|
|
Builders group has designs on developing consensus for the Bay
Capacity building key to success for watershed groups
Officials plan to divide Bay into water quality zones
Blair County, nestled in the mountains of Pennsylvania, is closer to Lake Erie than the Chesapeake. Yet planners, engineers and environmentalists there are rolling up their sleeves in a joint effort to create a cleaner Bay.
It’s the newest undertaking by Builders for the Bay—a partnership between the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, the Center for Watershed Protection, and the National Association of Home Builders—which aims to make environmentally sensitive site design an easier, more attractive option at the local level.
“Developers are interested in these techniques, but the codes and ordinances often don’t allow them,” said Pat Devlin of the Alliance. “Developers need waivers and variances to get these things approved. That takes time and money.”
Builders for the Bay opens the door for revising local codes to allow greater flexibility in using low impact development techniques to minimize stormwater runoff, or in promoting open space preservation, often while increasing the market value of the property.
Builders for the Bay convenes a broad array of stakeholders who compare local codes with 22 nationally recognized techniques known as Better Site Design principles. In a series of meetings, participants discuss the needs and limitations of their local setting and recommend realistic ways for incorporating Better Site Design principles into their codes.
The specifics vary by location, but each community produces a comprehensive set of recommendations endorsed by builders and environmentalists alike—a strong foundation for change at the local level.
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Center for Watershed Protection facilitate each roundtable, which takes place over a period of 12–18 months. The National Association of Home Builders helps to ensure that their local affiliates are an integral part of the process. State, regional and local builder organizations are essential to bringing developers, builders and design engineers to the table.
The cost generally ranges from $80,000 to more than $100,000. Communities contribute to the budget, often through in-kind contributions. They have also secured significant grant funding from sources like the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Small Watershed Grants, Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener program, the Abell Foundation, and the Chesapeake Bay Trust.
“The real strength of Builders for the Bay is that it brings in a variety of interests,” said Harvey Gold of the Fredericksburg Home Builders Association. “It’s a positive approach, unlike other groups that are designed to chastise someone or bring in token members. It’s a matter of problem solving, rather than finger pointing.”
The proposed code revisions address a range of site design features, such as sidewalks, curbs, road width and lot size, and challenge many long-held perceptions about how such things should be done.
For example, curb and gutter systems were once seen as the most efficient way to collect and disperse stormwater runoff. More recent research has shown that shallow grassy channels running parallel to the road—called swales—are sometimes a better choice, because they allow water to infiltrate the soil rather than rushing in large volumes to a single outflow point. Swales also help to recharge the groundwater and generally cost two to three times less than traditional curb and gutter systems.
Better Site Design principles also revisit assumptions about calculating the size of parking areas and assigning street widths. Codes and ordinances often set cookie-cutter requirements for these features, rather than allowing designs based on site-specific needs. Reducing street widths and parking surfaces—where appropriate—results in less impervious surface and saves money, too.
“We need to realize that there have been changes in the way a lot of folks think, such as new concepts like low impact development,” Gold said. “We’re certainly interested in learning as much as we can and participating as much as we can. Builders for the Bay is one of the ways we can do that.”
Seven communities in the watershed have participated in Builders for the Bay, including three that participated before the program was formalized in 2002.
Rebecca Winer of the Center for Watershed Protection said that each experience has been unique. “We enter new territory every time we enter a new jurisdiction,” she said.
But that’s as it should be, she explained, because the process is shaped by local priorities and participants.
Some roundtables were focused on a watershed, like the Rappahannock watershed in Virginia and the Paxton Creek watershed in Pennsylvania. Others were framed by jurisdictional boundaries, as in Harford, Cecil, and Frederick counties in Maryland; James City County, VA; and, most recently, Lancaster County, PA.
Development pressures vary, as do the mix of rural, urban and suburban settings.
The Blair County roundtable, which kicks off in June, represents one of the more rural locations.
“They don’t have a lot of growth pressure right now, but they are really interested in being proactive,” Winer said. “They are also dealing with stormwater issues, and are looking toward Builders for the Bay to help them move forward.”
Another roundtable is planned for Baltimore County, MD, where top concerns include infill development and protecting water quality in public reservoirs.
The process for actually translating roundtable recommendations into code also varies by location. Communities may revise their codes and ordinances on a set calendar basis, or when called for by local officials. Although Builders for the Bay takes place outside of the formal revision process, Winer says that timing is critical.
“It’s important not to do this when they’ve just closed the review cycle. An optimal time is when it’s coming up, probably about a year in advance,” Winer explained.
Even with good timing, it takes time and nurturing to bring about change. It’s also important to have local leaders who can keep the momentum going.
Results can be seen most clearly in the Rappahannock watershed, where one of the first roundtables took place in 2001. There, low impact development ordinances are now part of the county code.
Harvey Gold was among the developers who participated in the process, along with other stakeholders, including the Friends of the Rappahannock.
“We worked hard to develop a workable, meaningful ordinance. Then we marched together to the public hearing. One of the county people running the hearing commented that they had never seen an environmental group and builders organization so supportive of each other,” Gold said.
In other locations, the process continues to play out.
“The comfort level often isn’t there yet for local governments,” Devlin explained. “There are a lot of misperceptions about these techniques. For example, clustering can still carry negative connotations for the local government and even the public. There’s a misperception that clustering brings more people into the space, when really it’s the same amount and you conserve the natural resources, too.”
In Lancaster County, recommendations from Builders for the Bay were just published in April. East Hempfield Township Manager George Marcinko described the outcome as a “first step in a long walk” toward regulations that will help protect the Bay. “We have an opportunity with this report. We won’t adopt everything in it, but it’s a start. The whole process was worth it, and it’s moving us in the right direction,” he said.
The logistics of a county work schedule also can affect the timetable for code revisions. That’s the case in Harford County, which participated in Builders for the Bay in 2003.
“There’s been a shift in focus as to the sequence of things,” explained Pat Pudelkewicz, with the county’s Department of Planning and Zoning. “We still plan on incorporating the recommendations, but the zoning code updates got delayed by the start of comprehensive rezoning in the county. The county still plans to move forward, but the timing is changed.”
Once the codes updates are on the table, Pudelkewicz anticipates that Builders for the Bay will make the process much smoother.
“It was very worthwhile because you have all of the various stakeholders involved at one time, sitting down and talking. It’s very important, because they can work out issues prior to trying to do a legislative change,” Pudelkewicz said.
To keep the momentum going, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay and the Center for Watershed Protection stay involved with the communities after the roundtables’ recommendations are published.
“We don’t want to entirely get up and leave,” Winer said. “We’d like to ensure that there’s some kind of process in place to help implement the consensus document. Sometimes we work with local officials in the planning commission or make presentations to the larger development community. The key is having a strong local advocate.”
Winer said they continue to monitor the long-term impact of Builders for the Bay. One indicator is a scoring system, which evaluates the community’s codes and ordinances before and after the roundtable take place.
“We also want to see a change in the way things are put into the ground,” Winer said. “We’d like to see people more amenable to these practices, from the engineers to the administrators to the homeowners.”
Devlin says the education benefits of the roundtables can be seen immediately.
“Everyone shares their perceptions about Better Site Design principles, and we really talk through what’s real and what’s perceived,” said Devlin. “It works because we talk in a neutral environment, without defending a particular site or place. They also appreciate having third-party facilitation because of interests and agendas at the local level.”
Partners in Builders for the Bay want to see the roundtable recommendations and local code changes serve as models for neighboring communities, which can use them to expedite their own code revisions.
“We have to realize that whether we contribute to a problem or someone else does, it takes a number of stakeholders to solve the problem. In the past, that hasn’t happened enough,” Gold said. “If you are part of the community, then you have to assume part of the responsibilities.”
