NO
LTTTLEPLANS:
FAIRFAX COUNTYS
PLUS
PROGRAM
FOR
MANAGING
GROWTH
JÜL1
1 i
J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 ★
\
★ O
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH
DECEMBER 1976
NO LITTLE PLANS:
FAIRFAX COUNTY'S PLUS PROGRAM FOR MANAGING GROWTH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prepared by
The Urban Institute
Washington, D.C.
under a grant from the
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and
Research
Grant No. VA PD-2
The full report. No Little Plans: Fairfax County's PLUS
Program for Managing Growth, is for sale by The Urban Institute
for $3.95. Orders should be sent to;
Publications Office
The Urban Institute
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
The research forming the basis for this report was conducted
pursuant to a grant with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The statements and conclusions contained
in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the U.S. Government in general or HUD in
particular. The author alone assumes responsibility for the
accuracy and completeness of the information herein.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
A THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 1
WHAT THE PLUS PROGRAM PROMISED 3
WHAT THE PLUS PROGRAM PRODUCED 4
Plan Making. 4
Development Timing 5
Citizen Participation. 6
WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED? 6
General Lessons on Growth Management 7
Lessons for Plan Making, 8
Lessons for Development Timing. 9
Lessons for Citizen Participation 9
"Make no little plans: little plans have no
magic to stir men's blood.
Make big plans, aim high in hope and work. "
--Daniel Hudson Burnham, 1927
INTRODUCTION
Fairfax County, Virginia's PLUS program was perhaps the best-
publicized growth management effort to emerge from local government
during the last decade. Tackling a problem many suburban governments face--
the need to control the extent and timing of new development--the Planning
and Land Use System was a multifaceted 18-month program aimed at re¬
vamping land-use control in a large and rapidly growing suburb of
Washington, D. C.
The PLUS program was officially completed in 1975. What did Fairfax
County achieve with its $1. 5 million program? Further, what can Fairfax
County's experiences tell other local governments about what to do and what
not to do in future growth management programs?
This summary is for citizens, decision makers, and local government
staff involved in planning and land -use control, who might benefit from
Fairfax County's experiences with the PLUS program. For those who wish
a fuller picture of the program, the complete report. No Little Plans:
Fairfax County's PLUS Program for Managing Growth, by Grace Dawson,
is available from The Urban Institute in Washington, D. C. Both the report
and this summary are based on an independent observer's monitoring of
the PLUS program as it evolved.
A THUMBNAIL SKETCH OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
Located across the Potomac River from the nation's capital, Fairfax
County at the time of the PLUS program--
had an area of 399 square miles;
had nearly 550, 000 inhabitants and approximately
170, 000 housing units;
had a median family income of $15, 707 and a median
value for owner-occupied housing of $35, 300
(1970 figures);
was more than half developed, primarily in a
low-density pattern;
included a network of primary and secondary roads
that are planned, built, and maintained by
the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation;
was governed by a nine-member Board of Supervisors,
one at-large member, and eight representing
magisterial districts, who are elected every four
years;
-2-
FAIRFAX COUNTY IN RELATIONSHIP
TO WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
LOUDOUN COUNTY
/ Falls >
Churched
FAIRFAX COUNTY
PRINCE
GEORGE'S
COUNTY
PRINCE
WILLIAM
COUNTY
Figure 1
THE WASHINGTON, D.O., SMSA.
-3-
had an 11-member Planning Commission, appointed
by the Board of Supervisors, that reviews
rezoning applications and land-use plans before
sending them to the Board of Supervisors for
final action;
had a county government staff of approximately 6, 000
persons (excluding school personnel);
was last the subject of a comprehensive countywide
plan in 1959; and
had a local and state judiciary with a record of strongly
upholding private property rights.
Until the 1950s, Fairfax County was primarily rural in character. The
postwar building boom, fueled by the expansion of federal government employ¬
ment in Washington, D. C. , pushed development deeper into Fairfax County
as well as other outlying suburbs. By 1950, the county population was just
under 100, 000. Concerned about the cost of providing sewer service to the
growing county's scattered population, the Board of Supervisors requested
a comprehensive land-use plan, which was adopted in 1959.
Despite the new plan and zoning ordinance, development occurred at
a rapid rate between I960 and 1970, with the co\mty's population rising 83
percent; school enrollment, 133 percent; and the county budget, more than
300 percent.
The county government responded to the intense development pressure
of the 1960s in several ways. It refined the categories in the zoning ordinance
to allow for planned unit development and to provide other mechanisms to
channel growth. It attempted to regulate development through the allocation
of sewer capacity, and it re planned small areas of the county with a view
to encouraging a more coherent pattern of development. Despite these
efforts, the Board of Supervisors approved more than 250 amendments
to the 1959 zoning ordinance, adding 62, 000 housing units to the existing
stock of 69,000 between I960 and 1970. During this time the median value
of owner-occupied housing rose from $18,700 to $35, 300.
The November 1971 local election saw a change in the mood of the
electorate; for in Fairfax County, as in many other rapidly growing areas,
the negative effects of growth had begun to show in increased traffic con¬
gestion, air pollution, and local taxes. The majority of the old board was
defeated by candidates advocating strong growth-control measures.
WHAT THE PLUS PROGRAM PROMISED
In January 1973, the Board of Supervisors voted to "dedicate priority
effort to the preparation, at the earliest possible date, of a comprehensive
program designed to control growth and achieve a development plan for
Fairfax County." Out of this resolution grew the PLUS program.
-4-
Although the initial outline of the program contained a broad array of
land-use control mechanisms that were to be developed or tested for use
in Fairfax County, the program, as it actually evolved, contained three
major elements:
• the development of updated comprehensive land-use
plans, a capital improvement program (CIP),
and analytical tools for use in plan making and
individual land-use decisions;
• the establishment of a method for regulating the
rate of development according to the availability
of public facilities;
• the encouragement of extensive citizen participation
throughout the program.
This agenda was to be carried out by the Office of Comprehensive Planning,
the staff of which was enlarged from 5 0 to 84 members, as well as by individuals
in the County Attorney's Office, the Office of Research and Statistics, and
other county agencies. The entire program was under the direction of the
county's planners and was coordinated overall by the Deputy County Executive
and a management group consisting of department heads from a broad cross-
section of county agencies. The program was to be completed during the
18-month period from January 1974 to June 1975. Its projected cost was $1. 5
million, which was to come from the county's revenue-sharing allocation.^
WHAT THE PLUS PROGRAM PRODUCED
Of the three main objectives set out at the start of the PLUS program,
Fairfax County was successful in achieving two: the development and adoption
of updated comprehensive plans and a CIP; and the institution of a broad program
of citizen participation. The most sought-after objective, the ability to regulate
the rate of development according to the adequacy facilities, was not achieved.
Plan Making
Despite an extremely tight schedule, Fairfax County's planners produced
a countywide plan and four subarea plans with extensive citizen input, and saw
the plans through the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review
to adoption. The new plans, which projected development for Fairfax County
to 1990, contained a number of innovations, including the classification of all
the land in the county as stable (uses are dictated by surrounding development
1. In fact, the PLUS program missed this goal by only two months.
It was officially completed on September 8, 1975, close to the budgeted cost.
-5-
patterns), option (a number of alternative uses might be considered), or
conflict (certain crucial locations such as sites for potential large-scale
commercial, industrial, or planned development centers, or transportation
interchanges, requires special study). The countywide plan also contained
the first transportation plan adopted in the county's history.
In addition to the new land-use plans, Fairfax County initiated a process
for generating an annual GIF. Produced annually by the planning office, the
GIF catalogs, evaluates, and recommends capital projects suggested by all
the county's agencies for the coming five-year period and integrates them
into a unified building program that is coordinated with the development shown
in the land-use plans. Again, citizen participation was widespread in the
GIF adoption process, resulting in a GIF that obtained citizen endorsement.
An immediate result of the GIF process was that, in 1975, the county's
bond rating increased from Aa to AAa, affording taxpayers a saving on
future loans made for capital facilities.
As part of the improvement of the planning process, Fairfax County
sought to develop analytical tools to help planners test the impact of alternative
development patterns upon the county's resources, both fiscal and natural.
This part of the FLUS program fell victim to a number of difficulties: the
county's lack of a clear vision of the kinds of tools to be developed; the
reliance upon an outside consultant to accomplish what was in reality a
complex staff assignment; the lack of a constituency among county staff
for small-area planning tools when planning was being done on a countywide
scale; and the lack of a strong constituency within the county government for
the irrprovement of information systems. The result of this effort was only
modest improvement in the tools available for making individual zoning decisions.
Development Timing
Regulating the rate of development in accordance with the availability
of public facilities proved the most elusive of Fairfax Gounty's growth manage¬
ment objectives. Initially, the county sought to model its effort on the system
used in Ramapo, New York, consisting of an adequate public facilities ordinance
and a point system for assuring that facilities are available before develop¬
ment is permitted. However, inherent differences between Ramapo and
Fairfax Gounty--in size, degree of development, and the existence (or lack)
of updated land-use plans and a long-range capital improvement program--
made Fairfax Gounty officials reject the direct transfer of the Ramapo scheme.
Nevertheless, with time short and in the absence of an alternative
strategy, in January 1974 Fairfax Gounty took the first step in implementing
a modified Ramapo system: the imposition of a zoning moratorium to be in
effect during the planning process. Soon after, the local circuit court ruled
the zoning moratorium invalid, creating even more serious doubts about the
prospects for sustaining even a modified Ramapo system. The loss of two
-6-
subsequent land-use cases in which rezonings had been denied by the county
on the grounds on inadequacy of facilities and the refusal of the U.S. Supreme
Court to consider the county's appeal of these cases ended the county's hopes
of timing development under existing Virginia law.
But, since Fairfax County had not adopted aji updated, comprehensive
land-use plan and a long-range CIP when adequacy of facilities as a pre¬
requisite for development was before the courts, the PLUS program did not
really include a fair test of the viability of development timing. With these
documents now in place, the further testing of development timing in the
Virginia courts is a task for Fairfax County's lawyers.
Citizen Participation
The major success of the PLUS program was the citizen participation
that occurred as a result of the county staff's concerted efforts. Through
the work of a special group of "community planners, " whose sole respon¬
sibility was to act as liaison between the citizens and the county planning
staff, the PLUS program actively involved hundreds of county residents
over a period of nearly two years in planning the county's future development.
Organized by election district, planning area, special interest group,
and civic association, citizens (including members of the development
industry) participated in the development of the plans for their neighbor¬
hoods. Through a planning office policy encouraging the early release of
information, citizens received initial drafts of planning documents and were
able to make comments and suggestions throughout the planning process.
Their continual involvement in formulating the plans was important, not
only because it allowed the plans to reflect citizen perspectives, but also
because the plans became known as "citizen" plans. Especially during an
election year, this strong citizen identification with the plans assured their
speedy approval, with few changes, by the county's decision makers.
WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED?
Fairfax County learned through the PLUS program that even with the
best intentions in the world and with ample resources, the ability of local
government to affect the use of private land is extremely limited--by the
courts, by special interests, by policial concerns, and by the citizens
themselves. Although these factors may come to bear with varying force
in other places, the lessons learned by Fairfax County are relevant to any
suburban jurisdiction experiencing or anticipating rapid growth and seeking
to improve its management of the development process. Fairfax County's
-7-
experiences alone cannot provide the key to a flawless growth management
program, but they can provide an appreciation of the limits of local initiative
and of the pitfalls to be avoided. Following is a summary of some of the
le s sons,
General Lessons on Growth Management
• Existing state law and the general judicial posture of a
state and locality should be taken into account when
grov/th management strategies are considered.
• The order in which the components of a growth manage¬
ment program are developed is as important as the com¬
ponents themselves. For example, in the Ramapo system,
an adequate public facilities ordinance must follow a
comprehensive plan and long-range capital improvement
program.
• When a grov/th management program includes legal, planning,
and other technical components, the top level of government,
must ensure strong interagency coordination.
• Consultants should be used to advise the existing staff and to
augment its work, not to develop individual parts of a growth
management program. If, because of scarce staff resources,
a consultant is needed to develop a specific component of a
program, the consultant should work alongside local government
staff, especially in the implementation stage.
• The scope of work attempted in a growth management program,
and the amount of time and money devoted to the effort, should
be carefully estimated.
• Tying a growth management program to the election cycle
promotes a closer link between planning and policymaking,
and ensures that every effort will be made to complete and
adopt a program acceptable to the citizens. A liability of
this approach is that more innovative ideas may be discarded
in balancing frequently narrow citizen preferences against
policies that better serve the jurisdiction as a whole.
• Staff management problems are inherent in a growth manage¬
ment program, both because of the complexity of the effort
and because of the need to expand the existing staff rapidly
to accomplish the task.
-8-
Lessons for Plan Making
» It is difficult to lay out a detailed plan in advance for a
complex, interdisciplinary growth management program that
includes the simultaneous development of plans and other
tools and controls. At best, work should proceed in one-
or two-month increments, with each next step determined
along the way. This is difficult, however, since planners
are often more at home with long-range work programs.
• In developing comprehensive plans for growth management,
there should be a continual process of moving from jurisdiction-
wide concerns to neighborhood issues. Since citizens naturally
think about their neighborhood, planners should first consider
jurisdictionwide issues. Impacts of alternative development
patterns should be evaluated for the jurisdiction asa whole,
as well as for small areas. However, this process is diffi¬
cult to coordinate and time consuming. Because of citizen
interest, small-area issues are likely to dominate.
• If a growth management program is simultaneously to pro¬
duce comprehensive plans and develop analytic tools, the
skills of an overall coordinator, a day-to-day administrator,
and a technical analyst are needed.
• In developing analytical tools for plan making, the support and
coordination of the chief executive officer of a jurisdiction are
needed to foster cooperation among planners, lawyers, and
technical analysts outside the planning office.
• If a jurisdiction uses an outside consultant to assist in develop¬
ing analytic tools for plan making, the tasks to be accomplished
should be clearly defined and the consultant's involvement should
carry over to the implementation stage, when the consultant
should be expected to work side by side with local government
staff.
• A long-range capital improvement program (CIP) can offer a
number of advantages. A jurisdiction's budget department
and other agencies view a CIP process as a means of achieving
the commitment of decision makers to long-range spending
levels. An added advantage, important to budget officers
as well as to the jurisdiction at large, is that a CIP offers
the potential for improvement of a local government's bond
rating. Further, the annual CIP update process offers citizens
more input into planned projects than do yearly public hearings
on the capital budget.
• The planning process should include three sets of participants:
elected and appointed officials, citizens, and planning staff.
-9-
Lessons for Development Timing
• If a zoning moratorium is to be imposed during the
planmaking period, the jurisdiction should be prepared
to provide estimates of the moratorium's impact on the
development community (e. g. , how many outstanding building
permits to approve, effect upon small and large developers),
both as a means of preserving good relations with developers,
and for use in any court challenge that might arise,
• It is necessary to be able to defend a zoning moratorium
against legal challenges. If landowners are going to be
deprived of the use of their land for a period of time, the
period must be specified and the need for a moratorium
should be carefully established by supporting data. If a
moratorium is to be imposed using decision makers'
"emergency" powers, data should be available to sub¬
stantiate the eme rgency.
• While a partial, rather than a total, zoning moratorium may
seem preferable in terms of its impact upon the development
community, a partial moratorium (e. g. , on residential or
commercial rezonings) or one that applies only to certain
geographic areas of a jurisdiction may be viewed by the courts
as discriminatory.
• In presenting an elaborate development timing strategy to
decision makers for endorsement, lawyers should attempt
to make the concepts as simple as possible and to convey their
ideas to citizens prior to seeking the endorsement of elected
officials.
Lessons for Citizen Participation
• Establishing a separate staff of community planners within
the planning office, with prime responsibility to act as
"honest brokers" between the planners and the citizens,
improves participation and opens channels of communication
between citizens and professionals.
• The success of community planners is a function of their
familiarity with the detailed plans as they develop and their
ability to answer technical questions of citizens as they arise.
Community planners and technical planners should work closely
together to keep information flowing freely to and from citizens.
-10-
Citizens should be organized by as wide a variety of
groupings as possible (election district, planning area,
functional area interest, etc. ). This allows a more
diverse group of citizens to participate than the more
traditional patterns of civic associations and special
interest groups afford.
Dividing a jurisdiction for planning purposes into subareas
that are not coterminous with election districts allows for
more varied forms of citizen participation and dilutes the
influence of individual elected officials over the content of
subarea plans.
It is important to consider special interest groups, particularly
those involved in the development industry, to elicit the com¬
ments of these groups, and to give visibility to their input in
the planning process.
Planning information should be released early, in draft form,
so that citizens can have maximum opportunity for input as
draft plans develop. However, the necessarily rough and
generalized form of early draft material may discourage
citizens, who are often most interested in detailed plans for
their own neighborhoods.
Although citizens receive considerable information on plans
through the early release strategy, it is necessary to develop
intermediate-level documents, concisely stating the problems
addressed and proposals contained in the plans, for use by
citizens. Early material is too general, and later material
too technical, for most citizens to absorb. However, intermediate-
level documents take time and resources to produce.
Large open forums and public meetings are the best vehicle
for the government to present general, jurisdictionwide infor¬
mation, but not to elicit comments and suggestions from
individual citizens. Small area meetings, print, and other
media are more useful for the government to obtain input
from citizens.
Not merely the appearance but the fact of citizen participation
are necessary to assure that decision makers do not linger during
plan review, especially when the schedule permits only a short
time for review and amendment of plans.
The time allotted a growth management program is particularly
important in terms of the amount of citizen participation that
occurs. If a schedule is too rushed, citizens become discouraged
at their inability to comment quickly on plans.
-11-
• Citizens may expect management programs to result in maps
showing precisely when and what kind of future development
will take place. However, when growth pressures are intense,
it is difficult to predict any of these things with precision,
and therefore, it is fruitless to attempt to produce maps
which show the future with certainty. However, citizens and
special interest groups find the notion of planning as a process,
rather than as a map-producing activity, difficult to accept.
Particularly when neighborhood issues are concerned, these
groups tend to want to see end-state plan maps, rather than
more process-oriented documents such as lists of evaluation
criteria.
March 1977
HUD-PDR-220