FINAL 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

FINAL REPORT OF THE PARA TASK FORCE

TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT

Introduction

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 22^nd.  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 5^th, August 1^st, and October 3^rd.  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

1. Protecting lakes and streams, and water quality, is imperative.
2. There is currently no protection for agricultural uses, or from agricultural uses.
3. There are inadequacies regarding building standards; there are no inspectors; and there is a lack of code enforcement.
4. There are inconsistent subdivision regulations among jurisdictions.
5. Concern about the rights of property owners, as well as the rights of those adversely affected by uncontrolled, and incompatible development of adjacent properties.
6. There is a lack of land use plans.
7. There are no districts specifically identified for commercial and industrial development.
8. There were concerns about the adequacy of county road standards and that there is no county engineer.
9. There was concern about the lack of population density controls in rural areas.
10. Concerns with regard to possible declining property values resulting from incompatible adjoining land uses or restriction of land use alternatives.
11. There is a need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and endangered species.
12. The high cost of public services resulting from “urban” type development of rural areas.
13. Lack of site development standards in industrial, commercial, subdivision and residential properties.
14. Lack of uniformity and consistency among jurisdictions exercising authority over developments and infrastructure in rural areas.
15. 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:

1. Protect agricultural and rural areas and water resources
2. Guide county growth
3. Provide reliable quality governmental services
4. Provide and enforce uniform development codes among jurisdictions
5. 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:

1. Adequate public facilities
2. Development design reviews (uniform codes)
3. Cluster and planned unit development
4. Agricultural protection zoning
5. Open space preservation techniques
6. Neighborhood conservation districts
7. Purchase of agricultural conservation easements
8. Transferable development rights
9. 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.

Figure 2. 

PARA TASK FORCE SUB-COMMITTEES
June 20, 2005

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.
5^th 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.
5^th 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.
5^th 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.
5^th 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.
5^th Floor NE Conference Room, County Courthouse

A G E N D A

   1.    Call to Order.

2. Review of PARA Task Force Goals.  (2.1)

3. Review of Growth Management Techniques Applicable to the PARA Goals.  (3.1)

4. Mechanisms to Protect Agriculture in Rural Areas – Janie Hipp, University of Arkansas.

5. Open Discussion by Task Force Members Regarding Previous Agenda Item.

6. Discussion on Future Meetings.

7. Public Comment Period (15-minutes).

8. Adjournment.

/kb

September 14, 2005

MEETING OF THE
PROTECT AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREAS
“PARA” TASK FORCE

 Wednesday, September 14, 2005
4:00 p.m.
5^th 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 Committee Reports on Tactics to Achieve Goals Using Growth Management Techniques and
           Agricultural Protection Methods. 

4. Open Discussion on Committee Reports.

5. Next Meeting Objective.   The next full Task Force meeting is September 28.  Report presentation to Quorum Court is on October 13

6. Upcoming Listening Session – Monday, October 3, at 7:00 p.m.

7. Public Comment Period (15-minutes).

8. Adjournment.

/kb

MEETING OF THE
PROTECT AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL AREAS
“PARA” TASK FORCE

Wednesday, September 28, 2005
5:00 p.m.
5^th 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 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. 

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:

T                  Maintain balance in our recommendations (smart growth, environmental, community preservation and compatibility with city/community planning).

T                  Offer a clear and concise set of recommendations relative to our county’s economic development.

T                  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:

T                  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.

T                  Study the importance of insuring developed density occur where infrastructure and services are adequately available.

T                  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

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.

/kb

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

1. (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:

1. Rural lot- 2 acres minimum in size
2. Suburban lot- 1 acre minimum (septic allowed only on suburban and rural lots)
3. 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.

2. (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.

3. (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.

4. (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). 

5. (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.

6. (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

GP 9-12-05

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

4. 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.