwelling units that are permitted on a parcel of land, on one or more portions of that parcel, on lots that are smaller than the minimums usually required, based on a site plan approved by the Township. ...
“In clustering arrangements in the designated rural residential areas, a minimum lot area should be required for each dwelling unit, to assure that sufficient land area will be available to provide adequate separation between water wells and drain fields, and a setting for each dwelling that is consistent with the rural character of the Township. A well and septic tank/drain field, or other system approved by the County Health Department should be provided for each dwelling unit in a cluster. ... Each dwelling unit and non-residential development should have its own on-site water supply and sewage treatment system that is approved by the Washtenaw County Health Department. Private community systems (water and sewage treatment systems that serve more than one dwelling unit or non-residential use) shall not be permitted in Webster Township [italics added].”
The Webster Township Master Plan is an incredibly good example of really bad planning, and it has clearly been drafted out of fear of decentralized clustered systems. While I cannot fault the good people of Webster Township from trying to preserve the rural nature of their community, it is too bad that they have taken such a misguided approach. To acknowledge on the one hand that family farms are not going to survive, that population is increasing, and then to condemn the future residents to life on septic systems and private wells as a solution to preserving open space is just ludicrous. Who will monitor the wells? Who will make sure that septic systems are inspected and pumped? Imagine how things will look in 30 years. Family farms will be gone and houses will be scattered all over the township on one-acre lots. The mowed yards and manicured minifarms will do little if anything to protect the natural features and the wooded and wet soil areas referred to in the master plan. Instead, Webster Township should look at truly preserving its rural nature by stepping up to the plate and embracing development.
Instead of allowing folks to put in hundreds of residential wells, and create potential public health problems, which flies in the face of everything Rural Development has tried in the last 50 years to do by the creation of rural water supply districts, they should form a public water supply district and set up a township-wide watershed protection plan. They should insist developers install clustered wastewater systems with increased lot density, and the Township should work with them in the siting and operations and maintenance of those systems. Those clustered systems can be sited in areas that are determined in advance to be less desirable for farming or to have less impact on open spaces. Webster Township should look around at other models. They could follow the Massachusetts or Georgia models and set up safeguards in the event that a centrally owned clustered system was not properly managed. They should also assess impact fees to reflect the cost to the community of new residents on roads, schools, and traffic, instead of trying to limit growth. Clustering development actually makes it easier to deal with the impact on schools, roads, and public services of increased population. Imagine how much harder it will be to plan bus routes, trash pick-up and police and fire protection for hundreds of minifarms versus clustered subdivisions.
Clustered systems as we in the decentralized wastewater field define them, not as Webster Township defines them, can promote water reuse, reduce the impact of manicured yards, and allow agricultural lands to remain as open conservation space if nothing else. It makes no sense to prevent or control growth by relying on backward and primitive solutions for wastewater. On the other hand, it also makes no sense to start shoving decentralized clustered systems in the ground without a plan in place for management, as well as some consideration of the big-picture issues such as watershed protection and open-space preservation. Just because you can use clustered systems anywhere, does not mean you should use them anywhere. The good news is that this type of planning can be done.
Next time I will discuss a county-wide development plan that embraces decentralized clustered systems and review some of the system management requirements that certain states are imposing.
ELIZABETH M. DIETZMANN is an attorney in Rolla, MO. Write
to her at edietzmann@earthlink.net
OW
- May/June 2006
|
