Open Space and Land Conservation in NC News:

Six of 10 Voters In South Atlantic States, Including North Carolina, Support Growth Control Measures

Richard Hails, AICP (919) 560-4137 x235; Denny Johnson (202) 872-0611     December 1, 2000

http://www.nc-apa.org/smart%20growth3.htm

 

Raleigh, N.C.– Voters in North Carolina and other South Atlantic states want better communities and 64% of voters in this eight-state region favor laws that allow for the more effective management of growth, according to a nationwide poll of voters by the American Planning Association (APA) and the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). North Carolina ranks 8th among states in threats from sprawl, according to an analysis of changes in the amount of developed land per person between 1982-1997. The Tar Heel State is one of 22 states that has yet to reform its planning enabling statutes to allow for smarter growth.

The issues of growth and sprawl have received limited attention from elected officials in North Carolina and other states. The result is that more than 7 of 10 voters (71%) say they do not believe that conditions will improve in their communities in the next five years, and 4 of 10 (41%) predict things will get worse. A majority of voters (53%) favor new laws to manage growth at the local level. The highest voter support (64%) for new growth management laws comes from the southern Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware and Maryland. Moreover, 57% of voters nationally and 63% in the South Atlantic believe communities can strike a balance between the protection of private property rights and the management of growth.

“Everyone wants to live in great communities that are thriving and vital,” says APA North Carolina Chapter President Richard Hails, AICP. “But, for too many years, the people of North Carolina have accepted sprawl and traffic congestion as the necessary by-products of growth. Times have changed. This poll shows that a majority of us no longer are willing to let sprawl and growth erode our quality of life.”

North Carolina ranks high in several key indicators of sprawl. With 14.7% of its available land developed as of 1997, the Tar Heel State is 10th among all states in the percentage of acres developed. North Carolina is 8th among states in the percentage change in developed acres per capita. There was a 37% increase in developed acres per capita between 1982-1997. Since 1982, the state has consistently ranked in the top five in terms of number of acres developed, with 103,620 acres being developed on average each year.

In searching for ways to better manage the social, economic and physical changes within our

communities, 81% of American voters believe it is important that their communities have city and regional planners. Most voters (54%) say planners should act as strong advocates for restricting and controlling urban sprawl. “Planners in North Carolina have long supported changes to the state’s planning policies and enabling statutes so that we can be more effective in improving the quality of life within our communities,” says Hails.

When it comes to issues planners can effectively address, the highest-ranking concern of U.S. voters (76%) is having adequate schools and educational facilities. Ensuring an ample availability of healthcare facilities, family support services and police ranked second (74%). Creating and protecting parks and recreation areas was a priority for 69% of respondents.

Americans also want planners to preserve farmland and open space (67%); protect wetlands and other natural areas (65%); and create affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income families (64%). Other issues planners should address include limiting commercial development to specific areas within a community (59%); creating and improving transportation alternatives, such as light-rail, bus systems, bike paths and pedestrian walkways (58%); promoting redevelopment of older and abandoned industrial sites (58%); and revitalizing inner city and downtown areas (57%).

About one-quarter (26%) of voters live in a suburb compared with 24% who live in small to medium cities and 19% who live in large cities. When asked what might lead voters to live in an urban setting, better schools ranked first, followed by lower crime rates, lower property taxes, and shorter commutes. The number of people who drive to work alone is five times greater than the combined total of those who travel to work by public transportation, carpools or walking.

Results of the APA/AICP poll show broad public support for a federal Smart Growth agenda in Congress. Three-quarters of voters (78%) want the upcoming 107th Congress to provide tools and resources to help communities solve problems associated with urban growth and issues involving land use; 42% believe it is very important for Congress to take action. About three-quarters of respondents say it is important for the new President to help communities deal with urban growth.

 

Group: State falls behind in preserving 1 million acres
The Herald-Sun    March 21, 2001     http://www.herald-sun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?URN=0345771719

Associated Press


RALEIGH - North Carolina is lagging far behind the pace needed to reach its goal of protecting 1 million acres of undeveloped land by 2010, according to researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Closing the gap would require roughly $125 million more a year for land conservation, according to a report from the university's Environmental Finance Center.

Former Gov. Jim Hunt proposed the goal last spring, and it was adopted by the General Assembly in June.

According to the center's report, federal, state and local governments and private conservation groups preserve between 43,000 and 63,000 acres a year in North Carolina. The state would need to average 100,000 acres annually to reach its goal.

Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources Bill Ross plans to create an open-space task force that would report to him, but has not had time since taking office to study the issue in detail, spokeswoman Johanna Reese said.

"We're not worried about being behind. It's way too early for that," Reese said. "Initiatives like this start off slow and build momentum."

State officials are counting on local governments and private conservation groups to help through donations of land and conservation easements.

It is unlikely that Ross and other department officials will consider new spending for open space as long as the state is dealing with a budget crisis, said Marc deBree, the department's coordinator for the million-acre initiative.

"I think they're still trying to make sure that existing initiatives are still funded." deBree said.

 

Govs Push Conservation On Private Lands

By John Nagy, Staff Writer Stateline.org       March 26, 2001     http://stateline.org/story.cfm?StoryID=121165

 

Recently updated federal figures indicate that privately-owned working lands account for roughly 1.4 billion acres, or 73 percent, of the nation’s 1.9 billion acres outside of Alaska. Residential and commercial development covers 98.3 million acres. Over 11 million were added in the five years leading up to 1997, the last year for which numbers are available.

The National Governors' Association defines working lands as the nation's active, privately-owned farms, ranches and forests that could be better supported and managed "to serve economic, environmental and social goals."

The $17.6 billion that voters in state and local elections have approved for land purchases since 1998 is a powerful index of citizens’ concern for the environment, but buying up open space won’t accomplish enough on its own, a key group of governors said this month at a land policy summit hosted by the National Governors’ Association (NGA) in Washington, DC.

While land acquisitions and regulation have dominated recent conservation policy, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack believes that a "third and more efficient" path toward meeting basic environmental goals such as erosion reduction, wetlands restoration and improved water quality begins at the feet of the nation’s farmers, ranchers and forest landowners.

"The things we do to make our natural resources more profitable can also lead to their destruction. . . . Iowa’s environment depends on our improving practices on working lands," said Vilsack, the Democratic chair of NGA’s natural resources committee who prompted organization of the one-day meeting on March 16.

Vilsack, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating (R), and Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening (D) endorsed expanded federal and state support for landowners’ voluntary efforts to protect the environment and preserve rural communities by stemming the flow of productive lands into the hands of residential and commercial developers.

Recently updated federal figures indicate that privately-owned working lands account for roughly 1.4 billion acres, or 73 percent, of the nation’s 1.9 billion acres outside of Alaska. Residential and commercial development covers 98.3 million acres. Over 11 million were added in the five years leading up to 1997, the last year for which numbers are available.

Iowa has more of its land (95 percent) in private hands than any other state, Vilsack said.

"Every day valuable forest, crop and ranch land is increasingly threatened by sprawl. There is a sense of urgency to act now to preserve our rural heritage, our natural resources, and our quality of life," Glendening, who has championed "smart growth" policies as NGA’s chairman, told about 200 representatives of conservation interests.

"The time and public support have never been better for a . . . comprehensive, visionary effort" to sustain private working lands, said Land Trust Alliance (LTA) president Jean Hocker, whose organization represents 1,200 local land trusts nationwide.

How To Fund A Costly Proposition?

The NGA meeting brought landowners together with environmental groups, land policy scholars and local, state and federal officials to discuss partnerships that would compensate farm, ranch and forest operators for the public benefits, or "conservation commodities," they produce on their lands alongside more traditional harvests.

But conference participants agreed that a meaningful commitment to working lands conservation would require more than incremental increases in public investment. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture currently spends about $3 billion per year on conservation, the governors said this is less than half the level of aid provided during the response to the Dust Bowl crisis that launched federal conservation programs 60 years ago.

USDA’s Farmland Protection Program is one example of underfunding, they said. The FPP made $35 million in grants toward the purchase of conservation easements between 1996 and 1998, drawing an additional $230 million in state, local and tribal investments that has shielded 127,000 acres from development.

Since then, the program has received marginal appropriations and turned away more than half of the 1,000 farmers who asked to participate, according to the American Farmland Trust, a national conservation group.

Thousands of farmers similarly missed out on limited assistance for wetlands and wildlife habitat restoration and the reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use, according to a report released this month by Environmental Defense.

Complex rules and poor outreach also hamper participation in state and federal programs, the governors said.

Vilsack said that no spending figure has yet been targeted, but leading conservationists such as Craig Cox of the Iowa-based Soil and Water Conservation Society have estimated as much as $10 billion per year may be needed to realize genuine environmental benefits.

"I don’t think that conservation can . . . save agriculture, but I think it can help. . . . We simply won’t achieve what we could achieve without significant investment at the federal level and at the state level," Cox said.

LTA’s Hocker praised President George W. Bush for including $900 million in his budget proposal for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which finances the acquisition and development of federal and state recreational lands, but said that greater support for private conservation efforts must become a priority.

Looking High

The call for working lands conservation comes at a time when federal agricultural outlays have reached controversial record highs and more states are facing the sort of revenue shortfalls that historically pinch environmental spending.

Congress must approve a new plan for long-term agricultural spending by the end of 2002. Farm state lawmakers on Capitol Hill are pushing for a greater federal commitment to agriculture amid scrutiny over the $32 billion spent on farm programs in FY2000. But not all of them are requesting new funds money for conservation.

Advocates say that conservation is the key to stabilizing farm incomes and realizing the greatest economic and environmental returns on investments in the land. In a March 1 letter, a coalition of environmental, conservation and recreational groups told U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R) that "helping farmers, ranchers and foresters maintain clean water and air, productive farmland and open space, wildlife habitat and safer, fresher food … can and should become the basis for renewing the public’s … support of agriculture." "What we hope for is a redesign of the program so the states have a very substantial involvement with delivering working lands conservation. Most of the funding is probably going to have to be federal," said Joel Hirschhorn, director of natural resource policy studies at NGA’s Center for Best Practices.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) told conferees he was preparing legislation that may include a tiered system of contracted payments of as much as $50,000 per year to farmers who enroll their lands in targeted conservation programs that benefit wildlife and enhance the quality of the air, land and water.

But agriculture scholars say a number of factors – the sheer number of agricultural pollution sources, the difficulty of measuring results, regional variations, and the whims of nature – will complicate the design of new environmental subsidies.

Looking Low

The states’ capabilities are also in question. The Florida Senate has siphoned $100 million away from the $3 billion Forever Florida program to fuel healthcare and education programs that many lawmakers consider a higher priority. And with an eye toward increases for healthcare, the Maryland House of Delegates trimmed $35 million away from the $109 million Glendening requested for mass transit and land preservation initiatives before sending the budget to the state Senate.

The governor’s office says he plans to work actively with lawmakers to restore the allocations. "We just can’t cut back on these programs and expect that we’re going to be successful. So we’re asking farmers to do more, we’re asking the private sector to do more and we’ve got to lead by example," he said at the NGA meeting.

"We’re going to experience some lean years after a number of fat years. The governors may have to own up to the fact that private conservation is not the silver bullet," said Deron Lovaas, who coordinates sprawl initiatives for the Sierra Club. Lovaas said his organization supports greater funding for voluntary, private conservation practices.

Keating, the top Republican on the NGA committee, said he would fight for conservation spending as lawmakers hash out Oklahoma’s budget, which remains flush with oil and gas revenues even as neighbors in the South and Midwest are starting to struggle. But he echoed suggestions that Congress should bankroll the lion’s share of funding increases for current programs and new proposals.

 

Group plans for county's conservation

By Jeremy Shrader, Times-News Staff Writer June 13, 2001 http://www.hendersonvillenews.com/news/news.asp?ID=3101

 

More than 20 local leaders met at a community land conservation planning session sponsored by Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy at the University of North Carolina at Asheville’s Kellogg Center on Monday.

“We wanted to get some input from community leaders and stakeholders about our voluntary land conservation plan that we are developing for Hendersonville and Transylvania counties,” said Kieran Roe, executive director of the conservancy, a nonprofit organization that aims to conserve the counties’ natural heritage areas.

“We need to begin to articulate some goals and prioritize the possibilities for conservation practices in Transylvania and Henderson counties,” said Anne Valentine, president of the conservancy.

A conservancy plan calls for ways to protect natural heritage areas, streams and waterways and existing protected areas linking national forests to other sites from development, Roe said.

“We don’t expect to stop development,” Roe said. “We want to channel development away from the natural protective areas.”

Organizations like Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy help this process by purchasing the land or developing conservation easements with willing property owners.

“An easement is a voluntary agreement between land owners and a qualified conservancy group that restricts certain uses of their land in exchange for tax benefits,” Roe said.

Those at the planning session identified “green infrastructure” and green spaces in the community.

Green infrastructure is the undeveloped areas that provide benefits to the communities and are protected from commercial use, Roe said.

Examples of green infrastructure are the Pisgah National Forest and DuPont State Forest.

Although green infrastructure helps protect areas from development, it also encourages economic development in an area.

Local surveys found that homes near parks and open space usually sell for more than similar homes in other areas, and that businesses locate where quality of life indicators are high.

Undeveloped lands are also seen as attractive locations for subdivisions and other developments, both potential threats to the conservation of scenic quality.

“Private property owners need to see advantages so they won’t sell their land,” said Jimmy Cowan, field representative for N.C. Farm Bureau.

But, he said, “It’s hard for someone not to sell their land so that they can pay their kid’s way through college.”

 

 

Conservation money at risk; The impact of the trust funds in our local area is dramatic

Camilla Herlivich and Katherine Skinner                          July 5, 2001 Wilmington Morning Star

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/opinion/editorials/stories/1532editorialstorypage.html

 

The coastal region of North Carolina is a beautiful place to live; yet with each passing day, the surrounding landscape changes as unprecedented growth places strains on our communities. Each day that we wait to protect our natural resources, we lose valuable opportunities to save irreplaceable environmental assets. As citizens, we have the opportunity, indeed the obligation - to join together to protect our communities, balancing "growth and green" to ensure that the quality of life and natural bounty we all treasure is preserved.

A critical component of our state's conservation strategy is now at risk. Over the past 12 years, North Carolina has created a group of conservation trust funds to help preserve and protect our most precious environmental resources. In this tight budget year in North Carolina, those trust funds are now under threat of reduction. Only our collective action today, as a statewide force of concerned citizens, can ensure that they are fully funded.

The conservation trust funds include the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Farmland Preservation Trust Fund, Natural Heritage Trust Fund, and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund. It has been less than two decades since the first fund was established and an impressive 363,200 acres of North Carolina's forests, farmlands, state and local parks, greenways, gamelands, coastal reserves, river buffers, wetlands, and natural habitats have been protected with these programs.

In 2000, our governor and General Assembly pledged to do even more to preserve an additional million acres in the state within the next 10 years. That pledge will require a comprehensive statewide effort, with the legislature and conservation groups working together for the good of all, supported by increased funding from both the public and the private sector.

The impact of the trust funds in our local area is dramatic. The N.C. Coastal Land Trust is working with the National Audubon Society and Natural Heritage Trust Fund to save Lea Island in Pender County. The island is an important habitat for numerous bird populations and will be a valuable educational resource. The National Heritage Trust Fund has also protected Masonboro Island, which is now under the ownership of the Division of Coastal Management.

In Pitt County, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund has provided for preservation of riparian buffers along the Tar River and Otter Creek, protecting an amazingly complex natural habitat for wild turkey, river otter, beaver, songbirds and deer, along with a diverse array of native plants. The fund has also help|ed to provide clean drinking water for communities throughout eastern North Carolina.

Farmland preservation is another pressing issue in our region. In the last two years, The N.C. Coastal Land Trust has received one grant from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund to save 130 acres on the Rayburn Farm in Perquimans County and has also received donated conservation easements on two multi-generational farms in Pasquotank County. Dozens of other worthy regional farmland projects await the outcome of this year's budget decisions.

North Carolina's conservation trust funds are critical to our future, for they offer us the chance to save precious and irreplaceable natural resources that have no other viable source of funding. Indeed, every dollar invested in the trust funds is maximized to protect resources valued at 10 to 20 times that amount. Private conservation organizations like the Coastal Land Trust, The North Carolina Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, and the Conservation Trust for North Carolina rely on the conservation funds to augment the private funds given by donors for the protection of critical natural lands for the benefit of all our communities.

Now, as the General Assembly reviews the future of the trust funds as part of the state budget process, make your voice heard by contacting your state representatives. Don't delay; please call, write, or e-mail them within a week. Ask your legislators to fully fund the conservation trust funds for the present and the future of all North Carolinians.

Katherine Skinner is the executive director of the North Carolina Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. Camilla Herlevich is the executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust.

 

Heritage group buys large farm

By MARK BRUMLEY, Staff Writer News & Record, 7/08/01

http://www.news-record.com/news/local/rand/heritage.htm

 

FARMER -- R.C. and Dorothy Millikan bought their first tract of land on rural High Pine Church Road in 1957 and added to it over the years until they had nearly 500 acres.

After R.C. Millikan died 12 years ago, his wife wondered what would become of the pasture land of their cattle farm. She was approached by developers, but she didn't want the property to fall into their hands.

"There's enough housing developments all over the country," said Millikan, 85. "I didn't want to see a trailer park here."

Millikan eventually found a buyer that also wants to protect the farm as part of a new rural economic development approach that envisions the central North Carolina countryside as a place where urban families can escape to for recreation, cultural enrichment and spiritual contemplation.

The movement to turn the Uwharrie Lakes Region as North Carolina's "Central Park" took a major step forward in May with the Uwharrie Heritage Corp.'s purchase of the Millikan's sprawling cattle farm in southwestern Randolph County. The land is just west of the Uwharrie National Forest.

"This is a quite significant event," said Dr. David Jones, the North Carolina Zoo director who sits on the Uwharrie Heritage Corp.'s board of directors and chairman of the Yadkin-PeeDee Lakes Project.

Uwharrie Heritage bought the Millikan's three tracts totaling 487 acres on May 23. The farm is located on High Pine Church Road in the New Hope area just west of the Uwharrie National Forest, with a view of Black Mountain.

Millikan -- who has the right to live on the property for the rest of her life -- said she believes her family's land is in good hands.

"I think it's better used for cattle farming," she said. "It's kind of rolling."

Uwharrie Heritage had earlier purchased 247 adjoining acres, including part of the historic Lassiter Mill property. The group now owns 2 miles of land along the Uwharrie River.

Jones said the $1.5 million purchase of the Millikan farm was made possible by the Uwharrie Heritage Corp.'s sale of the Forks property, so named because it is nestled between the juncture of the Pee Dee and Rocky rivers in southern Stanley County. The 1,100 acres are being placed in a conservation easement, preventing its development, and will be the location of a horse farm.

Uwharrie Heritage was established in 1998 by the Uwharrie Capital Corp., the parent company of the Bank of Stanley and the Bank of Anson. The board also includes other shareholders with a similar interest in balancing conservation and economic development, Jones said.

Jones said the corporation is considering two scenarios for the southwestern Randolph County property.

The first is to place it in a conservation easement and resell it, similar to the Forks property in Stanley County.

The second -- which Jones said he favors -- would be to turn the property into a recreation site where people could go for outdoor activities such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, fishing, canoeing and archery. The cattle farm would also serve as an agri-tourism site.

Jones said he envisions the Millikan farm and surrounding tracts as the first of about six recreation sites in central North Carolina.

"What you're creating is a new form of rural economy," Jones said.

That economy would rely less on the declining farming, timber harvesting and textile industries and more on natural heritage tourism, which focuses on outdoor activities and historical site.

"The reality is we're not going to be able to recruit the sort of small industry we were able to recruit 30 or 40 years," Jones said.

A recent survey of 2,600 urban households by the business schools at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Appalachian State University shows there's a demand among Greensboro and Charlotte residents for more outdoor recreation opportunities, Jones said. Seventy-two percent identified it as a priority.

Jones said he will soon take the survey to the councils of both cities and ask for their political, planning and financial support of the Central Park Concept. He said quick access to rural recreation sites will benefit residents and make the cities more attractive to new business es concerned about quality of life for their employees.

"In the Uwharries, we have some of the best outdoor recreation potential of anywhere in the state," Jones said.

 

Agreement will conserve estate of 320 acres near Siler City
By ROB SHAPARD    Chapel Hill Herald         July 15, 2001

http://www.herald-sun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?URN=0355529224

SILER CITY - All 320 acres of Ann Von Gruenigen's Chatham County farm are under a conservation easement, including her homestead, cattle pastures and forested land.

Von Gruenigen donated the easement to the Triangle Land Conservancy in December, and the Chatham County Commissioners officially thanked her for that move Monday.

The easement means Von Gruenigen essentially has agreed never to develop the property, which is about five miles south of Siler City. The Triangle Land Conservancy holds the easement in perpetuity, but Von Gruenigen retains ownership of the property and she can continue uses like agriculture and cutting timber.

"I have always been bothered by development," Von Gruenigen said Friday. "I've been a conservationist since I was a child. I can't remember when I wasn't.

"When I saw things developing around here, I became aware of the danger that this land is in," she said.

Von Gruenigen, 67, grew up in northern Ohio, but she was living in Raleigh when she bought the Chatham farm in 1974. She retired after teaching English, writing and public speaking at N.C. State University.

"I'm not a city person," Von Gruenigen said.

She raises beef cattle on part of the farm, known locally as the Johnson homestead, named after the family that moved there in the late 1800s, Von Gruenigen said.

By donating the easement, she gets both state and federal tax benefits.

For starters, the overall value of the property is decreased, which is beneficial when estate taxes are figured, said Kevin Brice, the TLC's associate director.

In terms of income taxes, the value of the donated easement counts as a deduction at the federal level.

That value is calculated as the difference between the assessed value of her farm as it is now and another assessment of the farm as if it were fully developed, Von Gruenigen said.

And for state taxes, North Carolina has a program that gives landowners a tax credit of 25 percent of the value of the donation. The credit is capped at $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation, Brice said.

Von Gruenigen said that, with Chatham County continuing to grow, she hopes other landowners will set up easements.

"If we could have pockets of conserved land, I think that in itself would be one of the biggest deterrents to a developer," she said.

"If you have 100 acres [of conserved land] here and a couple hundred acres there, it's just not going to look as inviting."

 

 

 

Farm owners donate land to conservancy:  By designating 81-acre tract as an easement, the Nutter family can be sure it will not be developed
By ROB SHAPARD   Chapel Hill Herald    Sunday, July 15, 2001
http://www.herald-sun.com/tools/printfriendly.cfm?URN=0355529229

 

HILLSBOROUGH - The owners of Maple View Farm have agreed to donate a conservation easement on about 81 wooded acres south of Dairyland Road.

The Nutter family's agreement with the Triangle Land Conservancy means that nearly half the farm's 400 or so acres are now under easements, including the initial 107 acres for which the family donated an easement to the conservancy in 1995.

The agreement on the 81 acres was finalized June 27, said Kevin Brice, the conservancy's associate director.

The easements mean the Nutters or their heirs can never turn those 188 acres into a subdivision or other type of development. The family gets tax benefits, and it retains ownership and the right to continue uses like agriculture and harvesting timber.

"I don't know what will happen to it in the future, but they'll never build houses on it," Bob Nutter said Friday about the 81-acre tract.

In the past, the Nutters have sold some of their land for five-acre and 10-acre home sites. But with development pressure reaching from the towns toward the farm's rolling fields, the family also has resisted offers for larger-scale development.

Chris Nutter remembers one developer who approached her and her husband a few years ago.

"He made the mistake of saying to us, 'Wouldn't it be wonderful to sit here on your front porch and see all the beautiful houses?' " Nutter said.

"We looked at him rather blankly, I'm sure, and we said, 'No, we like what we see now.'

"It's really nice to sit here now and not see it change, except for the seasons. We want other people to see that, too."

The desires to preserve open space and keep their land for farm uses, and to lower the estate taxes that will kick in when they die, have all been part of the Nutters' decision.

Bob Nutter said that, without the easements, he believes his heirs would have had no choice but to sell the land to cover the estate taxes.

Easements lower the estate taxes because the land has been devalued, Brice said.

Also, the value of such donated easements counts as a deduction from federal income taxes. That value can be calculated as the difference between the assessed value of the property in its current state and another assessment of the property as if it were fully developed.

At the state-tax level, North Carolina has a program that gives landowners a tax credit of 25 percent of the donation's value. The credit is capped at $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a corporation, Brice said.

Brice described North Carolina's conservation tax-credit program as the most generous in the United States. But he also said the current state budget proposal calls for ending that program by 2003.

He said Triangle Land Conservancy and other organizations are lobbying against that move.

The Nutters have taken a phased approach to putting their land in conservation easements, and they may do more easements in the future. But Bob Nutter also said that will depend on things like the future of North Carolina's tax-credit program.

"We just have to play it by ear as we go along, because [the government] keeps changing the rules all the time," he said.

The Nutter property under easements is partly connected to land near the Dairyland Road-Dodsons Crossroads intersection that owner Tim Toben put under a conservation easement last year.

That land - about 143 acres - includes part of Pickards Mountain and is part of a 350-acre tract that Toben purchased in 1999.

The 143-acre portion is home to the largest stand of chestnut oaks in Orange County, as well as the headwaters of Morgan Creek and a stretch of Cane Creek.

Toben made the easement agreement with the Raleigh-based Conservation Trust for North Carolina.

And nearby, Charles and Barbara Keith have donated a conservation easement to Triangle Land Conservancy on about 40 acres that are part of Pickards Mountain. The Keith family donated that easement in 1999 and may do more easements as well, Brice said.

Toward Mebane, the Orange County government reached its first agreement this spring for an easement, on about 70 acres on High Rock Road owned by the Walters family.

As part of its Lands Legacy program, the county agreed to pay Victor Walters about $215,000 for the easement, with a state grant covering half the cost.

 

Greenway project worthy of support

Opinion from the July 20, 2001 print edition, The Business Journal of Charlotte - July 23, 2001
http://charlotte.bcentral.com/charlotte/stories/2001/07/23/editorial1.html

 

The plans to create a greenway along Little Sugar Creek are as laudatory as they are ambitious. Such vision has been in short supply in the creation of green spaces in our community, and it's heartening to see public and private officials crafting bold plans to address the shortage of sorely needed community amenities.

The plan's boldness can be measured by the mile -- 12 in fact, stretching all the way from the edge of uptown down along the creekway to the South Carolina border.

An intriguing aspect is the removal of manmade obstacles to the natural flow of the creek, which obviously has not been regarded in the past as a natural ecosystem worth celebrating and protecting. Instead, along Kings Drive, property owners were allowed to erect parking lots above the creek. Such development has done little to enhance the vitality of the waterway.

The greenway will reintroduce a natural environment to uptown and Midtown -- a smaller but similar greenway along McAlpine Creek boasts the largest number of bird species in the city. The path of the creek will also allow links to parks along the way, adding to its value to the community.

The greenway could also serve as a catalyst for development. Indeed, Pappas Properties' plans to redevelop Midtown Square includes creek restoration. Pappas' plans embrace the waterway, proposing cafes along its banks.

Greenway backers see opportunities for restaurants, retail and housing at three or four points along the way.

Ambitious plans usually require money. In this case, it's a rather serious sum -- some $52.5 million, mostly for land. The county is buying some of the land, but is hoping to attract private sources for much of the bill. That leaves a role for the business community.

"I'd hope we'll see the private sector help foster it," says Tommy Norman, president of Norcom Development and a key advocate. "It makes good business sense."

Besides financial contributions, the business community and public at large is invited to provide input on the greenway's design and features. The first workshop is slated for Aug. 15 at 5:30 p.m. at the Terrell building at Central Piedmont Community College; Norman will outline financing needs.

 

Forests under stress
July 21, 2001          http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/opinion/editorials/stories/2021editorialstorypage.html

 

Trees are being lost faster than they’re being replaced in southeastern North Carolina. That trend needs to be watched closely if the region is to protect the forestry industry that provides jobs and timber and still protect vital environmental assets.

More trees were lost in the 1990s than were replanted, according to a survey of forests in a 21-county area in the state’s Southern Coastal Plain conducted by the U.S. Forest Service.

Those losses were skewed by Hurricane Fran in 1996, which is blamed for knocking down the equivalent of four years’ worth of tree harvests.

But more trees were also harvested for timber, and more acres are now covered with young trees that were planted as replacements. The acreage of trees less than 5 inches in diameter increased more than 50 percent between 1990 and 1999, according to the survey.

Some forestry experts note that without the unusual losses from hurricane winds, the shift would not be that dramatic.

But even so, it is clear that forests across the South are under growing stress as a result of demand for trees and loss of forest land to suburban sprawl.

Similar surveys scheduled over the next three years in the forests in other sections of the state should give a better picture of timber trends.

Of particular concern to environmentalists is the potential that the loss of trees in the southeastern section of the state might increase pressure to harvest more trees in the western sections, especially to supply new chip mills.

There are also concerns about whether replacing harvested trees with pine plantations might be driving out some species of pines, including the longleaf pine, as well as displacing some species of birds.

Timber company representatives dispute some of those claims, noting that biologists have found a variety of birds in and around pine plantations. Ongoing studies should give a better idea about what’s going on.

There’s one issue that can’t be disputed, however. The timberland of Southeastern North Carolina is shrinking as more roads, farms and houses encroach on it. While forests still covered about 61 percent of the land in the region in 1999, more than 187,000 acres of trees had disappeared since 1990.

The results of the Forest Service survey leave a lot of questions unanswered, but they do show that one of the region’s greatest resources is under increasing stress.

 

 

 

Alabama developer seeks a mix:  Proposed for 159 acres: offices, shops, condos, maybe 4-star hotel

By RICHARD STRADLING AND STEVE CANNON    July 21, 2001

http://cgi.newsobserver.com/standing/help/tools/_scripts/friendly-print.cgi

 

Days after the Raleigh City Council adopted a land-use plan that called for "mixed-use" development on 159 acres of state land near the Entertainment and Sports Arena, along comes an Alabama development company that says it wants to build just that. Colonial Properties Trust, which will pay $14.5 million for the land, says it wants to build a mix of offices, shops and restaurants and either apartments or condominiums. It also is looking at the possibility of a high-end hotel at the site. But the company says it needs a few months to work out the details before asking the city to rezone the property.

The project will provide an early test of the city's arena-area land plan, as well as new design guidelines that encourage pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use developments. The project also will be closely scrutinized because the land, used for decades by N.C. State University for its agriculture programs, sits prominently at the western entrance to the city and includes two creeks that neighbors and environmentalists would like to see protected.

The city's land-use plan calls for no-build zones along the creeks and includes 75-foot buffers along Interstate 40 and Wade Avenue, both of which the state would require as a condition of the sale.

The plan and guidelines should make it easier for Colonial Properties, the city and the public to reach consensus on the company's project, said Neal Hunt, chairman of Raleigh's Planning Commission.

"I think we've got the structure in place to make sure that it's done right," Hunt said.

Some already have hopes for the land.

Paul Baragona, who has lived in West Raleigh for 20 years, says he would hate to see the land stripped clean of trees or turned into just another strip mall. Perry Safran, a member of the Centennial Authority, which oversees the arena, thinks it could be a good place for the four-star hotel that the arena needs to land big events such as NCAA tournaments or an NHL all-star game.

And Bruce Mamel, who lives less than a mile from the land and leads the West Raleigh citizens advisory committee, would like to see the company include bike paths and walking trails in its design.

Like nearly everyone else in the Triangle, Mamel knows nothing about Colonial Properties or its work in other cities.

"I don't know the first thing about them," he said. "Where are they from again, Alabama?"

Colonial Properties has spent much of its 30-year history buying and developing midsized shopping centers and apartment complexes throughout the Southeast. Recently, however, it has shifted its focus toward mixed-use developments.

"We made a clear decision," said Charles A. McGehee, executive vice president. "We saw more interest from our office clients in having the amenities of a mixed-use park."

The company has started the largest development in its history on a 175-acre parcel on Interstate 4 north of Orlando, Fla. Called TownPark, the project includes 1 million square feet of offices, plus stores and restaurants, apartments and hotels. Construction isn't finished on the first 155,000-square-foot office building, but the company has already signed up tenants to occupy 300,000 square feet.

"They've done very well from a competition standpoint," said Nan McCormick, senior vice president of CB Richard Ellis in Orlando. "They really have sold that town concept to tenants, where the apartments are wired to the offices."

McGehee said the larger projects, including the one in West Raleigh, will help raise the profile of a company that is one of the largest real-estate investment trusts in the Southeast but not well known outside of its hometown.

McGehee said the area would be a natural place for a four-star hotel. The company, he said, would seek out a hotel developer to buy a site.

"That's really market-driven," he said. "If we could not get a really high quality hotel for the site, we would not want it to be a part of the site. Our clients, I'm sure, wouldn't want it to be part of the site unless it was of the highest quality."

As for the trees, McGehee said his company takes great pains to preserve trees and natural features at its developments.

"One of the reasons we called [the Orlando project] TownPark was because we literally created a park in the middle of the development," he said. "We certainly realize that the [Raleigh] site is nicely wooded and hope to use that as a feature."

That should hearten Baragona. He was sorry to hear that a development company is buying the land, but he knew it was inevitable.

"It had to go," he said. "There's too much potential wealth sitting around that arena to let it stay trees."

 

Report: Development doesn’t always equal dollars for counties

Asheville Citizen-Times, 7/23/01

 

FRANKLINA new report shows that development is not always profitable for county governments.
In fact, the report says, high growth could cost counties.
The conservation groups The Land Trust for the Little Tennessee and the Little Tennessee Watershed Association funded the report, tilted "The Fiscal Impact of Alternative Land Uses in Macon County." Jeremy Jones, a Western Carolina University student who recently graduated, and Susan Kask, an economics professor who has since left WCU, produced the report after studying Macon County’s growth patterns last year.
The report challenges the conventional notion that development means a larger tax base and more revenue for county governments. It uses county records to make the case that preserving open space and farmland will cost less because those land uses do not require as many services as homes or businesses.
Macon County, one of the fastest-growing areas in the state with a 27 percent population increase since 1990, is currently trying to create its first land-use plan. County leaders recently approved a development moratorium to buy time while they set up the land-use plan.
It is unclear what the report will mean to landowners in Macon County. County Manager Sam Greenwood said he had not had a chance to read the report and declined to comment on whether it would be used to shape the county’s land-use plan.
Paul Carlson, director of the land trust, said the report is not designed to stop growth.
"I think the important thing to realize is that this is not anti-development," he said. "It helps support the fact that rural land is important to preserve."
Carlson said his group and the watershed association funded the report with the hope that it will provide more information to county leaders as they make land-use decisions. He said the report’s findings were consistent with similar reports produced in other fast-growing areas of the country.
Some builders say the report’s conclusions are debatable because conservation groups funded it.
"I’d bet it is flawed and skewed to get the results that they wanted when they began," said Reggie Holland, owner of Holland Construction and Real Estate in Franklin. "I would sure hate to see them start trying to keep people from selling land."
Using a tax rate of $.43 per $100 of land value, the report estimates that the county will loose $532 on a 30-acre land tract divided into 10 three-acre residential lots with homes. The same land tract would put $290 into county coffers if it were left as open or agricultural space.
The undeveloped land is more profitable for the county, according to the report, because it requires only two services provided by local government – public safety and agricultural extension. Residential property - the most taxing – requires seven services ranging from education to recreational opportunities.
Barbara McRae, a member of the Vision 2025 County Advisory Committee, said committee members are aware of the report but that they have not discussed incorporating its findings into the new land-use plan.
"I’m sure that it has a lot of validity," McRae said. "I do think there is a cost to development and maybe we overlook that." The Vision 2025 committee is largely responsible for developing the county’s land-use plan.
Jim Stokoe, assistant director of the Land-of-Sky Regional Council in Asheville, said the report provides valuable information for Western North Carolina counties dealing with growth.
"We are beginning to investigate the concept of natural capitalism, which says that at least two of the three elements of natural capital - scenic beauty, ecosystem services and natural resources - are undervalued in our economy because they are treated primarily as free services," he said.

Editorial: Raleigh's heartland

July 23, 2001          http://cgi.newsobserver.com/standing/help/tools/_scripts/friendly-print.cgi

 

No man-made development could make a finer gateway into Raleigh than the divine creations now on 159 acres at Wade Avenue and Inter-state 40. To newcomers, the land's thick stands of pine and cedar, its fields and rambling stream speak volumes about the kind of place this city is.

But this place is changing. Within two miles of that location is now the Enter-tainment and Sports Arena and eventually will be a performing arts center and two stops on a regional rail system. It was inevitable that somebody would want to buy those high-profile acres from N.C. State University after the university decided the land was surplus. Last week, The N&O learned that a Birmingham, Ala., real estate company will soon sign a contract with the university for $14.5 million.

And if it can convince the city to rezone the property, Colonial Properties Trust plans to build a collection of homes, offices and restaurants comparable to the mixed-use projects it has built in other Southern states. From all reports, Colonial Properties is a well-managed company that can raise plenty of capital to do first-quality work. And the broad outline of its plan seems to follow the city's plan for the area developed in consultation with neighboring residents over the past year.

Still, the company must understand that its development will be compared to what was there before -- nature. To show suitable respect for the land it wants to change, Colonial Properties would do well to call on those residents who devoted their time to the planning process and listen. Some were disappointed that the plan set aside only 20 acres to remain undeveloped along the creek cutting through the property. Colonial could win friends by including more unspoiled land in its eventual development plan. And the company will need friends not only to have the land rezoned from agricultural to mixed use, but to complete its construction work under strict scrutiny. After all, the finished product will still speak volumes about the kind of place this is.

 

Orange County Easement Helping Preserve Farmland

Reporter: Chip Muller       http://www.wral.com/news/862739/index.html

 

These days, farmland near Research Triangle Park is more valuable as pasture for houses than horses. Rising taxes and dropping farm commodity prices are squeezing farmers out of business.

Now, Orange County is trying a new approach: Paying a farmer to keep his land a farm.

On Monday, Victor Walters, Sr. signs over his right to sell his farm to developers. In exchange, Orange County and the state will pay him $215,000.

In the 1970s, before anyone could have imagined growth in the area, Walters' daughter-in-law joined an agricultural preservation committee.

"Prime farmland is an irreplaceable physical and economic asset to Orange County," says Elizabeth Walters.

She pushed for a buy out program that pays farmers to give up their right to sell their farm to a developer. This year, the first easement in Orange County went to her father-in-law.

Walters, 92, and his son, Victor, Junior, 65, have worked the farm for decades. They think the program is an excellent way to keep it in the family.

"It helps my father's peace of mind, it helps the county to preserve some open space, and me, there's a good chance I'll never have a reason to sell it. It guarantees that I've got to continue to look after it," says Walters, Jr.

The Walters own over 400 acres of farmland. They could have sold it for as much as $20,000 an acre to a developer.

After the deal goes through, 70 acres of their farm will be permanently off limits to developers.

Half of the money for the easement will come from Orange County taxpayers, and half from the state's small farmland preservation fund.

The farm will probably make the land around it even more valuable, as farms become more and more rare in the future.

 

Growth with vision will save taxpayers money and views
Citizen Times Editorials       Jul 27,2001             http://www.citizen-times.com/editorial/12423111.shtml

 

Going south on N.C. 191 from Biltmore Square Mall to Mills River a few years ago a traveler passed through a pastoral countryside dotted here and there with homes, an occasional church and a few businesses. Grassy fields stretched away toward wooded hills and side roads issued an invitation to drive deeper into the mystery and magic of a mountain landscape.

These days, the traveler’s eye is drawn to frequent signs marking the entrance to one new housing development after another.

Within the past two decades, U.S. 74 South from Asheville toward Chimney Rock ambled past the entrance to the Blue Ridge Parkway, a convenience store or two, A.C. Reynolds High School, homes here and there and the occasional old deserted store. There’s little reason to amble along the road now – at least not until the traveler is well south of Asheville - as new commercial and residential development crowds shoulder-to-shoulder and heavy traffic demands more attention than the passing scenery.

Many people see this new development as a big plus for the county because it grows the tax base and that means the county takes in more money for every penny on the ad valorem tax rate. That should mean the commissioners can tax at a lower rate and the individual taxpayer should be able to pay less, right?

Not exactly, says a recent study titled "The Fiscal Impact of Alternative Land Uses in Macon County," funded by The Land Trust for the Little Tennessee and the Little Tennessee Watershed Association. The study, conducted by economist Susan Kask, who recently left Western Carolina University to teach at Warren Wilson, and Jeremy Jones, a Western Carolina University student who recently graduated, found that typical residential and commercial properties actually cost the county budget by demanding more in tax-supported services than they contribute in property tax revenues.

Using the example of a 30-acre parcel of farmland/open space, the study estimated that the Macon County budget would gain $290 if the land remained farmland, but would lose a net of $532 if converted to 10 three-acre lots with houses on them.

That’s because all those new homes need a much more intensive level of government-provided services – more schools, improved roads, new water and sewer lines, a higher degree of fire and police protection, more administrative services and in some cases added social services. That leads to mushrooming county budget expenditures.

Does that mean growth is bad and should be discouraged?

No, says Paul Carlson, director of Little Tennessee River land trust. Growth obviously brings much that is good – especially when it results in better and more jobs and higher wages.

What it means is that policy makers ought to recognize and do what they can to minimize the costs by providing incentives for growth to occur in areas where the infrastructure to handle it already exists or would be easy to provide.

"I hope it (the study) will help county policy makers explain to their constituents that there are a lot of costs to local government associated with sprawl development," says Carlson.

He said he also hopes the study results in a "general recognition that farmland and open space has fiscal value as well as traditional environmental values."

Kask, one of the reports authors, says the message for policy makers is not don’t grow or change, but think about how you want change to happen.

"Stop and think about what kind of development you want and where you want to put it because where you put it…can lower the cost…. If you cluster residential areas close to services, that’s the most cost effective for counties…."

Clustering development can also sometimes lower environmental costs, such as degraded water and air quality, Kask said, and it preserves the open spaces that attract tourists and newcomers.

One option for encouraging clustered development, suggested in the conclusion to the report, would be to assign a lower tax rate to open space, since it has lower overall costs. That would make it easier for people who want to hold on to their open land to do so as land values continue to increase driving their taxes higher and higher. Unfortunately, that’s not possible in North Carolina without changing the way the tax laws are written. State lawmakers should take a serious look at revising the law to give local governments more ability to provide incentives for smarter growth.

But beyond that, this study demonstrates yet another reason why county commissioners throughout Western North Carolina are doing a disservice to their constituents when the continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the crying need for reasonable land-use regulations.

 

Saving Woodlands

Winston-Salem Journal       Jul 30, 2001 http://www.journalnow.com/wsj/opinion/MGBXD0GARPC.html

 

As North Carolina's cities expand into rural areas, family farms are increasingly threatened by urban sprawl. In an effort to help families hold onto their farms, the General Assembly, more than a decade ago, approved a special tax break for agricultural land that is under development pressure. Now a Concord senator and the state's environmentalists are working on a plan to extend the same tax break to owners of woodlands.

The General Assembly should give this idea serious consideration over the next 10 months and see if it is plausible.

Forests are threatened just as were farms. As development spreads out of Winston-Salem, Charlotte, Raleigh or any other city, the value of land rises. This increased value then appears on the tax bills of landowners. A piece of agriculture or woodland that has only a small value for farming or forestry could have an immense value as a future subdivision.

The temptation for the landowner is to sell the woodland to developers to avoid the high taxes and to make a profit.

Sen. Fletcher Hartsell, a Concord Republican, is pushing legislation that would extend what is called the "use value tax" to forests. Under the bill, owners of woodlands would agree not to use their land for development. In return, the county would tax it not on its value to developers, but on its value as forest.

The bill is likely to have the most impact in the state's urban counties where it is most needed, and it would complement the state's other efforts to preserve open space from development.

Hartsell recognizes that his bill is unlikely to become law in the current session of the General Assembly. That's because it is late in the year, and the bill is far more complex than one might suspect.

Hartsell, a lawyer, says the tax break would have to be coordinated with other environmental initiatives that also involve land values.

There's another reason that the bill should not become law immediately. It carries a very large price tag - $60 million or more.

That $60 million would come right out of the annual property tax revenues of the state's urban counties at a time when they are struggling to meet a great many needs, not the least of which is the need for new schools created by children whose families move into new subdivisions.

Hartsell is hoping that the Senate will create a study commission to consider the tax break in time for the opening of the May 2002 short session. That would be a wise move for the Senate. It would provide the time needed to solve tricky legal questions and, quite possibly, for the economy to improve to the point that counties could afford the revenue loss.

Bond issue is silent candidate on November ballot:  At stake among the $75 million worth of bond projects are schools, parks, senior centers, land preservation.
By VIRGINIA KNAPP         http://www.chapelhillnews.com/Issues/2001/08/08/news02.html

 

CHAPEL HILL -- They won't speak at forums, and you won't see them going door to door. But the $75 million in Orange County bond projects on the Nov. 6 ballot is sure to attract as much attention as any of the flesh-and-blood candidates up for election.

"We're not going to make everybody happy, and someone's going to feel like they didn't get as much money as they would like," said Patrick Sullivan, an activist for parks and recreation projects who served on the county committee that examined and ranked capital needs. "Just so long as the bond serves as many people as possible."

Since the beginning of the year, the Orange County Commissioners and citizen volunteers have been evaluating who needs money for what across the county and how those projects can be funded.

The last bond referendum was put to voters in 1997, and $56 million for schools, parks, affordable housing and the Efland sewer system passed overwhelmingly. Voters rejected a ballot question asking for $4.6 million in bonds for a senior center and other county-owned buildings.

While the specific slate of projects has yet to be set this time around, certain needs have remained at the top of the list throughout the debates.

"People are very concerned with school building issues. In the northern end of the county, people really want to see a middle school," Commissioner Steve Halkiotis said. "In Chapel Hill and Carrboro, they want the elementary schools, and there's some growing concern about getting relief for their high school population, which is constantly growing.

"I'm hearing open space ... People want affordable housing, too; and seniors are constantly telling me about the need for senior centers," Halkiotis said. "I'm hearing from all those very diverse groups. It's a reinforcement of the work we did earlier on, with the additional concerns about the high school.

"But all of that stuff we talked about in the work of the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force, all of that stuff has stayed pretty constant," Halkiotis added.

In June, the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force recommended an $85 million bond referendum to fund projects, which would represent a property tax increase of 8.3 cents per $100 valuation.

Those recommendations included Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools' request of two new elementary schools and funding for renovations to older schools and high school expansion. It also included a new middle school for Orange County School and funding for building renovations and expansion of the county schools' central office.

Other items on the list were two new senior centers, money for affordable housing programs, an aquatic center in Chapel Hill, greenways throughout the towns and land preservation in rural sections of the county.

However, the commissioners set an upper limit of $78 million on the bonds after receiving the task force's recommendations. That is more in line with the board's original goal of floating a $75 million bond package, a tax increase of 7.3 cents per $100 valuation.

According to state law, the county has to ask the Local Government Commission for permission to increase its debt before issuing any bonds. In doing so, the commissioners must set maximum amounts for the bonds.

The upper limits for spending in specific categories have been set at $47 million for schools, $20 million for parks and open space, $4 million for two senior centers, $4 million for affordable housing initiatives and $3 million for land preservation.

Sullivan is pleased with the $20 million that the commissioners have earmarked for parks and open space, but warns that voters expect appropriate amounts to be spent on both active recreation and open space preservation.

"A balance can be struck where neither one will be entirely displeased with the final product," Sullivan said, citing Mapleview Farm owner Bob Nutter's gift of land to build a soccer field and his donation of conservation easements on his farmland to keep it from being developed. "(That is) an example of how the needs of both can be served if both sides just give a little bit."

Once the bond projects have been chosen, another crucial step remains before Election Day rolls around. A bond education committee will be appointed by the commissioners to inform community members about the contents of the referendum and drum up support for the projects.

The specific projects and final amounts of the bonds must be set by Sept. 4, after a public hearing scheduled for the Aug. 27 commissioners meeting.

The Board of Commissioners will meet next at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Orange County Courthouse, 106 E. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, to begin making final decisions about the bond projects.

 

Cary maps untouched land:  Town plans to save some of it through purchase, other means

By JAY PRICE, Staff Writer                               August 9, 2001

 

Saying it was time to save farms and forests before they all become new subdivisions, the Cary Town Council set aside $12.5 million last year, instantly making Cary a statewide leader in open-space preservation. Then in June, the town created a permanent $1 million-a-year funding stream for the same purpose. Problem was, the town didn't have a plan for what land to save or how to save it.

That's about to change: After a year and a half of work, including community meetings in rural pockets around town, the planning staff has developed an open-space plan. The Town Council is expected to consider the plan Aug. 23.

Elsewhere in the Triangle, open-space preservation is rising on the priority lists of local governments and voters. Wake, Durham and Orange counties all have active preservation programs.

Last fall, Wake voters approved $15 million in bonds to save open space. Orange County -- which has preserved 686 acres so far at a cost to the county of $2.3 million -- is planning to ask voters whether they want $20 million in bonds for parks and open space, a big jump from the $3 million approved in 1997.

Durham's program, which has targeted key tracts along the Eno River and New Hope Creek among other areas, is funded with annual county allocations and has used bond money.

Cary's plan identifies nearly 10,000 acres of relatively untouched land in and around Cary but says that buying all of it outright would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, far beyond the town's means.

Instead, the plan recommends a mix of methods such as buying development rights, encouraging subdivision designs that set aside more open space, seeking donations, fostering partnerships with nonprofit groups such as the Triangle Land Conservancy, and getting funding from the state, federal and county governments. The plan recommends that Cary focus on preserving 3,400 to 4,250 acres of particularly crucial land, at an estimated cost of $30 million to $81 million.

Only one-quarter of the land would be bought outright. Working with willing property owners, the town would protect the rest by the purchase of development rights, or conservation easements; mandatory conservation design, buffer set-asides and other dedications; and donations, cooperative agreements, and other funding sources.

"It's going to take awhile, yes, and it's going to take a lot of work and funding to preserve that much land, but I think that the council and the community are committed," said Town Council member Nels Roseland, who proposed the idea.

With a plan nearly complete and at least some money in hand, the town needs to persuade folks such as Billy Council, 67, a Green Level resident.

Green Level, with its hundreds of acres of farms and forests just west of town, is part of the biggest cluster of open space highlighted on the plan's map. Not only is the area mostly undeveloped, but it also forms a buffer between Cary and Jordan Lake, where the town gets its drinking water.

Council, a retired well driller, owns a 14-acre spread where he raises an unusual breed of draft ponies and keeps a couple of cows. He said he is all for a plan that would leave the area undeveloped.

"That would tickle me to death," he said. "I think everyone out here would be happy about it."

On the other hand, he said, most folks in the area distrust the town so much that no matter what it proposed, they would be wary. Until recently, Cary was known for a voracious appetite for land to feed its spreading subdivisions.

"They don't even like to see the word 'Cary,' " Council said. "One of my neighbors told me once he'd rather live in a tobacco barn than live in Cary."

And they are among the people whom Cary would have to persuade to sell or donate their land or sell development rights.

Winning over skeptics

Don Belk, the manager of the open-space project, said he is well aware of the attitudes of many landowners in that area toward Cary, and of the tough job the town will have trying to win them over and convince them that the program is voluntary.

"They see a plan and figure that it means heavy-handed requirements will follow," Belk said. "We're just going to have to overcome that fear and make it clear that this plan is not going to require anything of them. It's not going to force anyone to sell or change their use."

As the town worked on the plan, it conducted community meetings in several places, including Green Level. Belk said landowners there seem to be of two minds. Some want things to remain unchanged, while others want Cary to extend water and sewer lines to the area because it would boost the value of their land for development.

Green Level isn't the only place where Cary would save open space. Dozens of tracts large and small are scattered across the developed part of town, even including downtown Cary.

Also shown on the plan map are large undeveloped tracts on the other edges of town, including the south side in the Middle Creek area and farmland owned by N.C. State University on the northeast edge of town.

Land in and around Green Level is likely to appear near the top of the priority list the town would draw up after the plan is approved, Belk said. Land would be ranked on characteristics such as size, likely threat of development, ease of connection with the town's existing parks and greenway system, and environmental significance. The next steps would include contacting landowners and talking with them to explain the program.

Parks, greenways tied in

Other land-use policies could be used to advance the conservation plan. For example, the town could limit development in targeted areas by not extending water and sewer lines, particularly on its western side where soil doesn't work well for septic tanks.

Roseland, an avid mountain biker and hiker, said a key to making the plan work is to tie open-space acquisitions into the system of greenways and parks so that residents can reach and use the land. Large, ecologically important tracts are important, but so are small "pocket" parks peppered throughout the town's neighborhoods, he said.

Critics say the benefits of saving open space aren't worth the hefty cost. But Roseland said towns that have made big investments in open space have proven that isn't true.

A great example, he said, is Fort Collins, a Colorado town about the same size as Cary that town leaders visited last year. Fort Collins has lured business and industry not by offering big financial incentives, but rather by making the town attractive through unusually heavy spending on schools and other infrastructure and preserving open space. Since 1992, Fort Collins and its county government have spent $46 million to save open space.

"If we've got the highest per capita amount of parks, greenways and open space in the region, that would improve the quality of life for existing residents, and if we became known for that, it would encourage high-quality growth," Roseland said.