140 764 1THS_ mm; - UUHHRY MFHU Law-ban State [JHFVGrSHy PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 2/05 c:/CI_R'C/DateDue.indd-p. 1 5 The Danger of Sprawl: Planning for the Protection and Extraction of Construction Aggregates Utilizing Open Space Planning and Design Principles and Techniques By Bradley P. Peterson, R.L.A. August 5, 2004 Michigan State University Master of Urban and Regional Planning Plan B Research UP 889 . Dr. Ellen Bassett, Faculty Advisor Table of Contents Changr W The Problem of Future Scarcity of Subsln'fiice Mineral Deposits W What is Sprawl? Origins of Sprawl MM United States 2000 Census and Land Consmnption Future Growth Nwds Michigan’s Growth Efl‘ects of Saw] Transportation Social and Human Welfitre Environmental and Natural Resources WWW Geology of Michigan and the Nation Value of Construction Aggregates 'I'heCostofDoingBusinessandConflictingiandUse Conflicts with Crushed Stone Aggregate Operatiom Sand and Gravel Operation Conflicts S wth P ' ' Snmt Growth Open Space Planning and Design OpenSpaceleminngwcs—RegbmllnvemoryamiAnalysis Identifying Stakeholders and Assessing Connnunity Goals and Needs Regioml Long-Range Land Use Phn Site Specific Design and Operational Techniques Misconceptions of Open Space Design and the Protections of Traditme Zoning Benefits of Open Space Design Economic Benefits ‘ Ecological Benefits Success Stories of Reclamation Efi‘orts _ g _ .- .' . -.-=.~..‘ ' aun- = L .21 Mm ' M Michg' an QrLd se Reguhtio Refiorm Protecting and Regulating Mining Operations and Resources Define Sprawl and Initiate Reg'nml Planning State Land Division and Phnning Acts Incemive Zoning Options and Training M193 , Need To Recognize Critical the Critical Situation We Face Irnpbment Legislation and Corrective Actions Improve EducationofBoththePublicandMiningOper-ators Endnotes mm Am Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E E Nun—n OMNOOOOM-u-hNNO m———-_--_-u Executive Summary The Problem of Future Scarcity of Subsurface Mineral Deposits There is a problem looming on the horizon that could have very significant impacts on the way we live our every day lives. This problem, if left unsolved, could have reaching implications for generations to come. This problem is the increasing loss of subsurface minerals to development. While not as headline grabbing as toxic waste, poisoning our water supplies, or global warming changing the earth’s climate; the loss of these subsurface resources may have unforeseen and profound impacts on our economy and how we continue to grow as a society. ‘ Subsm'face minerals are essential to nearly every facet of modern society. From the cars we drive, the buildings we live and work in, and the consumer products we use every day, all are derived in some fashion fi‘om mined materials. Historically, in the United States, access to these materials has been readily available with regards to the population centers they were serving. Today however, circumstances are quickly changing with our ever growing population and demand for these resources. While the United States is currently a nation of approximately 293 million people per the United States Bureau of the Census website, societal demand of subsurface minerals, such as sand and gravel deposits, has steadily increased to meet this growing population’s consumption (U .8 Census Bureau, 2004).1 The danger looming on the horizon is in how our society is growing not only in population, but in our patterns of land use. The growth patterns associated with current land use polices and practices point to a disturbing trend of increasing land coverage at an alarming rate, that if continued unchanged will increase the rate of loss of subsurface materials before they can be mined and utilized. The net effect of which will be shortages of needed materials and rising costs of goods derived form these resources. To slow this type of unsustainable growth, Michigan and the nation need to learn new approaches to growing society without utilizing land at rates greater than their populations need; wasting resources we cannot replace. Open Space Planning and Design processes and techniques are tools to help manage growth in a more sustainable way, while at the same time offering unique opportunities to shape land and create new natural resources and habitats. These new resources can then be protected in the post mining land use in harmony with new development. Legal changes are necessary to accomplish this task, namely the rewriting of Michigan Land Division acts and new legislature to protect the aggregate materials and provide for a statewide inventory and analysis of resource locations. Promotion of regional planning efforts is vital in order to help in resolution of multi-jurisdictional land use comprehensive planning and zoning efforts. The public and mining companies need to be aware of the problem and realize that they both have a role to play in making a sustainable fiiture for the State of Michigan. Introduction What is Sprawl? Sprawl is a word that is hard to specifically define, as it has evolved to mean many types of development and deve10pment activity to different people. Some may describe “$me ”to mean strip development along major arterial roads, with characteristic “big box” chain stores that have rapidly expanded across the country in the last twenty years. Others may describe it as expanding suburban development accelerated by the American love of the automobile. While both of these definitions certainly are valid examples of sprawling development patterns, they are incomplete in defining what sprawl truly is and what it encompasses. William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison, in their article “ Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Dtfi'er Across the US. ”, have put a quantifying measure on the definition of sprawl. They state: “lfland is being consumed at afaster rate than population growth, then a metropolitan area can be characterized as “sprawling’.’ propulation is growing more rapidy than land is being consumed for urbanization, then a metropolitan area can be characterized as “densijfving”.2 ‘ This definition, while not perfect as the authors themselves state, does provide a measuring line for evaluating sprawl, because it places a quantitative measure on land use versus population growth rates. The ability to define sprawl in this manner is crucial for evaluating and recognizing land use patterns that threaten natural resources. It is also important however, to understand the historical origins of sprawl in order to form a more complete picture of the influence and effect of sprawl over time. Origins of Sprawl While the exact moment sprawl was born is impossible to determine, Since there is no perfect definition of sprawl, it can be said that the governmental policies just prior to and following the Second World War had a profound effect on land use patterns in the decades to follow. The New Deal programs under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt were designed to revitalize the American economy and major portions of the programs had direct influence on land use patterns. Two of the most significant programs that influence sprawl were policies on housing and highways. Housing starts were near an all time low following the stock market crash of 1929. In order to prevent further economic loss, as Peters Hall states in his book QM Tomorrow “It was an early New Deal experiment - the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC), introduced as an emergency measure of April 1933 to stem farm foreclosures — that introduced into America the long-term, self amortizing mortgage. ”3 Prior to this period the American public was limited to loans that were ranging from 6-7 percent and were limited in term from 5-10 years. The creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) in 1934 opened the door to new financing options for the middle income American. For the first time a 30 year mortgage, with a 3-4 percent interest rate became available. This was because private lenders became backed by the FHA (Hall, 1988).4 With subsequent additional programs such as: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mac), the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the Veteran Administration, the amount of middle and lower income Americans who could qualify for a home mortgage greatly increased (Squires, 2002).5 The governmental policies related to the automobile in America, have worked hand in lmnd with the governmental home and business financing programs to generate the explosion of suburban expansion over the last sixty years. In 1956 the Federal-Aid Highway Act opened the central cities to automobile commuters and for the first time made living outside the central city, while working in the central city, a viable option for middle and upper class citizens. While previous acts had provided federal subsidy for commerce expansion through improvements to highways and county road networks, they avoided connections to the central city core. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act fully endorsed and provided for the access to the central city as a means to expand commerce and drive urban renewal. This was a monumental endeavor encompassing over 41,000 miles of new roads at a cost of approximately $41 billion dollars (Hall, 1988).6 Armed with this new federal initiative for infrastructm‘e and a financial mechanism for funding new home ownership, suburban expansion was a mere matter of time. For the right entrepreneurs, who could see the future potential of these programs, it was a proverbial pot of gold at the end of a development rainbow. One such entrepreneur who became infamous during this time was Abraham Levitt. He and his sons founded a small development company in Long Island, New York in 1929 (Hall, 19.88).7 In a few short years the Levitt company had learned to create fast large scale developments that appealed to the middle and upper class, almost exclusively Caucasian, citizens and returning World War II veterans who wished to escape the real or perceived negative lifestyle of the central city. Vainly named Levittowns, they appeared in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and were quickly bought by an eager citizenry, making Levitt a very wealthy man in a short period of time. To those who benefited from the availability of low cost suburban housing, namely the home owners and municipalities who saw there tax coffers increase from the increase in economic activities; Levitt could be considered a saint. To many urban and regional planners, architects, landscape architects, and environmental scientists, who have seen the social and environmental results of this style of massive suburban development, he may be considered a villain. In either case, his profound influence on suburban development has been mimicked by his peers and set in motion carbon copies of like developments all over the United States. While federal programs had a profound influence on the creation of sprawl, it is not the only factor in why sprawl has occurred in the United States. Social change occurring at the same time as the federal programs greatly added to the exodus from the central cities to the fiinge communities and beyond. One fundamental social change was within the dynamics of the American family. Prior to the Second World War, it was not unusual for several generations of families to reside within the same household, or at the least to remain in close proximity to one another. In the central city this would often be within the same apartment building or within the same neighborhood. Economics often played an important role in this dynamic, as extended family was often necessary in order to pay for housing and day-to-day living expenses. In addition, child-rearing would be shared among generational relatives as extended family often worked different shifts. Ethnic groups also were segregated together in the central city neighborhoods, often by choice, as they shared a common background and cultrrral social fiamework. The move out to the suburban fiinge following the Second World War took these social norms and promptly discarded many of them. The cheaper mortgage rates and long-term loans allowed access to homes to the nuclear family. No longer was it a necessity for the newly married couples to reside with the parents, brothers, or Other extended family in order to economically survive. There was a sense of independence in breaking away fiom this paradigm and having ones own home and private yard, no matter what size. The Federal programs to expand and improve existing highways allowed access to the central city for work, while allowing this independence. A new paradigm was forming and it was quickly gaining momentum. Those that were economically able to leave the central cities for these new suburban areas did so in increasing numbers during the 19503 and 19603. This was almost exclusively middle and upper income whites. As a result central cities and the submban fringe became very racially and economically segregated during this period. Fear of increased crime and an increasingly deteriorating central city made the subrnbs more and more attractive for those that could leave. The civil rights clashes and racial riots of the 1950s and 19603 further motivated this exodus, which came to be known as ‘white flight’ (Fox, 1935).8 These changing American social paradigms and the federal programs initiated during this period were a perfect catalyst for sprawl. Growth of Sprawl United States 2000 Census and Land Consumption With the factors which encouraged the creation of sprawling land use strongly in place, it is important to evaluate how much land use change has occurred. A first step in this process is to look at the current population density in the United States to establish a baseline. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the United States’ population for the year 2000 Census was 28lmi11ion people.9 A statistical summary breakdown of the United States 2000 census is presented in Appendix A. The following graphic (Figure 1) shows a representation of the Census 2000 population density per square mile data broken down by state. Figure 1 United States 2000 Census - Population per Square Mile Fem" per “In". mile Source: US. Census Bureau, data file from Geography Division based 1 _ on the TIGER/Geographic Identification Code Scheme (TIGER/GIGS) - 3.01] 0663400 computerfile.Landareaupdatedevery10years. D 1.10 to 2 999.9 http://www.census.gov/mp/www/rom/msroml2d.html or ' http://factfinder.census.gov. I 7 to 79.5 I f l 1.0 to 5.9 0.0 to 0.9 As can be seen from the previous graphic interpretation of the census data, the bulk of the US. population is located along the coastlines as would be historically expected, with the center of the country maintaining lowest density levels on average. While this does provide an indication of where sprawl might be occurring it does not adequately express the nature of spmwl as land consumed at a faster rate than population growth. To evaluate this it is necessary to look at a different data set. Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen, and Harrison, in their article: “ Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Drfler Across the US, ” published by the Brookings Institute, have presented an analysis of data obtained from the US. Department of Agriculture’s National Resource Inventory (NR1), which looks at the rn'banization of land over time. The inventory is conducted every five years by surveying every state in the union, with the exception of Alaska, by county and evaluating this data by metropolitan areas as defined by the Census Bureau. The Brooking Institute’s aggregation of the data collected from the inventories, conducted from 1982 through 1997, yielded some very significant findings. They found, “between the years 1982 to 1997, the amount of urbanized land in the United States increased by 47 percent, fiom approximately 51 million acres in 1982 to approximately 76 million acres in 1997. During this same period, the nation ’s population grew by only 1 7 percent. ”'0 The bulk of this change occurred in the period of 1992 to 1997, when the nation added 11 million new acres of urbanized land (Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen, and Harrison, 2001).11 The following graphics (Figure 2 and 3) are reproduced from the Brookings report, illustrating the nature of this change. -10- Figure 2 Percent Change in Urbanized Land, MSAs and CM 8A5, [982—1997 .‘t g}! - or «J g» 1‘ 1 :57 2:: ‘- Percer! Change In unnamed Lana o- 35% {103) l, as - eon; {115) can. . b 60 ' NW (43) 90 - 150% (17) 3!]in I “,t ‘3 330‘! it ‘v'pl ‘ Jain, by”! FM; jsrfis ire-rinse- )1505} 3) Source: Fulton, William, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison. Center on Urban & Metromlitan Poli Who S rawls Most? How Growth Patterns Difi’er Across the U.S. July 2001. 3 . Figure 3 figure I: Percent Change in Population and Urbanized land. “382-1997, by Census Region 60.0% 70.0% 20.0% 30.0". I0.0‘i' 40.0% 50.0% .Cbu‘thWh-nd .cswhnpurm Source: Fulton, William, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison. Cater on Urban a Met_r_op<_>litan Pglig, Who Smwls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S. July 200] . 9 . -11- From the data analysis we can see that the West was the most efficient in managing growth, as it relates to minimizing sprawl, achieving an average density of 3.59 persons per acre. The Brookings report indicated there are several factors which likely have had an influence on why they are much better than the rest of the country at maintaining a higher density ratio. A significant amount of the areas that can support intense development are surrounded by mountainous terrain. In addition, the western states have a heavier reliance on public water and sewer infiastructure and generally have ammmumhmwmnnmmnpkmmmgunummmannmkhemmmmgennmedame development. Contrarily, the Midwest was the worst in terms of land use consumption vs. population growth. During this period the Midwest consumed 4.5 million acres of land to urbanization while the population only increased by 4.1 million people. This equates to a density level of only 0.91 persons per acre (Fulton, Pendall, Nguyen, and Harrison, 2001).12 From the data, we have a clearer picture of the current amount of sprawling land uxfinflmflhmmsSumemn“Mmmanweeqxdfinflwfimmm? thue(huwflhNeub While it is crucial to have an understanding of the current status of sprawl, it is even more important to determine as best as possible the anticipated growth of population and land use. This is necessary in order to estimate what areas of the country are most at risk from further land urbanization. The United States Bureau of the Census in their Report, “Population Projections: states, 1995-2025 ”, has estimated that the greatest growth will occur in California and the southern states of Texas and Florida; see Figure 4 (Campbell, 1997).13 -12- Figure 4 Most of the Increase is in the South and West Stateswiflrthelargestprojected net increase In popuIation: 1995 to 2025 O 2 4 0 8 10 12 I4 10 18 Nilicns Source: Campbell, Paul. “Population Projections: States, 1995-2025.” Current Population m. Census Bureau P25-113l. May 1997. 1 < http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/popula.html>. In relation to total land conversion to an urbanized use the “TCRP Report 74, ” research conducted by Rutgers University, has studied current land use trends and evaluates and projects future land use consumption. Their research is based upon population projections and current trends of what they call ‘Uncontrolled—Growth’ land use scenario for the period of 2000 to 2025. They found that under this scenario the United States could expect to urbanize approximately 18.83 million acres of land. This breaks down in the following manner: 7.09 million acres in agricultural land, 7.04 million acres in environmentally sensitive land, and 4.7 million acres in other lands (barren, unproductive agriculturally, or awaiting development); (T CRP, 2002). ‘4 As in the case of the U.S. Census population projections for the same period, the TCRP Report 74 found the bulk of the land consummion is anticipated to occur in the south, accounting for 53 percent of the growth. The Midwest is expected to grow by only 17.5 percent and convert approximately 2.8 million acres of land to urbanized use.15 Both research findings show the highest and most significant increase is in the South -13- region. Looking at the individual state data (Figure 5) by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the projected trend also generally agrees with the TCRP findings (Campbell, 1997).16 Figure 5 Fastest-Growmg States States ranked by percent change In population: 1995 to 2025 CA _ .f._.,-.,._-..u__- L...- 3...”... -...___:_.¢_--. . m..- -... :— 3 NM . L ' I 4 1 ~ 1 . ’32}: _ t r ._‘ r—_ I . L fl _ _ , _‘__ a a NV . ~ '0 m: 9.45.1"). W\ M2mkev‘f‘m'“fiél ‘- ”In—roam— UT 1 j :4 AK 1 f .4 FL . r . . :fil WT¢ ' I X ‘1 j .. T . ~ m ~ - A -—‘I WA ' . '—-.'-n‘5- _,-_ --—rT.-:_ ' " " -.=-‘s- *' " " 83 ‘_‘""""" - -“'m—*W-a—- --—m——-———————.- _ A_j-_..1m .— ._ __ a GA . 1 ' I NC L . MT . 4 :3 VA ~ may) 1* _ ’ ’ " ":‘Tfi TN ‘_“‘ ‘ ’ “‘_"" . __" ‘—7- "':‘"T"—-—'— 5C ‘E—TF w—w- anarcVIv—fl-r-r NH m 11 -,-.. -~~g MD V i 1 E L [‘3 AR . *3 NJ WQ'aHVf‘y-Iaalr‘u't— DE —- - «4...... MN - 1 3:1 SD ., I :1 LA ~ 3 NE menses-w.” M0 nah. MS - 4' ~ ' VT . I 1 RI . L 3 ME ‘ :1 WI ~ .. , . CT M... NO m...- HA . 1—1 1 z :- lN m: KY m— |A W-i“ - MI We 0H _ WV D 10 2D 3D 4D 50 00 Percentcharge Source: Campbell, Paul. “Population Projections: States, 1995-2025.” Current Population Remus. Census Bureau P25-l 131. May 1997. l < http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/popula.htrnl>. From this we see the Midwest states are last in rate of growth. This is in contrast to the TCRP Report 74 projections which indicate the Northeast states will grow the least. According to the TCRP Report 74, the Northeast region will consume 1.46 million acres of land, with a growth rate of 9 percent (TCRP, 2002).17 So while there is some -14- discrepancies in the specific regions the overall proj ected trends remain consistent- The nation will continue to sprawl as it grows. In order to gain a better understanding of what this projected trend of sprawling land use means to the State of Michigan, it is necessary to examine some more Michigan specific data. Michigan’s Growth The State of Michigan is a very unique place. Comprising approximately 37 million acres of land area, the state is also the home to 95 percent of the world’s fresh surface water. In addition, Michiganders enjoy over 11,000 inland lakes, 36,000 miles of inland streams, 19.3 million acres of timberland, and 75,000 acres of sand dunes (PSC, 2001).18 Michigan is also home to over 3.3 million acres of inland wetlands. An additional 207,898 acres are located in coastal and offshore wetland vegetated areas (U .S. Department of Interior, 1994).19 The 2000 U.S. Census has shown Michigan’s population to be approximately 9.94 million people. The density of the state’s population is illustrated in Figure 6 (Pg.25). A summary of the state census is provided in Appendix B. As can be seen fiom the data in Figure 6, the bulk of the population density is in the Southeastern Lower Peninsula of the state. This also shows the sprawling land use that has, and continues, to occur in the areas surrounding the major metro areas of Detroit, Lansing, Grand Rapids, and Kalamazoo. Michigan, over time, is anticipated to continue sprawling. To understand how this can influence land use, it is important to examine projection studies that have been completed. Public Sector Consultants, Inc., a public policy consultant agency, prepared in 2001, a study on Michigan land use titled “Michigan Land Resource Project” and with -15- Figure 6 Michigan 2000 Census - P/opulation per Square Mile \J. Persons per square mile m 3,111] to 66,9400 150.0 to 299.9 [:1 79.5 to 159.9 7 to 79.5 1.0 to 6.9 0.0 to 0.9 5.. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, data file from Geography Division based on the TIGER/Geographic Identification Code Scheme (TIGER/GIGS) computer file. Land area updated every 10 years. http://www.census.gov/mp/www/rom/msrom12d.html or http://factfinder.census.gov. assistance fiom Michigan State University completed a series of land use projections based upon current land use trends. Michigan State University utilized Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in conjtmction with remote sensing to create the Land Transformation Model (LTM). The model was built upon the Michigan base data provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. This model shows how land use will change over time hour the years 1980 to 2040. The graphical results of this study are reproduced on the successive pages in Figures 7- 9 (PSC, 2001).20 -16- Ihgme7 1980 Built Brill , --'-,~ ‘7 SutaceWater ' - Y ' El"... OtherUse " “I - Fm PubheLand - StabPlblichd Themstmmsmunduse Wmmedby thaVDNRintoeo. Triad-Mice land usedatabasaisnbrndmas hWRmInW Sym (MIRIS). SURGE: LTM. Source: Public Sector Consultants. Mighigpp Land Resource Project. 20 June 2004. November 2001. 13 -17- qum8 2020 Bull! . . . , . .. , _ .- ._a I ' - ‘ I. , w e I ‘ " ‘ o ‘. lb ‘. ,_s_..‘..‘. -SurfaceWahr ' I - ' ' ‘ ' "' 3. .’! a" emu," «- . 54' . .- ' O D ‘ 19- 1.‘ ~ .- "' ', '9' 33' :fi if? . - - Federal Fibre Land .,. 1.... . I," _ 1 9.. 1' ’5‘; ‘ g“ '9 3'" 'I * . 71* .‘V a -StatePrbicLand ‘ -,-.« .1 ; .1;qu ‘; I "h , e , , . ‘ 1.1.. . ' 5' r ‘ n a; I. ”'9, I" " " “3.: d". r. ' b o ‘9 u ' n _ P a >- ‘f'l‘ "it” 3. 1‘. 3,. *- i" ." :f '. "J s: ’ f. ." IQ. > . J‘u‘l J . d. ' -'| “Mr: '2- . r-i -" - ‘ 1 "' - 3.. d . 2 .J ,I‘.‘ I "i . ' ‘ . _ f -"4‘;""€ ' . s n .. - -. ,-"“ ”ire-t ’ :9 ‘ -; W ‘ ' b :07. 7’ 3. t 0 rs. . "‘14. b . ' ¢ 923' " z. -- ‘~.—,':'. .1 1'5! '.'- . 0 10 D D 60 7&3"? i. 5-". ._ :55,“ :5ng .a 1'. ..' '0 I. "W, ‘1 " tith’ . “a I 2.... P; k :l- a. 5 l ”I ' “ ~ V" I ~; ‘5' 0" “'1’* . . \‘ ‘ . ‘ fl ' Fuhrrebuittest‘lnahdbrthe year2020basedcnthe mar-imam Modelpmjacticns. thetthcmtdllate-tm. some LTM. Sorn'ce: Public Sector Consultants. Michigg Land Resource Project. 20 June 2004. November 2001. 14 -13- Figure 9 2040 Built Illfifl - Surface Water Cher Use - Federal Pubic Land - State Public Land 0111211 no 50 sq Fuhrrebulteettmatedforthe yearzoltomsedonthe MTWM growthtrerrdsthatoccurreddung Model mm. the 19501011111111.1519905. MELT”. Source: Public Sector Consultants. Michigan Land Resource Project. 20 June 2004. November 2001. 15 -19- Results of the LTM projections indicated that land use in Michigan will increase at a rate of approximately 8:1. This means that the state will utilize 8 percent more land for every 1 percent increase in population. The net result of which will be an increase of built areas of 178% by the year 2040 (PSC, 2001).” Effects of Sprawl The questions that often get asked by politicians, citizens, and sometimes even by planners are, ‘What is wrong with sprawl? Shouldn’t market forces decide how land use should be used within the bounds of legal zoning?’ The answer is complex and highly debatable with both positive and negative elements on both sides. When the phenomenon of sprawl was in its infancy, sprawl could very easily be seen as a minor issue or simply the desire of the American public to live in the way they wished. However, now having lived with sprawl and seen its expansion continuing at an alarming rate over the last fifty years, we have a better understanding of why it may not be in America’s long-range interest to continue this way of land use. Numerous studies conducted on the subject of sprawl over the last ten years paint a questiOnable picture of the long term sustainability of sprawl. In particular several areas of concern have arisen that should be carefully studied by land use decision makers before approving new development. These areas are: Transportation, Social and Human Welfare, Environmental and Natural Resources. It is important to note that these areas are not mutually exclusive of one another. They are intrinsically linked and can have dramatic influence on one another. However, to expand upon them all in their entirety is beyond the scope of this research. Only one area will be expanded upon, subsurface natural resources, as this area has been the most neglected in relation to sprawling land use. Therefore, a brief look at the major negative -20- factors related to these issues will be examined in order to understand how they interrelate to one another and to subsurface resources. Transportation As has been discussed the Federal highway programs have had significant influence on the creation of sprawl. However the cost of highway expansion is only one piece of a much larger transportation pie. Local communities face huge challenges both fiscally and politically with the expansion of local road systems. The Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 74, completed for the year 2000, had found that in order to meet anticipated demand over the next 25 years, under current uncontrolled growth rate scenarios, the United States would need to spend $927 billion dollars to provide a necessary 2 million additional lane miles of infrastructure (TCRP, 2002).22 The expansion of the suburbs increases automobile use and dependence. A study conducted by Amy Helling, published in the book Urban Sprawl, looked at the rise of suburban automobile use and found that in 1995 the average household consisted of 2.65 persons and owned 1.78 vehicles. Of all household related trips taken, over 86% were taken with their privately owned transportation. A more significant note is that of those trips taken, 33.1 percent were for a distance of only 1 to 5 miles. 19.5 percent of the total trips were a distance of less than a mile (Squire, 2002).” The dependence and/or desire to utilize private over public transportation and walking are directly related to the social and human welfare effects of sprawl. Social and Human Welfare As automobile dependence and use has increased so have the emissions of greenhouse gases. Motor vehicles are the leading cause of air pollution and a major -21- contributor to the creation of ozone (greenhouse) gasses in the country approximately 26% of the total greenhouse gas emissions (Frumkin, 2002).24 These gas emissions in turn have had a direct link to an increase in the rates of respiratory diseases such as asthma, resulting in more visits to medical professionals and loss of time at work and school. The elderly and children are most at risk from the increased levels of pollution (Frumkin, 2002).25 In addition, the sedentary nature of Americans has increased as well, and is having a deleterious effect on our health as a people. I Land use decisions and design requirements have also had an influential role in the change to a more sedentary lifestyle. Many of the new developments being designed in Michigan and across the nation do not have pedestrian access or the available access is designed in such a way as to be undesirable or impossible to use by pedestrians. This hmhfleumwfiaflbmfiasmmhasmnmmmmsamhnmmmgpommdmudonmumwupwmh wfimxmqmnwnkanmmwvfimwmflmafimxnnnvmybmwanmfidMnemfimdkmfl neighborhoods with no sidewalks at all. Lack of coordination with adj acent communities also is a hindrance to pedestrian access and mobility. This includes bike paths and finghmflmflsflmtflnmmbwmdatmfimfimmmdtnwmhnehdfififingnnmhmnmmsfiu levels of pedestrian access between jurisdictional boundaries, and inadequate public transportation routes to service the communities. Given these limitations and obstacles to accessing the community, it is not surprising that many choose to use their cars to travel from location to location; even when the destination may be less than a mile. The unfortunate net result as Frumkin illustrates is that Americans are becoming more and more overweight. From 1960 to 1990 the percentage of overweight Americans rose from 24% to 33% (Frumkin, 2002).26 -22- Environmental and Natural Resources The environment is a sensitive and often politically volatile topic for planners, politicians and the public. Often environmentalists and environmental concerns are viewed as a barrier to growth and economic expansion. However the irony of the debate is that development and environmentalism do not have to be at polarized ends of the land use dilemma. If sustainable development is to occur then they must be mutually interlinked. To date however, current non-sustainable sprawling land use in Michigan has had a very deleterious effect on environmentally sensitive lands. Critical forest lands, wetlands, water resources, species habitats and subsurface resources have all been impacted by the spread of sprawl. Forestlands in Michigan are a major economic industry in the state bringing an estimated $9 billion dollars annually and providing 150,000 jobs (PSC, 2001).27 Good managing practices in the state have maintained a positive sustainable balance of timber production. The problem of the future however, is the continuing fragmentation of productive forestland by sprawling land use. Currently 45 percent (8.4 million acres) of the total quality timberland in the state (18.6 million acres) is held in private ownership by over 353,000 different entities (PSC, 2001).28 The concern is over the next few decades the current trends of sprawl will place these owners in close proximity to m'banized land uses that will directly influence their market value. Many are likely to sell all or pieces of their properties, resulting in a fragmented pattern of land use. This problem of fiagrnented land use also has influenced wetland and water resources. To date the state of Michigan had lost over 50% of the total wetlands that -23- existed at the time the first European settlers came to the state (Michigan Legislature, 2001).29 These wetlands serve critical functions in maintaining and rejuvenating our environment. Pollutants natural and man-made are filtered out by wetland systems. Wetlands also provide erosion and flood control by absorbing excess storm run-off and by trapping soil particles before they can erode away (Michigan Legislature, 2001).30 Despite these advantages to the ecosystem, Michigan and the nation have continued to destroy and or negatively impact wetlands on a monumental scale. Fragmentation of the landscape from sprawling land use decisions has created small pockets of wetlands from what were once large contiguous systems. This fiagmentation has in effect short- circuited the filtration capacities of the wetlands, overloading them with pollutants and destroying native endangered and threatened species as well as habitat for water fowl and other aquatic species. While legislation exists at both the state and national level to protect wetlands and more particularly endangered species of flora and fauna, many of these wetland pockets are too small to be under the protection of the environmental laws. For example, in Michigan, local municipalities have jurisdiction over wetlands of 5 acres or less in size. In more rural townships that do not have environmental ordinances to regulate development impacts on wetlands, these smaller fiagments are lefi at risk. Water resom'ces both above and below ground have also been negatively influenced by sprawling land use. Increase in impervious surfaces have created excessive run-off fi'om storm water on downstream residents in watershed areas, as well as causing concentrated points of water born pollution fiom metropolitan areas. In addition, the expansion of the submban developments across the country has created draw-downs on -24- ground water aquifer levels. In other areas, contamination of water supplies from industrial wastes and land fills has reduced the availability of clean groundwater, placing additional pressure on municipal systems to service the public. One of the key dangers to ground and surface water resources is the expansion of suburban sprawl which exposes more and more ground and surface water resources to pollution sources. Given that 40 percent of Michigan residents obtain their drinking and other water uses from groundwater wells, and that Michigan with its Great Lakes comprise 95 percent of world’s surface water, the concern of endangering this critical resource is understandable (Michigan Legislature, 2001).31 One area that has been largely ignored in comparison to thunmnammmmmmmmdemmnmnamflamwamfibflwfluauuumhmdmxnmmml nwmmus.Cmmfimfibnmgmgmedqnflmamummmflunmmmmmmgommodaks hdhwummmeamlmeasawhmgmflasflwoflmtmmmdrewmmeswedqudupmnbr immmmmgus Threat to Subsurface Construction Amine Resources Every person in the country utilizes subsurface minerals in every day of their lives. Over the course of a lifetime the average American will use 1,750 tons of minerals. 23 tons are used per person in the average year. Of these totals 85 percent consists of sand and gravel resources (PSC, 2001).32 Annually the average Michigan resident will consume 11 tons of aggregate sand and gravel and the average suburban home, in a new subdivision, will consume 400 tons of aggregate materials (Michigan Aggregates Association, 2001).33 To appreciate the scope of the threat that sprawling land use poses to subsurface natural resources, it is necessary to examine the geology of the country and State of Michigan to understand how they were created. -25- Figure 10 - General Geolo 3 of the United States The above graphic was created using the National Atlas of the United States online 618 system. Some: National Atlas of the United States. 25 July 2004. mm- “MM“wfi-flcm) “It!“ Lu-afleddm ru —’ = Michigan Geologic Material LL]. Generalized late Wisconsin glacial Ilmlt LLL Generalized pro-Wisconsin glacial 1mm -25- Figure 1 1 General I Geology of Michigan " f ' ' ‘ . ‘1 O . 4 . 1 . II TQ-‘Tc-lll—v\ l-. 0'! ‘1 -.‘/f‘: “2' a The above graphic was created using the National Atlas of the United States online GIS system. I Source: National Atlas of the United States. 25 July 2004. . . _ . . 1, -. 1“» 1 1 (A: I E Geology of Michigan and the Nation I The eras indicated in the Legend on page 35 for both the United States and Michigan show the geologic record as it is currently known to date. Figure 12 on the following page illustrates the span of geologic time in relation to the various geologic periods indicated in the graphics (Dorr and Eschman, 1970/1996).34 -27- Figure 12 Era Period Epoch ' Time — In millions of years Cenozoic Quarternary Recent 0.004 Pleistocene 0.5-2.0 Tertiary Pliocene 13 (+ or -) 1 Miocene 25 (+ or -) 1 Oligocene 36 (+ or -) 2 Eocene 58 (+ or -) 2 Paleocene 63 (+ or -) 2 Mesozoic Cretaceous 135 (+ or -) 5 Jurassic 180 (+ or -) 5 Triassic f 220 Q- or -) 10 Paleozoic Permian 280 (+ or 9 10 Pennsylvanian 310 (+ or -) 10 Mississippian 345 (+ or -) 10 Devonian 405 (+ or -) 10 Silurian 425 (+ or -) 10 Ordovician 500 (+ or - ) 10 Cambrian 6004+ or - ) 20 Archeozoic Precambrian 3500 Proterozoic Earth Origin1 4500-5000 Graphic created from data obtained from Geology of Michigan Source: Dorr, John A. Jr., & Eschman, Donald F. Geolpgy of Michiga_n. 1996 USA: University of Michigan Press. (Origiml work published in 1970) From the above table the geologic age of Michigan’s bedrock material is shown to be some of the oldest in the country. The value of the state’s subsurface resources is immense due to the process of glaciations which occurred at least four and possibly as much as six times during the Pleistocene period (Michigan Legislature, 2001).” These glaciers, which reached thousands of feet high above terra firma dragged with them base material from what geologists refer to as the Canadian Shield. These glaciers pushed with tremendous force across the surface of the earth pulling up additional base materials -23- and grounding them up in the process of their forward expansion. The actions of these surging and retreating glaciers created the Great Lakes, which in turn, through wave action and outwash processes created the dunes and lake shore bluffs that we enjoy today. These are valuable in industrial capacities for such consumer goods as automobile manufacturing. The material dropped from the glaciers, as they retreated, formed the moraines, drumlins, and outwash stream beds that contain the valuable sources of construction aggregate deposits we depend upon to build our society’s infrastructure and is in danger of loss fi'om development (Dawson, 1992).” Value of Construction Aggregates What exactly are construction aggregates? Construction aggregates are glacial sand, gravel andcrushedrockmixturesthatcanbewashedandmixedto meet specifications for construction materials which are used in road and highway construction, concrete mixtures, and other building materials. The United States is mostly self sufficient in the production of these resources. Figure 13 on page 39 shows the first quarter of 2004 domestic national production of these materials as tabulated by the United States Geological Survey (U SGS). Appendix C shows that Michigan ranked third in 2003 for total sand and gravel sold or used by producers and is already 6 percent higher in the first quarter’s total for 2004 (USGS, 2004).37 Construction aggregates, in particular sand and gravel, are an integral part of the Michigan economy equaling over $242 million annually, the fourth most valuable resource mined in the state (PSC, 2001).38 It is on the rise in value in relation to other mined minerals in the state, up 83 percent over the last 10 years (PSC, 2001).39 This is reflective nationally as well, due to -29- lfigme13 AGGREGATES SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES. BY DIVISION (Th-Ind mic tons-d tom-d dolars) V 2003 Pa- Percent Number QI-t'ty Value My ecu cover- of m" tug. 2.4g. 3E!- «igg. r3? total‘ lug. cbm’ ng and Northeast: New England 6,890 23.7“) 28.500 24.300 83,300 515.“ 1.1“ 4.2 42 22 Mild: Atlantic m 66.!” 77.100 65.21!) 235.” l.430.N0 30.“ 15.4 52 33 Midwest: East North Cami 53AM I381!” l63,0m I36,” 49I .M 2.250.000 644110 20.6 55 52 We: Natl Ceml 35.4“! 78.7!!! 89.100 65.“ 269.000 I260.000 39.100 10.6 44 50 Smith: Soul Atlantic m “71!!! IBM l l2.“ MI .000 2,730.1!» ’ l0|.0m I6.6 SI 43 East Souk Cent-d 36,1!) 5 L300 57.500 50.400 195,1!» |,l 50,1»0 4|.200 13.9 25 West Souk Com! 63.900 80.0!» N500 7| .00 296.000 l.450.W0 63m -0.l 64 28 West: Mountain scam 76,21!) 17.!” 61,!!!) 267.1!” IJ40.(IIO 65.“ 28.5 40 30 # Pain: 63.6!» 81.!» 89.800 12.200 3131!” 2,060.1!» 63.900 -I .0 55 34 TE]: 423010 7I9M 789.!!!) 669” 26%.!!!) ‘ [4300.000 ‘ 475.0!!! 12.4 XX XX XX Not ”idle. 'Ot-tuly tohlsshuunanuhuuh-od one-many. EM qlniia forging-ten havehmmlalded. ’Mmmwwmbmmorwmqwammmmwaumwm ofcomall'es repair-g for In my mey. ‘1». mt imhdo Ahh ca tin-ii ’uuaamumi.suwmieeweo,m7. u m ”n! run: I! I, _ II I I n a In a All-t D n i? [544% J“ I! 3' 1"“ u , u. ”I“ n n no I a n w t n to u . I- ll! ‘ I n E . “ Want an e- In] a - cc I an I!“ ; a. I LEGEND 0.1% u ._ I lot mm Em m 1114 I!“- Found Me in gs. m to 1 up. an m3 -Firstq.mtamogios prodxlionbygeogaphicdivisim Source: USGS. “USGS Minerals Information-Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel” 10 July 2004. -30- the tremendous building boom of the 19908. In Michigan, aggregate material is produced from 325 major surface mining operations, with some form of mining taking place in every county of the state. Many of the operations are family owned with 20 or less employees, with the average operation having a life span of 25 years (Michigan Aggregates Association, 2001).40 Smaller operations are ofien not included in the statistical information that is presented and collected by governmental and industry tracking organizations. The Cost of Doing Business and Conflicting Land Use D What makes construction aggregate mining unique, in particular sand and gravel, to other mining operations is its marketability which is directly tied to the proximity of the operation to its consumer base. Since 90 percent of all aggregate material must be trucked to its market, there is a finite point of economic return on profitability of the material. Material costs 10-15 cents per ton mile. For every 20-30 miles (depending on market fluctuations) material is hauled, the base cost doubles. At forty plus miles it becomes uneconomical to mine the material (PSC, 2001).41 These limitations put aggregate operations in direct conflict with other land uses, in particular sprawl. As submban developments become closer and closer to mining operations the value of the mining land and other surrounding properties increases greatly, making it diflicult for smaller companies to compete on bidding for properties to continue mining. In addition many of the smaller mining operators feel compelled to sell out to real estate developers as the money offered is beyond what they hope to obtain fiom the mining. The net result is construction aggregate materials are covered by development and lost. The irony of the whole situation is that sprawl could not exist nor continue very -31- much longer without construction aggregates, as the cost of construction would continue to rise dramatically and bring sprawling land use activity to a crawl. Conversely, mining cannot exist without a close market for its product or it too is eliminated; yet both are dependent on the same land for continued existence. The following figures indicate where current aggregate operations are taking place and where urbanized areas come in conflict with them. Figure 14 Current National Construction Aggregate Operations The above graphic was created using the National Atlas of the United States online 618 system. Source: National Atlas of the United States. 24 June 2004. 0 Stone. cm“ Operations 0 Sand and Gravel Operations -32- Figure 15 Current Michigan Construction Aggregate Operations ‘e ' : x vJ ., s V‘- <\' '4 A“. his , a» 3 r‘ .. 58;-.. . . - tr :1! ,t' ‘_, a Law 3‘; 3%,?” iii-1.. ‘1: ‘33s“ | :4 if V" ‘ r \ 0‘ . . I_,"( ‘ lac-s -. l ". 9" ‘r'iY "\VA , o‘. ' ‘ L..." “ii-KAM 32 l n n” - u"'\11t\ “ . GI" " I .. in. f p 83 ‘ -?A£2v 3 3‘4; 0" ’4’ ri" ,. )-— ., w h." 1:45.” "i "v ' .‘~r \‘r-‘, n" 1"" 7‘ 1, i r {‘1‘ .‘..';l ' ‘ . I" I -’_‘ ‘ '. .-‘L a _ Wm " 1 t " It I l a)“ ' 4»- d L- E ‘31“ \ l -- r '. l d .— x l '5‘, g: .§_ 1.. '35 a L in". Q . i... 3; )9 .1! The above graphic created WT! 13?). ‘- . it; .e . . . _ rf flfiyii‘i .;E: l‘af‘: using the National Atlas of the United States online GIS system. Source: National Atlas of the United States. 24 June 2004. e Stone. (finished Operations . Sand and Gravel Operations If?“ Urban Are. -33- Figure 16 Current Michigan Construction Aggregate Operations with Census 2000 Density Per Square Mile The above graphic was created using the National Atlas of the United States online GIS system. Source: National Atlas of the United States. 24 June 2004. 0 Stone. Crushed Operations Number or people persquare rnle 0 Sand and Gravel Operations - 1m - 2g 2"- ; UrbanAreae .5 50 -34- Figure 17 Current Michigan Construction Aggregate Operations with Census 2000 Density Per Square Mile The above graphic was created using the National Atlas of the Unied States online GlS system. Source: National Atlas of the United States. 24 June 2004. 0 Stone. Crushed Operations Urban 5... ' Sand and Gravel Operations Number of people per square mle Linihd Access - 25° ' 60035 Prinobd H'ohvtay - 100-249 Through H’gl'may - 50-00 Pg." Other Ronda - 25 ' ‘9 :,'.\.;.-' [any n 10 - 24 ' E] 5 - 9 [:1 1 .4 D Lesthan 1 -35- As shown on the previous figures, construction aggregate mining operations are nearest (on average) to the urbanized areas they serve as discussed. Southeast Michigan has already seen a large loss of material in counties such as: Oakland, Washtenaw, and Livingston. There are no hard fixed numbers on the volume of material lost to date, as there is not a fully mapped out resource inventory of construction aggregate reserves statewide. In addition, the nature of sand and gravel deposition varies considerably with some shallow deposits spread over larger sections of land and deeper, narrower deposits in larger glacial formations such as moraines. Given the average life of most mines is 20 to 30 years and averages over 50 acres in size for even a small operation; virtually every major metropolitan area in the state is threatening construction aggregate mining by the very nature of sprawl. If current trends remain, the material will continue to be lost. When figmes 9 and 10 are compared to figures 16 and 17, the conflict points become clearer. Conflicts Over Mining So why is there such a conflict between suburban growth and mining? The answer lies in historical mining practices. Prior to the environmental movement and subsequent laws, the mining industry did plenty of damage to the environment and viewsheds across the country. For example, gold mining practices of the past did tremendous damage to the water resources of the west by adding large amounts of toxic materials. To put this in perspective, Michele Olsen in her article “Gold Rush’s toxic legacy” for SN&R Newsreview.com, stated, “That old fever thermometer in your medicine cabinet contains half a gram of mercury, enough to render all fish in a 25-acre -36- lake unsafe to eat. In contrast, Gold Rush Era miners used over 26 million pounds of mercury in Nevada County alone, depositing as much as 8 million pounds into the watershe ” (Oslen, 2001).42 Understandably, with the average person’s knowledge of environmental damage greatly increased in modern times, this type of mining practice should give anybody trepidation about having an operation anywhere near them and their family. Today, however, even with new and stringent environmental protection laws aimed at curbing this type of mining damage, residents are still anti-mining. Arizona citizens have been battling a Canadian copper mining company from opening an 885 acre operation 75 miles north of Phoenix. The issue is over the amount of water the mining operation would utilize, enough for a town of 6,000 people per day. Residents in the area have managed to tie the opening of the operation up in the courts and reviewing agencies for over five years. In the interim, the mining companies stock had dropped from $15 dollars a share to $2 (Brady, 03/13/2000)43 This tactic in preventing a mining operation from opening however, will likely not work in the long run as the copper source is too valuable. .In time it is probable that another company will want to try again if Cambior, Inc. decides not to pursue the operation. This tactic would be very effective against a construction aggregate operation because of the relative low cost of the material per ton and the likelihood of real estate market values enticing an operator to sell the land, versus continuing to incur overhead legal and operating expenses fighting back. Conflicts with Crushed Stone Aggregate Operations For crushed stone construction aggregate operations the main objections stem fi'om water use, and blasting of limestone. In some instances they are legitimate concerns -37- as in the case of Chewacla State Park in Alabama, where the Chewacla Creek began running dry due to sinkhole formation. Martin Marietta, which had purchased the quarry fiom a previous operator, settled a law suit and agreed to fix all sink holes caused by the operation. It is interesting to note however that the quarry in question had been in operation for over 20 years before the pubic fight over the operation began. Residents admit the neighborhoods affected by the operation and state park issue did grow nearer to the quarry, however they claim that the operation had increased in scope. Going fi'om small trucks to large 18 wheelers and increased blasting. Alabama currently has no legislation for monitoring the operations of the aggregate industry. Continued conflicts between operators and residents with the growth of suburban development will likely entice legislators to sponsor some in the future (Associated Press, 12/30/2002).“4 Michigan operations and residents face the same conflictive problems as other states, as companies and residents come in closer proximity to one another. In Trenton, the Sibley Quarry, a limestone operation, had been in existence for over 150 years and had gone through several owners, one of which used the limestone to produce the Arm & Hammer brand of baking soda. The limestone fiom the quarry also went to construction materials that built many of the buildings in Detroit. Detroit Edison, the major utility company in the region who currently owns the quarry, will not renew the lease to the Michigan Foundation (current operator). The reasons for non-renewal were complaints fimmrwmmynxkbmmahmnflMflflammgdmmmgngflmmflmmnaandemmhgmMMn disturbances in their neighborhoods (Woodards, 10/18/2000).“5 Again, growth of the community brought about much of the problem, as there were not many homes near the site when the operations first began. -33- Sand and Gravel Operation Conflicts For sand and gravel operations the main concerns seem to trend toward truck traffic noise, dust, and water resource depletion and contamination. Sand and gravel operations do require washing of the mined material in order to sift and size it properly. The crushing process for gravel and subsequent washing is done to bring materials into size specifications for market use and to remove extraneous material that would lower the quality of the final products. In addition many operations must dig below the water table in order to reach the resources. This has spurred concerns over contamination of water well somces and degradation of lakes, streams and wetlands. In the state of Maryland for example, the citizens of Charles County, which has 40 percent of the states sand and gravel resources, gained passage of a bill that would allow citizens to appeal to the county commissioners (elected officials) any operations permit decision made by the Charles County Board of Appeals (Conservation Report V. 24, n.9,1998).46 Prior to this legislative revision, citizens needed to appeal to the circuit court any disagreement they had with the Board of Appeals decisions (Maryland Code ARTICLE 66B, 2000).47 This whole push for legislative change originated fiom a small township that was concerned over water quality and well water drying up. In Lenox Township, Macomb County Michigan residents are concerned about the same issue arising in their neighborhood from a proposed gravel operation on a 113 acres site. Residential concerns raised are the drying up of their well water supplies, and the nuisance of having the operation close to them. As stated fi'om a 60 year long resident of the township, “I just don’t like the neighborhood getting all crowded up, and I like it the way it is-nice and quiet.” (Wowk, 12/24 2000)48 In Tyrone Township, Livingston -39- County, Michigan the concern is over truck trafic, noise and dust fiom the operations of an 80 acre operation which was given the right to expand its work week; in exchange for granting the township ownership of the property following the closure of the mining operation. As one retiree, who lived near the site said, “We’re not going to get very much peace around her for the next eight years.” (Locker, 09/21/2003).49 The gravel operation has changed hands twice in its over 20 year history of being in existence (Locker, 09/21/2003?o These typical complaints are not exclusive to the states mentioned, nor are they isolated incidents. They are examples of a more and more common problem which results when community suburban growth rtms into existing mining operations. The solutions to these growing problems are not easy to find. There is not one all encompassing panacea for this land use conflict. However, one area has been emerging which does offer methods for addressing and mitigating potential problems before they reach this level. This area of land use planning is Smart Growth. Smart Growth and Can Space Planning and Dorm Within the last decade a new wave of community activism has grown around the dangers that sprawl presents to American land use. Local and national organizations have worked together to disseminate information, share stories and concerns, and most beneficially lend technical support and guidance in how to slow the growth of sprawl and conserve our natural resources. The explosion of the World Wide Web and the ease in which it is now possible to share information and communicate with one another has greatly enhanced this efi‘ort, not only within the state and nation, but internationally. The topic of discussion in most intemet interest group related chat rooms, websites, and -40- planning seminars of how to best deal with the problems of sprawl is what has been termed “Smart Growth.” Smart Growth So what is “Smart Growth”? The answer is somewhat simple in definition but very complex in what it encompasses as a land use planning technique. Smart Growth as defined by the Smart Growth Network, an organization made up of numerous private and public entities, non-profit organizations, state governments, and government agencies, is: “development that serves the economy, community, and the environment. It provides a fi'amework for communities to make informed decisions about how and where they grow ” (SGN, 2002)}1 A simple definition, although vague in scope, the SGN has stated that Smart Growth can be further defined as adhering to ten basic principles: a mix of land uses; compact building design (where possible); range of housing choice and opportunity; walkable communities; distinctive communities with a strong sense of place; preserve open space, farmland, and critical environmental areas; strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; provide a variety of transportation choices; make development decisions fair, predictable, and cost efl‘ective; and encourage stakeholder and community involvement in development decisions (SGN, 2002).52 These principles, form the over arching mission to create more sustainable communities. Smart Growth has been mistaken at times to mean a specific type of development, usually referred to as “New Town”. This style is characteristic of turn of the 20'” century community design. It traditionally involved a grid street pattern with narrow lanes, sidewalks, and buildings that were located nearer to the street, with parking typically located behind the commercial businesses, and residential districts that were typically on -41- smaller lots. A town center would be designed with connecting pedestrian paths and community parks. The development in general would be compact and designed for moderate to high density. This is in direct contrast to much of the type of development that has happened in the last 40 years. American suburban development, as has been stated, is often designed to have wide streets (that encourage higher rates of speed), large lot residential, and commercial strip development, often without pedestrian access. This contrast is likely one of the main reasons that New Town development has become more popular in recent years, because it is (and was) a more compact, walkable community that usually was located just outside a more metropolitan area, and can been viewed as an ahmnmhmtogmhmlmflmflmnsmnwldmmkmnmnt While the New Town concept does embrace many of the 10 principles as listed by the Smart Growth Network, it is not in and of itself what Smart Growth is about. Smart Growth is a guiding method for making land use decisions, not a design concept for community development. Smart Growth is intended to provide a “check list” of ideals and issues to be considered in planning for community growth. In this way it proposes to limit the negative after effects of what has become “traditional” land use planning. Smart Growth can and should be included in the formation of a community’s Comprehensive Plan. The power of the Smart Growth principles is in guiding this document and subsequent ordinances that should promote the long-range plan. This aspect of Smart Growth principles is critical, especially as it refers to guiding principle number 6 preserving open space, farmland, and critical environmental areas. -42- Open Space Planning and Design Open Space Planning has often become synonymous with Smart Growth; however it is only one of the principles in the Smart Growth movement. It is often referred to as Conservation Planning and Design, and this may actually be a better definitional name for it, because it emphasizes the primary goal of the planning nature of the technique-conservation of resources. Simply put, Open Space (Conservation) Planning and Design are processes and techniques for land use planning which help promote the maximum sustainable use of land and natural resources. These processes and techniques have traditionally been implemented to foster conservation of natural systems and viewsheds, and not subsurface natural resources other than water related ones such as aquifers. This is an immense oversight given the importance of construction aggregates to the sustainability of our society, and the critical problem we now face of the loss of these resources. Open Space Planning processes and Design techniques can achieve a great deal in the successful conservation and planned extraction of these critical resources within the traditional role it has been intended to play; that of creating sustainable land use. To accomplish this feat, a two stage approach is necessary: a macro scale planning efiort, and a micro scale design effort, utilizing site specific design and operational techniques. Open Space Planning Process-Regional Inventory and Analysis The first stage step in the process is a regional inventory and analysis of the municipalities’ resources. This is definitely the longer process of the two because it involves potentially many organizational entities and cooperation amongst them in order to accomplish it successfully. Failure to coordinate efforts with different agencies of -43- jmisdiction and expertise, and utilizing the proper professionals (planners, landscape architects, engineers, soil scientists, hydrologists, etc.) to collect the data, will likely result in “holes or poor data” in the final analysis which could lead to poor decision making by those in charge of land use development approvals. The analysis should encompass all areas of environmental resource concerns. This should include, but not be limited to, the following areas: hydrology (lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands, etc.), existing flora and fauna, endangered species present, habitats, agricultural lands, forest and commercial quality timberlands, soils and geological resources. Most communities in Michigan at this time have addressed these items in some way in preparation of previous comprehensive plans, zoning and other municipal ordinances. The geology portion very likely has not been greatly researched by many Michigan municipalities because of lack of perceived need at the time, lack of dependable data, or available financial resources to obtain information. The advent of the intemet, continued increase-in personal computing power, and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is making this an easier task to complete. Much of the needed data is likely already in the possession of the State of Michigan, and county and township agencies across the state. For example, The Michigan Center for Geographic Information, a division of the Department of Information Technology, has tremendous GIS resource files free for download. Data such as the Michigan Framework which is available in version 3b (at the time of this writing) has many data sets from which to select information (CGI, 2004).53 The data complied by the State of Michigan has county level geological files that can be readily utilized in desktop GIS applications. These applications once prohibitively expensive are now very reasonably priced with the budgets of most municipalities and/or consultant’s budgets. What also is necessary to obtain for the Inventory and Analysis step is the quantity of available construction aggregate material. This can be obtained from well digging logs. When wells are dug the contractor is usually required to maintain a log of material the drill is passing through and the depths associated with each layer. While usually not scientific in their explanation of material, they usually are sufficient to provide enough information on the general type of material (sand, fine sands, sand and gravel, silt, etc.). From these logs GIS can be used to map the well locations and develop a depth of material layer. In time as these are refined with additional log information, a rough picture will develop, that will clarify estimations of material reserves available for an area. Obtaining cooperation from mining companies will also help in this endeavor as they must do these types of logs on their own in order to assess whether a piece of property is worth purchasing or not. This may be more difficult to accomplish as some mining companies consider this proprietary information they do not wish to share with competitors. However, if the goal is explained (protection and planned future extraction of the resource) and that the end result will go to protecting their industry for years to come, operators may be more willing to share the information they have to the municipality knowing in the end they will have access to a much larger database than - they currently have available. Once the Inventory is complete, the various layers of data can be put together for analysis of all resources and types (i.e. timber, water, construction aggregates, etc.) in a GIS system. The Analysis should be able to paint a good picture of: where subsurface -45- resources are located; the quality and depth of subsurface resources; areas of concern that must be protected for endangered species habitat; critical farmlands; wetlands, lakes, and streams, etc.; timber and forestlands; and current land use coverage. This is not an exhaustive list, just an example of the types of information that should be mapped and analyzed together in order to understand a more complete picture. The most logical level to coordinate this task at is the county level as they already have relationships with their cities, villages, and townships. When the data is combined fiom the various local . sources, it may be easier to determine where conflict points in land uses and resources are between jurisdictional boundaries at all levels. Identifying Stakeholders and Assessing Community Goals and Needs The next step in the process is to determine who are the stakeholders and assess community goals and needs. Mining Operators should be already involved, if possible, as data providers and expert consultants in their field. Other stakeholders include: commercial entities, civic groups, governmental representatives, home owner associations, and the general public. Once all stakeholders are identified, a series of “informational seminars” and “question and answer” sessions should be held to fully explain the process and what the data collected to date means. This should be done for all stakeholder groups, as different groups have different understanding and priorities of what is most important to them. While it is not likely to be possible to obtain input fiom these constituencies at the same time, they must be given the opportunity to participate in the process. This is number 10 in the Smart Growth Network’s list of principles and critical for this step in the Open Space Planning process (SGN, 2002)“. Failure to obtain input from the effected stakeholders, will likely ground the effort to a crawl as opposition -46- resources are located; the quality and depth of subsurface resources; areas of concern that must be protected for endangered species habitat; critical farmlands; wetlands, lakes, and streams, etc.; timber and forestlands; and current land use coverage. This is not an exhaustive list, just an example of the types of information that should be mapped and analyzed together in order to understand a more complete picture. The most logical level to coordinate this task at is the county level as they already have relationships with their cities, villages, and townships. When the data is combined from the various local . sources, it may be easier to determine where conflict points in land uses and resources are between jurisdictional boundaries at all levels. Identifying Stakeholders and Assessing Community Goals and Needs The next step in the process is to determine who are the stakeholders and assess community goals and needs. Mining operators should be already involved, if possible, as data providers and expert consultants in their field. Other stakeholders include: commercial entities, civic groups, governmental representatives, home owner associations, and the general public. Once all stakeholders are identified, a series of “informational seminars” and “question and answer” sessions should be held to fully explain the process and what the data collected to date means. This should be done for all stakeholder groups, as different groups have different understanding and priorities of what is most important to them. While it is not likely to be possible to obtain input from these constituencies at the same time, they must be given the opportunity to participate in the process. This is number 10 in the Smart Growth Network’s list of principles and critical for this step in the Open Space Planning process (SGN, 2002)“. Failure to obtain input from the effected stakeholders, will likely grormd the effort to a crawl as opposition -45- will grow. It is not possible to please everyone, or address every group’s or individual’s concerns; nor should a municipality try to do this as they must act for the greater good of the community and long-term sustainability. HoweVer, failure to include them in the process, and legitimately listen and take into account their input; breeds resentment and feelings of disenfranchisement. Inclusion can be accomplished in numerous ways, open “town hall” discussions, questionnaires or surveys, and planning charettes for a more “hands on” approach where participants problem solve and “brainstorm” in smaller discussion groups and present their ideas. This data fi'om the various stakeholders should then be analyzed and a list of priorities established based upon the responses. Once the initial input is received from these sessions the prioritization of areas of concern and natural resource conservation can be implemented. What this involves is taking the community input and the analyzed physical inventory data and seeing where opportunities and constraints are in relation to land use in order to develop a regional long-range land use plan. For example, if responses list priorities as: maintaining rural character, more medium income housing, more open space, recreation opportunities, and saving wetlands; there may be an area of county, township, etc. where all three and more are possible in long-range planning. The goal of this step is to maximize the use of available resources, whether they are renewable such as: commercial timber and other forestlands, agricultural lands, etc.; or non-renewable such as: construction aggregates, oil and gas resources; so there is no wasted capacity without good cause. Regional Long-Range Land Use Plan Once these priorities are aligned with compatible land use areas a preliminary regional land use land could be put together by professional planners, landscape -47- subdivisions and planned unit developments. Special use permits are perhaps the most critical change, as these are typically used to regulate activities such as construction aggregate mining. These may require new legal language to bring them in line with other revised ordinances and development standards. The important factor is that the subsurface resources present on a site proposed for development, become a factor in the decision of how that site is developed. All these revisions would allow for the second step in Open Space Planning and Design; site specific design and operation techniques to be used for site development. Site Specific Design and Operational Techniques Thefirststepinthisprocess is very similartowhatis doneatthemacroor regional scale; an Inventory and Analysis is conducted on the site in question. This is done within the confines of the site specific area and immediate surroundings. As in many site plan submittal processes, environmental factors, access points, traffic issues, and adjacent land uses are all required to be researched by the applicant as part of the submittal package for approval. In addition to these traditional items to be researched an applicant would also need to provide research on the subsurface resource conditions to determine if there are critical resources that would be lost or compromised by the proposed development. Figures 18 and 19 show two examples of how this Inventory and Analysis could be graphically depicted for a proposal package submittal. Figure 18 is from Growing Greener Ordinance Language CD-ROM and depicts traditional considerations in Inventory and Analysis (GGOL, 2001).” Figure 19 is from a submittal to the 1993 National Stone Association (N SA) and American Society of Landscape Architects student design competition for Aggregate Operations, which shows an -49- Inventory and Analysis for a proposed sand and gravel operation (Lesher and Peterson, 1993).56 The sand and gravel operation information indicates the depth and areas of material present. This data was provided by the aggregate mining company, however if a regional Inventory and Analysis was completed ideally this would be available from the township and/or county. Figure 18 Source: Growing Greener Ordinance Language Visually Enhanced Zoning and Subdivision Models (2001). [CD-ROM] -50- SITE ANALYSIS mull-0mm"! Source: Lesher, T.,& Peterson, B. (1993). “ Site Analysis”. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. NSA/ASLA Reclamation Competition. For aggregate operations, information provided on the Site Analysis should include the expected amount of material to be mined and a time frame for the extraction of the material. Municipalities need to understand that any time frame provided is going to be an estimate only. Market forces, size of the operation, and weather conditions play a large role in how quickly a site will deplete its resources. At this point, if the proposal is for an aggregate operation, an “Operations and Beautification Plan” should be provided. This indicates how the material will be mined, types of equipment that will be used, hours of operation, a phasing plan on how the site will be mined, any stockpiling or processing of material on site, trucking routes, and any -51- OPERATIONS I BEAUTIFICATION mm'gsmmmmg Source: Lesher, T.,& Peterson, B. (1993). “ Operations/Beautification”. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. NSA/ASLA Reclamation Competition. - Post mining land uses can be developed under current traditional zoning methods and ordinances. For example, a post mining subdivision site development and lot count could be handled the same as it would be under a conventional zoning. However, this is little difi‘erent than the type of sprawling land development current taking place. The only difference is that the aggregate material was not lost first. While this is an improvement over what is currently taking place, there is still a better option for developing a post mining subdivision. Open Space Design can allow a more efficient and less sprawling -53- land use for the post mined site. However there is confusion by many who make and propose land use development as to what Open Space Design means. Misconceptions of Open Space Design and the Protections of Traditional Zoning Just as Smart Growth has been confused to mean ‘New Town” development, Open Space Design is often misunderstood by the public and government oflicials to mean multi-family units clustered together on a smaller portion of a site with private parkland (Livingston County Department of Planning, 1996).58 While multi-family units can be part of an open space community, they are not by any means exclusively this way. Single family residential units can easily be part of open space communities. Mixed use development is also a possibility. The open space conserved is used not only for potential recreational opportunities, but also to protect such environmental concerns such as: wetlands, lakes, streams, sensitive habitat, and endangered species. On social needs it can be used to provide active and passive recreation, maintain positive viewsheds, and maintain the rural setting feel that is quickly being lost in counties across the state. The. misconception held by much of the public and, unfortunately some municipal planning boards, is that zoning already provides for this protection of rural setting by limiting density in agricultural areas; and can further set density controls in others if it feels the need. Others go even further to say that allowing overlay districts for cluster development and open space is only giving developers a “free ride” to increase density where the municipality does not want it. The truth is that traditional zoning, which we have used for over 50 years now in much of the country, is a recipe for sprawl. It is sprawl which is destroying the rural character our small cities and townships wish to maintain, not density. The density may be less under traditional -54- zoning, especially in agriculturally zoned areas (for example 1 single family home per 5 acre lot), but this is what is causing the problem not the solution. This single family home is utilizing far more land and resources than necessary. Very few people actually build a small home and maintain a moderate, open yard in most instances, especially if they are not involved in agricultural activities. The typical situation is the owner fences off his or her property and seeds the entire yard. Often the home is set way back on the parcel, in addition to this yard size, requiring municipal services to reach further out to serve the area. This degades not only the rural character but the environmental integrity of the land. Native species of grasses, wildflowers, etc, are replaced by non-native species of grasses for lawns. Fertilizers are added to enhance growth and to “green” the new lawns, which inundates the watertable with nitrates. Surface run-off takes still more to the wetland systems, streams, and lakes. This in turn results in an explosion of algae which chokes the lakes and wetlands and kills off fish and other species. The fencing of these huge lots interferes with wildlife migration patterns and results in cutting them off from other area food sources and proper breeding. The result is a loss in biodiversity for the area as species begin to inbreed. This causes a loss in the species abilities to fight off new diseases as they arise and can also result in genetic disorders over extended periods of time. This may seem like “the pebble-size snowball that starts the avalanche” and it is, when added to instance after instance of this land use across a region or a state. It is becoming abundantly clear each year as more studies are conducted, that traditionally -55- zoned land use that encourages sprawl is inherently unsustainable. So how can Open Space Design techniques stop this downward spiral? Benefits of Open Space Design As stated earlier there is no pure panacea for environmental and social land use ills. As long as our population continues to grow faster than our available housing stock and support industries, there will always be a need to expand outward. To make matters worse the more environmental degradation we cause, the fewer “safe” areas that remain available for expansion. Open Space Design techniques help deal with this problem by limiting the fast expansive nature of human land use on a site by site basis. When used in conjunction with Open Space Planning processes and Smart Growth principles on a regional scale it can change in how we grow as a society. Open Space Design benefits each site it is applied to in both economic and environmental ways. Economic Benefits The economic advantages of Open Space Design are numerous and benefit both the municipality and the developer. For example, open space communities typically enjoy lower infiastructure construction costs. By shortening road lengths and widths the developer reduces his cost for both the road but also utilities that are normally placed in the road right-of—way or just outside in an easement. Depending on the configuration of the parcel of land the savings can be very significant. Stormwater control structure costs are also reduced by shorter road lengths and decreased individual lot size. This is because the amount of impervious surfaces is reduced parcel wide and is mitigated more easily on-site. The municipality gains under these design techniques because, if the roads are public, maintenance costs are reduced for the county road commissions. Ambulance, -56- fire and police services do not have to travel as far to reach those in need and likely are closer to municipal support services they may need to do their jobs effectively (i.e. watermains for firetrucks, regional dispatch towers for police, area hospitals and main arterial roads for ambulances). Reduced impervious surfaces, reduces the amount of potential problems to residents located downstream in the watershed. Typically homeowners call municipalities when excessive flooding occurs in their area. Locally owned and maintained infrastructure is therefore compromised in these areas and must be expanded and/or replaced as necessary to mitigate the problem. These costs become the burden of the municipality and ultimately the local tax payers. Another advantage is the number of wetland crossings is generally reduced under an Open Space designed community. As home lots are reduced in size, the need to cross wetland areas is reduced, as it is no longer necessary to cross them in order to obtain the same lot count for the parcel under traditional zoning maximums for the category. The cost of crossings can be both expensive in terms of construction and time. A wetland crossing application can be a multi-month process from start to finish without a guarantee to the developer that he or she will be allowed the crossing. Municipalities gain in this instance fi'om additional land area to handle stormwater run-off and mitigate pollutants. A third advantage is in marketing and sales. Studies by Randall Arendt, a planner and proponent of Open Space Planning and Design, have shown that properly marketed Open Space Designed communities sell out faster, and appreciate faster than larger lot home subdivisions developed under traditional zoning. This is because the open space conserved provides a unique and value added resource to their lot, even though their lot is -57- smaller than under traditional zoning. The municipality gains from the increased amount of open space, reduces the demand on public recreational services (Arendt, 1996).59 Ecological Benefits Ecologically Open Space Design techniques can help mitigate degradation of environmentally sensitive areas. For example negative impacts to wetlands can be avoided by limiting the exposure of pollutants carried from roads and yards by designing these areas away from wetlands on the site, and using detention and retention stormwater basins to filter out pollutants before they reach the wetlands. If designed correctly these can be an added amenity to the site itself. Other areas such as woodlands, and sensitive prairie lands can be handled in the same manner, by careful design of the road systems and home sites to minimize disturbance, and by creating walking trails that allow for pedestrian traffic to view and enjoy the resources, provide linkages to other regional pedestrian trail systems, but to also discourage traffic in sensitive areas to reduce damage to the resource. Figures 21 and 22 show a conventionally designed subdivision which impacts the whole parcel, and an Open Space Designed example that minimizes the impacts and provides added value in conserved resources. Figure 21 Source: Growing Greener Ordinance Language Visually _ Enhanced Zoning and Subdivision Models (2001). [CD- ROM] -53- Figure 22 Sounce: Growing Greener Ordinance language Visually Enhanwd Zoning and Subdivision Models (2001). [CD-ROM] As can be seen in Figure 22, existing tree stands can be utilized to screen the view of houses fiom adjacent properties, as well as provide privacy for the homeowner. If the development in question is for a post mining land use, Open Space Design techniques can serve an even greater purpose because of the unique opportunities the mining operation lends to the post mined land use. Aggregate could be removed and the land geomorphed to obtain desired screening, to enhance views for home sites, create active and passive recreational areas, and construct new lakes and wetlands. The cost of doing these without mining can be prohibitively expensive for the developer. Fortunately they are part of the necessary operations for aggregate mining; therefore the cost to do them in this case is minimal as the cost would be carried by the operation anyway. These options may change the attitude of some operators who may have seen reclamation requirements as a nuisance that had to be tolerated as a cost of doing business, doing only what is necessary -59- to meet government regulatory mandates, and barely enough to keep local citizens form complaining. The opportunity to plan and design an end use that can serve multiple purposes and create additional profit in the long run could be very appealing; especially when many small operations are run very close to profit margins and risk going out of business. Success Stories of Reclamation Efforts In addition to single-family residential Open Space Design, depleted aggregate operations can be reclamated and designed to meet other regional land uses goals. For example in Stevensville, Michigan a 40 acre mine site will be added to the Grand Mere State Park. Reclamation of the site has included the restoring of the landscape with over 50,000 individual plants and over 100 species, to blend it into the existing park’s flora and fauna. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and local children have made the reclamation process into a community project, restoring habitat for endangered species, and waterfowl. The mining company plans to turn the property over to the park system once reclamation is finished in 2005 (Associated Press, 10/15/2003).60 Mixed-use developments are also possible and work well with aggregate operations. In Edina, Minnesota, a $300 million reclamation project is in progress to create an 87 acre mixed-use development that will include: low-rise condominiums, apartment complexes, ofl‘ice space, a hotel, and an 8 screen movie theatre. The site will include a lake and 25 acres of park space for the development. The development is located in an active real estate market and is expected to fill up quickly (Pit & Quarry, 05/02/2002).61 Figure 23 shows a proposed post mining use for an open space recreation center that would serve the community and access the state’s snowmobile trail system on -60- the northern property line, and provide green space (ice rink in winter), toboggan runs, community amphitheater, and rustic cabins. Figure 23 w- 7?“ .‘ : ‘ .'-: ' 1 'd' .o' . ‘1“ -.. . - .‘A‘ t‘v—" .- ‘ A; " t; .' ,. aw} 0%“ _-.. ’6‘, t . .25;- D . K; a \‘12. ' «1" t: {_-.u--t-l - u ‘ ‘I ‘ , - an ‘.-’"‘~r“. 4 ‘ I ‘F 3"”. >\‘ “LI-8:54 -=,. " .. -. '1 - iii-352‘}, _. ‘ Q). l. .- ‘ mm FINAL USE err-ma Som'ce: Lesher, T.,& Peterson, B. (1993). “ Operations/Beautification”. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. NSA/ASLA Reclamation Competition. Implementing Omn Space Planning and Design Currently Open Space Design can be implemented through a zoning ordinance modification. The most common way this is done in Michigan is through the creation of an open space overlay zoning district which can be allowed as a permitted use under the zoning ordinance. This allows an open space zoning ordinance to in effect ‘supercede’ the underlying zoning within the confines of the open space ordinance restrictions. -61- Allowable density can be determined in numerous ways such as simply setting maximum number of lots per acre restriction. Many however have the developer create what is called a Parallel Plan to help determine allowable density. The Parallel Plan is drawn up to show the maximum amount of possible units a developer would be allowed to show on a Proposed Plan Site Plan. The Parallel Plan is never actually built it is merely to create an agreed upon lot count for the Site Plan. Areas such as wetlands, lakes, streams etc. are generally removed fi'om being shown as part of a buildable window on a lot. To encourage the use of the Open Space ordinance the municipality would generally lower the lot sizes shown on the Parallel Plan. This grants a density bonus to the deve10per in most circumstances. This is a point of contention among those that believe in controlling density via the zoning ordinance; however the number of units granted as a bonus is usually very minor and varies by the underlying zoning requirement. Hamburg Township, Michigan is recognized as a leader in Open Space conservation efl‘orts. Figure 24 shows a table fiom the Hamburg Township Open Space Ordinance that lists the lots size for the Parallel Plan based upon the underlying zoning district (Hamburg Township, 1996)? In this way the overlay Figure 24 Zoning District Source: Hambrn'g Township, Livingston County, Michgan (1996 September 13 amended). Zoning Ordinance Arti_cle 14.00 WIMommig (Planned Unit Development). 8 May 2004. < http://wwwhamburg.mi.us/lawroom/PDFS/ZONING%200RDINANCE/Article%2014.00.de> -62- district does not simply grant a huge density increase as some people fear, but does provide an incentive to pursue an open space community development option. Once the number of lots is approved, the Site Plan can be designed showing the approved amount of lots. The way the open space is conserved fiom development is a concern voiced by most people when discussing open space ordinances. The prevention of future development on the conserved open space is critical for the success of reducing sprawling land use. Therefore the remaining open space, usually established in the ordinance to be between 40-60 percent of the total site, must be legally protected from development. This can be accomplished through some form of legal restriction on land development. Land covenants, ptn'chasing developing rights, transfer of development rights and master deed and by-law restrictions on site condominium developments are just a few of the umwnflbhmflfiflmmmmyuxnaammpmmeihdsmqmnmnunmmfiMwanflmt Michigan does not legally have a mechanism in place for allowing Transfer of Development rights (TDR). The main legislation must come from revisions to Michigan Smnmwtmngownnhmdugz A sample Open Space ordinance developed by the Livingston County Planning Department has been reprinted in Appendix E. Revisions to this “boiler plate” ordinance are intended to show what areas would be necessary to append in order for the ordinance to flmction for the protection and planned extraction of construction aggregate materials (Livingston County Planning Department, 1996).63 -53- Mmrng and Michigan Land Use Rggplation Reform If a regional process for protection and planned extraction of construction aggregate is ever going to come to fi'uition, it is critical that revisions be made to Michigan’s statutes that regulate land use. Current land use legislation encourages sprawling land use behavior by municipalities. In order to curb this behavior, encourage more sustainable land use practices, and protect aggregate resources; changes or additions need to be the following areas of Michigan’s land use regulation: construction aggregate resource protection, define sprawl and initiate regional planning, state land division and planning acts, incentive zoning options and training for planning commissions and zoning boards of appeal. Protecting and Regulating Mining Operations and Resources Cm'rently Michigan does not have a legal way to protect construction aggregate resources from loss by development. To date little has been done to even recognize the problem exists. Aggregate mining in Michigan to date has been regulated primarily by the townships and/or counties who allow the operations under a special use permit. State regulation of aggregate mining is limited in scope to environmental and reclamation statutes. Figure 25 shows ’a list of the current Michigan laws which regulate mining as listed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality — Geologic and Land Management Division (MDEQ-GLMD, 2004).64 It is important to note that not all laws will necessarily be applicable to aggregate mining operations in every instance. For example a permit under Air Pollution Control may not be necessary if aggregate processing is not conducted on-site. To date the state and federal environmental laws have done an adequate job of policing the industry fi'om doing major environmental Figure 25 Michigan Laws Applicable for Mining Activity Part 31 , Water Resources Protection DiSCharse to surface “at" 0' groundwater. storm water control, construction in a floodplain Part 55, Air Pollution Control Air emissions Part 91 , Soil Erosion and Benn-moving activity disturbing mom than one Sedimentation Control acre or within 500 feet of water part 1 1 1 , Hazardous Waste Handling and disposal of hazardous waste Management Part 1 1 5, Solid Waste Management Handling and disposal of solid waste. excluding waste rock stockpiles and tailings basins Part 201 , Environmental Remediation Champ and WNW“ 0' mm'mtion '"d . prevention of migration or exacerbation Part 301 , Inland Lakes and Streams Dredging or depositing fill In I lake or 80mm Part 303, Wetlands Protection ”Within“ 0‘ 1' Wand Part 625, Mineral Wells WWW 0" at "9'" 0' ““90““ ”"8 Part 631, Reclamation of Mining Reclamation 0‘ “m min” and ”30°13“ Sorn'ce: MakiJ., Michigan Department of Environmental Quality-Geologic and Land Management Division. (2004, January 3]). “Exploration and Mining in the Northern Peninsula of Michigan”. 15 June 2004. damage to sensitive areas, however it has left it to the counties, cities, and townships to decide where mining Operations will be allowed outside of these statutes. The state needs to be a leader and take a proactive role if construction aggregates are to be protected. They must be given the same or similar priority as other natural resources such as forestry, wetlands, lakes, and streams. This would require a state statute that would recognize the importance of construction aggregates, mandate a statewide inventory of available reserves, and require municipalities to plan for and allow subsurface resources protection and extraction where appropriate in their comprehensive -65- plans and zoning ordinances. Other states and countries have taken this first step and can be a guide for any legislation that Michigan initiates. Three good examples of such efforts are the states of California and Minnesota and the province of Ontario, Canada. California has pioneered the protection and planning for subsurface resources in the Unites States with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). California’s mining industry was endangered by the exceptional fast growth rate of its population and the even faster expansion of its suburban communities. Industry analysts had predicted that without adequate protective measures taken the state was going to face a significant short fall in meeting its aggregate demand. The creation of SMARA marked the first effort to recognize subsurface resources as an integral part of a state’s economy and necessary for its continued growth. As the SMARA Article I General Provisions states:”§ 2711. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the extraction of ' minerals is essential to the continued economic well-being of the state and to the needs of the society, and that the reclamation of mined lands is necessary to prevent or minimize adverse eflects on the environment and to protect the public health and safety ” (SMARA, 1975).“ The other critical action that SMARA authorized was the creation of a planning effort to delineate areas of resom'ce significance to the state, thereby placing these areas under protection of state law. Doing this ensured that any planned development in these areas would have to justify coverage of the subsurface resources, if proposed to be constructed before extraction had occurred on the site in question. In a similar measure the State of Minnesota in 1984 enacted the Aggregate Planning and Protection Minnesota Statute 84.94. This effectively did the same for Minnesota, as SMARA did for California. It created a legal entity for authorization to plan for construction aggregate protection and an initiative to take inventory of available aggregate reserves (Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee, 1998).“ The problem with the ' Minnesota effort is that it only requires that municipalities consider the data in their land use decisions. Given the general lack of understanding of the total problem and the common view of aggregate mining operations as a nuisance land use, it is not surprising that little has been changed in how land use decisions are being conducted in the state. Minnesota is still facing the same problem of development out pacing extraction of resources. In Canada the province of Ontario enacted in 1990 the Aggregate Resources Act. The purposes of this act are: “to provide for the management of the aggregate resources of 0ntario;to control and regulate aggregate operations on Crown and private lands; to require the rehabilitation of land from which aggregate has been excavated; and to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate operations ”. (Chapter A8, Aggregate Resource Act R.S.O, 1990).” The difl‘erence of the Canadian Act over the Minnesota and California stautes is that the provincial government adminsters mining permits and activities. The local control has been limited. This has the advantage of reducing local objections against mining operations fiom biasing land use approvals. While the system of land use rights in Michigan likely would not allow for removing review rights from local control, it may be possible to create a state appeals board with legal powers to overide the local decision if it can be proven as biased; not fact driven. This would be an important improvement in protecting aggregate resources. In any case Michigan needs a legislative act like SMARA to recognize and give state -67- authority to inventory reserves and mandate that subsurface resources are seriously considered in land use decisions. Define Sprawl and Initiate Regional Planning One area that would help to put land use decision making on equal footing would be for the State of Michigan to define sprawl. In particular, place a quantitative measure to the term so an evaluation can be made that is not subjective. The current problem is that there is no clear definition of sprawl and therefore some areas may not realize they are sprawling or may think they are sprawling when in reality they are not. A quantative measure for a definition would also provide a non-biased way of measurement since there is a lot of personal bias as to whattypes of land use constitute sprawl. Making land use decisions based upon personal interpretations of sprawl will put some applicants at a disadvantage over others. A quantative measure for sprawling land use “levels the playing field” for all sides and can be easily determined by calculation. In relation to defining sprawl and protection of construction aggregates, the state needs to mandate a regional inventory of aggregate resources and categorize areas of primary concern. A quantative measure of sprawling land use would help indentify these areas. Linked to a quality of material inventory and reserve amounts, priorities could be determined as to what counties, townships, etc. were most at risk fi‘om developing over there reserves. The state needs to legislatively strengthen Metropolitan Planning Organizations so they can play a larger role in helping townships and counties to make compatible regional land use plans. To date there is not any legislation to grant real authority to MPOs to plan and there are not that many organizations; however the need -68- for them to help mitigate potential land use conflicts between counties and townships is crucial to a successful regional land use plan formulation. State Land Division and Planning Acts Revisions are desperately needed to change the way the state handles land division. Currently there are several legislative acts that have a say in how land is subdivided. The Michigan Society of Planning has recognized this issue in the numerous studies and comments obtained from planners and land use decision makers across the state. In their report, “New Directions: Recommendations for Planning, Zoning, and Subdivision Law in Michigan”, they indicate that the following needs to be clarified and revised to Michigan’s Land Division statutes: “Completely rewrite the Land Division Act and consolidate related provisions fi'om the planning acts. Without a doubt, provisions for division of land and subdivision in the Michigan statutes are in need of a major rewriting; study after study has asserted this and all of the interviews confirmed it. Ihe current statutory framework spreads the authority for subdivision review over several code sections. A separate statute deals with land division and subdivision (MCL 560.101 et seq. ). Language related to subdivision control, however, appears in both the municipal planning act (MCL 125. 43-. 45) and the township planning act (MCL 125.332). In addition, cities and villages have the authority to adopt ofl‘icial maps, which control the location of major public improvements on land undergoing subdivision (MCL 125. 51 et seq. ). A set of complex provisions, enacted in 1997 as a substitute for a clearly written overhaul of the statute, deals with division of land without formal subdivision (MCL 560.108). It appears that, over time, the land division procedure can produce what is in reality a multiple- lot subdivision” (MSP, 2004).68 Currently, these statutes are encouraging sprawl in an unintentional way; the length of time for approvals under certain acts makes choosing the 1997 Land Division Act the -69- most likely to be used. This is because it is the easiest and quickest statute for the developer to utilize. The problem is this act has been criticized for encouraging land fragmentation and sprawl as it allows for up to ten parcel splits from the parent parcel. The process is easy to do under traditional zoning, and fast for the developer, but the result is sprawl. This is detrimental for resource protection efl‘orts and for maintaining high-yield farmlands. The length of time to do a traditional plat or site condominium makes these far less likely to be used as they can take over a year to receive final approval from every state and local agency that must review and approve the plans. These statutes should be rescinded and a new legislation written which clearly defines development options available and agencies to be involved with the approval process. A change should be made to allow the local municipality to act as the lead agency for collection of plans and applications, so that an acceptable time table can be presented and explained to applicants for land division projects. Incentive Zoning Options and Training Two areas that also must be changed in relation to this problem are incentive zoning options for developers and training for planning commissioners and zoning board of appeals members. The complexity or lack of development options to do open space planning or planned unit developments severely limits the ability to slow sprawling land use. The state needs to ofiicially allow for, and endorse the use of these development options; in particular the use of these districts as they apply to resource protection efforts. While townships have been using these districts with some successes, there needs to be a clear state statute and allowance for bonus densities grantable by the municipality for exceptional design that furthers the comprehensive plan goals. The comprehensive plan -70- itself should be a legally enforceable document. Currently, courts do not recognize any binding enforcement of the comprehensive plan, instead defaulting to zoning, because there is no clear statute giving it standing in Michigan. Finally, training is crucial for those that are making land use decisions for the state. Currently, legislation does not require any formalized training for those who are responsible for guiding the state land use course. Many of those sitting on planning commissions and zoning boards of appeals have no formal planning training. They are unfamiliar with even the most basic planning terminology and are uneasy about embracing any new planning and design techniques beyond the standard zoning ordinance. This is especially true for more rural areas where the need to protect resources is most crucial. The state should mandate that those who are on these commissions and boards receive proper training on the basics of land use planning and encourage further training opportunities (MSP, 2004).69 Conclusions Need To Recognize the Critical Situation We Face The problem of sprawl was not created overnight and it will not be solved overnight; however efforts must be made to address its effects on our land use if we are going to continue to be able to grow as a society. The hand that feeds sprawl, construction aggregates, is in danger of being lost to the very same phenomena it helped create. Michigan citizens must snap out of their complacency and realize that current land use practices are not sustainable in the long-term and are counter productive to conserving critical natural resources that we must have to function. Increasing construction costs from the loss of construction aggregates will in time slow growth on its -71- own, but not before a tremendous amount of resources are buried below new shopping centers and subdivisions. Implement Legislation and Corrective Actions To forestall this dim future for our state we must implement legislation to protect these resources and mandate a regional inventory of remaining reserves and critical areas where loss of high quality reserves is imminent. We must correct confusing and sprawl encouraging land division statutes and streamline the process so it is easier for all to tmderstand and follow. Use of Open Space Planning and Design processes and techniques can play a valuable role in fostering this effort and for planning the protection, extraction and end use creation for post mined sites. They have the added advantage of allowing new landforms and habitats to be created at minimal costs as part of the mining operation and can be an unobtrusive neighbor when operations are planned and phased carefully to minimize disturbances. Improve Education of Both the Public and Mining Operators To accomplish protection of these resources and the promotion of Open Space Planning and Design, the public needs to understand that aggregate materials are a finite resource; and while we currently have vast supplies, we are going to lose them if we don’t change our growth paradigm. The public and land use decision makers need to realize the implication of land use changes they approve, with the knowledge that these resources do not follow jurisdictional boundaries and that we must protect them where we find them, as we would any other critical resource. They are not necessarily more important than other natural systems or resources, but they should be considered equally in land use policy and practice. -72- Mining operators need to be more proactive in the advocating of construction aggregate resource protection as their continued livelihood is in question. Education must continue with operators on the consequences of short term business decisions that can create public opposition. Human nature is unfortunately fast to forget the years of being a “good neighbor” and remember the one time operations inconvenienced them. Going the “extra mile” to maintain positive public relations will pay off in the long run for the operators. Both groups need to see the full impact of current practices and learn about alternative land use options to address this problem, working together to solve the problem as both can benefit in the long run with a sustainable community for everyone to enjoy. -73- Endnotes 1 United States Bureau of the Census (2004). Census Bureau Home Page, [web page]. Retrieved 22 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: . 3 Hall, P. (1990). Cities if Tomorrow. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 293 4 Ibid. 293 5 Squires, G. (Ed.). (2002). Urban aprawl: Causes, comuences & policy reamnses. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 17. 6 Hall, P. (1990). Cities of tomorrow. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 292 7 Ibid. 294-297 a Fox, K. (1985). Metropolitan America: Urban life and urban policy in the United States, 1940-1980. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.127-l62 9 U.S. Census Bureau. USA Ouickfacts from the US Census Bureaa. [web page] Retrieved 25 May 2004 from the World World Wide Web: . '0 Fulton, William, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison. Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy, Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Difl‘er Across the U.S. The Brookings Institution. 4.[online report] Retrieved July 2001 from the World Wide Web: ” Ibid. 5 '2 Ibid. 9 '3 Campbell, P. Population Projections: States, 1995-2025. Current Population Reports. Census Bureau P25-1 131. [web page] Retrieved May 1997 from the World Wide Web: < http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/popula.html>. 1 ‘4 Burchell, R, et al. (2002). TCRP Report 74 Costs of Sprawl-2000. Washington, 13.0.: National Academy Press. 194 ‘5 Ibid. 194-195 -74- 16 Campbell, P. Population Projections: States, 1995-2025. Current Population Reports. Census Bureau P25-1131. 1 [web page] Retrieved May 1997 fiom the World Wide Web: < http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/populahtml> ‘7 Burchell, R, et al. (2002). TCRP Report 74 Costs of Sprawl-2000. 195 Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 18 Public Sector Consultants.(2001, November) Michigan Land Resource Project. 12, 123. Public Sector Consultants. [online report] Retrieved 20 June 2004. fiom the World Wide Web: . ‘9 Goldstein, J ., Secretary of the Interior. Depart of Interior. (1994, March). The Impaat of Federal Proms On Wetlands-Volume 11. [online report] Retrieved 27 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: < http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlandsZ/index.html> 2° Public Sector Consultants.(2001, November) Michigan Land Resource Project. 12. Public Sector Consultants. [online report] Retrieved 20 June 2004. fi'om the World Wide Web: . 21lbid. 16 22 Burchell, R, et al. (2002). TCRP Report 74 Costs of sprawl—2000. Washington. DC: National Academy Press. 11 23 Squires, G. (Ed.). (2002). Urban sprawl: 'Causechonaguences & palicy mnses. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. 131-133 2‘ Frumkin, Dr. H. (2002). Publicme Rap_orts: Vol.117. Urban sprawl and Public Health (May-June). 202-203 2’ Ibid. 203 2‘ Ibid. 205 27 Public Sector Consultants.(2001, November) Michigan Land Resource Project. 123. Public Sector Consultants. [online report] Retrieved 20 June 2004. from the World Wide Web: . 2‘ Ibid. 123 -75- 29 Michigan Legislatme Legislative Service Bureau Science and Technology Division. (March 2001).Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen’s Guide. Michigan House Republm. 10 [online report] Retrieved July 10. 2004 from the World Wide Web: 3° Ibid. 10 3' Ibid. 9 32 Public Sector Consultants.(2001, November) Michigan Land Resource Project. 80. Public Sector Consultants. [online report] Retrieved 20 June 2004. from the World Wide Web: . 33 Michigan Aggregates Association. (2001) Michigan Aggragates Facts and Figm. [web page] Retrieved July 20 2004 from the World Wide Web: < http://www.miagg.org/Facts&Figures.html> 34 Dorr, J ., & Eschman, D. (1996). GeologLof Michiga_n. USA: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published in 1970) 35 Michigan Legislature Legislative Service Bureau Science and Technology Division. (March 2001).Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen’s Guide. Michigan Houae Republim. 4 [online report] Retrieved July 10. 2004 fi'om the World Wide Web:. ’9 Ibid. 75 40 Michigan Aggregates Association. (2001) Michigan Aggggates Facts and Figfis. [web page] Retrieved July 20 2004 from the World Wide Web: < http://www.miagg.org/Facts&Figures.html> ‘1 lbid. -76- 42 Olsen, M. (2001). Gold Rush’s toxic legacy. SN&R Newareviewcom. [web page] Retrieved 28 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: ‘3 Brady, A., Dow Jones News Service. (2000, March 13). Arizona town battles mining company. The Detroit News. [online Newspaper article] Retrieved 26 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: 44 Associated Press. (2002, December 30). More control of quarries urged in state. m Decatur Daily News. [online Newspaper article] Retrieved 28 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: 45 Woodards, S. (2000, October 18). Trenton quarry due to get new operators in 2001. The Detroit News.[online newspaper article] Retrieved 26 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: ‘6 Local Sand and Gravel Bills (1998, March 5). Conservation Rgmrt 24, Number 9. 25 [web page] Retrieved 10 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: ‘7 Maryland Code/ARTICLE 66B LAND USE/MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSI§ 14.05. Charles County. (2000) [online report] Retrieved 31 July 2004 fi'om the World Wide Web: 48 Wowk, M. (2000, December 24). Gravel operation debated. The Detroit News_. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 5 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: ‘9 Locker, D. Davis (2003, September 21). “Gravel pit deal upsets residents Tyrone Township accepts longer hours to get future parklan ”. The Detroit Nelva. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 5 May 2004 fiom the World Wide Web: 5° lbid. 5‘ Smart Growth Network. (2002, January) Gettingto Sm_art Growth 100 Policies for Implementation. Retrieved 23 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: i. 52 Ibid. ii -77- 53 Center for Geographic Information, Michigan Department of Information Technology. “Michigan Framework version 3b available”. Retrieved 4 April 2004, from the World Wide Web: < http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,1607,7-158-- 50182- ,00.html> 5" Smart Growth Network. (2002, January) Getting to Smart Growth 100 Policies for Implementation. Retrieved 23 July 2004, from the World Wide Web: ii. 55 Growing Greener Ordinance Language Visually Enhanced Zoning and Subdivision Models (2001). [CD—ROM] 5“Lesher, T., & Peterson, B. (1993). Site Analysis. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. National Stone Association/American Society Landscape Architecture Student Design Competition for Reclamation Services. 5’ Lesher, T.,& Peterson, B. (1993). Qparations/Beautification. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. National Stone Association/American Society Landscape Architecture Student Design Competition for Reclamation Services. 58 Livingston County Department of Planning. (1996). Qppn Space Planning. Livingston County Department of Planning. 59 Arendt, R. (1996). Conservation Design for Subdivisions: a practical g1_n_'de for creating oppn space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press. 10-11 60 Associated Press. (2003, October 15). Former mine is greening up: Sand pit will become part of Grand Mere park, boasts indigenous plants. 1h; Detroit Newa. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 5 May 2004, from the World Wide Web: 6‘ Pit & Quarry (2002, May 2). “Quarryology 101: Lesson 17: Part 1”. Retrieved 5 June 2004, from the World Wide Web: 62 Hamburg Township, Livingston County, Michigan (1996 September 13 amended). ZoninLOrdirLance Article 14.00 Open Space Community (Planned Unit Development). Retrieved 8 May 2004, from the World Wide Web: < http://www.hamburg.mi.uS/lawroom/PDFS/ZONING%2OORDIN AN CE/Article %2014.00.pdt> 63 Livingston County Department of Planning. (1996). Open Space Planning. Livingston County Department of Planning. 191-203 -78- “ Maki,J. (2004, January 31). Exploration and Mining in the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality-Geologic and Land Management Division. Retrieved 15 June 2004, from the World Wide Web: 65 California Department of Conservation-Office of Mine Reclamation. (2004). Surface Mining and Reclamation Act Of 1975 and Associated Regulations. 1. Retrieved 12 April 2004, from the World Wide Web: < http://www.consrv.ca.gov/omr/smara/051204Note26.pdf> ‘56 Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee. (1998, November). Minnesota’s Aggregate Industry: Road to the 21“ Century. Aggragate Resources Task Force. Retrieved 15 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: < http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/aggregate.resources/aggtl98.pdf> ‘7 Aggregate Resources Act, Chapter A8 (1990), as amended by: 1993, c. 27, Sched.; 1994, c. 23, s. 61; 1994, c. 27, S. 126; 1996, c. 30, ss. 1-55; 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 1999, c. 12, Sched. N, s. 1; 2000, c. 26, Sched. L, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. Government of Ontario. Retrieved 23 July 2004, from the World Wide Web: 68 Michigan Society of Planning, prepared by Meek, S. and Morris, M. (2004, March). New Directions: Recommendations for Planning, Zoning, and Subdivision Law in Michigan. [online document]. Retrieved May 10, 2004 from the World Wide Web: . 60 69 Ibid. 63 -79- Biblipgr_aphy Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee. (1998, November). Minnesota’s Aggregate Industry: Road to the 21“ Century. Aggggate Resou_rces Task Force. Retrieved 15 July 2004, from the World Wide Web: < http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/aggregate.resourceS/aggtf98.pdf> Aggregate Resources Act, Chapter A8 (1990), as amended by: 1993, c. 27, Sched.; 1994, c. 23, s. 61; 1994, c. 27, s. 126; 1996, c. 30, ss. 1-55; 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 1999, c. 12, Sched. N, S. 1; 2000, c. 26, Sched. L, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table. Government of Ontario. Retrieved 23 July 2004, fi'om the World Wide Web: American Farmland Trust American Famrland Trust: Sav1_ng' the Land that Sustains Us. [web page] Retrieved 4 April 2004 from the World Wide Web: American Planning Association (2002). American Planning Association Policy Guide on Smart Growth. American leng’ Association-Policy Guide [online report] Retrieved 10 January 2004fi'om the World Wide Web: Arendt, R. (1996). Conservation design of subdivisions: Practical gu_ide to creating omp m networks. Washington, DC: Island Press. Associated Press (2003, October 15). Former mine is greening up: Sand pit will become part of Grand Mere Park, boasts indigenous plants. The Detroit Newa. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 5 May 2004, from the World Wide Web: -30- Associated Press. (2002, December 30). More control of quarries urged in state. m Decatur Daily Navy/a. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 28 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Institutionalizing Smart Growth Principles In the Metropolitan Planning Process: AMPO-EPA Innovative Community Partnership Project Description. Association of Metromlitan Organizations. [Web Page] Retrieved 3 February 2004, from the World Wide Web: Blackmar, E., and Rosenzweig. “History of Central Park”. Retrieved 26 June 2004. . Bloom, C. (2001, April 4). Attorney Writes. Gem g In The Zone. [web page] Retrieved 23 January 2004 from the World Wide Web: ' Bookout, L., eta]. (1990). Residential development handbook. Washington, D.C.:'Ihe Urban Land Institute. Brady, A. (2000, March 13). Arizona town battles mining company. Ea Detroit Newa, Retrieved May 26, 2004. Brady, A., Dow Jones News Service. (2000, March 13). Arizona town battles mining company. The Detroit News_. [online Newspaper article] Retrieved 26 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: Burchell, R., et al. (2002). TCRP Report 74 Co_st_s of Sprawl-2000. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 194 -31- California Department of Conservation-Office of Mine Reclamation. (2004). Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and Associated Regulations. Retrieved 12 April 2004, from the World Wide Web: < http://www.consrv.ca. gov/omr/smara/OS 1204Note26.pdf> Callies, D., Curtin, D., & Tappendorf, J. (2003). Bargaining for development: A handbook on development aggeements, annexation mments, land development conditions, vested rights, and the pgpvision of public facilities. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Campbell, P. Population Projections: States, 1995-2025. Current Population Ramrts. Census Bureau P25-1131. [web page] Retrieved May 1997 from the World Wide Web: Center for Geographic Information, Michigan Department of Information Technology. “Michigan Framework version 3b available”. Retrieved 4 April 2004, from the World Wide Web: < http://www.michigan.gov/cgi/0,l607,7-158- 50182— ,00.html> City of Northville-Building Department (2004, March). Gig of Northville Zoning Ordinance. Zoal_ng° Ordinance, City of Northville, Michiga_n (m 1. [online Ordinance]. Retrieved 18 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: Cohn, J. and Lerner, J. (2003). Integrating Land Use Planning & Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife. [online report] Retrieved 23 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: -32- Colley, B. (1993). Practical manual of Lapd developmenp New York: McGraw-Hill. Coughlin, R., & Keene, J. (Eds). (1981). National agp'cultural lands study: The protection of farmland; a reference guidebook for state and local governments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy. Michigan: Governor John Engler. Council for Republican Environmental Advocacy. [web page] Retrieved 10 January 2004, from the World Wide Web: ‘ Cox, W. and Utt, J. (2004, June 25). The Costs of Sprawl Reconsidered: What the Data Really Show. Executive Summary: The Costs of Spgwl Reconsidered: flag the Data Really Show. [online report] Retrieved July 24 2004 from the World Wide Web: Dalton Township (2003, June 2). DALTON TOWNSHIP REGULAR BOARD MEETING-JUNE 2, 2003 7:00 P.M. Dalton Townshiflaline forms, ordinances, minutes and information. North of Muskegon, Michigan. [web page] Retrieved 23 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: Daniels, W.L. and S.G. Richardson , Eds. (2000). Proceedings, 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Tampa, FL, June 11- 15, 2000. Amer. Soc. Surf. Mining Rec., 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY. Dawson, A. (1992). Ice age earth: Late guategary geology and climate. London: Routledge. Department of Interior-Office of Surface Mining (1976, March 12). House of Representatives Report No. 94-896; 94‘” Congress 2"‘1 Session; HR. 9725. _I-Io_usp Report No. 94-896. [web page] Retrieved 23 April 2004 fiom the World Wide Web: -33- Department of Interior-Office of Surface Mining (1977, April 22). House of J Representatives Report No. 95-218; 95th Congress 1" Session; HR. 2. Elisa Report No. 95-218. [web page] Retrieved 23 April 2004 from the World Wide Web: Dorr, J ., & Eschman, D. (1996). Geology of Michiga_n. USA: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published in 1970) Edwards, G., Ed. (2004, June 8). National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association e-Digest. News from NSSGA (www.nssga.org). [online digest] Retrieved 10 July 2004 final the World Wide Web:< http://www.nssga.org/newsletter/digest/060804_ed.cfin> Environmental Law & Policy Center. Michigan Transportation and Land Use Reform: Context Sensitive Design. ELPC-Michigan Tmrtation and Land Use. [web page] Retrieved 5 May 2004 fiom the World Wide Web: Environmental Quality (2002, January 28) General NPDES Permits. State of Michiga_n: Geological and Land Mmement Dfiiaion. [Article online]. Retreived 6 June 2004. Environmental Quality (2002, June 18) Information and instruction for sand dune mining. gage of Michigan: Geological and Land Management Division. [Article online]. Retreived 6 June 2004. Evans, W. (2004, June27). Sprawl drives up housing costs. Sprawl drives up housing costs York Daily Record. [online article] Retrieved 20 July 2004 fiom the World Wide Web: Find Law For Legal Professionals-Case Law, Federal and State Resources. F orma Retrieved .12 July 2004 -34- Fink, A. (1998). Conducting research literature reviews: From papar to the intemet. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Flora, C., Flora, J., & Fey, S. (2004). Rural communities: Legacy and change. Boulder: Westview Press. Fox, K. (1985). Metromlitan America: Urban life and urban mlicy in the United States, 1940-1980. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Frumkin, Dr. H. (2002). Public Health Remrts: Vol.117. Urban Sprawl and Public Health. (May-June). Fulton, W., R. Pendall, M. Nguyen, and A. Harrison. Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy, Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Difl‘er Across the U.S. m Brookings Institution. [online report] Retrieved July 2001 fiom the World Wide Web: . Geologic Survey of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada. GSC://Geological Survey of Canada. [web page] Retrieved 6 April 2004 from the World Wide Web: Glaeser, E. and Shapiro, J. (2001, May). City Growth and the 2000 Census: Which Places Grew, and Why. City Growth Me 2000 Cen_§p_s: Which Places Grew,apc_l_ _Lhy. [online report] Retrieved 17 March 2004 from the World Wide Web: Goldstein, J ., Secretary of the Interior. Depart of Interior. (1994, March). The Imgt of Federal Proms On Wetlands-Volume 11. [online report] Retrieved 27 July 2004 from the World Wide Web:< http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlandsZ/‘mdexhtmb Growing Greener Ordinance language Visually Enhanced Zoning and Subdivision Models (2001). [CD-ROM] Hall, P. (1990). Cities of Tomorrow. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. -35- Hall, S. (2000, April 18). Township targets gravel trucks. _'I_h_e Detroit New; Retrieved May 26, 2004. Hamburg Township, Livingston County, Michigan (1996 September 13 amended). Zoning Ordinance Article 14.00 Qppn Sm Communig (Planned Unit Development). Retrieved 8 May 2004, fiom the World Wide Web: < http://www.hamburg.mi.us/lawroom/PDFS/ZON11\1 G%2OORDINAN CE/Article %2014.00.pdf>%2014.00.pdt> Hart, J. (1991). Farming on the edge: Saving family farms in Marin Coung, California. Berkeley: University of California Press. Heinlein, G. (2000, January 16) Miners reclaim historic U.P. Ski jump. The Detroit Newa, [Newspaper article online]. Retreived 26 May 2004. Heinlein, G. (2000, March 28) Michigan sand dunes touch off legal battle. The Detroit News. [Newspaper article online]. Retreived 26 May 2004. Hultsman, J ., Cottrell, R., & Zales-Hultsman, W. (1987). P1 ' for 1e. State College: Venture Publishing, Inc. Institute for Environmental Education. (1993). Common mundwork: A practical gu_ide to protecting rural and urban land; A handbook for making land-use decisions. Ohio: Institute for Environmental Education. Jackson, 1. (2000, June 14). Green Oak truck ban rises again. The Detroit News. Retrieved May 26, 2004. Kelly, E., & Becker, B. (2000). Community planning: An introduction to the comprehensive plan. -86- Knaap, G. (Ed). (2001). Land market monitoring for smart urban ggowth. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Knaap, G., & Nelson, A. (1992). The Regr_1_lated landscam: Lessons on state land use plmg’ from Oregon. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Land Legaciesnet. Suburban Development: Conservation Development. Landlegaciesnet. [web page] Retrieved 23 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: Lesher, T., & Peterson, B. (1993). Site Analysis. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. National Stone Association/American Society Landscape Architecture Student Design Competition for Reclamation Services. Lesher, T.,& Peterson, B. (1993). erations/Beautification. Lewis Sand & Gravel Pit. National Stone Association/American Society Landscape Architecture Student Design Competition for Reclamation Services. Livingston County Department of Planning. (1996). Qpan Spa_p_e Planning. Livingston County Department of Planning. Local Sand and Gravel Bills (1998, March 5). Conservation Remrt 24, Number 9. 25 [web page] Retrieved 10 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: Locker, D. (2003, September 3) Hartland renews mining permit. The Detroit News. [Newspaper article online]. Retreived 26 May 2004. Locker, D. Davis (2003, September 21). Gravel pit deal upsets residents Tyrone Township accepts longer hours to get future parkland. The Detroit News. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 5 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: -37- Losure, M. (2000, January 26). A Shortage of stone? Minnesota Public Radio News. ‘ Retrieved July 27, 2004. Lynch, K. (1972). The iraage of the city. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. Lynch, K., & Hack, G. (1988). Site planning. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. Maki, J. (2004, January 31). Exploration and Mining in the Northern Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan Dem-gent of Environmental Qu_al_ity-Geologic and Land Maaagement Division. Retrieved 15 June 2004, from the World Wide Web: Manistee County Planning Department. Bear Lake Township Zoning Ordinance. _Man_istee County Pl_a_n_n_ing. Town_s_hip Zoning Ordinances. [online ordinance] Retrieved 15 January 2004 from the World Wide Web: Marsh, W. (1983). Lanscapa planning: Environmental applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Marshall, T., Glasson, J ., & Headicar, P. (Eds.). (2002). Contemmagy issues in regional plan_ni_ng, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Maryland Code/ARTICLE 66B LAND USE/MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSI§ 14.05. Charles County. (2000) [online report] Retrieved 31 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: McConkey, C. (1999, September). Mining depletes Lake Michigan sand dunes, tourism. The State News. Retrieved May 26, 2004. -33- Michigan Aggregates Association. (2001) Michigan Aggggates Facts and Figu_res. [web page] Retrieved July 20 2004 fi'om the World Wide Web: < http://www.miagg.org/Facts&Figures.html> Michigan Farmland and Community Alliance. Quick Facts. MichiganFarmBureaucom. [web page] Retrieved 12 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: IVIichigan House Republicans (March 2001).Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen’s Guide. 10 [online report] Retrieved July 10. 2004 from the World Wide Web: Michigan In Brief (2002, April 1). Land Use and Sustainability. Land Use and Sustainability. [online report] Retrieved 20 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: Miehigan Land Use Institute (1999, Spring) Great Lakes Bulletin vol.9. Michigan Land Use Institute. [online report] Retrieved 12 December 2004 from the World Wide Web: Michigan Land Use Leadership Council (2003, August 18). Final Report. Michigg Land Use Leadership Council. [online report] Retrieved 23 March 2004 from the World Wide Web: Michigan Legislature Legislative Service Bureau Science and Technology Division. Michigan Society of Planning, prepared by Meek, S. and Morris, M. (2004, March). New Directions: Recommendations for Planning, Zoning, and Subdivision Law in Michigan. [online document]. Retrieved May 10, 2004 from the World Wide Web: . -39- Montana Smart Growth Coalition (2002, September). Getting The Growth You Want Part One. MSGC~Publieations. [online report] Retrieved 17 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: Municipal Trends (2004, March). Municipal Trends in Open Space Planning & Farmland Preservation. How Local Govemment§. Builders. ail Activist§ Create Local_Lapd_ Use Policies: an Space Planning. [web page] Retrieved 18 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: National Atlas. National Atlas of the United States. [web Site] Retrieved 20 March 2004 from the World Wide Web:< http://nationalatlas.gov/natlaS/natlasstart.asp> National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (2004, May). NSSGA Hails Victory for Landowners in Supreme Court Decision on Western States Mineral Rights. m American MU News OnlineLEdition. [web page] Retrieved 10 July 2004 from the World Wide Web:< http://www.quarrynews.eom/may04/nssga.html> Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1997). 1997 National resources inventory: Summary report: Table 2, revised December 2000. United States Dewent of Agp'cultm'e. Retrieved June 5, 2004, fi-om the World Wide Web: http://www.nres.usda.gov/'I‘echnical/nril 1 997/summary_report/table2.html Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1997). 1997 National resources inventory: Summary report: Table 5, revised December 2000. United States Merit of Agg'eulture. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nres.usda. gov/Technical/nri/ 1 997/summary_report/table5 .html Office of Surface Mining. (2001). State and Indian regulatory program permitting: 2001. United States Dewent of the Interior. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from the World Wide Web: -90- Olsen, M. (2001). Gold Rush’s toxic legacy. SN&R Newsreview.com. [web page] Retrieved 28 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (2003, October 30). Oregon’s 19 Planning Goals and Guidelines. DLCD Goals. [web page] Retrieved 10 June 2004 from the World Wide Web:< http://www.led.state.or.us/goalhtml/goals.html> Peters, M. (2004, January 24). The Perfect Storm. Remarks-National Stone Sand and gavel Association — “The Perfect Storm” - Jangy 24, 2004. [online speech] Retrieved 12 July 2004 from the World Wide Web: Pim, L. (2001, January-February). Ontario update. Great Lakes Aguatic Habitat News,9, Retrieved July 28, 2004. Pit & Quarry (2002, May 2) Quarryology 101: Lesson 17: Part 1. Retrieved 5 June 2004, from the World Wide Web: Porter, DR. (2000). The Practice of Sustainable Development. Washington D.C.: ULI- the Urban Land Institute. Porter, DR. (2002). Making Smart Growth Wfl. Washington D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute. Prior, J. (1994). Pastoral development planning. Oxford: Oxfam Print Unit. Public Sector Consultants. (2001, November). Michigan Land Resource Project. Public Sector Consultants. Retrieved 20 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: Short, J. (1989). The humane cigy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. -91- Sierra Club Santa Fe Group. (2001 & 2002). Final report: The Sierra Club at the 2002 session of the New Mexico State Legislature. Retrieved July 28, 2004, fiom the World Wide Web: SIUC Cooperative Wildlife Research Lab. Mine Land Restoration Ecology. CWRL- mined land restoration ecology. [web page] retrieved 18 February 2004, from the World Wide Web: Skelly & Loy. (1979). Illustrated surface mining methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Skolarus, P. (2003, January 6). Zoning Ordinances. Genoa Township, Michigan Home Page. [web page] Retrieved 12 December 2004 from the World Wide Web: Smart Growth America. Preservation & Revitalization. Smart Growth America. [web page] Retrieved 20 June 2004 from the World Wide Web: Smart Growth Network. (2002, January) Gettipg to Sm_art Growth 100 Policies for Implementation. Retrieved 23 July 2004, from the World Wide Web: So, F., and Getzels, J ., (eds.). (1988). The practice of local government planning: Munieifl mgement series. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association. Squires, G. (Ed.). (2002). Urban aprawl: Causes, comuences & mlicy reappnses. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Surface & Underground Mining. Divi_s_ion of Reclamation: Mining Qpar_ations Information. [web page] Retrieved 28 May 2004 fiom the World Wide Web: Stewart, P. and Krieger, D. (1999, March). Kane County Residential Value: The Influence of Open Space Amenities. CAE Working Paper Series- Lane Couaty Residential Value: The Influence of Open Space Amenities. [web page] Retrieved 10 January 2004, from the World Wide Web: Sullivan, C. (2003, October 12) Gravel pit may get new life as a housing development. The Detroit New; [Newspaper article online]. Retreived 26 May 2004. The Detroit News. Brighton Township hears rezoning [guests 10 May 2004. Retreived 26 May 2004, from the World Wide Web: The House Republican Caucus Rural Development Task Force. (1974). Build_rpg' rural Michigan: A new era in man industrial ente_rprise. Lansing: Republican omee House of Representatives. Tibbetts, J. (1998). M m eonservations: Investing in your community’s economic health. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. (1999). Planning For Success. Boyne City: Harbor House Publishers, Inc. ' Tittabawassee Township Planning Department (2002, January 1). Zoning Ordinance. How to submit a rezoning guest to the planning dwent. [online ordinance] Retrieved 10 January 2004 from the World Wide Web: U.S. Census Bureau. USA Qgckfaets from the US Census Bureau. [web page] Retrieved 25 May 2004 from the World World Wide Web: . -93- U.S. Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management. Public Land Statistics 2003. BLM-Home Page. [online report] Retrieved 25 June 2004, from the World WideWeb: < http://www.blm.gov/nataeq/plsO3/tablecontents_03.pdf> United States Bureau of the Census (2004). Census Bureau Home Paga, [web page]. retrieved 22 July 2004 fi'om the World Wide Web: White Oak Township, Ingham County, Michigan (2000, May 1). Special Use Permit 2000-01. Ordinances and Resolutions. [web page] Retrieved 14 March 2004 from the World Wide Web: Woodards, S. (2000, October 18). Trenton quarry due to get new operators in 2001. m Detroit Newa.[online Newspaper article] Retrieved 26 May 2004 fi'om the World Wide Web: Wowk, M. (2000, December 24). Gravel operation debated. The Detroit Newa. [online newspaper article] Retrieved 5 May 2004 from the World Wide Web: -94- Apmndices Appendix A People QuickFaets Population, 2002 estimate Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002 Population, 2000 Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000 Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000 Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 Female persons, percent, 2000 White persons, percent, 2000 (a) Black or African Amerimn persons, percent, 2000 (a) American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) People QulckFacts Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) White persons, not of HispaniclLatino origin, percent, 2000 Living in same house in 1995 and 2000', pctage 5+, 2000 Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 Language other than English spoken at home, pet age 5+, 2000 High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 Housing units, 2002 Homeownership rate, 2000 Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 Households, 2000 Persons per household, 2000 Median household income, 1999 Per «pita money income, 1999 Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 Business QulekFaete Private nonfan'n establishments with paid employees, 2001 Private nonfarm employment, 2001 Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2001 Nonemployer establishments, 2000 Manufacturers shipments, 1997 ($1000) Retail sales, 1997' ($1000) -95.. USA 288,368,698 2.5% 281,421,906 13.1% 6.8% 25.7% 12.4% 50.9% 75.1% 12.3% 0.9% 3.6% 0.1% 5.5% USA 2.4% 12.5% 69.1% 54.1% 1 1.1% 17.9% 80.4% 24.4% 49,746,248 25.5 1 19,302,132 66.2% 26.4% $119,600 105,480,101 2.59 $41,994 $21,587 12.4% USA 7,095,302 115,061,184 0.9% 16,529,955 3,842,061,405 2,460,886,012 Retail sales per capita, 1997 $9,190 Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997 14.6% Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997 26.0% Housing units authorized by building permits, 2002 1,747,678 Federal funds and grants, 2002 ($1000) 1,901,247,889 Geography QuickFactc USA Land area, 2000 (square miles) 3,537,438 Persons per square mile, 2000 79.6 FIPS Code (a) includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data NR Not available D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information X: Not applicable S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown F: Fewer than 100 firms Source: US Census Bureau State 8 County QuickFacts Appendix 8 People QuickFacts Michigan Population, 2003 estimate 10,079,985 Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003 1.4% Population, 2000 9,938,444 Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000 6.9% Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000 6.8% Persons under 18 years old, percent. 2000 26.1% Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000 12.3% Female persons, percent, 2000 51.0% White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 80.2% Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 14.2% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.6% Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 1.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) Z Persons reporting some other race, percent. 2000 (a) 1.3% Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 1.9% Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 3.3% White persons, not of HispaniclLatino origin, percent, 2000 78.6% Living in same house in 1995 and 2000', pct age 5+, 2000 57.3% Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 5.3% Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000 8.4% High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 83.4% Bachelor‘s degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000 21.8% Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000 1,711,231 -96- People QuickFacts Michigan Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000 24.1 Housing units, 2002 4,331,986 Homeownership rate, 2000 73.8% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000 18.8% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000 $115,600 Households, 2000 3,785,661 Persons per household, 2000 2.56 Median household income, 1999 $44,667 Per capita money income, 1999 $22,168 Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 10.5% Business QuickFacts Michigan Private nonfarm establishments with paid employees, 2001 236,711 Private nonfarrn employment, 2001 4,008,572 Private nonfarrn employment, percent change 20002001 -1.6% Nonemployer establishments, 2000 526,958 Manufacturers shipments, 1997 ($1000) 214,900,655 Retail sales, 1997 ($1000) 93,706,078 Retail sales per capita, 1997 $9,576 Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997 7.6% Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997 27.2% Housing units authorized by building permits, 2002 49,9681 Federal funds and grants, 2002 ($1000) 55,909,012 Geography QuickFacts Michigan Land area, 2000 (square miles) 56,804 Persons per square mile, 2000 175 FIPS Code 26 (a) includes persons reporting only one race. (b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data NA:_ Not available 0: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information X: Not applicable S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards 2 Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown F: Fewer than 100 firms , Source: US Census Bureau State 8 County QuickFacts -97- Appendix C SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS [N THE UNITED STATES, BY STATEl (mousand metric tons and thousand dollars) 2604 _ ._ 2003 _- .____ Per- Percent Number Quanlrty Value Quantity cent cover- of _ -ime T51_qu-__22d_93r,_.3.19<19._11h <19 T2112 tom? Is! <18; chess.’__28e__c9s. Alabama 2,440 3,040 2,930 2,790 1 1,200 51,500 2,260 -7.6 40 7 7116928 (51 (51 (51 151 16,300 93,700 (5) (s1 (51 (51 m 13,100 15,200 15,400 14,400 58,000 319,000 21,700 65.8 66 8 _A—r—kfi‘l—SIS 1,640 2,390 3,000 2,070 9,100 47,300 1,850 12.9 60 3 Edfornia 31,500 47,700 44,900 33,900 158,000 1,160,000 33,300 5.5 63 15 E01630 5,610 12700 1 1,500 7,170 37,000 204,000 5,970 6 4 34 C—onrtect-rcut 562 2,340 3,290 2,710 8,900 53,800 668 18,8 32 5 “1561646;- 161 (61 (61 161 2,000 I 5.900 161 (61 (61 (61 ~1116.121}; 6,780 7,840 7,290 7,100 29,000 125,000 7,120 5.0 66 8 "(3662.73 1,460 1,930 1,990 1,720 7,100 29,500 2,190 49.6 51 6 ’H8;Sii (5) 151 (51 (51 600 6,900 151 ($1 15) 151 "133113 ‘ 2,210 4,890 3,590 4,310 15,000 55,500 1,670 -244 22 3 E16168 3,550 9,610 1 1,200 8.,850 33,200 153.000 3.480 -2 1 35 7 Tndtan—a 5,350 8,380 7,290 6,080 27,100 121,000 5,110 .4 5 47 6 Iowa 1,060 4,080 5,140 3,730 14,000 60,200 1,200 13.5 49 6 m—~ 1,760 3,040 3,090 2,310 10.200 31,100 1,780 1.4 21 3 16mm 972 2,480 2,610 2,740 8,800 35,200 2,350 142.0 1 3 3 136-1137.}; 4,250 5,380 5,310 4,760 19,700 107,000 3,970 -6 5 37 3 Marne 575 2,440 3,960 2,330 9,300 39,100 605 5.3 16 4 BEE—.— 2,050 3,070 3,150 3,130 1 1,400 78,100 2,410 17 4 4o 4 “85.;th_ 1,730 2,620 3,760 3,300 11,400 70,700 1,780 3 2 13 5 Egg" " 7" 4,930 23,200 24,600 17,300 70,000 245,000 5,240 6.3 41 1o ancsota 1,070 13,200 19,900 12,900 47,000 188,000 1,030 -3.2 41 9 W551;s1§01___ 2,330 3.300 3,920 3,250 l2.800 69,100 2,570 10.1 49 5 “Missdlun’ 1,380 3,060 3,660 2,100 10,200 43,400 1,820 32 0 48 4 :Mdéimg_____ 2,480 6,190 6,230 3,100 18,000 81,900 1,690 -319 38 3 Nebraska 1,740 4,020 3,840 2,610 12,200 42,100 1,770 2 0 23 5 Nevada __ 8,450 8,700 1 1,200 9,700 38,000 173,000 7,720 -86 20 5 _N_@_15_ 715 2470 3,280 2,640 9,100 44,100 923 29 1 28 4 leylasey 2,720 3,780 3,860 4,850 15,200 92.000 2,990 10. 1 31 5 1160 b45790:— 3,110 4,000 3,930 2,970 14,000 68,600 3,010 .31 36 5 _N_e_w Y1K; __ 3,900 8,910 11,900 7,320 32,000 171,000 3,310 -15.1 22 9 _Nonh_C_aroi11_18__ 2,030 2,300 2,600 2,180 9,100 46,000 2,180 75 28 4 1163113611616 151 (s) 151 151 10,600 28,100 (51 151 (s) 15) 2'39 . 5,320 12,700 16,100 12,800 47,000 242000 6,180 161 48 13 9121:6931: 2,140 2,740 2,640 2,280 9,800 39,700 2,080 -2.8 47 6 _Qrcgon_____ 3,350 4,200 6,420 5,030 19,000 1 1 3,000 3,380 0.9 41 5 Miw_ 2,120 4,830 6,060 5,000 18,000 1 15,000 2,980 40.7 38 8 3110514: island __ (6) (61 161 (61 1,680 13,500 (61 <61 <61 16) _S_outh_C£r_o_|£uL_ 2,170 2,970 2,770 2,400 10,300 36,100 2,270 4.6 41 4 South 03k_oga_ 654 4,110 5,110 3,120 13,000 52,600 916 40,0 12 5 19816336.- .. 1,450 2,530 3,150 2,570 9,700 54,800 1,780 22.6 36 5 _Tex_as 17,200 22,000 20,200 18,700 78,000 394,000 17,400 0 9 37 9 EB“, 4,040 6,760 8,850 6,850 26,500 101,000 4,200 3.9 31 3 _Yegncnt 434 1,390 1,540 1,330 4,700 21,200 309 -28 7 21 4 333m; 2,130 2,940 3,170 2,860 11,100 63,800 2,490 17.0 62 7 webm3163__ 7,690 10,300 13,700 10,400 42,000 218,000 7,130 -73 39 7 31.3 @3ny 343 495 478 284 1,600 8,000 153 -553 48 3 111133663111 4,170 11,300 13,400 10,200 39,100 156,000 4,300 3 3 20 8 _w_yan_1ng ____580m__2,27o 3,320 1,330 7,500 __31_,5_00 965 66,4 15 3 Total xx xx xx xx 1,130,000 5,810,000 xx xx xx _xgg x7616? Jpficablc. 'ertefly totals shown are estimates based on a scrapie survey. Esttmsted quantities for prior Om inve been recalculated ’06:.qumtotwsmmdrmmmdmgmudlnmmmm totalsbyStates ’Cmrparcd wrth the same period of the previous year, all percentage charges are calculated usmg untounded totals ‘Nmtberofcmrp-uesrepatmgforthemma’ly survey. ’81»: not included in quarterly survey. 601171113 to a low number of rcportmg companies, no production esttmstes by quarters were generated. -93- AGGREGATES SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS [N THE UNITED STATES, BY ST ATE' (Thousand meme tons and thousand dollars) ___ 206;_-._ _2203 Per- Percent_Ntir—nhr:r Quantrty Value Quantity cent cover- of State 1898 338139233 99:- .4919". -JO‘E'Z 10mg: '3 99» “29114128..- _28‘3 co_s.:_ 173m "1 1,800 14,600 15,900 13,900 56,200 327,000 13.200 1 1 .6 72 15 Hui-a (51 (5) (S1 (5) 17,600 101,000 (51 (51 (51 (5) Twin 15,200 17,500 l7.800 16,700 67,200 377,000 24,800 63.4 59 8 Ems} 6,720 10.200 12,200 9,440 38,600 200,000 8,340 24 0 62 10 aifdmia 45,100 64,200 61.300 49,600 220,000 1,560,000 45.700 1 .3 60 21 Colorado 8,140 17,400 15,500 9,550 50,600 292,000 8,100 ~06 42 9 Cage—rem 1,350 5,380 6,510 5,960 19,200 141,000 1,360 12 60 7 Beigm (61 (61 (61 (61 2,000 15,900 (61 (61 (61 (6) m 30,500 34,600 33,700 28,500 127,000 714,000 33,400 9.7 67 10 509731? ‘ 16,400 20,200 22,000 19,900 78,600 509,000 19,700 20 0 99 9 Hawaii (S1 (51 (51 (51 (51 (5.1 (51 (51 (51 (51 75311.7 2550 6,040 4.190 5,120 17,900 69,000 2,850 1 1.7 26 4 61:55.57 1 1,200 28,300 35,400 31,000 106,000 574,000 12,600 12.7 57 13 Tridrana 1 1,800 22,900 24,100 21,800 80,600 383,000 13,400 13.8 71 12 75;; 4,850 15,200 16,200 12,400 48,700 247,000 5,670 l6.8 51 8 m 5,790 8,590 8,540 7,880 30,800 134,000 6,170 6. 5 49 1 1 ~itEKriieky 9,880 16,200 18,300 16,300 60,700 352,000 1 1,900 20 7 47 1o Loulsld?{6_* 4,360 5,210 5,390 4,740 19,700 107,000 3,090 .292 65 3 Item: 1,390 2,990 5,740 3,580 13,700 65,100 1,450 4 3 30 4 fi!fl_@_ — 5,000 9,160 9,290 9,750 33,200 216,000 6,300 25.9 92 10 Massachusetts 2,360 7,040 8,120 7,080 24,600 175,000 2,510 6.2 46 7 ing- 3 Q7 ' 7" 7,700 34,600 39,600 29,300 11 1,000 418,000 9,280 20.5 52 13 17M 1,560 16,400 24,000 14,900 56,800 245,000 1,430 -8.2 43 12 1472371381661 '_ 2,870 3,930 4,760 3,750 15,300 95,900 2,990 4 0 47 5 Reset-h —” 16,200 23,400 25,200 18.700 83.500 424,000 18.800 15 6 46 16 Emma 2,980 6,920 6.980 3,620 20,500 92,700 2,160 -275 36 4 Nebriaska 3,330 5,700 5,600 4,470 19,100 93,200 3,090 -72 47 9 'fie’vaa‘“ _ 10,100 1 1,200 13,300 12,000 46,700 219,000 10,600 4.2 22 7 711; fign—JQ 1,030 3,920 4,100 3,850 12,900 63,500 1,110 7.8 41 4 yewggsey ___ 5,170 9,910 1 1,300 11,300 37,700 234,000 5,070 .1 .8 52 7 New Mexrco 3,970 5,000 5,050 3,880 17,900 93,800 3,820 -3 8 38 7 “N‘eEflvork'i-‘_ 6,990 24,100 31,700 20,700 83,500 529,000 6,950 .06 53 14 156101 (56611117— 13,100 18,900 21,700 18,900 72,600 506,000 14,500 1 1.4 92 12 3461—1112ng (5.71 (5.71 (5.71 (5.71 10,600 28,l00 (5.71 (5.71 (5.71 (5.71 _o_1116~ 13,000 31,200 38,400 33,200 116,000 552,000 17,600 34.9 69 17 9111811696 11,800 14,900 15,700 13,300 55,600 242,000 13,100 110 63 12 OregOn 7,690 8.710 1 1,900 9,450 37,800 210,000 6,900 -103 49 12 1781163111186?“— 13,900 32,200 34,700 33,200 114,000 662,000 18,100 301 52 18 .MJ—‘lili‘i: (61 (61 (61 (61 3,580 25,800 (61 (61 (61 (61 _Southgarclrria 7,880 9,560 9,980 9.190 36,600 207,000 8,890 12.9 70 8 _s_ou_qi Dakota: 1,770 6,360 7,280 4,290 19,700 86,100 1,950 10 4 35 7 16611599 _ __ 1 1.200 16,600 l8,800 16,500 63,200 376,000 12,800 14.2 73 10 1995 41 .000 49,700 47,300 44,000 182,000 898.000 39,300 —4 0 64 15 Utah _ ___ 5,420 8,930 1 1,500 8,640 34,500 141,000 6,120 12.9 36 6 vgmom 608 3,400 3,050 2,250 9,300 44,000 527 .134 21 4 $18!!!!“ 12,300 20,000 22,200 19,600 74,100 492,000 16,000 29. 7 77 14 16311163166 10,500 14,000 17,300 13,700 55,400 297,000 9,630 ~8. 1 38 9 31851163165 : 2,240 4,180 5,190 4,800 16,400 73,900 2,580 15. 3 65 9 1713666516 “___ 7,830 22,100 27,700 19,400 77,100 318,000 8,450 8 0 20 12 .fl@m§__ 1,550 3,330 3,960 2,670 1 1,500 122,000 1,750 12.9 41 7 04"“ __ XX ’9‘ XX XX _ -' ' 1590-.-}?0990 xx xx ___}X X}. _[691 _ xx xx xx xx 2,620,000 14,300,000 xx xx xx xx xx Not applicable. IQuarterly totals shown are estimates based on a sample survey. Estimated quantities for prior quarters have been recalculated. 2Datarnaynot addtototals shownbecmseofmdepaidanmmdmgmddrffaencesbetmpmiectedtmaisby States ’Canperedwnhthes-nepmodofthewevimsyeu, all percentageehangesuccaleulated mmgumdedtotals ‘Nurnber of cunpaniec reporting for the quarterly survey. ’State not included in quarterly survey. 0Owing toa lwmbaofmmgmmamproductimmcsbyquutasmmed 7To avoid disclosing proprietary data, certain State totals do not include all kinds of stone produced within the State;the portim not shown has been mcluded With other. Source: USGS. “USGS Minerals Information-Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel” 10 July 2004. -99- Appendix D SANDANDGRAVEL (CONSTRUCTION) STATISTICS ByKeecahlLPcrtcr-udWalaeeP.” [Alveleech-urlctceuaeelacctha-wlceected] 2004 -100- Sand and Gravel (Construction) Worksheet Notes Data Sources The sources of data for the construction sand and gravel worksheet are the mineral statistics publications of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey— Minerals Yearbook (MYB) and its predecessor, Mineral Resources of the United States (14R), and Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) and its predecessor, Commodity Data Summaries (CDS). The years of publication and corresponding years of data coverage are listed in the References section below. Blank cells in the worksheet indicate that data were not available. Primary Production U.S. production data collection and reporting did not start for construction sand and gravel until 1902. Before 1902, sand was included with stone and included only silica sand for glass making. Construction and industrial sand and gravel production were reported together in the salient statistics table in the MR and the MYB through 1958, and were split between “commercial” and “government” (State, county, municipalities, and Federal). Categories were split between construction and industrial according to the following guidelines: Construction sand included building, paving, railroad ballast, and other (excluding ground sand). The reporting of gravel production prior to 1959 did not indicate any industrial applications, therefore the assumption is made that all gravel production data were for construction applications. After 195 8, some gravel was used for industrial applications, such as filtration, ferrosilicon, and nonmetallic flux for sulfur production. Industrial sand includes sand for glass, molding, grinding and polishing (also blast sand), fire or furnace, engine, and filter (ground sand is included in the “othe ’ category and is separated out for inclusion with industrial). Construction and industrial sand and gravel statistics were reported separately in a combined chapter starting with the 1959 MYB and later in separate chapters starting with the 1988 MYB. Imports U.S. import data for construction sand and gravel were reported in tables starting with the 1922 MR and continue to be reported in the MYB and the MCS. -101- Exports Export data for combined sand and gravel (construction) and sand and gravel (industrial) were reported in the foreign trade section text starting with the 1922 MR and continuing in the MYB through 1939. Construction and industrial sand and gravel export data were split 50:50 for the years 1922-39 based on the average for the years 1971—2001 when more complete export data were available. Sand and gravel (construction) export data were not available for the years 1940—62. Export data for the years 1963-2001 are from the CDS, the MCS, and the MYB. Apparent Consumption Apparent consumption is defined as follows: APPARENT CONSUMPTION = PRIMARY PRODUCTION + IMPORTS — EXPORTS. Export data are not available for the years 1940—62 and are not included for the purpose of estimating apparent consumption. Import and export data have very little effect on apparent consumption because of their relative insignificance compared to primary production. The net imports account for less than 0.2% of primary production for the years 1940—2001 . Unit Value (S/t) Unit values were estimated by summing the values for different types of sand and gravel (construction) and dividing by total primary production quantity. Imports and exports were not considered in determining unit value because quantities are insignificant compared to primary production and values were not available. Data for quantities and values from which unit values are estimated are from the MR and the MYB. Unit Value (98$lt) The Consumer Price Index conversion factor, with 1998 as the base year, is used to adjust unit value in current U.S. dollars to the unit value in constant 1998 U.S. dollars. World Production World production data for sand and gravel (construction) are not available for most of the period fiom 1900 through 2001 owing to the lack of data collection by many of the producing countries. World production data are available for the years 1969—72, 1974, and 1975 fi'om the MCS. -102- References U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1927—34, Mineral Resources of the United States, 1924—3 1. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1933-96, Minerals Yearbook, 1932—94. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1962—77, Commodity Data Summaries, 1962—77. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1978-95, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 1978—95. U.S. Geological Survey, 1901—27, Mineral Resources of the United States, 1900—23. U.S. Geological Survey, 1997—2003, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 1997—2003. U.S. Geological Survey, 1997—2003, Minerals Yearbook, v. I, 1995—2001. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1996, Mineral Commodity Summaries, 1996. Source: Porter, Kenneth E., and Bolen, Wallace P., USGS. “Mineral Statistics and Information from the USGS”. 9 April, 2004 -103- Appendix E Source: Livingston County Department of Planning. (1996). an Smce Planning. Livingston County Department of Planning. Article 0.0 Open Space Community Dietrict Definition Thegwhgofeingiefamiiyhomeoontopartofapamel. withtheremainhgaereagepreeewedaeomlanda Open epocedevdomtwteemphaeueflrepumtbnefnatural erwironmentaeabaeieforgreupingefdveiiinge Homes meepuatedfiemadjaeentpmpeerrothergreuplnge of dwellings by the eubetantlai open space that is MWMMW ThelntentoftheOpenSpaeeConInunityOveriayDIetriet iotapennitmeidentlaldevelopmentthatreeuitehan enhanced king environment through the preservation of agriculture. environment. and rural landscape. The ' provisions eet forth meow-age innovative and Mable homing emironrnente within reeldential districts through both permanentdedeationofOpmepaeeandaplr-nned Wdhdividualletamrequmnente. Woven-ail density remain the came as would be found in a WWIntheundmzone. inereaeing «turban development of rural areas has produced a need for more emiramrentaly oeneitlve and coatefieimteinglefamllydaelopment. TheOpenSpaae Community Oreday Dietdet meete thie need as Mng unitearegroupedontopartofflreparceleotherenuwng acreagecanbepreeemdaeopen lands Recommendfl Revisions Section 002 Objectives Thefolowlngpmvieioneareintendedtoreedtmeeidmtial develeymentwhidrieeoneietentutth whingordinahee etandardayetalweformodificatienefmm thegenerai etandarde to lneure appropriate. fair and consistent decision manna. Thefelewtngobjeetiveeehallbeoenddemdhtlremlewof anyapplieationferanOpenSPaeeComnonltyZem Dietrictdaelopment. A. To provide a more environmentaly meltive residentialemlronmentbypreeewingthenaturai WdopnMMedtmpoMq mmandehrlarnatu-alm To preeerve the rural law and protect Monnwntaliyeenelthnlandefmnthediemptm eflecteoflmlitbnaleubdhtdondevelepmente. Topravidearnereefl'leientandaeethetteweofapen mwmmwmmmm maintaining the residential density required in the underlylngmnhgdietrict. Toaflowamor'eflerdbbandeoonomicalreaidenflal WnMWW Toaeeurethepemanentpreaarvatienet‘epmepace. rural landeand natu-al W A. Change “preserving ” to “conserving” - Natural systems cannot be preserved. They are constantly changing systems and infinitely complex. Conservation is the term which would apply best, managed care with minimized impacts. B. Change “preserve” to “conserve” F. (Add objective) — Recognize that construction aggregate materials are essential for societal sustainability and therefore plan and allow for future extraction of construction aggregate resources when doing so would not compromise or degrade other critical natural resources. -104- 5ecflan M003 Establishment of Overlay Dietrict The Open Space Community Dietricta are herein eatabllehed ae overlay dietrlcta. The Open 5pace Community Dietrlctearedeea-bed on theTannel-llpzonlng rnapaeopenepaceprotectlondletrictewlthlntheelnglc “resident-lament Thledletrtctlncludeeopenepaoe lamb of state and local elgnrllcance. Determination of openepaceelgnlflcanoelebaeedupenaeemblnatlonof factors Including aolltype. topogmplu. existing vegetation andhabltathbtodcuudwweofmdwcof land for agricultural purpoaee and character of the surrounding area. Section m Mipalflrrmitted three A. Altypeaofattachedanddetadredainglefamiy raaldentld We are permitted. Attached Mllngeehallnumbernomorethantwentyflvewfi) ofthetatalnmofdwelhgeandehallnot weedfar(4)Mllhgmltalnenebulldhg. 6. Agriculture. hortlailtureerflorlwltureereludlngfann baaed WM“ and htenelve livestock raining opaatbnaatableaerveterlmryhoepltaleorcim C. Acceneoryueeaandbuildlngelncldentaltothe principal permitted um including recreational activitleewhlcharepaeemandoccwonconunon openapacelandeony. WMmlpnnclplee ahallbeutlllzedtoevaluate the proposed location of any open epace community Recommended Revisions deseloprnentwlthlnapermltteddetrict. Tlteeeprhclplee ehalbeappledbytheflannlngComleelonaeagml guldelinetohelpaeeeaethelmpactofthedeveiopment. A ProteotlngNatur-alFeaturee. Thepu-poeeol‘anepen epace conununlty in to nuintaln the rural. natural .ld ecenlc qualitleeofthe‘l'ownehlp. Toward thiea‘ld. all Open epace community developrnente ehal be deelgned to promote the preeervatlon of natural features. Significant wldllfe habitats. eeneltlve environmental lands and eeenlc vletae are to be protected. 5. singleOwnerehlpControl. fireprepeeeddevelopment lntheOpenSpaccCemmunityDletfictehallbeunder eagleomrerehlporcontroteuohthataalnglcpm or entity has prophtary responsibility for the provlekdowrnentatlonofomerahlporcontmllnthe form afagreernente. contracte. covenante M0!“ deedreetnctlenethatlruleatethedevelopmentwlll beeornpletedaepropoeed. C. Aeeeeetol'wllcloadway. Opmepaeeeemmudw challhaveenepropertyllneabutthga public roam. Al m and arlta she! be dlrectUontoorfromaaldroaM. Section 003 Establishment of Overlay District (Text revision) - Determination of open space significance is based upon a combination of factors including soil type, geology, topography, existing vegetation and habitat, historic use of land, size of parcel, use of land for agricultural purposes, use of land for aggregate mining, and character of the surrounding area. Section 005 Site Location Principles A. Change “preservation ” to “conservation” and add “..natural features, planned extraction of aggregate resources where possible, significant wildlife habitats.” ~105- sectbn .006 Development. Kequirerncnte A. Oerreity stander-do l. 5. Thetotdnmnberolmntngunite permittedinan openepacecanmunltydevelopmentehalibe determined by submittal of a conventional eubdvlelon plan identifying the ioteand bumble lands. After Planning Conunieelonrevlewofthe conventional eubdivleion plan. the maxinmm number of late for the open epace community developinentwllibedeterrnlned. innooaeehal themaidrnuinreeldcntlaldeneityepeclfledforthe zoning district in which the development ie locatedbelncreaeed. Lotanotmedbyapwllcorcommoneanltary nearerehalbeatleaetSODOOe-ruarcfeetln area. Loteeervedbypubllcorcomnoneanltary moi-servedbyacommen publlcwaterweli ayatanehalhaveamhimmnbtamaoflaooo aquarefeet. Lotemvarylnalzebutinnocaeeehallthey coneunre,onaverage.mrethantwo[2)acree perdnelllngincludngroade. Dueling unite ehal be grouped eo that open epacewlthlnadeveioprnentieatleaetfifty(60) percerrtofthetotalareaofbulldableland. (May Mil“ revision if alternathe approaches for donolty standarde or wetland credlta are adopted.) NorrierefliantenUOMweliingmperm ehailbewnnlttedwlthlnadevelopment. o. Openfipaccatandarde l. AreaeNotCeneueredOpenepace. Thefollowlng areaeehallnotbecalculatedaededicatedopen epace: a. Openepaceehall nothiciudeareaedewted tepqucorprivateetreeteorrlohte-of-wg Recommended Revisions B. Open Space Standards 1. orarlylandthathaebeenorletobeconveyed tea pubic agency. b. Anyareadevotedtonaturalorimproved fieodwntrdchanndeorthoeeareae encmberedbyfieodwayoreomtydrah memento. c. Allamlnaurfacewaterbodieaorwtlande ehall not be coneldered dedicated open epace. 2. CalwlatlnaOpenspace. Biceptaenatedabove. aruu landareaurlthlnthebomdarlea oftheparcelnwbehdudedaareqldredopen epace. UeeOfOpenSpace. AllanthhInaderelopment that to not dented to a reektential wit. an accessory use, vehicle acceee. vehble parking. a www.mapproved land lm orienot conelda'edopenepaceaedefinedaboveehallbe coneWreddedlcated epenepaceand ehallbeeet aeldcaecannenlandformauatbmooneervation. agricultural ueee.orpreeervedh an undeveloped state. Furthereubdlvlelonofopenepacelandqor theirueeforotherthanrecreatlonmoneervatlonor umwum PreaewatbnOfOperrspaceOpenepaceehallbeeet aside by the developer thmugh an irrevocable conveyance that in acuptable to the Planning Commission. Formeofdelcatlngopenepacemay include: 1. Arecordeddeedreetriction. 0. Change “All area” to “75% of area, 50% of (if created) ” in surface water. .. Not allowing any consideration of submerged areas devalues them. This is especially true if an aggregate operation proposes creation of lakes or wetlands as part of their plan. -106- 2.. Covenantethatrun perpetualyin'ththe land,or 3. A cornervatlon eaeenwnt eetabr-ehed per Public Act1970flaao.aeamended. MWMmu-ethattheomepacewillbe WMINWOPWWIOGW onanapprmdelteplartarulehallneverbechangedto anotluruae. such conveyanceehall: i. lndlcatetiwepmpoeedaliowablemdflofthe dedicatedopenepace. 2. Reqrrimthatthededicatedopen epacebe mahtalnedbypartleeivhohaveanomerehp intereethflnopenopaw. 5. Provide etandardeferacheduled maintenanceef theownopace. 4. Pruvldeformairrtenancctobeundertakenbythe Tawnehlplntheeventthatthededlcatedopen apace le inadequately maintained. or is determined by the Townehlp to a public nuisance. withtheaa-eeeernentofcoetuponflieproperty owners. E. m Built In Open space Areas. Any actuator-em orbuldlngm acceeeory to recreation. coneervatlonoi-agnculturemaybcerectedmhinthe declcatedOpenepaceJubJecttotheappr-Meopen epace plan. Theee acceeeory etructurqe) or WMWIMWMWWWU) percentoi'therequredmnepacearea. F. AcceeeToOpenspace Openepacelntendedl'or recreatienorueebythereeldenteehalbeeawy WM None needed. -107- acceeellrletopedeetdane. Acceeeihfltyehaflm theneedeofthehandlcappedmdmm WWMNW A. Locationoftote r. wwmuwmwwrw merit feaeiblc. to achieve the WOW! objectivee: ._ mmmwmmum oeptlcdw. h. MthinanoodlandcontalnethP‘m‘l“ mothefaredgeafopalm‘dlmm” ‘WMM- in locationeleaet Mm Mimi"mm!” c. www.mmmm‘l e. W MMWWW“ used to eetabileh setbacks. r. Emmandeideyardutbadcemba Wtoprovldefwmadmummfim elzeofeuchyardl. 2. Themlnhnuinmmmmlb mtfioiw a. WWWMMMWW ehailbeprovldod. 4. qubeaefaraamb Mopenepace. C. mm Eighty(50)feetaemeaeuedfromthe melamine D. OpenSpacebetveenCluetera Omepaceebetneen clusters, lncluding thoee epacee used as recreation area. ehal be at beat one hundred (100) feet wide andehalbeprotectednithanlrrevocableconveyance thatlefound acceptabletothe Planning Commission. E. W and Dufferhg. 1. Dul‘l’erzoneeatleactonehundred(l00)feetln Mdth ehal be mqulred between residential and agricultural areas and shall bepiantodwlthfaet growing native shrubs and treee to create an efiectlvebaniereeparatlngyardeh'omfleldeand pastures. 2. Landscaped or natural vegetative cover ehal provideaaaeenedbuflerbetweendnellinaeand neighboring properties. F. Mafiaeement. Mlmmlteehallbecarehilu locatedanddeeynedinaccordancewithcommunity plarie.invcntoriceandmapphglnordertoavold conficte with neighboring land uses. Duane plwmentehallbeplannedtoecreenhomeefromofi- alto vantage pointe, away from environmentaly sensitive areas. existing agricultural um eitee eultabie for open epace and upwind from areas aubject to land mawment practicee that will mmmmmwflnflarproblema. G. Natin-alFeattn'eePreeervatlon. Thedevebpment challbedealmedtopromotethepreacrvatlonof natia’dfeaturee. hidlvldinlbtabulldlmetreete Recommended Revisions E. Landscaping and Buffering and parldngareaeehallbedeeignedandeltuatedto minimize alteration ofthe natural environment. . Compatibiiw WlthAdjacerrtLandUaee. individual late, buildinge. and unite ehall be arr-reed and situated to relate to eurroinding properties. to irnprovethevlervfmmpubilcroadivayeandtoblend lntotheeidetlngnawrallandecapc. PreeervingkuralCharactei-Jhedeelgnofopenepacc shouldehowooneiderationforthecharaeteroi‘the open epace reserve. Wildlfe habitats ahal be prceervedbyleavlngopenepacelnelngleblockeof land. l'rlme agriculture and woodlande ehal be preeerved in ouch a m to eneure contliiuhg feaeiblliwol'agricultweandforeetry. .VehlcularandOpenSpaceAweec. Chaterhome alteeelullprovidcvehicularacceeeh'omanhtenor common area. The interlorcominon area ehall be carnectedtothecornmonopenepacemtembyan openapacecorrldor. Waterwy and Wetlands Wag. AI be”. aeceeeoryetmctureeandroadmeehallbenoleee thanoiiehundred(100)feetfi-ornlaitee.ponde. etreanieandwctiande. Theonehundred(iOO)foot areaehalbepartoi‘thededicatedepenepaceand ehallnotbeinprivateonnerehp. Preaervlng Roadway Frontage. Al declines and my etnrcturee ehail be no ieae than one hardred(lOO)hetfromthee¢geolthemajor arterialandthatonehundred(l00)footareaahallbe malntalnedinnative andtmeeooaetocrcatc abulferbetweentheroaduyandthedevelepment. 3. Landscaped Berms should be required between any active aggregate mining operation and proposed dwellings on-site and neighboring properties to screen the operation and provide a noise buffer. A minimum distance of 100 should and the berms. be maintained from active mining Change “Preservation” to “Conservation” as needed. Change “Preserving” to “Conserving” and “preserved “to “conserved” as needed. -108- smpaeroqusnm A. Access. Openspaeeoemmunitydevemnts shall 5. havedireetaccsestoapubiicroadvay. Anyentranee oraltdriveshaflbelocatednooloeerthanm hundred (200)feetfi'ornanyealstingstreetormad ' intersection as measured from the nearest right—of- nray line. internal Roads. 1. Constructionofprhrateroadsorprivateaccess drives as a means of prwidhg access and circulation is encouraged. Private roadways nethhanopenspacecommunityareeueMpted from the Mn requirements ofthe Township PrwatekoadOrdimnmlfthefollowlngflndings arenwlebytheflanningConunlssion. a. A deed restriction is placed antheproject altethatperpetualyvesi’afeesimpleofthe llfld area In the parties adjoining the rod andprohbitefutwetransfertothepubilc, prohibitsfuturelotsplitegand b. Amalntenanceplan. Including. mango? 0mm maintenance assessments from the affected property owners. Is revlened and approved by the Township PiannlngComrnbelaL auction. . 009. Open $pace-Commmtty Standards in coneideringanyapplicationforapprovalofanOpen SpaceCanmthysitephnthel’lannhig Commissionshali Recommended Revisions None required. -109- maketheirdeterminationonthebaeisofthe standards foreitepnanapprovaleetforthinlirticledaswelas the'follouingstandardsandrequiremente. ATheeveralidesignandlandusepropoeedin connection with the open space community development shall be coneistentwlth the Open Space CommunityDistfictobjectlveshSectionZaeweflas with specific dolelopnierrt requirements and stan- dard'eectforth herein. 5. Anopenspaeeoonnnunltyeiteplanshallsetforthin detalspecificationswithreepecttoheighttsetback. density. parking. circulation. landscaping, vicars and atherdeslgnfeawresthatlhistmtethe relations“) of the proposed deve10pment to suroundhg propertiee.theehai'acteroftheparcel.andtheland uses. Indetmnhhgwhetherthlsrequbemthas bsenmeneoneiderationshalbeghento: i. Thebulkandplacanentol'propeeedstmctureei 2. Vehicularandpsdestrianclrculation. 5. Location and screenhgofpmposed dwelling units from neighboring property. 4.?rovisionoflandecapingandothereite W. C. Theusefiilnessofmnspaceintendedforrecreation. conservation or agricdtural purposes shal be determined by the size. drape. topographic and location requirements of the particull' pin-pose proposedfortheparcel. D. OM space ehal include irreplaceable natu-ai featia'eslooatedontheparcelsuehasbutnot finitedweueambedasignifloantstandaoftreee. andindividualtreeeol'eigniflcantsize. E. Theeuitabiiioyofopenapacelntendedforscenicvahe -pwpoeeeshailbedetenninedbyitevisibiiityhema donlflcantnumberofufltsorbuiidngs. F. Diversityanda‘lginalityinlotlawutand individual bulldingdeegnshallbeencouragedtoachiwethe bestpouiblerelationslipbetweendevelepmentand theland. ||ll|llllllllllllllllllllllllIllHllllllllllllllllillllllllll 31293 02640 3836