United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
October 1981
903R81007
&EPA
The Effects of Wastewater
Spray Irrigation Systems on
Adjacent Residential Property
Values
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
TD
760
.E34
1981
copy 2
-------
Regional Center for F,,v
USFP.O n'aU
US EPA Region III
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
U.S. EPA Region HI
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
THE EFFECTS OF WASTEWATER SPRAY
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ON ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES
Prepared by:
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
James N. Webb, Project Monitor
Prepared with the assistance of:
WAPORA, INC.
BERWYN, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables i
List of Figures ii
CHAPTER I. Introduction 1
CHAPTER II. The Problem and Its Setting 3
Land Treatment Systems and Their Use 3
The Measurement of Land Value 3
Disamenities and Land Valueed Value 4
Related Studies 4
Study Objectives 6
CHAPTER III. Methodology 9
Selection of Case Studies 9
Field Procedures and Data Collected 9
Selection of Control and Impact Area 10
CHAPTER IV. Case Study Summaries and Data Analysis 11
Type of Housing and Neighborhoods Studied 11
Physical Relationship of Spray Irrigation Systems 11
and Residences
Local Assessment Procedures 16
Summary of Sales and Assessment Data 16
Results of Home Owner Survey 19
CHAPTER V. Conclusions 21
References 23
Preparers 24
Appendix A. Identification of Spray Sites in Selected States A-1
Complete List of Spray Irrigation Sites Identified
Spray Irrigation Sites Contacted for This Study
Appendix B. Case Studies B-1
Atco, New Jersey
The Highlands, Maryland
Oak Ridge, Virginia
Occoquan Forest, Virginia
St. Charles, Maryland
Toftrees, Pennsylvania
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Telephone survey questions
2 Housing and development characteristics
3 Land treatment facility characteristics
4 Summary of data collected for each case study
5 Results of homeowner telephone survey
A.1 Spray irrigation sites identified
A.2 Spray irrigation sites contacted
Page
10
13
14
18
20
A-1
A-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Comparison of residences
2 Visual contact with SIS
3 Atco, New Jersey
4 The Highlands, Maryland
5 Oak Ridge, Virginia
6 Occoquan Forest, Virginia
7 St. Charles, Maryland
8 Toftrees, Pennsylvania
11
-------
Chapter I
Introduction
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
Recently there has been an increased interest among engineers,
planners, and public officials in considering land application
systems for treatment of wastewater in areas where it is less
feasible or more costly to discharge directly into streams or other
receiving water bodies. Some of the more common issues raised in
considering land application systems involve perceived health and
water quality effects, and the differential costs and efficiencies
of using land treatment as an alternative to conventional systems.
Another important issue concerns the effects that land treatment
systems may have on property values. The value of a land parcel is
determined by its characteristics and use as well as the character-
istics of its neighboring properties. Objectionable neighborhood
land use can adversely affect property values. The noise produced
by highways and airports best typifies an objectionable neighbor-
hood land use. The purpose of this study was to determine the
extent to which land application systems may affect nearby resi-
dential property values. The study was designed to investigate
land application system-land value relationship analogous to the
proposed spray irrigation-land application system proposed for the
Central Pennypack watershed, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The
study involved a case study methodology.
Six study areas were selected, each involving the operation of
wastewater spray irrigation system (SIS) near a residential area.
In each case study the assessed value and sales data for a group of
residential properties located nearest the SIS were compared to
like data for residential properties located further away from the
SIS. Each of the paired residential areas included homes of
similar age, construction, design, and price range. All important
variables related to land value in each case study were identified
and carefully examined to assure measurement of any land value
effects from the proximity of the SIS.
-------
Chapter II
The Problem and its Setting
-------
Land Treatment
Systems and
Their Use
The Measurement of
Land Value
CHAPTER II. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Land application of wastewater is a technique designed to use the
soil to treat wastewater. To accomplish this, an application
system is engineered that allows wastewater to infiltrate into the
soil. Chemical and biological treatment of the wastewater then
occurs during percolation by the removal of nutrients, trace
constituents and certain microorganisms.
The design of any land treatment facility requires detailed studies
of the physical and biological characteristics of a specific site.
Some of the major considerations include the type and depth of
soils, geology, groundwater elevation, rate of rainfall, and vege-
tative cover. The rate and frequency of application is defined by
the limitations of the soil to absorb water. The design of most
facilities usually involves the use of a significant visual buffer
that shields the spray irrigation system from adjacent land uses.
Spray sites are most commonly found in rural or suburban
locations.
Land application systems are perceived to have both beneficial and
adverse characteristics. Opposition to these systems typically
centers on issues of public aesthetics, water quality, and property
values. Opponents commonly claim that the installation of this
type of wastewater treatment facility will have a negative effect
on adjacent property values. In such cases, it is claimed that the
wastewater spray generated by the facility is dispersed to
adjacent properties, where health risks occur.
The market value of real property is basically determined by a
buyer's willingness to pay a sum acceptable to the seller. Many
factors affect this negotiation, including mortgage arrangements,
reason for sale (e.g. estate settlement, owner relocation, etc.),
and any emotional attachments the buyer and/or seller may have for
the property. It is evident then, that the final sales price is
variable, dependent on the individuals (and other factors)
involved.
A legal interpretation of market value almost always requires a
detailed real estate appraisal that best approximates average
market value. However, real estate appraisals are costly and not
normally used as a means to establish property tax assessments or
as a basis to sell property. As a substitute, the most common data
available that can serve as a measure of property value includes
sales records and assessment information.
In contrast to property appraisals, property assessment for taxing
purposes is based on an estimate of property value. Assessment
procedures are usually standardized within a state or county juris-
diction. A common assessment technique involves a periodic visit
by an assessor to each property to determine a number of standard
property features (i.e., total square footage, type of
construction, general conditions, etc). Information about these
features is then used in a general formula to estimate property
value. Information about recent property sales in the area of a
subject property also may be used to arrive at a valuation. This
estimate of property value is then multiplied by the property tax
rate to establish a property tax.
Assessment methods do not always provide an accurate estimate of
property market value. In general, assessed value lags behind
property market trends because assessment criteria are based on
historical and not current data. Also, assessment methods
-------
Disamenities and
Land Value
Related Studies
typically produce an estimate of property value based on general-
ized housing types and characteristics. While assessment methods
provide a reasonable basis for establishing property tax, they are
less useful for more detailed analysis of specific properties.
Sales history provides a more accurate estimate of specific proper-
ty value than assessment results because sales are based on actual
financial transactions and not on generalized formulas.
Property value reflects, among other factors, the quality of the
environment that characterizes the land. An important considera-
tion of people selecting property for purchase is the quality of
its physical features as well as its surroundings. Common sense
dictates that the quality of life increases with decreasing expo-
sure to air and water pollution, hazardous radiation and toxic
substances, and annoyances such as noise and odors. Pollution and
annoyances such as these are examples of disamenities which are
generally repulsive to human beings. The existence of such disa-
menities tend to lower property values. On the other hand, ameni-
ties such as parks, scenic vistas and aesthetically pleasing growth
of natural vegetation are appealing to home buyers and tend to
enhance property value.
The perception of potential hazards from pollution, whether real or
imagined, is often an overriding factor adversely affecting proper-
ty values. Take for instance, the recent occurrence of Legion-
naire's Disease at the Bellevue Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia.
To this date it is not known why the disease occurred where and
when it did. The hotel suffered a significant loss of business
because of the publicity concerning the disease and finally was
sold for a fraction of the worth of the land and buildings before
the outbreak of Legionnaire's Disease took place. Even though the
disease has not reoccurred at that location, the general public
perception of this event directly caused property value to
decrease.
The variability of perceptions is further complicated by variabili-
ty in peoples' tolerance of annoyances. Individual levels of
tolerance vary substantially with respect to noise or odors. There
are noise levels and odors which are clearly annoying to the major-
ity of humans. For instance, in a small group of individuals there
may be a concensus or, on the other hand, a wide disagreement about
whether a particular odor level is annoying. Even if larger groups
are sampled, the range of disagreement may become small but there
will always be a range of opinion as to when individuals perceive a
noise level or particular odor as being a nuisance. When a noise
level or odor level is significantly offensive to a large number of
people it will probably have a strong negative influence on proper-
ty value. Notwithstanding, property values may not be affected by
certain noise levels or odors even though a few people perceived
that a significant nuisance does exist.
There are no known studies that have measured the effects of SIS on
property value. However, there have been numerous studies done
that either attempt to measure the benefit of an amenity or the
cost of a disamenity. These studies commonly rely on cost-benefit
techniques that produce conclusions to assist policy decision
makers or estimate compensatory payments related to a particular
nuisance. A popular indicator used to measure the strength of an
amenity or disamenity is the resultant change in property value.
There are many methods for estimating the social costs of external
effects. A commonly used method involves measuring the physical
manifestations of the disamenity and then comparing these variables
-------
with the market value of property while accounting for other
property characteristics that cause differences in value. This
method can translate the variable strength of different disameni-
ties into commensurate costs that relate to the value of the
property affected by an externality.
Regression analysis is usually the method selected for such
analysis. In general, a model is created from a set of property
characteristics including externalities that are designated as in-
dependent variables (x-jj in the form y = ax-j + ax2 axi + c.
The dependent variable (y) used in the regression equation is some
measure of property value such as actual property market value or
assessed value. The error term (e) is an expression of the
unexplained variation in the dependent variable. Previous studies
on this subject that use regression have relied on the major
characteristics that determine property value instead of a complete
accounting of every factor. Serious inaccuracies can result in
estimating the value of externalities if all major characteristics
are not included and/or if the quality of the data is not appropri-
ate. For example, in some cases assessed value may not be an
accurate indicator of property value.
Prominent studies of the costs of air pollution include Ridker and
Hening (1967), Jaksch (1970), and Anderson and Crocker (1971).
Each of these studies (with variable success) estimate property
value given increasing amounts of air pollution. Regression analy-
sis was utilized in all studies with property value as the depen-
dent variable. A common problem in the studies was that of
isolating property value changes that were due to a decrease in air
quality. Air monitoring was not extensive enough to accurately
describe micro changes in air pollution levels. Also, other
factors that can have significant effects on property value were
not always included as a variable in the regression analysis
(particularly amenities and disamenities).
Noise is a common subject as it relates to property value effects
because it is pervasive in our urban and suburban environments.
Transportation corridors are particularly significant locations
where noise can reach relatively high levels and have been the
subject of previous empirical studies that attempt to measure the
costs of disamenities as reflected in land value.
Most of these studies deal with the effects on land value produced
by noise from airports and highways. Jet aircraft operations, for
example, have been found to create zones that parallel take-off and
landing pathways in which noise levels were extremely annoying to
humans. Airport siting and aircraft movement patterns have become
increasingly regulated by Federal and State governments because of
a history of litigation and public concern over the effects of
noise on public health and losses to property value. Highway
construction and operation have received a lesser amount of
attention due to a concern over increased noise exposure.
Nelson performed a cross-section study of 467 census tracts in the
Washington, DC region. His objective was to explain how different
levels of pollution were reflected in property values using
regression analysis. Noise level estimates that were simulated
from traffic volumes were included as an independent variable along
with measurements of two types of air pollutants. Other indepen-
dent variables pertained to residential structure/lot characteris-
tics. The results of the regression analysis indicated that for
each dBA over the ambient noise level, residential property values
were reduced by approximately $58 per property. The independent
variables explained about 88% of the variation in property prices.
-------
Nelson (1975) concluded that noise levels generally are capitalized
in residential property values. As noise levels are increased, the
social costs are likewise proportionally increased. Thus, the
effects of noise from transportation corridors such as highways are
not limited to immediately adjacent properties. Such effects are
related to the noise levels that are produced above the ambient
noise, whatever the distance to which the elevated noise level
extends beyond the corridor.
Gamble et al. (1973) performed a similar but more definitive study
of the effects of traffic noise on residential property value.
Data from four separate study areas included the quantity and
dispersion of highway-generated noise and air pollutants; traffic
characteristics; property value; and residential structural/lot
characteristics. The property value data were obtained from public
records which included property sales for the years 1969 to 1971.
Regressions were run using property value as the dependent variable
and the other data as independent variables. Results of the study
showed an average loss in value, for all areas combined, of $82 per
property per dBA increase in the "noise pollution level" (NPL). In
this analysis the independent variables explained approximately 60%
of the variance in property value.
A common problem with the above studies is the reliance placed on
assessed value to explain changes in property value. Assessed
value only approximates property value by the use of generalized
equations. A more accurate measure of property value is sales
history since sale prices are a direct reflection of the market
mechanism of property value.
Study Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine if the existence of a
land application site next to a residential area would have any
effect on residential property values. The study was designed to
examine cases similar to the type of wastewater facilty-land use
relationship that has been proposed at the Central Pennypack Water-
shed, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. To achieve this similarity
in cases, only existing domestic wastewater spray systems adjacent
to or near moderately priced housing were selected for study.
It was hypothesized that an SIS is a disamenity to nearby resi-
dential land and will therefore have an adverse effect on property
value. In order to prove or disprove this hypothesis it was
necessary to identify the cause of the disamenity (i.e., noise,
odors, etc.) and to understand the reliability of assessment and
sales data to explain any significant changes in property value
over a time period for which data was available.
Two causes seem apparent for any hypothesized land value effects
attributable to the proximity of a SIS. In the first case, an SIS
may have produced "real" physical annoyances such as odors and
noise. The second reason includes a bias that a person may have
toward such facilities being located nearby. In such cases,
physically measurable annoyances may not exist, but the SIS was
nevertheless perceived as negatively affecting the neighborhood.
In both cases the SIS served as an example of a disamenity which in
theory could reduce property values.
One intention of this study is to examine the physical operations
of an SIS and thereby identify any potential nuisances. If odors
and noises, for example, do exist, are they noticable to people who
-------
live in nearby homes? Also, are they objectionable enough to
people to be considered nuisances? The answers to these questions
are important because the strength of a disamenity should be
related to any land value effects shown to have occurred in nearby
residential land. The causes of any land value effects addressed
in this study will not be examined quantitatively.
The measurement of land value changes is the primary objective of
this study. Assessment and sales data will be used as the basis
for identifying changes. Some important issues that have to be
considered when using this data include:
• Did assessment methods change during the period of time under
study?
• Can disamenities affect assessed value?
• Do the assessment methods and data indicate reasons for land
value change?
• Has the regional housing market radically changed during the
study period, causing anomalies in the series time data?
-------
Chapter III
Methodology
-------
Selection of
Case Studies
Field Procedures
and Data Collected
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY
The selection of case studies involved a stepped-screening
procedure. State, regional and local health and permitting
agencies were contacted in the first step to obtain lists of the
operators of existing SIS*. From the extensive lists obtained, SIS
sites were selected on the basis of their similarity with those
proposed for the Central Pennypack watershed. Each operator of the
SIS facility was then contacted to determine if a residential area
was located adjacent or near the facility. Information on other
characteristics of the SIS site and the residential area also were
sought at this time.
Six case studies were selected on the basis of the proximity of the
SIS to residential areas, the potential existence of disamenities,
and the availability of assessment and sales data. Selected
residential areas were required to be adjacent to or nearby the SIS
to establish causality of hypothesized land value effects.
The data collected in the field included information about the
spray site, the neighboring residential area, and property value
(available at the assessors office). Each case study began with a
visit to the spray site accompanied by the SIS operator. The
physical characteristics of the SIS were noted and the operation of
the spray facilities were examined from both on and off the spray
site. An examination of any noise and odors from the spray facili-
ties and their relationship to nearby homes was of particular
importance in this task.
The vegetative buffer between the residential area and the spray
site was inspected to determine how effectively spray activities
are shielded from homes. In this regard, the height, depth,
density, and type of vegetation in the buffer were examined to
evaluate its effectiveness.
Familiarity with the residential area was extremely important
because of the need to understand any differences in property value
among the parcels studied. Important considerations included the
differences in housing and lot characteristics; the existence of
noises, visual blight, odors, and any other sources of amenities
and disamenities, and the compatibility of adjacent land uses.
Other information gathered included copies of the property record
cards for each residential parcel. A property record card is the
assessors work sheet for establishing each property assessment.
The cards contain information about the physical characteristics of
each lot and structure, as well as sales and assessment history.
This information, together with findings from interviews with each
assessor, was the basis for the quantitative analysis upon which
the study conclusions primarily were drawn.
The final data collection task was a telephone survey of residents
in both impact and control areas. Each resident was asked six
questions as listed in Table 1.
*A complete list of facilities identified and a list of facilities
contacted are included in Appendix A.
-------
Table 1. Telephone Survey Questions.
1. When did you purchase your home?
2. Did you know about the spray site when you bought your
home?
3. Do you think the existence of the spray site so close to
your home affects property value?
4. Do you think it affects your property value?
5. Can you name anything that has affected property values
in this area since you have lived here?
6. Is there anything offensive about the spray site being
located where it is?
Selection of Control In order to measure the effects of a SIS on nearby residential
and Impact Areas property it was necessary to compare average property value for two
residential areas. A residential area having the greatest
probability of being affected by the SIS was compared to similar
homes located outside the influence of the SIS. The impact area
boundaries encompassed all homes closest to the SIS that were most
likely to see, smell, or hear operations and equipment of the SIS.
The control area was selected on the basis of its similarity to the
impact area in terms of lot size, type and size of homes, and
neighborhood appearance (i.e., landscaping, maturity of trees,
existence of curbs and gutters, and upkeep). Both the impact and
control areas were required to have experienced similar external
influences on property value such as vistas and adjacent parkland.
The goal of selecting impact and control areas was to minimize any
differences between the two areas except for the existence of the
SIS. Maps showing the proximity of the SIS to impact and control
areas for each case study are included in Appendix B.
10
-------
Chapter IV
Case Study Summaries and Data Analysis
-------
Type of Housing
and Neighborhoods
Studied
Physical
Relationship of
Spray Irrigation
Systems and
Residences
CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES AND DATA ANALYSIS
The homes selected within each case study** were similar to each
other in many respects. For instance, in the St. Charles develop-
ment the homes in the impact area were nearly identical to the
homes in the control area (Figure 1 ) . These two groups of resi-
dences were built about the same time, have the same range of lot
size and floor area and are within the same price range. The only
significant difference is that the impact group is located close to
the SIS, whereas the control group is not. This same relationship
exists for all paired samples in each case study.
Overall, there are many parallels between case studies. All
residences selected fall within a generally moderate price range of
$40,000 to $80,000 (Table 2). All homes were well-kept and land-
scaped in a manner typical of a moderate-income suburban setting.
The neighborhoods were free of non-compatible land uses such as
major highways with high volumes of through traffic or disturbing
industrial activities. Also, most of the homes were built within
the last ten years (i.e., 1970 to 1980). The common features of
the case studies enabled comparisons to be made not only between
impact and control groups but between the case studies themselves.
In each case study, with the exception of Atco, NJ,*** the SIS was
constructed before or coincidentally with the development of the
subdivision. The reason for this is that each subdivision studied
was located in a predominately rural area outside existing public
sewage treatment districts. To obtain local government approval
for the subdivision, the developer was required to provide a sewage
treatment facility capable of servicing the proposed residential
community. SIS's were installed in lieu of more conventional
wastewater treatment facilities because of the absence of suitable
receiving streams. Lot size and density restrictions precluded the
use of on-lot septic systems. Consequently, the construction of
the SIS was an integral part of the subdivision's infrastructure
similar in importance to the provision of roads, potable water and
public utilities.
Central to the purpose of this study is an understanding of the
relationship of land value trends and the physical proximity/visual
accessibility of the spray site and the residential study area.
The most probable reasons for a spray site to be a disamenity
include: unpleasant odors, noise, and perceived health effects.
All case study areas were analyzed to determine if any homes have
visual access to the spray operations and if odors or noise
intrusion in the residential area was possible.
Table 3 lists important characteristics of each SIS. As shown in
the table only one of the homes studied in either impact or control
area had direct visual contact with the spray operations (Figure
2). Each spray site contained a vegetative buffer between the
spray site and adjacent residential properties. The buffer
commonly contained densely planted evergreen and deciduous trees
and shrubs that effectively shield spray activities. Thus,
residents could not see spray equipment or water spray.
**Each of the case studies is described in detail in Appendix B.
***The SIS at Atco, operational for one year, was constructed to
supplement existing treatment facilities and has a capacity of
servicing 3,000 residences. Currently 700 homes use this
facility.
11
-------
Figure 1. For comparison purposes, control area residences (below)
were selected according to similarities with impact area
residences in terms of age, construction, design and price.
12
-------
cn
o
•H
4-)
to
•H
rJ
0)
4-1
O
td
SH
m
rC
o
c
OJ
OJ
0)
13
C
n)
00
•H
cn
3
o
re
CN]
OJ
0
cu
c
CO
CO
4J
o
o
•H
V-i
4-1
c
U-4
o
OJ
60
c
at
0)
u
•H
J-.
cu
i-t
cu
JD
E
3
O
QJ
00
^
to
J_,
3
-o
OJ
J>
CO
QJ
O
O
rH
01
•H
cn
o
rH
01
00
c
CO
OS
oc
c
•H
•a
c
o
IH
D
en
^
O
4J
C
OJ
a
o
0)
QJ
o
M-J
O
QJ
a
H
-a
3
C/)
at
cn
u
c/;
o
c
0
E
cn
•H
CJ
4J
•H
C
QJ
1
01
4J
4.J
5
cn
CD
QJ
4-J
4J
QJ
QJ
cr
tn
CO
QJ
O
•^s
-
o
CO
rH
~
c
CO
IV
H
QJ
cn
•O
c
CO
CO
-H
c
cn
to
cu
""'
u
c
QJ
B
a.
o
rH
01
CU
O
C
o
J_,
u
0
1
1
o
0
z
o
o
vD
1
O
o
o
m
^D
I
I/""!
O
o
o
o
o
o
"*
rH
cu
OJ
cu
4J
0}
0>
0
fe
o
o
o
i-H
c
o
•H
CO
•H
•o
3
CO
«-)
•>
o
CJ
<
rH
•H
4-1
C
QJ
rH TJ
CO -H
in CO
3 0)
OS OS
1
1
CO
cu
CO
cu
*
o
o
o
1
o
o
1— 1
VD
o
-cr
o
o
o
o
o
I--.
1
o
u-i
00
>\ c
iH -H
4-) rH
OJ O
00 U
QJ
3
4--
rH rH
3 CO
CJ .W
•H 3
h OS
60
rH
eg
rH
c
o
-H
00
•H
•H
•o
^
CO
g
*
CO
c
CO
00
•H
ffi
i— t
CO
•H
4-1
c
QJ
TJ
•H
CO
OJ
OS
1
1
o
.z:
to
OJ
X
o
o
o
CN
1
o
o
rH
1
in
0
O
8
u-i
I"-,
1
O
\£>
00
rH -H
0-t rH
C rH
CD O
60 M
•H
OJ C
4-1 QJ
CO f-H *O
QJ CO -H
M !-. CO
O 3 QJ
t*- OS Pi
O
CM
rH
cr-
c
o
•H
CO
•H
•H
T3
3
CO
cu
60
TJ
•H
V4
ro
0
I
C
cr J- P co
O CU QJ 3
U > > CU
U *H -H -H
O Di DC >
O
O
0
O
O
CO
O
O
CM
i— 1
CM
CM
1
O
O
o
o
c
00
1
0
^
00
>, c
rH -H
J-* rH
C -H
cu o
60 i-i
rH
•H
*O 4-1
CU C
4J 41
CO rH TJ
CU CO -H
V4 IH CO
O 3 CU
O
C
O
iH
CO
iH
•H
"O
3
CO
C
CO
3
cr
0
o
u
o
1
-H O
•H £
cO QJ
(fl JH H t/j
c u c: QJ
E cu > o
£ _X Cl 4_J
o <-i o tfi
fj XI U
CO
OJ
^
CO
QJ
*
o
o
o
1
0
o
o
rH
1*1
o
1
CN
o
o
o
o
o
t
0
m
00
X C
•-H -H
U rH
C rH
a> o
oc n
to
u -a
c cu
CU 4-1
•H CU
CO }-j
CU O
0
o
o
' '
o
B.
CO
QJ
lu
J3
O
J^
W
1
cu
tn
rH 3
0 0
0 U
cn
QJ
*"
cn
QJ
O
O
CM
ro
1
O
O
1 —
rH
m
o
I
m
0
o
o
o
o
00
1
o
^
00
>i C
rH -H
4J rH
C rH
cu o
DC 1-
01
3 cn
rH C
3 CO
U rH
-H QJ
>-• e
OO CO
*
ON
a
(X
DM
to
cu
cu
&-*
4-t
o
H
o
o
00
c
01
-a
•a
01
x
•H
S
*
13
-------
CO
u
•H
4-1
CO
•H
o
CO
I
O
>.
4J
•H
rH
•H
O
Q)
4-J
CO
(U
ro
0)
4-J
CO
QJ
i-i
CO
CD
,— I
CO
3
cn
•H
CD
u
d
QJ
13
•H
CO
QJ
Q£
O
•H
J-i
QJ
P-,
O
4J
CO
CO
CD
CJ
o
^
o
4-1
13
-H
CD
<4-i
•4-1
3
X
AJ
•rH
U
CX
CO
u
1
CO
QJ
CX
0
CX
E
PH
l_j
O
4J
CO
l-i
QJ
(13
Vj
CX
cn
QJ
<4-l
3
CQ
U-j
O
CD
00
•o
W
C
CO
CO
C
O
rH
T— (
CO
O
QJ
•H
rH
C
O
•H
4J
OC
C
•H
00
CO
c
^
X
3
4-1
cn
QJ
CO
co
L3
QJ
CO
•H
O
J3
CO
C
0
4-1
CO
CD
a
o
^
QJ
CD
U-4
S-l
QJ
Q
CJ
C
CO
rH
C
CD
6
QJ
4-1
CO
QJ
)-i
QJ
(-1
P-.
^
CO
TJ
CD
CX
CO
QJ
J-i
U
CO
CO
a)
x
X
•iH
M
O
4J
3
C
O
•H
Cfl
a
o
QJ
CO rH
1 C
C O
O
CD
C
O
C
O
o
4-1 13
O QJ C
O CO cfl
QJ 13
O 13 O
0 0
CD
CO
C
•H
i-i
O
_£-
U
o
o
o
o
u~)
f")
CTi
•-<
CX
X
to
c
o
H
•-J
O
u
4J
-------
Figure 2. At the Highlands subdivision, a break in the vegetative
buffer (top) provides visual access to the SIS. A continuous
hedgerow (below) provides visual screening of spray activities.
15
-------
Local Assessment
Procedures
Summary of Sales and
Assessment Data
The spray equipment was examined during spray operations at both on
and off-site locations to determine what noise is transmitted
off-site. None of the equipment appeared capable of producing
noise levels that could be considered annoying. This was verified
by off-site observations during spray operations. This was further
verified by a telephone survey of homeowners located near the
facility.
Odor production from spray facilities did not occur in the presence
of field personnel during the course of this study. However,
conversations with spray operators did reveal that odors are
possible when "ponding" occurs. Ponding is an accumulation of
spray effluent on the ground where ground absorption is too slow to
handle the flow. It usually occurs when wastewater flow is not
carefully monitored during periods of heavy rainfall. Proper
design will prevent ponding and odors.
Local property assessment is undertaken as a basis for obtaining
property taxes. Great care typically is taken to establish an
assessment system that is equitable and operational at minimal
cost. Assessment methods are similar from state to state. Usually
assessments are based on approximately a dozen property character-
istics that are obtained by an assessor while inspecting each
property. This information is then recorded on a property record
card.
Assessed value is determined by adding standardized costs of
materials and labor for each of the property characteristics. For
instance, total square footage of brick construction when applied
to assessment cost tables will produce a component of the estimated
total property value. By adding the standardized costs for each
property characteristic, a total assessed value is established.
Cost tables are usually determined by the state or county govern-
ment. The costs are based on materials and construction prices for
each sub-county or city region. Property sales in each sub-region
also are used to calculate costs. Cost tables are continually
updated for each sub-county or city region to reflect changes in
the local housing market.
All property in a region is usually reassessed at a single time.
Reassessment can occur each year or over a variable period that is
greater than one year. During a reassessment, each property is
inspected by an assessor and the information on the property record
card is verified for accuracy. Property improvements will change
the assessed value. Some states (e.g., New Jersey) only allow
improvements to change assessed value during the year the property
is reassessed. Most states, however, adjust assessed value each
year if improvements have occurred (even though the property may
not have been reassessed).
The assessment methods for all of the states where the case studies
are located include consideration of the effects of amenities and
disamenities on property value. If an unpleasant odor from an
industrial plant, for example, has a strong presence in a nearby
residential area, the assessor will account for the apparent loss
in value. The assessors interviewed in this study were attuned to
the factors that affect property value in their respective terri-
tory. Each assessor stated that none of the properties studied had
received an adjusted assessment due to the proximity of the SIS.
The regional housing market reflects both housing demand and
supply. When demand is significantly larger than supply the value
of housing increases. The factors that determine demand can
16
-------
trigger radical changes in the price of housing over a short period
of time. An extreme example of this phenomena occurred in southern
California during the period 1974 to 1978. At that time the value
of housing doubled and in some areas even tripled. This type of
housing "boom" can have differential effects within the same region
and could skew the change in land value over time in a single
subdivision.
There was no evidence of radical change in either the supply or
demand for housing in the cases studied. All case studies
exhibited a gradual trend of increasing property value.
A summary of sales and assessment data for each of the six case
studies is shown in Table 4. The following analysis is based on
the data in this table.
Atco, New Jersey
Atco had the largest group of homes in both impact and control
groups. The initial purchase price for each home was not available
and was not recorded on the property record cards. Assessed values
for each of the properties did not incorporate changes in property
value except when a reassessment occurred. Data on sales showed
that the impact area residences increased in price at a greater
rate than the control area.
Highlands, Maryland
The analysis of sales data for homes in this case study was not
possible since too few homes had been sold during the study period.
While the data presented in Table 4 indicates that the assessed
value of homes in the control area increased at a much greater rate
than in the impact area, this is not the case. During the study
period Maryland instituted an across-the-board percentage increase
in assessed value. Since the average initial purchase price of the
control homes exceeded that of the impact area homes, an equal
percentage increase in assessed value would show a larger increase
for the control group. Except for some minor property improve-
ments, both impact and control area assessed values did not change
significantly over the study period.
Oak Ridge, Virginia
Oak Ridge had the smallest sample for both impact and control
groups. Property record cards showed that the assessed value of
homes did not change during the study period. The average yearly
increase in sales price of homes was about the same for both impact
and control groups.
Occoquan Forest, Virginia
Property value appreciation occurred at a much higher rate for the
impact area than the control group. The rate of change in assessed
value for both housing groups was due to three property improve-
ments for each sample. The control area property improvements such
as adding a garage, pool or fireplace, added more value than the
impact area improvements.
St. Charles, Maryland
This case study had the second largest number of homes included in
the samples. The difference in the rate of change of assessed
value for the paired samples is due to property improvements. A
change in the State of Maryland criteria used for determining
assessed value (i.e., assessed value in 1978 was 45% of the market
value and in 1980 it was 100%) is the reason why the rate of change
in assessed value is relatively large.
17
-------
T3
3
Q)
tn
cd
CJ
43
CJ
cfl
Q)
O
QJ
O
O
cd
13
cfl
I
,—s
* — '
£*•>
H QJ
J-i 3
Cd (3 rH
QJ -H td
X >
QJ
QJ 60 13
60 a QJ
cd cfl en
J-i 43 cn
QJ U Q)
> CO
<: co
M QJ CJ
en -H
QJ CO J-i
60 0) PM
j-i u cn
QJ C Q)
> M rH
< Cfl
^ — s
rH
Cfl ^
•H
4-1 QJ
•H 0
CJ -H
M J-l
PM
0)
60 QJ
cd tn
JM cd
QJ 43
> 0
<$4 J-l
3
PM
rH
MH tfl
O -H
4J 03
JH C 4J
0) 0) -H
43 13 C
B ••-{ Z>
3 cn
3 QJ
Pd
H
O
J-l Cfl
4-1 Q)
CJ J-l
0 <
o
4J
o cd
cd QJ
ex J-i
e <
h- 1
rH
O
J-i cd
4-1 QJ
CJ J-l
0 <
u
4-1
o cd
cd Q)
ex j-i
e ^j-
LO
i— 1
»«
rH
as
r^
QJ
60
*"U
•H
&*
r*y^
cd
O
CN
rH
-|-
oo
CO,
-1-
^My-
ro
U~)
CO
UO
CN
-d"
CO
rH
*
O
LO
CO
as
u~>
r.
VD
OO
T^
i-H
rH
a
cd 4-*
3 to
cr QJ
0 rl
CJ 0
O pr.
O
CO
*^D
VD
rv
VD
r-H
-|-
LO
CN
LO
^j-
vo"
rH
CO
1
CO
1
as
rH
^
LO
U")
CN
^3-
UO
•*
^O
"
LO
CN
-d-
CN
03
QJ
rH
J-l
Cfl
r1,
U
•
4J
C/!
00
vO
OO
-[-
CN
u~)
^j-
+
OO
rH
0
CO
CO
m
CO
vM^
f.
00
o
o
CN
•N
ON
00
CN
00
03
QJ
QJ
rl
4J
U-l
o
H
QJ
rH
cfl
rH
•H
Cfl
cfl
4-1
O
C!
03
•H
cfl
4-1
CO
Q
H
as insufficient information
£ cn
QJ
QJ -H
J-l 4-1
QJ J-l
43 QJ
4-) ex
o
*• JM
13 CX
O
•H QJ
J-i 43
QJ 4J
ex
4H
>> 0
13
3 QJ
4J 3
03 rH
nJ
Q) >
4J 13
QJ
M 03
CJ 03
•H 0)
JM 0)
3 03
13 cfl
13 Q)
OJ 43
J-l l *
M
^ "4-4
o o
CJ
O Q)
60
4-* CJ
S3 cfl
0) 43
0 0
03
CO MM
QJ O
cn
cn QJ
CO 4-1
QJ cfl
J-l JM
QJ QJ
fi 43
O 4-1
>> QJ
rH 4J
S3 cd
O rH
3
QJ O
03 rH
3 cfl
cd o
CJ
QJ O
m 4-)
CN
•
13
0
•H
M
QJ
CX
^~»
i3
3
4-1
cn
Q)
43
4_>
tlQ
C
•H
JM
3
13
U
QJ
JM
^
3
O
o
0
QJ
cfl
en
QJ
rH
cfl
03
|| !
o
J_l
Q)
'i
C3
4-1
C
cfl
O
•H
UH
•rl
CJ
60
•H
cn
CJ
M
CO
13
0
•rH
JM
QJ
CX
K^
13
3
4J
cn
QJ
4-1
60
(3
•H
J-l
3
Q)
60
cfl
CJ
4-1
0
C
13
•H
13
^t
4-1
JM
QJ
a
o
JM
CX
rl
U
CO
QJ
JM
O
MM
QJ
3
rH
Cfl
0)
03
03
Q)
03
CO
QJ
0) 03
JM 03
CX Cfl
£ J-i
O O
JM MM
cn
a) -H
60 cn
C cfl
cfl 43
CJ Q)
r^
Cfl 4-1
4-1 CO
CJ Cfl
QJ
rH QJ
QJ rH
JM cfl
>
03
J-l 4-1
0) QJ
f-^ K>
6 J-i
3 cfl
C 6
43 rH
60 rH
•rl 3
>, 60
rH (3
QJ -H
> cn
•H 3
4-1
cd o
rH 4J
QJ
J-i O
•H
Q) 4-1
43 cfl
H J-i
u-i
18
-------
Toftrees, Pennsylvania
Both sales and assessment data were available for this case study.
However, the average increase in sales price appears to conflict
with the rate of change in assessed value. The impact area has a
significantly higher rate of sales appreciation, but, a lower
increase in assessed value than the control group. This anomaly is
based in the assessment data. All changes in assessed value for
both of the paired samples was due to property improvements and the
correction of previous assessment miscalculations. Property in the
impact area did appreciate at a much greater rate than the control
group.
Results of Homeowner Approximately 80 residents in all of the case studies were con-
Survey tacted by telephone and asked questions about the SIS and property
value. The majority of those surveyed were cooperative and
answered the posed questions. The results are shown in Table 5.
The data indicate a similar proportion of total yes and no
responses for all questions for impact versus control groups. It
is significant to note that a majority of those surveyed were not
aware of the SIS when they bought their homes. Undecided responses
were from residents that did not know of the existence of the SIS
at the time of the interview. The unknowing residents, thus, could
not state that there was anything offensive about the SIS.
Overall, the majority of the respondents felt that the SIS did not
affect their property value.
19
-------
(1)
J-l
3
CO
0.
0)
a;
§
0)
o
O
CO
3
CO
cu
cu
rH
•§
H
in
S
Cu
„
U]
CU
cu
V-i
4~J
0
H
Q
5!!
CO
-)
z
o
0
<
^
0
^
AJ
o
AJ
o
n
e
t— 1
O
r-t
e
o
4->
U
CO
a
E
rH
O
*-*
C
o
4-1
u
CO
CX
E
O
rJ
C
O
4J
0
CO
a
E
rH
O
!-i
4J
C
O
4J
U
CO
ex
E
rH
rH
0
C
O
U
4-1
o
CO
CX
E
rH
O
M
C
o
CJ
cfl
a
E
* -K -K -K
o o tr- r- o>
21 r-> m CN CN
^ Cn rH vO ^0
•K -K * -X
O ^D rH o n-i
^Z, CN cs) CN CN
V) Oi O CO ^D
0) rH
O *
« o o o o
cu
0 -K *
rS -
0 * *
2 vD vO ro rO
co o o o o
QJ
o * *
2 tn CN i— i CN CN
cu
O ^c
"*^- *~^. "--^ "^ ••*.?
CO vC CN CN i — 1
0)
o * *
2: r-- r^ CM rs]
"« 0 0 ^ ^
*
o * * *
^ r- -,
4J
rC
&0
o
oc
c
•H
4_t
X
efl
QJ
QJ
4-t
to
rH
4-1
3
O
0)
>
•H
CO
c
cu
UH
O
O"
0)
4-1
•H
CO
at
CX
(U
4-1
0)
x:
c
•H
4-1
3
o
o
Q
m
4-1
CJ
CU
<4H
CO
(U
4-1
•H
CO
cx
o-
CO
0)
3
rH
J>
^
4-1
V-i
CU
cx
o
cx
cu
c
T-t
4J
3
o
o
Q
4-1
CJ
cu
LM
UH
CO
CU
4-1
•H
(0
CO
CX
CO
QJ
3
(0
^
^
4J
QJ
CX
0
a.
i-i
3
O
o
a.
en
0
©
©
20
-------
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the relationship between residential land and
adjacent land used for the treatment of wastewater. The study was
designed to analyze all important factors that influence the
compatibilty of these two land uses and to quantitatively measure
their compatibility as reflected in property value. Both sales and
assessment data were analyzed in the study. Also, homeowners and
assessors were interviewed and the results documented. The study
has resulted in a well-defined conclusion that in the six cases
evaluated, the SIS did not reduce adjacent or nearby residential
property value.
The analysis of time-series property sales data is probably the
most accurate and readily available information for measuring
changes in property value. The summary of sales data in Table 4
indicates that property in the impact area of each case study
(except where too few sales occurred) appreciated at a greater rate
than the control areas. One explanation for this difference in
appreciate ratio is that the resale value of homes located adjacent
to SIS lands may be enhanced by their proximity to open space
(i.e., spray fields). Without exception, spraying activities were
conducted behind vegetation buffers, precluding visibility.
Residences adjacent to these lands overlook woodlands or hedgerows,
and not a less visually palatable conventional sewage treatment
facility. Thus, in four of the six case studies sales data indi-
cate that the impact area was not adversely affected by the
existence of a nearby SIS. Two of the case studies did not have
enough sales history to draw this type of conclusion.
One important difficulty encountered using the time series sales
and assessment analysis was the inconsistency of the recorded data
collected. Frequently, information such as the property's sales
history, an item typically recorded on the individual proeprty
card, was incomplete or missing altogether. While such defi-
ciencies prevent rigorous quantitative analysis, they do not
invalidate the general conclusions drawn. In every case, whether
in the impact area or control area, resale value exceeded previous
purchase price indicating a general, across-the-board trend of
appreciation. Additionally, no properties were reassessed for a
lower value in response to owner claims that nearby SIS lands
depreciated the value of their property. Therefore, no evidence
was found in either the recorded sales or assessment data to sub-
stantiate the hypothesis that an SIS is a disamenity to nearby
residential properties. This conclusion is supported in interviews
with both the county tax assessors and individual homeowners.
Consultation with the responsible assessor for each case study
revealed that the assessment methods used included consideration of
disamenities and amenities in determining assessed value. Asses-
sors typically identify potential disamenities from property owner
complaints during periodic visits to a neighborhood, or by
observing irregular trends in property sales. After an amenity or
disamenity is identified, the assessor adjusts the property assess-
ment accordingly. Based on interviews with the assessors in each
of the jurisdictions studied, and a careful review of each of the
property record cards, none of the assessments for each of the six
case studies were found to have been adjusted in this manner.
Therefore, the existence of the SIS in these study areas has not
adversely affected the assessed value of any of the adjacent or
nearby properties.
21
-------
A telephone survey of homeowners in both impact and control areas
revealed both approval and apprehensiveness over the proximity of
the SIS to their home. An overwhelming number of owners contacted
were unaware of the SIS, thus there was no consistent trend of
approval or disapproval. The majority of interviewed homeowners
who expressed apprehension that the operation of a nearby SIS were
concerned over potential odors and/or possible health effects.
However, few of these people had actually perceived odors and no
one claimed to have experienced adverse health effects from the SIS
operations. Other residents interviewed had a more positive out-
look toward the SIS. They felt that the vegetative buffer between
the SIS and their residential area enhanced their properties by
providing a permanent green open space.
If the operation of SIS facilities were a significant disamenity,
homeowner claims and property sales and assessment data for each of
the case studies would have shown this result. However, neither
the recorded data collected nor the interviews conducted have
proven conclusively that adjacency to a SIS adversely affects resi-
dential property values. On the contrary, the sales data collected
seem to indicate that the buffers and open space character of the
SIS have added value to properties located nearest to these
facilities.
The apparent compatibility of the SIS with nearby residential land
use stems from good SIS design and operation and the existence of a
vegetative buffer. The installation of an SIS is regulated by each
state and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. Each
state requires a minimum distance between the SIS and residences,
operational requirements, and periodic monitoring. These factors
play a significant role in preventing the nuisance potential of an
SIS and a subsequent loss in neighboring property value.
22
-------
Chapter V
Conclusions
-------
Appendices
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. J., and J. D. Crocker. 1971 Air pollution and
residential property values. Urban Studies 8:171-180.
Mr. Dunn. Tax Assessor, Centre County PA. Personal communication,
18 November 1980.
Durso, Ross. Assessor, Prince William County VA. Personal
communication, 19 November 1980.
Gamble et al. 1973. Community effects of highways reflected in
property values. For Federal Highway Administration. NTIS
Springfield, VA. PB-233 157.
Henderson, George. Tax Assessor, Cecil County MD. Personal
communication, 18 November 1980.
Jaksch, J. 1970. Air pollution: Its effect on residential
property values in Toledo OH. Annuals of Regional Science
6:43-52.
McLure, P. T. 1969. Indicators of the effect of jet noise on the
value of real estate. Rand Corporation, Santa Dominica CA.
37 pp.
Nelson, Jon P. 1975. The effects of mobile-source air and noise
pollution on residential property values. Report No.
DOT-TST-75-76, US Department of Transportation, Office of the
Secretary 230 pp.
Ridker, R. G., and J. A. Hemming. 1967. The determinants of
residential property values with special reference to air
pollution. Journal of Econ. and Stat. 49:246-257.
Stark, Albert. Certified Tax Assessor, Waterford Township, Camden
County NJ. Personal communication, 19 November 1980.
Starkie, D. M. N., and D. M. Johnson. 1973. Losses of residential
amenity: An extended cost model. Regional Studies 7:173-181.
Starkie, D. M. N., and D. M. Johnson. 1975. The economic value of
peace and quiet. Saxon House DC.
Troy, P. N. 1973. Residents and their preferences: Property
prices and residential quality. Regional Studies 7:183-192.
23
-------
PREPARERS
This study was prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency
- Region III, Philadelphia with assistance from WAPORA, Inc.
Key personnel from EPA included:
James N. Webb, Project Monitor
Rosemarie Baldino, Production Advisor
Key personnel from WAPORA included:
David J. Lechel, Project Administrator
Robert Scott, Project Manager
Valdis Jurka, Project Manager
Earl Peattie, Principal Investigator
Robert MacLeod, Planner
Susan Beal, Production Specialist
24
-------
APPENDIX A
IDENTIFICATION OF SPRAY SITES
IN SELECTED STATES
-------
Table A.I. Complete list of spray irrigation sites identified. Plant operator, if known,
is identified in parentheses. Asterisk indicates not in operation. Information supplied
by Delaware DNREC, Maryland DNR, New Jersey DEP, Pennsylvania DER, Virginia State Water
Control Board, West Virginia DNR.
STATE OF DELAWARE
American Original Corporation
P.O. Box 24
Cannon DE 19935
(Steve Cooper)
Cannon Foods
H. P. Cannon & Sons, Inc.
P.O. Box 277
Bridgeville DE 19933
(Frank D. Smith)
Clifton Cannery
Carlton Clifton & Sons
RD 1, Box 149
Milton DE 19968
(Donald Clifton)
John Curtis Hog Farm
RD 1
Camden DE 19934
Draper Foods, Inc.
P.O. Box 299
Milford DE 19963
(Frank Draper)
E.I. DuPont De Nemorrs Company
Seaford Nylon Plant
Seaford DE 19973
(John Pesor)
University of Delaware
Georgetown Experimental Station
Georgetown DE 19947
(Dr. William Ritter)
Klings Meat Market
RD 1
Camden DE 19934
(Jack Kling)
John Moor Farm
RD 4, Box 407
Dover DE 19901
(John Moor)
Rehoboth Bay Mobile Home Park
RD 1, Box 324A
Rehoboth Beach DE 19971
(Craig Hudson)
Townsend's Inc.
Millsboro DE 19966
(Jim Richardson)
W. L. Wheatley Inc.
Clayton DE
(John Richards)
James Thompson & Company
P.O. Box M
Greenwood DE 19950
Porcine Farms, Inc.
P.O. Box 265
Delmar DE 19940
(George Brinsfield)
Murray's Feed Service
Cargill Hatchery
STATE OF MARYLAND
San Del Packing Company
Goldsboro MD
(Pete Nechay)
Ames Department Store*
Bayside Properties*
Bei Alton School Plant*
Breton Bay Golf Course*
Buckingham Hills
Buttonwood Beach Camping Resort
Calhoun Mera Engineering School
Calvert Company Industrial Park Authority
Caroline Acres Mobile Home Park
Castle Haven Estates
Cherry Cove Land Development Company
Chesapeake Ranch Club Inc.
Children's Fresh Air Society
Deep Creek Lake State Park
Family Acres KOA Campground
Fort Frederick State Park
Fort Smallwood S.T.P.
A-1
-------
Table A.I. Spray irrigation sites identified (cont.).
STATE OF MARYLAND (cont.)
Garden of Eden*
Hampstead Wastewater Treatment Plant*
Hickory Ridge Subdivision
The Highlands
Holiday Inn
Holiday Inn
Holiday Motel
Indian Acres of Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
Island Resort Properties
Homesville/Jerusalem Sewage Facility
Lake Limomove Country Club
Leonardtown Middle School
Matareake Police & Bay Model Facilities*
Mid-Delmara YMCA
Mill Swamps Estates Sewage Treatment Lagoon*
Mt. Road Secondary School*
Mt. Holly Mobile Home Park*
Mystic Harbor Development Company*
No. Hartford Middle School*
Patuxent River 4-H Center Foundation*
Prospect Plantation Community Development Corp.*
Quality Inn of Pocomqre
Rhodesdale Food Products, Inc.*
Rossmoor Leisure World*
Schroyer, Thomas - Motel*
Sea Pines Compominium, Inc.*
Snowden's Mill Subdivision*
So. Dorchester K-8 Center
St. Charles Utilities Lagoon
St. Clement Shores W.W.T.P.*
Stephens-Weisrer Assoc.
Tracey's Landing Elementary School
Tuckahoe Shopping Center
Twin Towers Motel & Restaurant, Inc.*
The Village Center*
Village Inn at Wisp
Washington National Golf Course
Western Maryland Mental Retardation
Center
White, Harold
Will-0-the-Wisp
YMCA - Camp Letts*
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Oakwood Village Apartments
Route 206
Mt. Olive Township
Flanders NJ
Eagle Rock Apartments
Wolf Road
Budd Lake NJ
Munro Municipal Utilities Authority
Rossmore Leisure World
Munro NJ
(Robert Johnston)
Lincoln Properties (Apartments)
Princeton NJ
East Windsor M.U.A.
Hightstown NJ
(Fred Baver)
Great Adventure
Jackson NJ
(Elson Killan)
Crestwood Village
Manchester Township NJ
(Joe Salvatorelli)
Waterford Township M.U.A.
Atco NJ
(Greg Boyle)
Cumberland County Mall
(Earl Mosteller)
A-2
-------
Table A.I. Spray irrigation sites identified (cont.).
STATE OF NEW JERSEY (cont.)
Rockaway Township Shopping Center
Denville NJ
Tewksbury Township
Village of Oldwick
(George Mellik)
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
New Hanover Township Authority
Montgomery County PA
Bryn Athyn Borough Authority
Montgomery County PA
Wallace Township*
Chester County PA
Oxford Borough Authority*
Chester County PA
Elverson Borough*
Chester County PA
Downingtown Area*
Chester County PA
Hibernia Mobile Home Park*
West Cain Township
Chester County PA
Kendal at Longwood
Kennett Square PA
Glen Loch/Church Farm School*
West Whiteland Township
Chester County PA
Stout/Gingerbread House*
New Britain Township
Bucks County PA
Unionville-Chadds Ford School District*
East Marlborough PA
French Creek State Park*
Warwick Township
Chester County PA
Heritage Farms Development*
Bucks County PA
Shangri-La Development*
Chester County PA
Solebury School
Bucks County PA
MRM Enterprises*
West Brandywine Township
Chester County PA
Hershey's Mill Development*
E. Goshen Township
Chester County PA
West Rockhill Township Building
Bucks County PA
Goering Residence
Bucks County PA
Marino Residence*
Bucks County PA
Flaxenburg Residence
Chester County PA
Conrad Lern Residence*
Bucks County PA
Salisbury Residence*
Chester County PA
Deep Run Packing Company
Bucks County PA
Herr's Potato Chips
Chester County PA
Moyer Packing Company
Montgomery County PA
Longacre Poultry Company
Montgomery County PA
Organic Compost Corp.
Chester County PA
Producer's Pride
Montgomery County PA
Green Valley Farm
Chester County PA
Oxford Royal Company
Chester County PA
Foote Mineral Company
Chester County PA
Nottingham Canning Company
Chester County PA
D. Vincent
Chester County PA
A-3
-------
Table A.I. Spray irrigation sites identified (concluded).
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA (cont.)
Bryn Coed Farm
Chester County PA
Grocery Store Products
Chester County PA
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Oak Ridge Subdivision
Greater Manassas Sanitary District
8450 Maplewood Drive
Manassas VA 22110
(Bob Jenkins)
Occoquan Forest Subdivision
Occoquan Forest AWTP
5901 Davis Ford Road
Manassas VA 22110
(Carl Daniel)
North Bend Park
Mecklenburg County VA
Hanover Industrial Air Park
Ashland Properties Inc.
405 Air Park Road
Suite A
Ashland VA 23005
(Troy Lendbetter)
Bear Island Paper Company
Ashland VA 23005
(George Jackson)
Anheuser-Busch Inc.
James City VA
(P. C. Remington)
Old Dominion Beef Company
P.O. Box 662
Richmond VA 23205
(Victor DuPont)
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Allen's Road
Jarratt VA 23867
(J. N. Ridcourt)
Waynesboro Nurseries Inc.
Lyndhurst Road
Waynesboro VA 22980
Exmore Foods Inc.
P.O. Box 663
Exmore VA
(J. D. Morrison)
Allied Chemical Corp.
Fibers Division
Chesterfield Plant
Hopewell VA
(R. E. Chase)
Winchester Rendering Company
Winchester VA 22601
(Gerald Smith)
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
No land application sites.
A-4
-------
Table A.2. Spray irrigation sites contacted for this study.
Plant operator, if known, is identified in parentheses. Asterisk indicates not in
operation. Information supplied by Delaware DNREC, Maryland DNR, New Jersey DEP,
Pennsylvania DER, Virginia State Water Control Board, West Virginia DNR.
STATE OF MARYLAND
Caroline Acres Mobile Home Park
Route 311
Henderson MD
(Edmund Race)
Children's Fresh Air Society*
R. R. No. 1
Street MD
Deep Creek Lake State Park
Route 2, Box 70
Swanton MD
(Dell Perando)
Village Inn at Wisp
Marsh Idle Road
McHenry MD
Harold White
Route 363
(Lance MD)
Will o1 the Wisp Inc.
Route 219
Oakland MD
(H. M. Heise)
Campbell Soup Co.
Chestertown MD
(Mr. Moore)
St. Charles M.U.A.
La Plata MD
The Highlands
Cecil County MD
(Jim Ryan)
State of New Jersey
Oakwood Village Apartments
Route 206
Flanders NJ
(Fred Rubbel)
Eaglerock Apartments
Wolf Road
Budd Lake NJ
Munroe Municipal Utilities Authority
Rossmore Leisure World
Monroe Township NJ
(Robert Johnston)
Lincoln Properties
Princeton NJ
(Roy Trindall)
East Windsor M.U.A.
Hightstown NJ
(Fred Bauer)
Crestwood Village
Route 579
Manchester NJ
(Joe Salvatorelli)
Great Adventure
Jackson NJ
(Al Beniento)
Tewksbury Township*
Village of Oldwick
Tewksbury NJ
(George Millik)
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Duffy-Mott Co.
Center Mills Road
Gaspers PA
(Fred Stoner)
Knuse Foods
Idaville PA
(Bob Buckley)
Celotex Corp.
West Pittston PA
(Jack Stuckant)
Charles Summers Canning
New Freedom Borough PA
Masonite Corp.
Towanda PA
Eberle Tanning Co.
Westfield Borough PA
(Anthony Bolante)
Vainville-Chadds Ford School District
Chadds Ford PA
(Linda Mitton)
Solebury School
Salts Mill Road
New Hope PA
(Geoff McGuire)
Green Valley Farm
Box 506
Avondale PA
(Warren Reynolds)
A-5
-------
Table A.2. Spray irrigation sites contacted (concluded).
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA (cont.)
Producer's Pride Inc.
Worcester PA
(Jim Atterman)
Herr's Potato Chips
P.O. Box 308
Nottingham PA
(Walt Kimball)
Moyer Packing Co.
Allentown Road
Elroy PA
(George Whatmayer)
Grocery Store Products
West Chester PA
(Tony Perry)
Nottingham Canning Co.
Box 45
Nottingham PA
(H. W. Ruff)
Organic Compost Co.
Oxford PA
(Cedric Brown)
Oxford Borough Authority
Oxford PA
(Neil Phillips)
Elverson Borough Authority
Elverson PA
New Hanover Township Authority
New Hanover PA
(Mrs. Bealer)
Hershey's Mill Development*
(Bill Raynor)
Oxford Royal Co.
Chester County PA
(Tom Bell)
Bryn Coed Farm*
Longacre Poultry Co.*
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Oak Ridge Subdivision
Greater Manassas Sanitary Dist,
8450 Maplewood Drive
Manassas VA
(Bob Jenkins)
Occoquan Forest Subdivision
Occoquan Forest AWTP
5901 David Ford Road
Manassas VA
(Carl Daniel)
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B
CASE STUDIES
-------
Regional Context
Neighborhood
Characteristics
Land Application
Site and Facility
Characteristics
ATCO, NEW JERSEY
Atco, New Jersey is located in Waterford Township, Camden County,
roughly 16 miles southeast of Camden NJ, and 20 miles southeast of
Philadelphia PA. It is a small rural community with a population
of approximately 5,000. State Route 30, a four-lane highway, is
the single major route through Atco. The Lindenwold High-speed
line, located approximately 12 miles north of Atco, is the closest
public rail transportation route into metropolitan Philadelphia.
The area selected for study is primarily residential, but has
retained a distinct rural character. Wharton Forest is located to
the south. Residential lots average approximately one acre. There
are no through roads in the study area. Also, the region has a
relatively flat topography.
The average age of the homes in the impact area is 13 years. A
large number of these homes were built in the last seven years by
one builder. The homes are of a suburban tract variety with two
stories or split level. They are attractively landscaped with
trees and shrubs, and usually have a garage and a paved driveway.
The prices range from $30,000 to $50,000.
The average age of the homes in the control area is eight years.
As in the impact area, a large number of these homes were built by
a single developer. The homes are a typical modern suburban tract
variety with one story or split level and a few interspersed two
story homes. The majority of the lots are fenceless and all lots
are landscaped. There are a few large trees in the development but
the streets are not tree-lined. Most homes have paved driveways
with a garage. The price range is comparable to homes in the
impact area.
Currently there are approximately 700 homes using the spray irriga-
tion facility, which has a planned capacity to support 3,000 homes.
The total land area owned by the SIS operator is roughly 93 acres,
77 of which comprise the spray field. There are three 7,500,000
gallon reservoirs, two of which are used to oxidize the effluent,
the other to hold the wastewater. Before the wastewater is auto-
matically sprayed, it is given a primary chlorination treatment and
a secondary oxidation treatment. The operator can spray all year,
7 days a week, except during an exceptional cold spell lasting at
least one week. In this instance wastewater can be kept in the
reservoirs. From the reservoirs the water is pumped to the spray
field approximately 100 feet away.
The spray field is a wooded area, used only for spraying waste-
water. It is divided into 11 zones, each approximately 7 acres.
The spray heads are approximately four feet high and are fixed into
the soil. There are monitoring devices located at both ends of
each of the 11 zones. A four foot chain fence completely surrounds
the spray field with approximately 40 signs posted that prohibit
trespassing and hunting in the spray area.
The fields are bordered to the east, north, and south by woodlands
that are part of the Wharton Forest (Pine Barrens of NJ) and are
owned primarily by the State. The land west of the field where the
rest of the treatment facility is located, is owned by the SIS
operator. A small creek is located approximately 200 feet north of
the spray fields in the Wharton tract land. The residential areas
are approximately 300 to 400 feet north of the spray site. A vege-
tative buffer with mature trees lies between the SIS and
residential area that shields the spray equipment and water spray.
B-1
-------
Impact and Control
Area Designation
State and Local
Assessment Practices
Impact and control area homes were defined according to their
adjacency to the SIS (Figure 3). Forty-three homes in Block 125
comprised the impact area. Thirty-four homes in nearby Block 227
were included in the control area.
Property assessments in New Jersey are controlled by the State and
are administered on the county level. Prior to 1978, property
assessments were based on 100% of the 1968 market value. All
property in the study area was reassessed in 1978 to reflect
changes in the regional housing market since 1968 and any property
improvements that had occurred in that ten year period.
The State prepared assessors cost indexes for each of the property
characteristics used in the assessment equation. The costs are
based on local labor and construction costs, and property sales for
each assessors district. Each property is inspected before it is
assessed to identify approximately 14 property characteristics.
These characteristics are then compared to cost tables and a
component of the total property value is determined. The total
assessed value is the total of the component costs.
The following is a summary of residential property assessment in
Waterford Township, New Jersey:
1977
Total Residential
Parcels
1,655
1978
1,193
1979
1980
2,030
2,236
Total
Assessed Value 32,714,640 36,560,340 85,182,150 95,388,750
B-2
-------
Figure 3. Atco, NJ.
Source: Camden County Tax Map,
SIS Site
Scale: 1" = 400'
Impact Area
Control Area
B-3
-------
THE HIGHLANDS, MARYLAND
Regional Context
Ne ighborhood
Characteristics
Land Application
Site and Facility
Characteristics
Impact and Control
Area Designation
The Highlands subdivision is located in the northeast corner of
Cecil County, Maryland, approximately three miles west of Newark,
Delaware; and south of the intersection of Route 273 and Jackson
Hall Road. Vehicular access to the site is from Spring Valley
Road, a secondary, light duty roadway which feeds directly into the
nearest major highway, Route 273. The study area and surrounding
countryside are zoned R-l with farming and rural residential
development being the predominate land use categories. No public
transportation facilities service the subdivision and the nearest
rail-line and central business district are located in Newark.
Because of its relative isolation from major thoroughfares and
other subdivisions, the Highlands exemplified a "leap frog"
development pattern. Noticeably absent from the area was the
occurrence of any nearby commercial strip or industrial
development.
The Highlands consists of 121 single family-detached units
occupying an average lot size of 0.5 acres. Houses are sited on
gently rolling terrain amid areas of mature deciduous wood stands
and open fields. One small intermittent stream passes obliquely
through the development. All roadways are hard surfaced and
guttered. There are no paved sidewalks and electrical wires are
cabled underground. Potable water is pumped on-site from ground
water supplies.
The Highlands was developed in two stages with the majority of
houses in Section I having been built between 1976-77 and the
majority of houses in Section II constructed between 1978-79. The
predominate architectural style is the 1 1/2 and two story, two car
garage, colonial of wood frame construction. Homes in both
sections fall within a $45,000 to $65,000 price range. Most
properties are well landscaped and well maintained. In terms of
lot size, architectural style, price and level of maintenance, the
Highlands represents a homogenous residential community.
The land application site is located immediately adjacent to the
subdivision and occupies a parcel of approximately 47 acres. The
facility became operative in 1976 and is currently managed by the
Cecil County Department of Public Works. The facility processes an
average of 41,000 gpd of domestic wastewater and operates seven
days per week, 16 hours per day. Wastewater is chlorinated prior
to application and is sprayed on a year-round basis except during
periods of severe cold weather.
The spray area has ten fixed irrigation lines which distribute
wastewater over an estimated 13 acres of open field. An auxiliary
spray field of six irrigation lines is located next to the larger
field, however, it is currently inoperative. The entire land
application site is surrounded by either woodstands or hedgerows.
An estimated 15-20 foot wide hedgerow buffers the site from bor-
dering residential properties. Spraying is partially visible
through this buffer due to its narrow width and deciduous nature.
Visibility is likely to increase during months when area trees are
defoliated. In one instance, lot 2, a portion of the hedgerow is
missing thus providing an unobstructed view of the auxiliary spray
field.
Impact and control areas were delineated based on adjacency to the
land application site (Figure 4). Sample size for each area was
determined by sales and assessment data availability, completeness
and applicability of the data to time series analysis.
B-4
-------
Figure 4. Highlands, MD.
Source: Cecil County Tax Map.
SIS Site
Impact Area
Scale: 1" = 600
^»" *l Control Area
B-5
-------
Because the majority of housing units in Section II were built
between 1978 and 1979, assessment figures for these properties were
available for only one year (1979). Considering that time series
analysis requires assessment information for more than a single
year, properties in Section II were excluded from considerations.
Sixteen properties, lots 3 through 18, in Section I abut the land
application site. Of these 2 properties, lots 15 and 17, were
deleted from analysis due to incomplete assessment data. The
remaining properties, lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
16, and 18, comprise -the impact area and account for a total sample
size of 14 properties.
The control area consists of all even numbered, non-adjacent lots
remaining in Section I. Lots 2, 22, 36, 38, 50, and 54 were
omitted from analysis for insufficient data thereby reducing the
control area sample size to the sixteen properties. Included in
the control area are lots 20, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 44,
46, 48, 52, 56, 58, and 60.
State and Local Since 1973 property assessment practices in Maryland have been
Assessment Practices uniformly applied according to procedures described in the
"Maryland Assessment Manual." Prior to changes made in the State
assessment law in 1979, all residential properties were reviewed
every year and were physically inspected once every three years.
Annual assessments were determined using a combined cost and market
data approach. Depending on the number and type of variables in
the assessment equation, these figures differed from one year to
the next (personal communication, Mr. Riely, Maryland State Depart-
ment of Assessments and Taxation.)
Variables in the assessment equation fall into two general cate-
gories: property-specific and across-the-board. Propertyspecific
variables refer to changes in individual parcels such as the
addition of a garage or the installation of a pool. Across-the-
board variables refer to adjustments in local multipliers, the
market value ratio, or other factors which are applied to all
properties uniformly. Differences between yearly assessment
figures may be attributed to either or both of these variables.
In Cecil County, the assessed to market value ratio (45%) and the
local multiplier (1.846) were the same for 1978 and 1979. Two
other across-the-board factors, however, varied for these years.
The County tax rate dropped from $2.55 per $100.00 of assessed
value in 1978 to $2.50 per $100.00 in 1979. The market value index
on the other hand, increased from 1978 to 1979, resulting in an
in-house across-the-board addition of 8% to land values and 5% to
improvements (personal communication, Mr. Shires, Cecil County
Assessment Office). County-wide, total assessed residential values
reflect this trend. For 26,000 properties, the total assessed
value for land increased from $95,014,405 in 1978 to $103,300,575
in 1979. Similarly, total assessed value for improvements climbed
within the same time period from $204,502,465 to $225,127,065.
B-6
-------
Regional Context
Neighborhood
Characteristics
OAK RIDGE, VIRGINIA
Oak Ridge is located in central Prince William County, Virginia,
approximately 8 miles southeast of the City of Manassas, along
Kahns Road (Route 631). Vehicular access to the study area is
circuitous involving travel along several medium duty secondary
roadways. Two major interstate highways exist roughly equidistant
from the study area. 1-66 passes north of the City of Manassas and
1-95 exists approximately 10 miles southeast of either subdivision.
Both highways are heavily travelled by commuters to the Washington
DC metropolitan area. Travel time to Washington by automobile is
about 40 minutes.
Although Oak Ridge is not served directly by public transportation,
commuter bus and rail passenger service are available in nearby
Manassas. Two lines, Colonial Transit Co. and Continental Trail-
ways, provide daily intercity bus transportation. Southern
Railways operates one commuter train daily between Manasses and the
Capitol Region.
The nearest central business district is in the City of Manassas,
encompassing both the old town center and the more recent commer-
cial strip development along Route 234. Industrial development is
restricted to areas served by public water and sewers.
Central Prince William County is zoned A-l, agriculture. Land use
permitted in this zoning designation includes schools, churches,
single and two family dwellings in addition to agricultural and
forestry related activities. All residential dwellings served by
an on-site sewage disposal system require a minimum lot size of one
acre. Higher residential densities are permitted in areas serviced
by public water and sewage facilities or where subdividers have
established a sewage disposal plant approved by the County's Board
of Supervisors (Prince William County 1956). This latter provision
accounts in large measure for the increased suburbanization of the
rural-agricultural countryside. Oak Ridge illustrates this land
use trend.
Oak Ridge is a residential community consisting of 120 single
family detached units occupying between 0.5 and 1.0 acres per unit.
The local topography is characteristic of the Piedmont Uplands,
defined by level to gently rolling terrain and broad stream corri-
dors. Purcell Branch Creek runs along the subdivision's western
edge; however, no residential properties border along the stream's
banks. Vegetative cover is mixed oak/hickory forest and open
field.
Oak Ridge was developed in three sections beginning in 1971 with
the first section of homes constructed along the eastern portion of
Ridgeway Drive from Kahns Road to Forest Oak Circle. The second
section developed includes lots between Forest Oak Circle and
Mariposa Drive. The most recent homes are located along Mariposa
Drive between Ridgeway Drive and Peak Court. All roadways through-
out the study area are hard surfaced with gravel shoulders.
Individual homes are set back uniformly from the street and have a
minimum frontage of 100 feet. Although heavily forested land
surrounds the subdivision the majority of homes maintain
conventional lawns and landscape designs.
The predominant architectural style is a one and one-half story,
split foyer contemporary of wood frame construction. Other popular
models include a two story colonial and a double winged A-frame
B-7
-------
Land Application
Site and Facility
Characteristics
Impact and Control
Area Designation
State and Local
Assessment Practices
design. The average purchase price of a home in Oak Ridge is
$56,016, with the majority of homes falling within a $45,000 to
$65,000 price range.
The Oak. Ridge land application site occupies 48 acres immediately
adjacent to existing residential properties. With the exception of
the area surrounding the facility's buildings and holding ponds,
the site is heavily wooded. Access to the plant is from Dusty
Road.
Construction of the Oak Ridge waste disposal system began in the
summer of 1973 and was completed by August of 1974. In November of
that year, 74 homes were serviced by the system which was then
owned and operated by the Oak Ridge Service Corporation. Beset
with the operational problems the facility was subsequently deeded
to the County (exclusive of the land which is leased yearly). In
order to meet State permitting requirements a near complete
revamping of the entire system was undertaken. Currently 120 homes
are serviced by the system. It has an operating capacity of 88,000
gpd and wastewater is applied 3-5 days a week, year round. All
effluent is chlorinated prior to land application.
The land application field is situated on a wooded slope uphill
from the retention ponds. Wastewater is pumped through above
ground pipes to eight independent circular shaped spray fields of
various size. Spray heads are elevated 25-30 feet on telephone-
like poles so that effluent is sprayed at canopy level. At least
two of the fields are clear cut. Field #1 lies closest to adjacent
residential properties, however, on-site inspection revealed that
none of the residential buildings were visible. Similarly, because
they are situated in a heavily wooded area the fields were not
visible from nearby residential properties. Mr. Jenkins, the
facility operator, confirmed this observation. In addition, he
mentioned that, if anything, property owners may be subjected to a
pulsating noise generated from water passing through the rotating
sprayhead. No noxious odors were evident on-site. Now that the
system has been almost completely rebuilt, Mr. Jenkins claims the
system's biggest problem is loss of equipment through vandalism.
Copies of property cards for 56 single family residences were
obtained from the Prince William County Assessment Office. Since
assessed value did not change during the study period only proper-
ties that had sales were included. Seven single family residences
located along the south side of Ridgeway Drive and Mariposa Drive
border the land application site and constitute the impact area
(Figure 5). Nine non-adjacent properties, situated on the north
side of Ridgeway and Mariposa Drives, comprise the control area.
The State of Virginia does not have a uniform residential property
tax assessment procedure. Individual county taxing jurisdictions
develop and implement their own assessment methodologies (personal
communication, Mr. Ben Kelsey, Assessment Supervisor, Prince
William County VA). In Prince William County residential proper-
ties are assessed using a combined square footage and market sales
analysis approach. Because both Oak Ridge and Occoquan Forest are
located within the same county, assessment practices for each are
identical.
Though tax rates have fluctuated in past years for Prince William
County the percentages of taxes against current market values have
remained at nearly the same level. Below are listed the tax rates
for 1974 through 1979 multiplied by the County average ratio of
B-8
-------
Figure 5. Oakridge, VA.
Source: Prince William County Tax Map.
Scale: 1" = 400'
SIS Site
Impact Area
B-9
Control Area
-------
actual assessed values to actual sales prices as found in sales
ratio studies made by the State Department of Taxation.
Year
1974
Property Reassessed
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
True Ratio of
Tax Rate Actual Assessed
Per 100 Value to Actual
Assessed Sales
5.05 19.9
Actual Tax
as a Percentage
of Market Value
1.00
3.62 32.4 1.17
4.35 29.2 1.27
5.25 29.0 1.52
5.25 26.6 estimated 1.40
5.25 N/A N/A
B-10
-------
Regional Context
Ne ighborhood
Characteristics
OCCOQUAN FOREST, VIRGINIA
Occoquan Forest is located approximately 6 miles southeast of
Manassas along Route 366, otherwise known as David Ford Road. Two
major interstate highways exist roughly equidistant from the study
areas. 1-66 passes north of the City of Manassas and 1-95 runs
approximately 10 miles southeast of either subdivision. Both high-
ways are heavily travelled by commuters to the Washington DC
metropolitan area. Travel time to Washington is about 40 minutes.
Although Occoquan Forest is not served directly by public transpor-
tation, commuter bus and rail passenger service are available in
nearby Manassas. Two lines, Colonial Transit Co. and Continental
Trailways, provide daily intercity bus transportation. Southern
Railways operates one commuter train daily between Manassas and the
capitol region.
The nearest central business district is the City of Manassas
encompassing both the old town center and the more recent commer-
cial strip development along Route 234. Industrial development is
restricted to areas served by public water and sewers.
Central Prince William County is zoned A-l, agriculture. Land use
permitted in this zoning designation includes schools, churches,
single and two family dwellings in addition to agricultural and
forestry related activities. All residential dwellings served by
an on-site sewage disposal system require a minimum lot size of one
acre. Higher residential densities are permitted in areas serviced
by public water and sewage facilities or where subdividers have
established a sewage disposal plant approved by the County's Board
of Supervisors.* This latter provision accounts in large measure
for the increased suburbanization of the rural-agricultural
countryside. Occoquan Forest illustrates this land use trend.
Ninety of a projected 250 single family detached units are
currently built and occupied at Occoquan Forest. Most of all homes
in this development are situated on irregularly shaped lots, either
along the subdivision's main thoroughfare, Occoquan Forest Drive,
or along one of the development's numerous cul-de-sacs. The
general layout of the development reflects its distinctive topo-
graphic characteristic, an oxbow, defined as an area of land
surrounded on three sides by a river meander. Occoquan Forest
Drive in effect forms a spine from which the cul-de-sacs extend
toward the river. The significance of this pattern with respect to
land values is that those properties located along the outer
periphery of the cul-de-sacs offer riverviews while those located
along Occoquan Forest Drive do not.
With the exception of properties having riverviews, homes in
Occoquan Forest share a similar setting. The entire subdivision is
heavily wooded
with both deciduous and coniferous trees. The terrain is gently
rolling except along the river's edge where steep ravines occur.
Roadways throughout the subdivision are surfaced with hard-packed,
crushed gravel. There are no paved sidewalks and electric wires
visible aboveground.
In keeping with the woodsy character of the area, homes are
predominantly of wood frame construction and contemporary design.
*Prince William County Subdivision Ordinance, 1956, Article 6.
B-11
-------
Land Application
Site and Facility
Characteristics
Impact and Control
Area Designation
State and Local
Assessment Practices
Dark, wood stained siding prevails and as a common building
material, unifies the appearance of the subdivision.
The land application site which services Occoquan Forest is located
along the south side of Route 663 approximately 0.5 mile from the
nearest residential property owner. It encompasses 59 acres of
woodland of which 12.5 acres are currently being used as a spray
field. A 600-foot forested buffer zone surrounds the entire site.
The facility is privately owned and operated by the Occoquan Forest
Water and Sewage Company, a Chicago based wastewater treatment
management firm which assumed control of the plant in May 1978. It
has an operational capacity of 88,000 gpd and is permitted to spray
up to two inches per acre per week. Actual spraying occurs 2-3
time a week, year round, except when temperatures fall below 40°F.
All wastewater is chlorinated prior to application.
The design specifics of the spray apparatus at Occoquan Forest
differs considerably from those observed elsewhere. Pretreated
wastewater is pumped through underground pipes to sprayheads
positioned at ground level and encased in a concrete cylinder. The
spray area is heavily wooded and, with the exception of a few feet
surrounding the spray head, is left uncut. Extensive buffering
precludes off-site visibility of spray activities.
No residential properties exist adjacent to the Occoquan Forest
land application site (Figure 6). Consequently impact and control
areas were delineated according to proximity to the site. The
underlying assumption in this particular case is that properties
located closest to the spray system, though not immediately adja-
cent to it, are more likely affected by spraying activities than
properties located at greater distances from the site. The inter-
section of River Run Drive and Occoquan Forest Drive was the
dividing line separating the impact and control areas. Properties
located south of this intersection were designated as the area of
impact; properties situated to the north were defined as the
control area. Ineligible properties withstanding, the total number
of parcels in the impact and control areas were 11 and 18
respectively.
The assessment practices applicable to the Occoquan Forest proper-
ties are identical to those described for the Oak Ridge case
study.
B-12
-------
Figure 6. Occoquan Forest, VA.
Source: Prince William County Tax Map.
Scale: 1" = 400'
SIS Site
Impact Area
B-13
Control Area
-------
Regional Context
Neighborhood
Characteristics
Land Application
Site and Facility
Characteristics
ST. CHARLES, MARYLAND
St. Charles, a partially completed 8,000 acre planned unit develop-
ment, is located 20 miles south of Washington DC, along Route 301,
in St. Charles County, Maryland. To date, over 4,000 residential
units, including apartments, townhouses, and single family
dwellings, occupy one third of the proposed development's total
land area. Existing neighborhoods are situated approximately 3/4
mile from the nearest major highway, Route 301. The area is
serviced by two bus lines which operate daily commuter service to
the Washington metropolitan area. Although a shopping center is
currently under construction within the development, most commer-
cial activity occurs along Route 301 and in nearby Waldorf. Four
identifiable neighborhoods comprise the St. Charles P.U.D.:
Carrington, Bannister, Wakefield, and Huntington. Because of its
proximity to the land application site the remainder of this
discussion focuses on the Bannister neighborhood.
Bannister is a new community of 1,370 residential units including
apartments, townhouses, condominiums and single family detached
housing. The neighborhood was developed between 1965 and 1979 with
the majority of residential units built in the mid-seventies. The
local topography is flat to gently undulating with much of the area
wooded with mature deciduous trees. One small pond, St. Paul's
Lake, exists at the intersection of Piney Church Road and St.
Paul's Drive. Bannister is exemplary of the neighborhood unit
concept. It is defined by one dual highway, St. Charles Drive;
two medium duty secondary roads, St. Paul's Drive and Piney Church
Road; and a shared open space, Smallwood Village Commons. Access
to the neighborhood from these thoroughfares is provided by three
connector roads. The interior configuration of the community is
dominated by no less than 50 cul-de-sacs feeding into curvacous
Bannister Circle. All roads observed were hard surfaced and well
maintained. All electric lines are cabled underground. One hiker-
biker trail meanders within the defined Bannister Community. Also,
within these bounds are an elementary school, a convenience store
and a community center.
The St. Charles land application site occupies 150 acres and is
located immediately south of St. Paul's Drive encompassing the land
area between St. Charles Parkway and Piney Church Road. Access to
the lagoons and spray fields is from Piney Church Road. The system
is owned and operated by St. Charles Utilities, Inc. which began
operation in 1966.
Prior to the state mandated tie-in with the Mattawomen Regional
Sewage District in July of this year (1980), the St. Charles spray
irrigation system processed a flow of 1.2 million gpd. Wastewater
was collected from four lift stations and pumped to a 40 acre, nine
cell, stabilizing lagoon. The lagoon holding capacity is 90
million gallons and has a retention time of 40 days. Following
chlorination, effluent is applied to fifteen spray fields located
in a heavily forested site of mixed hardwoods (oak) and softwoods
(pine). The frequency of application varies depending on soil
drainage and weather conditions. Generally, effluent is applied
eight hours per day during daylight periods. Aerators operate 24
hours per day. Effluent flows through two inch above-ground
aluminum pipes to four foot high umbrella type sprinklers.
Although no buffer zone is required by the State of Maryland, spray
fields are located at a distance of over 1/2 mile from residential
properties along the northern edge of St. Paul's Drive. Because
the entire land area from the lagoons to St. Paul's Drive is wooded
B-14
-------
Impact and Control
Area Designation
State and Local
Assessment Practices
there is no visual access to spraying activities. Additionally,
neither signs nor a fence enclosure indicate the presence of a
wastewater treatment facility.
Residential properties were grouped into impact and control areas
according to adjacency to the SIS (Figure 7). Thirty-five proper-
ties located along St. Paul's Drive front the site and constituted
the initial impact area. Eleven of these were subsequently deleted
from consideration due to incomplete or untimely assessment infor-
mation. The remaining twenty-four properties comprised the impact
area.
A list of thirty-five control area properties, selected on the
basis of non-adjacency and comparability, was provided by the
Charles County Assessment Office. Ten were omitted from considera-
tion for insufficient data leaving a control area sample size of
twenty-five properties.
Prior to the adoption of triannual assessment procedures
established in 1979, state law in Maryland required that all
residential property be reviewed annually and physically inspected
once every three years. In Charles County, both 1978 and 1980
assessment figures were determined according to information
collected during physical inspections. Figures for 1979 were
derived in-house using an across-the-board market value index of
10% for land and 3% for improvements. The assessment ratio and the
County tax rate for 1978 and 1979 remained constant at 45% of
market value and $2.44 per $100.00 of assessed value, respectively.
Pursuant to changes in state law, the assessment ratio for 1980
increased to 100% of market value. The County tax rate, however,
decreased in 1980 to $2.37 per $100.00 of assessed value.
Property value and property assessments have exhibited an
increasing trend in recent years. For 22,221 residential proper-
ties in 1978 the total assessed value, including land and improve-
ments, was $341,405, 460. For 1979, the total assessed value for
22,975 residential properties amounted to $397,433.060. According
to Mr. Edward Padgett, Charles County Assessor for the St. Charles
Area, residential property assessments reflect an estimated 12%
increase in market value per year.
B-15
-------
Figure 7. St. Charles, MD.
Source: St, Charles County Tax Map.
SIS Site
Impact Area
B-16
Scale: Not Available
Control Area
-------
Regional Context
Neighborhood
Characteristics
Land Application
Site and Facility
Characteristics
TOFTREES, PENNSYLVANIA
Toftrees, Pennsylvania's first "planned open space community" is
located approximately 4 miles northeast of State College in Patton
Township. Access to the development is from either Waddle Road or
Fox Hollow Road, both two lane secondary highways. The incomplete
US 322 by-pass, the nearest major highway, exists an estimated 1/4
mile to the south. Intracity bus service is provided daily between
Toftrees and the closest central business district, downtown State
College. Because it is sandwiched between the Pennsylvania State
Game Lands on the north and the Pennsylvania State University
campus to the south, Toftrees is well secluded from other nearby
residential developments.
Overall the Toftrees development is well integrated into its
natural surroundings. The local topography is undulating and vege-
tative cover is characterized by a mixture of native hardwoods and
softwoods. Currently 350 acres of the 1500-acre planned site have
been developed. Residential units, including single family
detached homes, townhouses, clusterhomes and over 800 apartments,
border along an 18-hole golf course or are sited in adjacent wood-
lands. Roads are hard surfaced, gently winding and well main-
tained. Access to most residential units occurs off-street either
from cul-de-sacs or interior collector roads. Utilities are cabled
below grade.
Building design, too, is sympathetic to the area's natural environ-
ment. The predominate architectural style is contemporary,
typically being of wood frame construction and with exposed wood
siding. Structures are sited within existing woodstands and land-
scaped to enhance the development's "woodsy" character.
In addition to its appealing natural setting, Toftrees is rich in
community amenities. The development provides and maintains hiking
and biking trails, equipped childrens1 play areas, picnic areas and
the Toftrees Country Club and Lodge located on-site. Other ameni-
ties include a local post office, a convenience store and close
proximity to the Pennsylvania State University for sport and
cultural activities.
The land application site is located within State Gamelands 176, a
500-acre parcel which forms the northern boundary of the Toftrees
planned unit development. Access to the site is from a short
gravel roadway located across from the Cricklewood Drive Garden
Apartment complex. It is an unobtrusive entrance leading from
Cricklewood Drive to a wooded portion of the State Gamelands.
Land application of effluent on State lands began in 1963 as part
of the "living filter" demonstration project initiated by Pennsyl-
vania State University and supported by the General State Authori-
ty. It is an on-going project which currently disposes up to
500,000 gallons of effluent per day on selected portions of State-
owned property. Frequency of application and the location of
specific spray areas have changed over time according to the
dictates of various experiments designed to measure the impact of
land application systems on soil characteristics, wildlife popula-
tions, and vegetative cover and productivity. At present approxi-
mately 80 acres, including both open fields and woodland areas,
are being sprayed on a year round basis. Effluent is pretreated at
the University sewage treatment plant and forced through a 13-inch
underground main over 3 1/2 miles from the plant's pumping station
to the gameland spray areas. Wastewater is distributed on-site
through above ground pipes laid out in a grid pattern and is
B-17
-------
Impact and Control
Area Designation
State and Local
Assessment Practices
sprayed through fixed heads elevated 36 inches above the ground.
Permission has been granted from the State Department of Environ-
mental Resources to increase the systems' spraying capacity from
0.5 million gallons per day to 4.0 million gallons. To accommodate
this increased flow the system is presently undergoing design
modification. Land application of the additional 3.5 million
gallons per day is expected within the 1981 calendar year.
Because the gamelands are heavily wooded, spray activities are not
visible from adjacent residential properties or from any point
along Cricklewood Drive. However, the gamelands are open to the
public and Toftree residents are free to follow gameland roads when
spraying is visible.
Two features peculiar to the University's land application system
are: the wastewater applied to lands adjacent to Toftrees does not
include sewage from the Toftrees development; and no storage ponds
exist or are planned for the gameland spray areas.
Ironically, Toftrees sewage is collected and treated by the Univer-
sity Area Joint Authority which services Patton Township and
maintains treatment facilities along Spring Creek near the communi-
ty of Houserville. The wastewater applied to the gamelands is
collected from the University campus and Borough of State College.
In effect, the effluent sprayed in the vicinity of Toftrees is
imported wastewater while sewage from Toftrees is treated and
discharged conventionally some distance away.
Unlike other land application systems investigated, the Univer-
sity's system is geographically divided into two distinct
functions: treatment and spraying. All wastewater sprayed is
pretreated at the University Wastewater Treatment Plant located in
State College Borough and is then pumped to the gamelands for
direct land application. Stabilizing and storage ponds are located
at the plant site but not at the spray site. The significance of
this geographic distance between treatment facilities and the
application site is that it eliminates the potential for odors
sometimes associated with wastewater holding ponds. The only
sewage-related activity which occurs in the gamelands is the
spraying of chlorinated effluent.
Single family detached homes were grouped into impact and control
areas based on both adjacency and proximity to the State gamelands
land application site (Figure 8). Eight properties located along
the north side of Cricklewood Drive and N. Barkway Lane comprised
the impact area. Four of these properties border the gamelands
directly while the remaining parcels are separated from the game-
lands by a small wooded park. Nevertheless, because these homes
are situated between Cricklewood Drive and the land application
site, they were included in the impact area.
Single family properties located along the south side of Crickle-
wood Drive comprised the control area. Disregarding three parcels
due to incomplete assessment data, a total of 28 properties made up
the control area sample size.
State law in Pennsylvania requires that annual assessments of
residential properties be made according to fair market value.
Individual counties determine both the procedure and the percentage
of market value used in making assessments. In Centre County,
residential properties are evaluated using an up-dated market sales
analysis which is expressed as a local multiplier in the assessment
B-1!
-------
Figure 8. Toftrees, PA.
Source: Federated Home and Mortgage Co., Inc,
SIS Area
Impact Area
B-19
Scale: Not Available
Control Area
-------
equation. The percentage of assessed value to market value has
consistently decreased in Centre County from 20% in 1974 to
approximately 11.5% in 1979. Conversely, property tax millages
including County, township and school tax rates have generally
increased over this same time period. Assessment ratios and tax
millage rates applicable to property owners in Toftrees follow:
Assessment Ratio Tax Millage
Year (%) Centre County Patton Township School
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
20.00
16.90
15.98
15.06
13.45
11.67
N/A
12.5
10.5
12.0
16.0
16.0
15.5
15.5
4.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
11.0
70.0
74.5
80.0
84.0
87.0
87.0
92.0
B-20
------- |