FAIRFAX GROWTH CENTER PLAN MOVES OFF THE DIME

[Henry]

By LEE J. KAHRS - St. Albans Messenger Staff Writer

FAIRFAX - John Workman and David Modica will have to pay the state $63,000 for agricultural soils mitigation in order to pursue their housing project in the growth center here.

According to Sam Ruggiano, the engineer representing Cross Consulting Engineers on the project, the owners also will pay a $15,000 Act 250 application fee to the state, but that does not guarantee the project will receive Act 250 approval.

"It takes a different breed of developer to stomach paying these kinds of fees, not knowing if they will get the permit or not, " Ruggiano said.

Setbacks and delays have plagued the project for almost four years.  Last fall, the District 6 Environmental Commission determined that 22 of the 35-acre tract contains agricultural soils as defined by Act 250.  In order to receive Act 250 approval for a project despite the presence of agricultural soils, property owners can opt to mitigate.

Mitigation means the conservation in perpetuity of agricultural land located elsewhere purchased by the developers as a trade-off for agricultural land used in an approval project.

The amount of mitigation is based on the quality of the agricultural soil in question and a formula for figuring cost.  For every acre of agricultural soils to be developed, the property owner must pay at least twice the going rate per acre for agricultural land elsewhere in the area.

The ratio of mitigation can range from two to one to three to one.  In the agreement that Workman and Modica have signed, it will cost $1,275 per acre for each of the 22 acres, times two and a half.

One complaint regarding mitigation is that it adds to the overall cost of homes.  The Workman/Modica project was originally planned to ease the affordable housing crisis in Fairfax, one of the fastest growing towns in the state.

It could have been worse.  Ruggiano originally estimated in September that mitigation could cost as much as $150,000.

Phase one of the project calls for 14 single-family lots and a 47-unit building designed for elderly housing with parking underneath.  Phase two would add 10 more singel-family lots, a village green, and a 61-space above ground parking lot.  There has also been discussion about adding a recreation path.

The environmental commission's decision last fall created quite a controversy.  Although the land to be developed lies directly within the designated growth center of Fairfax and its proposed usage fits with the Town Plan, it was farmland up until about 30 years ago.

Public opinion has thus far been strongly against using the land for agricultural purposes.  Neighboring property owners have said they do not want any agricultural activity on the land, particularly manure spreading, due to the odor and the disruptive nature of farm machinery traffic.

Ruggiano has also argued that the parcel is too small to farm and expect a reasonable return.

Despite that, criteria 9B of Act 250 has five sub criteria that must be met for a site to be considered primary agricultural soil and the commission decided that those sub criteria had been met in this case.[/i]