|
growth principle: ~ncourag~ local [md-use planing for
<br /> compatible uses n~r military installations."
<br /> According to ;it~author, joel Hirschhorn, director of the
<br />Natural Resources i~ollcy Studies of the NGA Center for Best
<br />Practices, the NG/t[ is encouraging other nongovernmental
<br />organizations ro co'.,nsider adopting and actively supporting this
<br />new smart growth ~rinc¥1e as a "needed addition to the
<br />nation'o/smart gro~rh movement." Why? Because in his words:
<br />
<br /> The armed servic~ have tried many things to limit incompatible
<br /> land development ~round once isolated facilities. They have not
<br /> been effective enodgh. Land developers and homebui[ders often
<br /> ignore adv sories a~'d strong zoning restricnons have nor been used
<br /> enough by local go~vernments. [n many places there is no [egal
<br /> requirement to dis~:lose to home buyers and renters that an active
<br /> military facility is ~.lose enough to impact their location. ("Eleventh
<br /> Smart Growth Pririciple," Planetizen.)
<br />
<br /> What is needed ito stem the tide of civilian community
<br />encroachment is fo! states and local governments to work
<br />together to craft pd, blic policy calling for compatible land-use
<br />planning near milirFry installations.
<br />
<br />Slate of Flor{da and Critical Areas
<br />Designation i
<br />Wlmre appropriate,istates .should use existing statutory Language
<br />to designate military installations as "areas of critical state
<br />concern." Florida's 1972 Environmental Land and Water
<br />Management Act (Fla. Stat. ~5 380.05) is an example. It requires
<br />state approval of re{jot development proposals that could have
<br />statewide impacts. The ~aw designates "Areas of Critical State
<br />Concern" and sets thresholds for the "Development of Regional
<br />impact" (DR[). De+elopment projects meeting the threshold
<br />criteria are viewed ig terms of anticipated impacts upon [and-use
<br />patterns, punic services, and the environment. The statute
<br />extends this authori~ to "major public facilities or other areas of
<br />mgjor public inv~st,rnent, including but not limited to highways,
<br />ports, airports, e~erD' facilities, and water management projects."
<br />Clearly, military in~Iallations could fall within this definition.
<br />The extension of critical area designation to include all military
<br />installations in the irate would be a clear statement of the
<br />importance o£ the r0, ilitary presence to the state and irs economy.
<br /> When speak/rig ~f DRI and encroachment, the issue is nor
<br />artificial growth liffiits. It is compatible growth and
<br />development th. at s.itpports the military mission, protects the
<br />public, and talces edonomic advantage of the military presence.
<br />
<br />State of Ari2~na and Compatible Land-Use
<br />Plans to Supl~orf the Military Presence
<br />Arizona is a case ati>oin/. In 1995,.the legislature passed a law
<br />concerning tesidenOal encroachment around Arizona's military
<br />airports. The [aw (/[RS ~ 28-8481, er. seq.) requires all political
<br />subdivisions in the Vicinity ora military airport to adopt land-
<br />use plans ;md enforce zoning regulations that assure .
<br />developlneut comp{tible with high-noise and accident potential
<br />zones near mitirary ~irfields.
<br />
<br />Real Estate I~isclosure in lri2ona,
<br />California, C41orado, and Florida
<br />Among these strace~es, real estate disclosure is perhaps the single
<br />most important step~a state or local government can ralce to protect
<br />thc seller, teal estate igenr/broker, and the purchaser from
<br />mismfi;rmation, esp4cially when a military installation is nearby. A
<br />seconda~7 benefit goks to the local government, which can avoid
<br />nuisance nmse comOaints, or worse, Ii{k-threatening accidents.
<br />
<br />5 ~
<br />
<br />Disclosure in all real estate transactions at time of sales contract or
<br />lease agreement will provide the prospective purchaser or lessee
<br />infbrmadon needed to make an informed'decision.
<br />
<br />Governor's Military Base Advisory Boards
<br />
<br />To round out the strareg7, states should establish military
<br />advisory boards to advise the governor and the legislature on the
<br />importance of, the military presence to the state, its economy,
<br />and national defense. Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
<br />North Carolina, and many other states have such advisory'
<br />bodies to work with state and local governments. Their purpose
<br />is to encourage compatible civilian land use near military
<br />insrallarions,_advise the governor and state and local elected
<br />officials on the importance of the military economic presence in
<br />the sram, and to act on behalf of the state to support long-term
<br />susrainability of the military presence.
<br />
<br />NEWS BRIEFS
<br />
<br />Irregular Lots
<br />
<br />Giles Glenn, if approved, will not be ~;our'typical suburban
<br />subdivision. The lots in the proposed development south of
<br />Washington, D.C., in the 1-95 corridor 8t together like puzzle
<br />pieces. The front yards of some of the lots are located several
<br />hundred feet from their respective rear yards. Slivers of land
<br />connect the yards of most of the lots. The subdivision plan has
<br />upset some Fairf~x County officials, bur despite the irregularity
<br />in the lot shapes, Giles Glenn meets the minimum county
<br />zoning regulations.
<br /> Giles Glenn is a 10-acre sire zoned RI, or one unit per acre,
<br />which initially' would yield 10 sin~e-tCamily homes. However, the
<br />western half of the proposed subdivision is within a Resource
<br />Protection Area because it contains floodplains and
<br />environmentally sensitive land. The [ors extend into the protected
<br />area, bur nothing can be built there. Fairf~,t County zoning
<br />regulations place a density penalt-/on such land char, in this case,
<br />reduces the maximum number of lots from ten to. eight.
<br /> After the density penalty, the county's minimum lot size and
<br />street frontage regulations were paramount in determining the
<br />number of lots and their shape. The minimum lot size is 36,000
<br />square feet, and the minimum lot frontage is 150 feet.
<br />)altogether, these restrictions might ordinarily require the
<br />developer to sacrifice one or two lots after the provision of
<br />interior roadways. In this case, the developer, Land Design
<br />Consultants in Manassas, Virginia, used some engineering
<br />creativity while still meeting the regulations.
<br /> Further complicating the street frontage issue is that Talbert
<br />Road, along the north boundary of the site, has an unpaved
<br />surface. The regulations indicate that lot frontage should be
<br />counted from paved roadways, but a precedent has been set
<br />elsewhere in Fairfax County of counting unpaved roadways for
<br />lot frontage as well. This means that Golf Court, primarily'used
<br />merely as an access to the shared driveway, is sufficient to meet
<br />county street frontage regulations, so long as the developer
<br />manages to iwirl several of the lots around each other to reach
<br />Talbert Road. The developer achieved this while retaining the
<br />maximum eight lots, each with ar least 36,000 square feet.
<br /> The county places more restrictive regulations on corner [ors,
<br />bur none exist in Giles Glenn. A retention pond is placed in the
<br />plan next to lot eight along Old Hoots Road, and there are
<br />bands of planned open spaces as well as existing righr-o{'-way
<br />around the site's perimeter. There is public water and sewer for
<br />this site, so there will be uo wells and septic systems. However,
<br />
<br />161
<br />
<br />
<br />
|