Transcript Title Slide - Cecil County, Maryland

Cecil County
Comprehensive Plan
Oversight Committee Meeting
October 15, 2008
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world
www.erm.com
Today’s Agenda
5:15
p.m.
6 p.m.
6:45
p.m.
7:30
p.m.
8 p.m.
Revised Scenarios
What Does Density Look Like?
How Much Should Cecil County Grow?
Preliminary CBA Factors
Adjournment
Proposed Scenarios
Input from the Oversight Committee
• Let’s see the numbers!
– Is this a “build out” plan or a “management” plan for
2030?
– How much should Cecil County grow in the future?
– What densities do we need to support future growth?
– What do these densities look like?
– Do the towns support the framework of the scenarios?
» If so, how do we implement?
• Let’s see the details!
– How do we translate these general ideas to specific areas?
– What about the towns? (COG meeting in September)
Revising the Scenarios
• Some concern that there was not enough difference
between the scenarios, and that elements of the
Growth Centers scenario were unrealistic (urban
open space)
• Changed the Growth Corridor and Greenbelts
scenarios to reflect input from the Oversight
Committee
• Added Protected Lands
Changes to Greenbelt Scenario
The Resource Lands in the Greenbelt Scenario are larger than
anything we've previously shown. These expanded Resource Lands
are drawn in a way that is intended to cover contiguous natural
resources such as agriculture, forest, and environmentally sensitive
areas, using the following information:
• Productive agricultural soils, as shown in the County's soil layer,
cross-referenced with information provided by the APM
subcommittee
• Sensitive areas, as described above, plus Forest Interior Dwelling
Species and Sensitive Species Review Areas
• Developed or committed lands (including "pipeline" development,
as well as some land zoned for development) was used to exclude
areas from the Resource Lands category
• 12-digit watersheds, used as boundaries in some cases
• Roads, -used as boundaries in some cases
Land Use Categories
• Development: Areas that would be developed on land served by
public water and sewer.
• Rural (olive green): New development would be permitted, at
relatively low densities, with NO extension of public water and
sewer (except for health emergencies). No change from before.
• Resource Land: Zoning would permit only very low density
development (likely at 1/20 or less). The eventual PPA(s) would be
drawn within these areas, although every piece of Resource Land
would not necessarily fall within a PPA.
• Protected Land: Land that is already protected from development by
virtue of having sensitive areas (floodplain/wetland), public or
private ownership, or easement. This includes federal, state, and
county owned land; MALPF, MET, ESLC, and other easements, etc.
• Employment Centers
• Mixed Development: Areas that would be developed as mixed-use
centers of residential, commercial, employment, and institutional
uses. The specific mix of use types has not been defined.
• Towns
Growth Corridor
• The provision of water and
sewer infrastructure is seen
as a key force driving change,
as the lack of infrastructure
has been a constraint to
growth.
• The County’s agreement with
Artesian allows the
development of Elkton West
and opens the easternmost
section of the growth corridor
• The growth corridor between
Perryville and Elkton would
remain substantially intact.
• The Mineral Extraction
District would be developed
as a mixed-use residential
area flanked by employment
areas as envisioned by the
property owners.
Growth Corridor
Original
Greenbelts
• The Greenbelts scenario assumes
that the people of Cecil County
do not want to develop to the
extent depicted in the Growth
Corridor scenario. To constrain
future growth, additional lands
are designated for rural
protection and the greenbelts are
wider than in the Growth
Corridor scenario
• Greenbelts of protected lands
would be interspersed within the
growth corridor.
• The extent of developed areas
around the towns of Rising Sun,
Chesapeake City, North East and
the Stewart property would be
decreased. More emphasis would
be given to protecting agriculture
and environmentally sensitive
areas than in the other scenarios
Greenbelts
Original
Capacity Analysis
• Our planning assumption: Let’s
start with the County’s capacity
• Based on current zoning, Cecil
County has capacity for 67,512
additional housing units.
• Of this, 35,600 new housing
units could be accommodated
within the County’s Priority
Funding Areas
• This is more than the 26,000
housing units identified in the
2030 projections.
Zoning
District
Current New
Household
Capacity
BG
0
BI
0
BL
0
DR
14,919
M1
0
M2
0
MB
0
MEA
0
MH
3,664
NAR
3,985
OS
0
RM
12,742
RR
2,298
SAR
1,645
SR
18,695
TR
3,840
VR
496
Municipalities
5,228
Total
67,512
Modeling the Scenarios
• Build-out versus 2030:
– We are developing “build-out” scenarios so we can
evaluate plausible futures for the County that assume a
different land use pattern than we have today, and to
consider areas like the Mineral Extraction Districts (which
have no capacity assigned to them)
• Key question: What should the buildout number
be?
• Our planning recommendation: Use Buildout plus
an increment for the Mineral Extraction District
Housing Units for Model Runs
Existing Housing Units
(2005, including vacancy rate)
Capacity Analysis
(from MDP build-out)
Mineral Extraction District
(Stewart property)
Growth Increment
(for Model Runs)
38,351
67,512
5,000
72,512
TOTAL
110,863
CORRIDOR
61,887
Projected/Potential Growth
Projected/Potential Growth
140,000
2000 US Census
120,000
110,863
Existing
Housing Units
100,000
MDP Projections
80,000
Buildout (including MEA)
60,000
61,164
50,914
40,000
20,000
31,223
0
2000
39,882
36,500
2010
2020
2030
2040
Year
2050
2060
2070
2080
What Does Density
Look Like?
Growth Corridor Scenario
Residential Zoning
District
Scenario Land Use
MH, RM
Resource Lands
Rural
Development
Existing Density
(units/acre)
Acres
1,347
2.00
878
1.00
VR, DR, TR
All others
86,690
NAR
49,061
0.10
RR
11,095
0.20
SR, MH
5,018
2.00
DR, TR
232
1.00
VR
155
3.00
RM
17
2.00
RR
1,097
0.20
SR
13,702
2.00
MH, VR
1,259
3.00
NAR
3,421
0.10
MEA
396
DR, TR
7,814
3.75
RM
1,284
10.50
Urban Open Space
All districts
n/a
Employment/
Development
All districts
9,626
Town Development
All Towns
8,425
n/a
3.5 (unless
specified by
town)
Greenbelts Scenario
Scenario Land
Use
Resource Lands
Residential Zoning
District
Acres
Existing Density
(units/acre)
MH, RM
1,611
2.00
VR, DR, TR
1,551
1.00
All others
NAR
Rural
15,044
0.10
OS
37
0.00
RR
5,208
0.20
SR, MH, RM
6,336
2.00
DR
232
1.00
RR
578
0.20
SR
11,107
2.00
1,217
3.00
NAR
605
0.10
MEA
136
MH, VR
Development
134,377
DR, TR
7,296
3.75
RM
1,283
10.50
n/a
Urban Open
Space
All districts
n/a
Employment/
Development
All districts
6,784
Town
Development
All Towns
9,918
3.5 (unless specified
by town)
What Does Density
Look Like in Cecil County?
Bethel Springs
Northwoods
Persimmon Creek
Whitehall West
Chesapeake Landing
How Much Should
the County Grow?
Housing Densities in
Comparable Corridors
2000 Data
County
Size
(mi²)
Size
(acres)
Population
Pop/mi²
Housing
Units
HU/mi²
HU/ acre
Cecil
83
53,410
40,231
482
15,622
187
0.29
Harford A
19
12,160
49,584
2,610
19,261
1,014
1.58
Harford B
64
40,960
59,703
933
24,814
388
0.61
Howard
49
31,360
77,413
1,580
28,921
590
0.92
Newcastle A
34
21,760
66,544
1,957
26,043
766
1.20
Newcastle B
47
30,080
109,612
2,332
41,978
893
1.40
Average
49
31,622
67,181
1,649
26,106
640
1.00
Housing Units per Square Mile, 2000
1,200
Housing Units
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Cecil
Harford A
Harford B
Howard
Newcastle Newcastle
A
B
Cecil County Buildout and Projections
Year
2030
HU/
acre
Population
Pop/mi²
Housing Units
HU/ mi²
77,956
934
33,065
396
0.62
61,887
742
1.16
Buildout*
*Adding In the Mineral Extraction District
2005 Housing Units
17,922
New Housing Capacity in
Growth Area
38,965
NHC on Stewart Property
5,000
TOTAL
61,887
Comparable Corridors
Cecil Growth Corridor
Harford Corridor A
Harford Corridor B
Howard Corridor
Newcastle Corridor
Preliminary CBA Factors
Choosing a Preferred Scenario
Choosing By
Advantages
The Fundamental Rule of Sound
Decision-making:
Decisions must be based on the
importance of advantages.
Choosing by Advantages
To illustrate the logic and simplicity of the CBA
vocabulary, following are the CBA definitions of the
terms attribute and advantage:
• An attribute is a characteristic, quality, or consequence
of ONE alternative.
• An advantage is a beneficial difference between the
attributes of TWO alternatives.
For this project, the scenarios are our alternatives.
Purpose of the CBA Group
• To give the Oversight Committee a role in
determining the factors
• To learn and understand the CBA process
• To help the other members of the Oversight
Committee understand and participate fully in the
CBA workshop
• To review and refine the factors that we will use to
evaluate the scenarios
• To identify the advantages of each attribute
• To generate a draft CBA matrix we will use in
November
Examples of Factors (and Functions)
Function: Protect Cultural/Natural Resources
Minimize Impacts to Mangroves/Wetlands
Minimize Impacts to Coastal Barriers
Minimize Impacts to Floodplains
Minimize Impacts to Water Resources
Protect the Cultural Landscape
Provide Improvements to Water Quality Where Possible
Mitigate Impacts to Native Vegetation
Function: Meet the Needs of the Marine Research and Education Center
Provide Direct Vehicular Access to the MREC via a Public Right of Way
Have Access to Seawater
Provide Adequate Space for Proposed and Existing MREC and NPS Programs
Provide a Contiguous Site for All MREC Uses
Construct the MREC on Available Land
Address Need for Future Dredging
Improve Operational Efficiency and Sustainability of Facility
Function: Provide for Visitor Enjoyment
Provide a Quality Visitor Experience
Function: Provide Benefits to the Local Community
Support Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses
Provide Socio-Economic Benefits to the Local Community
Sample CBA Matrix
Factors
Function: Protect Cultural/Natural Resources
Minimize Impacts to Coastal Barriers
Attributes
Advantages
Minimize Impacts to Floodplains
Attributes
Advantages
Minimize Impacts to Water Resources
Attributes
Advantages
Protect the Cultural Landscape
Attributes
Advantages
Alternatives
East Site
South Site
West Site
Setting Up the Evaluation Framework
• Identify Potential Factors
– Growth Simulation model (MDP)
– Traffic model (MDOT)
– Water Resources model (ERM)
– Others
• Run the Models/Evaluate the Scenarios
• Identify Factors that “Were Considered but
Dropped Out of the Analysis” (no difference
between scenarios)
• Set Up CBA Matrix
• Perform CBA
Start with Model Outputs
•
•
•
•
•
Total Developed Acres
New Developed Acres
Development Capacity PDA
Agricultural and Forest Land
Lost
Number of Residential Parcels
Developed
– Percentage within PFA
• Number of Acres Developed
•
•
•
•
Inside PFA
Number of Acres Developed
Outside PFA
Percent of County Preserved
Number of Acres Preserved
Level of Protection in
Agricultural Zoning
• Total Lane Miles (principal arterials)
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• Vehicle Hours Traveled (allows us
to calculate the percentage of time
motorists will drive in congestion)
• Average Free Flow Speed
• Average Congested Speed
• Impervious surface, by
watershed
• Public drinking water system
demand, by system
• Point source (WWTP)
wastewater discharge, by
watershed
• Number of septic systems, by
watershed
How Do We
Organize the Factors?
The Fundamental Rule of Sound
Decision-making:
Decisions must be based on the
importance of advantages.
Maryland’s Eight Visions
1. Development is concentrated in suitable areas
2. Sensitive areas are protected
3. In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population
centers
4. Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a
universal ethic
5. Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource
consumption, is practiced.
6. Economic growth is encouraged and regulatory mechanisms
are streamlined
7. Adequate public facilities and infrastructure are available or
8.
planned
Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve the visions.
•
•
•
•
•
Functions (from Visions)
Concentrate Development in Suitable Areas
Protect Sensitive Areas
Direct Growth to Existing Population Centers
Protect the Chesapeake Bay
Conserve Resources and Reduce Resource
Consumption
• Encourage Economic Growth
• Streamline Regulatory Mechanisms
• Assure that Public Facilities and Infrastructure are
•
Adequate to Meet Future Needs
Create Funding Mechanisms to Achieve the
Visions
From Functions to Factors
The Fundamental Rule of Sound
Decision-making:
Decisions must be based on the
importance of advantages.
Growth Factors
• Concentrate New Development Inside the PFA/Growth Corridor
• Minimize the Number of Acres Developed Outside the PFA/Growth
Corridor
•
•
•
•
Minimize the Loss of Agricultural Land (acres)
Assure that at least X percent of the County is in Rural Land Use
Minimize the Loss of Forest Land (acres)
Maximize the Percentage of Residential and Commercial Land
Developed within the PFA/Growth Corridor
• Maximize Mixed Use Development within the PFA/Growth Corridor
• Maximize the Amount of Preserved Land in the County
• Concentrate Funding for Infrastructure Improvements within the
Growth Corridor
• Minimize Impacts to Sensitive Areas (wetlands and riparian areas)
Travel Factors
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minimize Total Lane Miles (principal arterials)
Minimize Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Minimize Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)
Maximize Average Free Flow Speed
Maximize Average Congested Speed
Maximize the Percentage of People Who Can Walk or Bike to
Work, Mass Transit and Other Destinations
• Minimize Travel Time to Destinations
• Ensure that Densities are Developed at Levels that Support
Transit
• Create a Land Use Pattern that Supports Rail Transit
Water Resource Factors
• Minimize Impervious Surface (by watershed)
• Assure Adequate Public Drinking Water System Supply (by
system)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Minimize Point Source Nutrient Discharge (by watershed)
Minimize Septic Systems Nutrient Load (by watershed)
Assure Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Maximize Groundwater Recharge (by watershed)
Minimize Stormwater Loads (by watershed)
Improve Overall Water Quality (measured by discharge into
the bay)
Other Factors
• Ensure that employment land served by public
infrastructure is adequate to meet future demand
(buildout employment)
• Ensure that the County Has the Capability to
Implement the Plan
• Ensure that the Towns Have the Capability to
Implement the Plan
• Measure impacts on public facilities and
infrastructure, including schools and roads
Cecil County
Comprehensive Plan
Oversight Committee Meeting
October 15, 2008
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world
www.erm.com
Growth Corridor Scenario
Residential Zoning
District
Scenario Land Use
MH, RM
Resource Lands
Rural
Development
Acres
Existing Density (units/acre)
1,347
2.00
878
1.00
VR, DR, TR
All others
86,690
NAR
49,061
0.10
RR
11,095
0.20
SR, MH
5,018
2.00
DR, TR
232
1.00
VR
155
3.00
RM
17
2.00
RR
1,097
0.20
SR
13,702
2.00
MH, VR
1,259
3.00
NAR
3,421
0.10
MEA
396
DR, TR
7,814
3.75
RM
1,284
10.50
Urban Open Space
All districts
n/a
Employment/
Development
All districts
9,626
Town Development
All Towns
8,425
n/a
3.5 (unless specified by town)
Greenbelts Scenario
Scenario Land
Use
Resource Lands
Residential Zoning
District
Acres
Existing Density (units/acre)
MH, RM
1,611
2.00
VR, DR, TR
1,551
1.00
All others
NAR
Rural
15,044
0.10
OS
37
0.00
RR
5,208
0.20
SR, MH, RM
6,336
2.00
DR
232
1.00
RR
578
0.20
SR
11,107
2.00
1,217
3.00
NAR
605
0.10
MEA
136
MH, VR
Development
134,377
DR, TR
7,296
3.75
RM
1,283
10.50
n/a
Urban Open
Space
All districts
n/a
Employment/
Development
All districts
6,784
Town
Development
All Towns
9,918
3.5 (unless specified by town)