Fort Jackson / McEntire Joint Land Use Study Implementation JLUS Technical Committee Public Input and Development Scenario Presentation
JLUS IMPLEMENTATION • 2009 JLUS – SEVERAL KEY RECOMMENDATIONS • DEVLEOP MORE DETAILED PLANS FOR: – LEESBURG ROAD / SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF FORT JACKSON – AREAS AROUND McENTIRE • DEVELOP OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT JLUS AND SMALL AREA PLANS • EXPLORE A REGIONAL ORGANIZATION TO HELP FACILITATE COMPATIBLE GROWTH
PROCESS • PROJECT INITIATION • STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS • EXISTING CONDITIONS INVENTORY • PUBLIC INPUT • PLANNING SCENARIOS • PUBLIC REVIEW • PRESENTATION OF PLANS & RECOMMENDATIONS
ACTIVITY TO DATE • LITERATURE REVIEW – ORDINANCES, PLANS AND POLICIES • CONDUCTED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS • EXAMINED FACTORS INFLUENCING GROWTH • INITIAL COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT • PRESENTATION TO JLUS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
ACTIVITY TO DATE • PRESENTATION TO JLUS POLICY COMMITTEE • HELD PUBLIC INPUT MEETING • DEVELOPED INITIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS • PRESENTATION OF DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS TO TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
PUBLIC INPUT MEETING • HELD MEETING ON AUGUST 23 • MET AT REGION 1 SHERIFF’S OFFICE • OVER 150 IN ATTENDANCE • PRESENTED BACKGROUND INFORMATION • MET IN SMALL GROUPS AFTER MEETING • DISTRIBUTED AND COLLECTED WRITTEN SURVEY
PUBLIC INPUT MEETING
PUBLIC INPUT MEETING
PUBLIC INPUT MEETING
PUBLIC INPUT RESULTS • GENERALLY POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS / RESIDENTS • APPEARED THAT MAIN INTEREST WAS WHETHER BASES WERE EXPANDING • GENERALLY VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE MILITARY AND ACCOMMODATING OF MILITARY IMPACTS • 50 ATTENDEES FILLED OUT SURVEY
SURVEY RESULTS 1. What is your connection to the study area? • 80% live in study area • 82% own property in study area • 12% work in study area 2. If you live or own property in the study area, what is the address of your home or property?
ADDRESS MAP
SURVEY RESULTS 3. What are the top three issues related to growth and development in the study area? – Traffic and Noise were the top issues – Others included: • Desire to stay rural – No sprawl • Concerns about taxes • Concerns about water and sewer coming to area • General safety concerns (primarily aircraft related)
SURVEY RESULTS 4. How do you think the proposed widening of Leesburg Road will impact the are? – 76% view road widening as a positive impact – 18% view it as a negative impact 5. How do you think the proposed sewer line to Eastover will impact the area? – 57% positive impact – 11% negative impact – 26% no opinion
SURVEY RESULTS 6. What is your vision for how the area will grow over next 10 years? – Remain rural (top answer) – Increase in growth and jobs – Balanced and directed growth (cited areas in vicinity of Lower Richland Blvd)
SURVEY RESULTS 7. Rate your impact with noise from military aircraft – 29% HIGH – 8% MODERATE-HIGH – 27% MODERATE – 20% LOW – 16% NONE • Both airplanes and helicopters causing impacts • Most knew of impacts before buying
SURVEY RESULTS 8. Rate your impact with noise from artillery at Fort Jackson – 16% HIGH – 8% MODERATE-HIGH – 28% MODERATE – 24% LOW – 28% NONE • Most impacts related to vibration (more pronounced in MH). • Early morning / late evening biggest impact.
SURVEY RESULTS 9. Have you ever experienced any negative impacts from controlled burns at Fort Jackson? – 12.5% YES – 87.5% NO 10. What other military impacts have you experienced in the area? • Most answers focus on aircraft and convoys.
SURVEY RESULTS 11. Please share any additional information that you feel will help us with the plan. • Several answers expressed support for the military. • Some mentioned utility and transportation issues. • No apparent opposition to the process with information provided to date – many said they’d be willing to do whatever it takes.
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS • Prepared draft future development scenarios for each planning area (McEntire + Leesburg Corridor). • Three scenarios prepared for each area. • Scenarios based on a combination of background research, stakeholder and citizen input, 2009 JLUS recommendations and experience in other communities.
McEntire Scenarios • The Current Situation – Few regulations in place to prevent incompatible development in sensitive areas. – Lack of utility infrastructure provides general protection from large scale incompatibility. – Development pattern is primarily rural with agriculture and low density residential as primary uses. Some scattered business / industrial uses. – Civilian safety and the integrity of the military mission are in the hands of the market.
McEntire Scenarios • Development Opportunities – Large amount of available vacant land – Lower land prices – Large parcels available for development – More favorable regulatory climate – Desirability of rural setting
McEntire Scenarios • Development Constraints – Lack of utility infrastructure – Environmental conditions – floodplains/wetlands – Distance to urban areas (economic opportunity) – Military noise and safety impacts – Negative perception of local schools
McEntire Scenarios • Major Factors Influencing Future Development – Priority Investment Area – Lower Richlands Blvd. and Garners Ferry Rd. – Extension of sewer line from Lower Richlands Blvd. / Garners Ferry Rd. to Eastover. – Designation of western areas for suburban growth in Comprehensive Plan. – Taken together, they can bring major changes to what is perceived as appropriate land use.
McEntire Scenarios • Alternative 1 – Status Quo • Alternative 2 – Enhanced Safety • Alternative 3 – Broad Regulation
Alternative 1 Maintain the Status Quo • 2009 Comprehensive Plan governs general land use pattern. • RU (Rural) zoning district is primary growth management mechanism to achieve plan goals. • Market forces, carrying capacity and Council resolve serve as primary restraints on changes in planned growth.
Alternative 1 • Potential Impacts and Consequences – Lack of AICUZ compatible use restrictions increases chance for incompatible development. – Potential for new vertical obstructions in overflight areas. – Establishment of incompatible uses / development pattern may cause: • Degraded training / operational capacity • Operational restrictions • Large expenditures to remove encroachments • Higher accident potential and increased chance of catastrophic loss from accidents
Alternative 1 • Potential Impacts and Consequences – Greater potential for conflicts between property owners and the military – Greater potential for degraded quality of life. – Increased likelihood of loss of missions or units if operations are negatively affected. – Any reductions would have a negative economic impact on Richland County.
Alternative 2 Enhance Safety • Richland County moves to adopt new zoning to enhance safety around the base. • Overlay districts adopted for CZ, APZ 1 and APZ 2 based on AICUZ. • Overlay district adopted to constrain vertical obstructions within ½ mile of McEntire to protect helicopter operations.
Alternative 2 • Potential Impacts and Consequences – Reduction in the likelihood of incompatible uses/structures being established in the most sensitive areas. – Ability to focus on working to resolve current compatibility issues rather than fighting new ones. – Potential for a negative backlash from property owners – may reduce cooperation on future issues of mutual importance.
Alternative 2 • Potential Impacts and Consequences – New compatibility issues may still come up with regard to uses in high noise areas. • Density of development will determine extent of impact. • Noise complaints may alter training / operational capacity. • Continued concern for quality of life for residents in high noise areas. – With fewer compatibility issues, more opportunity to maintain operational levels and gain units / missions.
Alternative 3 Broad Regulation • Richland County adopts safety oriented overlay districts outlined in Alternative 2. • Helicopter overflight protections extended throughout the general area. • An additional overlay district is adopted dealing with noise impacts. – Requires sound attenuation. – Restricts manufactured housing – Restricts residential density and some uses
Alternative 3 • Potential Impacts and Consequences – Greater reduction in the likelihood of incompatible uses/structures being established in safety and noise sensitive areas. – Ability to focus on working to resolve current compatibility issues rather than fighting new ones. – Greater potential for a negative backlash from property owners – may reduce cooperation on future issues of mutual importance.
Alternative 3 • Potential Impacts and Consequences – Higher costs for new construction in noise impact areas. – Elimination of manufactured housing as an affordable housing option in noise impact areas. – Greater opportunity to maintain operational levels and gain units / missions.
Alt. 1 – Status Quo
Existing Development Intensity
Alt. 2 – Enhanced Safety
Alt. 2 – Enhanced Safety
Alt. 2 – Enhanced Safety
Recommend
More recommend
