|
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.The criteria placed strict limits on growth in undeveloped 96 4.PROTECTING RESOURCES: WHERE NOT TO GROW areas and defined three categories of land and standards for developmentin each of them:" Intensely developed areas, where little natural habitat remained, inwhich local governments should adopt strategies to lower pollution load-ings from new or redeveloped uses, as well as improve the quality of runoffwater, encourage retrofitting of stormwater facilities, and minimize im-pacts on habitat protection areas." Limited development areas, currently developed in low- to moderate-in-tensity uses and with public sewer and/or water service, in which habitatprotection areas should be preserved, wildlife corridor systems preservedor created, wooded areas preserved to maximum extent possible, imper-vious surface limited to 15 percent of a developed site, and cluster devel-opment of housing encouraged." Resource conservation areas, mostly natural in character, in which nat-ural areas should be preserved and further development of housing couldoccur at densities not exceeding one unit per 20 acres, although local gov-ernments could establish minimum lot sizes within the overall densitylimit; generally, no new industrial or commercial development is permit-ted.After intense lobbying from developers and rural jurisdictions, thestandards for resource conservation areas were relaxed to allow 5 per-cent of such areas adjoining other areas to be developed.Grandfatheringprovisions also accommodated existing projects and approved plans, andintrafamily land transfers were allowed provided the one-unit/20-acrestandard was maintained.Other criteria were spelled out for specific types of activities and areas,such as shore erosion works, forests and woodlands, wetlands, and agri-culture.The commission called for local governments to prepare plans adher-ing to the approved criteria and submit them for commission approval.Planning funds were provided and technical staff issued guidance papersto explain applications of the criteria.Over 18 months, commission staffworked with counties, cities, and towns to secure approval of plans.Eventually, all local plans were approved, after delays and conflictscaused by misinterpretations of the criteria and the reluctance of somejurisdictions to respond to the commission s mandates.A considerableamount of negotiation took place over the flexibility of the criteria inlocal applications, and the grandfathering waiver dissatisfied many pro-gram supporters as the extent of preapproved lots became known.Nev-ertheless, the commission succeeded in forcing local jurisdictions to ac-count for environmental factors in planning for development; substantialpreservation efforts are now in place on the shores and waters of thebay.9 IDENTIFYING RESOURCES 97The Chesapeake Bay critical areas program exemplifies the ways inwhich identification of specific natural resources over a large region, for-mulation of standards and criteria for preserving them, and applicationof those measures through a coordinated state/local governmentalprocess can produce effective preservation results.Similar programs inother states are demonstrating that conservation planning can work.Local Planning ProcessesLike Carlsbad, described earlier, many local governments adopt plans forconserving important natural features and resources as part of state andfederal planning efforts.Others carve out their own approaches based onlocal concerns and interests.Larimer County, Colorado recently com-pleted an open space conservation plan for the region between the citiesof Loveland and Fort Collins.(See Figure 4.3.) The Larimer County Pol-icy Plan adopted in 1977 defined the preservation of physical and visualFigure 4.3Larimer County greenbelt plan.To conserve community identity and thenorthern-front range landscape, Larimer County sponsored an intergovern-mental planning effort to define critical open space connections and otherdesign attributes of the region.Open space within a corridor can provide link-ages as well as community separation.(From A Plan for the Region BetweenFort Collins and Loveland, prepared for the cities of Loveland and Fort Collinsand Larimer County by BHA Design, Inc., April 1995, p.42.) 98 4.PROTECTING RESOURCES: WHERE NOT TO GROW Strategies for Metropolitan Open SpaceLarry OrmanHow do you know when you re out of the city? For the 30 or so large metro-politan regions that are home to half of America s citizens, it s often hard totell.And it s a growing problem, because census data shows that major met-ropolitan regions are urbanizing far more land per person now than was thecase two decades ago.This profligacy is driven by the suburban office boom,the search by land markets for new, cheaper supplies of land, lax growth man-agement laws and policies and our failure to come to grips with metropoli-tan forces that go beyond city and county boundaries.The toll of this renewed pressure on open lands surrounding our urban re-gions is huge.High-quality farmland is under serious threat, with the loss ofmuch high-value, specialty agriculture close to urban markets.Extensive bi-otic systems that ensure diversity and thus health in plant and animal com-munities are also vulnerable.So are riparian corridors and their watershed,sites for future parks, and historic places.In many cases, these threats affectthe very landscape that gives metropolitan regions their identity [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |
Archiwum
|