12comparison.pdf

a

comparison

of

land

use

legislation

in

western

north

Carolina

and

Vermont

Benjamin

Orsbon,

who

concentrated in

regional

development

at

UNC,

received

his MasterofRegional Planning in May.

by

Benjamin

Orsbon

Recreational

development

caught

Western

North Carolina

and

Vermont

unpreparedtoguide

and

manage

growth.

When

shoddy

construction

and

land speculation

began

to create environmental

and

social problems, the local citizenry

became

alarmed.

These two

relatively isolated areas had never experienced such an influx of outsiders; yet, both

hoped

new

construction

would

revive their sleeping economies.

Citizens of Western North Carolina

and

Vermont

have existed outside the

economic

mainstream. Partially

because

of this fact, both underdeveloped areasstillcontain valuable scenic resources

demanded

byaffluentoutsiders,

and

theyremain

dependent

on therecreation-hungry urbanareasfor

much

of

the capital investment in their rural economies.

Itcan even be arguedthat the main cause of their

underdevelopment

isthis

dependency

relationship;

much

oftheproductivecapital or

economic

surplus

generated by the outside investment in the two areas isdrained off by the controllinginvestors

and

reinvestedelsewherein

more

attractiveventures.'

As

aconsolationto realdevelopment, thelocalitiesprotractthepositivebenefits

ofan increasedtaxbase, short-term construction

employment,

and low-wage

service jobs such as ski lift operators; however, recreation

development

generatesadditional coststhat

must

beborne bythelocalregions.^

Because

of

theirsubservientrelationship,

Vermont

and Western NorthCarolina arecaught

in a vicious cycle. Both regions are underdeveloped

because

they are

dependent and dependent because

they are underdeveloped.

The

recent

downturn

inthe

economy

and

the

subsequent

financialcrisisofthe recreation industry in North Carolina's

mountains

illustrates the

dependence

of the recreation industry

on

outside investment.="

The

existenceof this

dependency

relationshiphassevere policy implications

because

"as

mountain

land acquires

more and more

value for the larger

population,localnatives arebeingcalled

upon

tobecaretakersforthegreater public

good

while their lifestyle isdestroyed.""

Recreation

development

in

Vermont and

Western NorthCarolina

was

induced

by several different factors. In Vermont,

second

home

development

can be

attributed primarily to increased

demand

for skiing

and

other

recreation-related activities in citiessuch asBoston

and

New

York City,

which

had easy accessto the area

due

to theirproximity

and

thenewly-constructed Interstate

highway

system.^

The

rapid

development

of North Carolina's

mountains

was

generated by

factors

somewhat

differentfrom those

mentioned

above.

The

initial impetus

for

development

in Western North Carolina resultedfrom increasing

demand

forrural

and

scenic recreation in reactionto growth inthePiedmont,Florida,

and even Northern urban centers. Recreation

development

was

further stimulated bytheavailabilityof

cheap

land thatcould be aggregated in

huge

tracts inareasthatpreviouslyhadnot

needed

landuseregulationstoguideor

inhibitgrowth.

The outcome

of this unexpected growth isintuitivelyobvious.

Second

home

construction in

Vermont and

in North Carolina's

mountains

occurredalmost

exclusively in scenic rural regions

where

land use planning

was

virtually

nonexistent.

As

a result,

many

construction practices

degraded

the

environ-ment and

strained the existing life styles and social patterns.

In Vermont, the major environmental threat appeared in the form of

deteriorating water resources resulting from the lack of even the

most

rudimentary site planning. "Developers

jammed

as

many

houses

as possible

onto shallow soil covering

impermeable

bedrock.

They

did this without

building central

sewage

systems,

depending

insteadon

much

cheaperseptic tanks for each unit."'* Consequently, the soil quickly

became

saturated

and

caused the

seepage

of filth into nearby streams.

North Carolina's

mountains

had a slightly different

problem

which

resulted

fromdifferentscalesofdevelopment.

Most

ofthelarge

developments

were

well

planned environmentally

because

ofthe

huge

long-term investmenttiedup in thearea. However, thesmaller

developments

thatclustered

around

thelarger

ones usually generated twosorts of environmental problems.

One

resulted from the fact that people

who

were

not in the land

development

operation on a large financial scale did not have the

capability to hireconsultants andgenerally puttogether the

know-how

necessaryto design afirstclassproject.

Many

ofthepoorland

use practices

were

results of ignoranceratherthan attemptstocut expenses.' (Emphasis added)

An example

of thisenvironmental ignoranceisprovidedfromastudy by David Godschalk. "At

one mountain

development,salt

was

being heavilyusedto free

roads of ice and snow.

By

asking about the possible salt pollution ofsmall

streams

and

lakes, it

was

discoveredthat thisdeveloperhad

no

ideathat salt

could even

become

apollutant."^

The

otherproblemofsmall scale

developments was

the

way

inwhich

they

were

overwhelmed

bygradualism.

Most

roadsleadingtomajor

land

developments

were

slowlylinedwith small projects inaformof

strip development.There

were

rarelyanylandusecontrolsineffect

and

once

started,strip

development

quickly

became

anestablished

pattern.'

Eventhough

some

recreation

development

resultedinenvironmental

destruc-tion, developers in both North Carolina and

Vermont

have stressed

en-vironmental preservation

and

an opportunityto "get

away

from it all" intheir

advertising campaigns.

Below

is an

example

from a promotional brochure.

You'llbe

amazed

when

you

seeWhittingham

Farms

foryourself with

its lovely

common

greeneryofferingcompleteoff-road privacy and

rusticity to each homesite.

The

community

parks, beaches,

recreational areas,

and

covered bridges are all designed for the

epitome in private useand landscape protection.'°

Often these brochuresaretrue, but

sometimes

they contain

empty words

to trap unlucky buyers.

Environmental problems

were

only part ofthe negativeeffects

produced

by second

home

and

recreation development. Harmful social

and

economic

the rise of the recreation industry

environmental

and

social effects

impacts

were

generatedaswell

because

recreation

development

oftentrapped

the local

landowners

in a viciouscycle.

In Vermont, skiers,vacationers,

and

huntersdecidedto

buy second

homes

which

attracted developers

who

snapped

up

the land. Naturally, land prices

and

propertytaxessoared.

They went

sohigh

some

residents could

no

longer afford to

work

their farms thus forcing

them

to sell

because

of the artificial acceleration of land values

and subsequent

increases in their property taxobligations.

The

influxofpeople increased road maintenance,

garbage

disposal, schools,

and

police

and

fire protectionso taxes

were

raised again

and

more

landowners

were

forcedtosell,causingthe cycletorepeat

itself."

(Emphasis

added)

The

nativehighlanders ofNorth Carolinaalsoexperiencedasimilarproblem.

Most mountain

landowners valuedtheirland

between

$300

and

$500peracreif

thepropertyhad easy

highway

access

and

if it

was

flat

enough

for

some

typeof

farming. Otherwise,it

was

worthonlyabout $100peracreif it

was

not toorocky

to

grow

timber.

When

developers offeredfrom $1000 to$2000for this land,

many

oldermountaineerssoldout since the

young

hadleftforthe biggercities

to find

employment.

And

because

land prices

became

so inflated,

younger

people couldno longer affordtostayifthey

wanted

to.'^Itcan beinferredthat rising land prices

may

nothaveforced the

mountain

owners

toselltheirlandas

was

the case in Vermont, but it certainly did not

encourage

local

owners

to

keeptheir property. In at least

one

case, propertytaxes

were

proven tobea

burden. "A

gentlemen

near

Boone

faced an annual propertytaxbill of$8,000

for200 acres he

owned

nearthe rapidlycommercializedarea."'^With

more and

more

servicesbeing

demanded

fromthecounty governments,tax supervisors in the

two mountain

counties

most

affectedbyrecreationdevelopment,Avery

and Watauga,

predicted that farmers

and

local landowners will face even

higher taxes afterthe next revaluation.

To

add

tothe distastefulnessofthe "building

boom",

local landowners hadto

watch

the developers

make

huge

profitsoff the land acquiredfrom thelocal

mountain

people. Lot prices soared in large

developments

such as

Beech

Mountain and

Connestee

Falls.

To

illustrate, the size of the lots at

Beech

Mountain

averaged two-thirdsofan acre, withlotprices usuallyrangingfrom $10,000to$20,000, with

some

as high as $40,000. At

Connestee

Falls,one-third

of an acre sold for about $7,900,

and

half of an acre cost up to $15,500.

Obviously, these land prices precluded

anyone

but the middle-

and

upper-income groups

from purchasing a

second

home, and

with

most

ofthe land

supplyofWestern North Carolinatiedupinnational forestsandparks,

much

of

theprivately-ownedlandquicklyfell intothe

hands

ofoutsidespeculators

and

second

home

owners.

As

a result,the ruggedly beautifullandthatthe natives

once

heldforquasi-public benefit, sinceeveryone could enjoy itsbeauty, has been gobbled up by outsidersfor private use.

the

need

forregulation

Much

of the

harm

from recreation

development

hasalready occurred in the

most

beautiful

and

accessible regions; it is too late to effectively regulate

development

in theseareas. Butin otherareasof

Vermont

and Western North

Carolina, the beauty of the

mountains

could be insured by prohibiting

over-crowding, environmentaldegradation,

and

thedestructionofthescenic values

thatinitiallyattracteddevelopment. With

development

increasingover thelast

few yearsata rateof

around one-hundred and

fiftypercentin

some

mountain

counties. North Carolina

does

nothavelongtowaitbeforeitwillbeinthe

same

predicament as Vermont,

where second

home

development

increased the

number

of the housing units in the state by one-third.'"

As

a resultofallthisdevelopment,Vermont'scitizenryperceivedacrisis

which

caused them

to pass their statewide land use planning measure, Act 250.

However, the North Carolina Legislature is still apprehensive, even

though

many

of North Carolina's citizens

and

some

conscientious developers are

expressing anxiety over uncontrolled development. Local

governments

have

not attemptedtoregulatedeveloperssincetheyfearsuchaction might

cause

developers to relocate, resulting in the loss of short-term construction

employment

andthe

more

long-lived butlowsalary servicejobs.

Some

typeof

preservetheir rurallifestyle.Still,iflocal

governments

desirethe small benefits

thatrecreation

development

brings, thefear of relocation can be

subdued

by

establishing

homogeneous

development

standards throughoutthe

mountain

region.There

would

thenbe noincentiveforthedevelopertorelocate

because

restrictions

would

be universal. North Carolina could capitalize

on

this

opportunityifthe Legislature takes theinitiativeby passingtheMountain Area

Management

Act

(MAMA).

As

it is written,

MAMA

and Vermont's Act 50 both use the police

power

to

regulate land use

and

sharethe

common

goalofregulating

second

home

and

recreational

development

in environmentally sensitive areas although

Ver-mont chose

toregulate

development

onastatewidebasis,while

MAMA

takes a

criticalareaapproach.Similarities

between

thetwobillsaredescribedbelow.

a

comparison

of the

two

acts

Act 250

Bodies Created byttie

Two

Acts

MAMA

A nine-member Environmental Boardisappointedby theGovernor

for four years, with a chairman

appointed fortwoyears.TheBoard

formulates policies and reviews decisions of lower permit-letting

bodies

Eight district commissions are created, each composed of three

members appointed by the

Gover-nor tor two years.

No

expertise is

requiredofthecommissioners,

who

carry out the day-to-day

respon-sibilities of holding hearings and

issuingdevelopmentpermits.

PermitSystems

Developmentpermitsmust befiled by businesses, individuals, associations,orstateandmunicipal

governmentagencies.Permitsmust befiledforcommercialorindustrial

constructiononlandownedor

con-trolled by a

common

entity

ex-ceedingtenacres(oneacrewherea

town has no zoning or land use

controls), housing projects not

in-cluding subdivisionsoften ormore

units within a radius of fivemiles,

developments by municipal and

stateagenciesoftenormoreacres,

or any development above 2,500

feet. Exemptions are allowed for

farming, logging below2,500 feet,

for forestry purposes below 2,500

feet,electricpowerortransmission

facilities, and any development

un-der way at the time of the Act's

passage.

The Mountain Resources

Commis-sion is a fifteen-member body

which prepares state guidelines,

objectives, policies, and standards

for land use plansand critical en-vironmental areasintheregion.The

Governor appoints twelve of the

Commission

members

from a slate of nominees from the mountain

region. The Governor hasthe sole

discretiontochoosethree

Commis-sion members, two of which can

reside outside themountainregion.

All

members

except three must have experience in specific en-vironmentalandlandrelatedfields.

The local governing body, either

cityorcounty,filesaletterof intent to

become

a permit-letting agency

withtheDepartmentofNaturaland

EconomicResources (DNER).Ifthe

localgovernmentdoesnotsponsor

a permit agency,

DNER

becomes

thepermitagencyin thearea.

Every person, before undertaking

any development in any area of

environmental concern, must

ob-tain a permit. Exemptions are

specified for road maintenance,

railways, utilities, use of land for

agricultural purposes, emergency

maintenance or repairs,

construc-tion ofany accessorybuilding, and

completion of any development which was issued a valid permit

prior to the passage ofthe bill, or

any development initiated prior to

ratification of the Act. Minor

development permits are in-troduced at thecityorcounty level exceptwherethelocalgovernment

did not develop an approved im-plementation and enforcement program. Inthatcase, the Secretary

of

DNER

is responsible. Major developmentpermitswhich are

in-troduced

to the

Mountain

ResourcesCommissionaredefined

asanydevelopment whichrequires permission, licensing, approval,

effectiveness of the

two

bills

any oneofseveral Stateboardsor

which occupiesaland or water area

in excess in 20 acres; or which contemplates drilling for or ex-cavating naturalresourceson land

or under water orwhich occupies on a single parcel, a structure or

structures in excess of 60,000

squarefeet.Aminor developmentis

anydevelopmentotherthanamajor

development. Appealsof PermitDecisions

Anappealof adistrictcommission's

ruling goes to the Environmental

Board,which reviews thecase ina

quasi-judicialfashion excludingall

partiesexcept thedirectly

aggriev-ed. Thedecision can ultimatelybe appealed to the SupremeCourt of

Vermont.

Minor

development

permit

decisions can be appealed to the

Mountain Resources Commission

by any person directly affected.

Major developmentapplications are

initiallyintroducedtotheMountain Resources Commission. Any

per-son directly affected by the

Com-mission's decisions can bring final

appealtotheSuperiorCourtofthe

countyinwhichthe landislocated.

Plans Requiredto Guide Development

Three plans are authorized by Act Land useplanscan be developed by

250: an interim, a capability and thecounties and cities, but itthey

development, and a land use plan. choose not to, the Mountain

TheState Planning Officedraftsall ResourcesCommissionhas the op-threeplans. tion of preparing theplan. Boththe

county and the Commission can

delegate

some

orallof itsplanning

responsibilities totheleadregional

organization for the region which

contains the county.

"The

Vermont

Environmental Control Act

was

never intended to be a

comprehensive

tool tocontrolalllanduse problems,only large

and

small scale

developments

in

unzoned

communities."^^

The

Acthas

been

successfulinthis

respect by protecting the natural environment from the hazardsof

develop-ment

thathave

come

tothe attentionoftheBoard.^'^

The

bill'seffectivenesscan be attributed to the capability

and

development

plan, the efficiency of the

districtcommissions,the stimulation of localzoning,

and

the strong

commit-ment

ofVermont's citizens to land useplanning.

The

capability

and

development

plan

was

designatedtocoordinate

economic

development,

promote

thegeneral welfareoftheinhabitants,

and

reducethe

waste of resources

which

resulted from either excessive congestion or scattering."

The

plan has had its intended effect

on

investment

and

development

byinfluencing locationdecisionsbeforethey

were

crystallized

—

indicating

where development

should occur before an applicant

was

over-committed

on

a high risk proposal.

By

far the strongestpositivefactor in controlling

development

has

been

the

districtcommissions.

Some

stateofficialsfearedthatthedistrict

com

missions'

decisions

would

reflect their

own

prejudice or the popularity oftheproject.

Now

most

officials agree that district

commissions

have expressed a high

degree of technical

competence.

Facts

show

that the

commissions

are less

permissive in theirpermit

enforcement

than theEnvironmental Board,

which

has

been accused

ofunderenforcement.

To

counteractthe Board'sunderforcement, an effort has

been

made

toplace

more

restrictions on

development and

diffuse enforcement responsibility

through the implicitstimulation of local zoning

and

subdivision regulations.

The

Act

encourages

local zoning in threeways;

1.

The

law

must

be applied to

developments

of over ten acres in

zoned towns and

over

one

acre in

unzoned

communities.

may

not issue apermit unless the projectcomplieswithlocalplans;

and

3. Local officials are

made

parties to state permit proceedings.

Another important reason that Vermont's Act 250 is a success is citizen

involvement.Vermont'scitizenshave always hada close association withtheir relatively rural

mountainous

state

once

secluded fromthe "hustleandbustle"

of growth.

The

flood of recreation-seeking outsiders strengthened the

cohesiveness of thecitizens, creating even

more

unity in Vermont's fight to

control development.

Vermont

hasalways hadactive citizen involvement, attributable to itsPuritan heritageandthe smallvillagesthatfacilitate

open

discussion

and

debateinthe

traditional

town

meetings. This activism

was

exploited by wise

government

officials through the use of public hearings, opinion polls, and grants to

finance citizen involvement.

Due

tothe efforts of a statewideenvironmental group funded by theFord Foundation, Vermont'scitizens

were

involved in all stages of thedrafting

and

passage of Act250.

It is difficulttospeculate

how

effectively the

Mountain

Area

Management

Act

would function in North Carolina.

From

the previous

comparisons

of

administrativebodies

and

permitprocedures,itisobviousthattheinstitutions

areanalogous

enough

togiveNorthCarolina'sActa sturdyframework.Allthat

is

needed

isastrong

commitment

bythe

members

ofthe

Mountain

Resources

Commission,

county planning boards, and enforcement agenciestoensurea strong land use guidance

mechanism.

Yet veryfewofthelocalmountain peoplein NorthCarolina areorganized

and

actively involved in thepassage of theMountain Area

Management

Act.

The

fewpublichearingsthatledtotheintroductionofthebillin1974

were

meetings

of elites.

The

list of occupations of the individuals attending the hearings

sounded

likea"Who's

Who

inthe Local

Community",

with lawyers, realestate

men, doctors, and bankers comprising the largest percentageofattendants.

Consequently, there

was

not a true representation oftheentire

populace—

in

stark contrast to Vermont.

The

lack of local participation along with the desireto limittheappointment

power

ofNorthCarolina'sfirstRepublican

Governor

inrecentyearscould have

led to the

amendments

that

now

require

more

local involvement. Another reason for the incorporation of

more

local controls could be the growing

sectionalism in North Carolina. Increasing industrialization

and

urbanization in the

Piedmont

hasincreased itsaffluencetothe pointthat

some

citizensare

now

mobile

enough

to usethepoorer ruralareasatboth

ends

ofthe Stateto

recreateand escape the problemsof urbanism.

To

assurea placeto escape, they want an environmentally-pleasing region; thus, they

push

for land use

controls. Local

governments

in Western North Carolina arerightly

apprehen-sive of such a gesturethat is merely a veiled request to savethe

mountains

because of their recreational

and

scenic value.'"

Deceit in therequest to preserve the

mountains

isillustrated bythefactthat

only theNorth Carolina coastaland

mountain

regionshave

been encouraged

toaccept region-widelanduselegislation.

An

observeronlyneedsto ridefrom

Charlotteto

Durham

on 1-85 toseethatthe

Piedmont

needslanduse planning

more

than the mountain region.

As a result, stronglocal control ofthe

Mountain Resources

Commission,

the

main policy-making

body

thatformulatestheguidelinesforlanduse planning

in the region,should

make

thebill extremelyattractiveto localgovernments.

The

Commission,

comprised mainly of local appointees, could guide

economic development

toareasthat

would

not disrupt thelifestyleandculture

ofthe region.

Vermont

had no need for a regionally-oriented system

because

of the

homogenity

of the state and the external origin of their development. In

contrast. Western North Carolina isfaced with

development

originating both

inside and outside the State,

and

in both cases, local and outside interests oftenconflict.

No

matter

what

thesource, recreation

development

has proved

to be little if any benefit to the local

economy.

Consequently, recreation

development

should be regulated along with other types ofconstruction to

assureanadequaterespectfornature

and

the desiresofthelocal

community.

Footnotes

'Theotonio DosSantos, "TheStructureof Dependence", ThePolitical

Economy

of

Development andUnderdevelopment,ed. CharlesK.Wiiber(NewYork:1973), pp.

109-117.

^RobertA. NathanAssociatesand ResourcePlanning Associates, Recreation asan

Industry, Appalachian Research Report#2, (Washington: 1966).

W.H.

Scarborough."GloomThick inResorts",Winston-SalemJournal,(September

22, 1974), p. D2.

"Joy

Lamm,

"SoyouWantaLandUseBill?",Southern Exposure,(Fall,1974), pp.

53-62.

^Fred Bosselman and David Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control,

(Washington: 1971),p. 54.

'"The Land, Cry,Vermont",Time, (September26, 1969), p. 50.

'DavidR Godschalk,

New

Communitiesand LargeScaleDevelopment, Department

of Administration, (1972), pp. 77-78.

"Ibid.

"•Ibid.

"Time,(September 26, 1969), p. 50. "Ibid.

'^Bill Lee, "Florida

Boom—

In OurMountains",GreensboroDailyNews, (November

13, 1972.)

''James Branscome and Peggy Matthews, "Selling the Mountains", Southern Exposure, (Fall, 1974), pp. 122-129.

"FrancisH.Parker,LandPolicy AlternativesforNorthCarolina,Dept of

Administra-tion, (1972),p. 23.

'Elizabeth Haskell and Victoria Price, State Environmental Management: Case

Studiesof NineStates, (NewYork: 1973), pp. 175-177.

"5|bid., p. 175.

"Arthur Ristau,"Land UseManagement: The VermontExperience", NationalCivic

Review, (November, 1972), pp. 554-558.

'"Joy Lamm, p.62.