Roanoke Brownfield Corridors:
Mapping and Analyzing Potential Brownfield Sites
William D. Drake
Urban Affairs and Planning Program
Virginia Tech
Major Paper for the Masters Degree in Urban and Regional Planning
1
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................2
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................3
List of Tables............................................................................................................................4
List of Figures (Maps) .............................................................................................................4
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................5
Disclaimer................................................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................7
I. BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................9
II. UNDERSTANDING BROWNFIELDS .................................................................................10
DEFINING BROWNFIELDS ...........................................................................................................10
FEDERAL BROWNFIELD POLICIES ..............................................................................................13
VIRGINIA BROWNFIELD POLICIES ..............................................................................................15
ROANOKE’S BROWNFIELD SITUATION .......................................................................................16
III. METHODS .............................................................................................................................21
BROWNFIELD IDENTIFICATION ISSUES .......................................................................................21
IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BROWNFIELDS IN ROANOKE .............................................................25
IV. BROWNFIELD CORRIDOR ANALYSIS..........................................................................31
EASTERN ROANOKE RIVER – (ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR) ....................................................31
CENTRAL ROANOKE RIVER – (ROANOKE RIVER CORRIDOR)....................................................34
HOLLINS ROAD ...........................................................................................................................40
STATESMAN ................................................................................................................................43
WEST END – (RAIL CORRIDOR)..................................................................................................49
CAMPBELL AVENUE – (RAIL CORRIDOR)...................................................................................52
V. BROWNFIELD IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUE .............................58
REGRESSION MODEL ..................................................................................................................59
MODEL INTERPRETATION ...........................................................................................................61
VI. CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................63
REFERENCE................................................................................................................................67
2
Abstract
Background: In the “City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan,” The City of Roanoke
has identified nine brownfield corridors and established corridor-specific redevelopment
opportunities. The plan does not identify specific brownfield properties and the city has
not completed a brownfield inventory. The process of identifying potential brownfield
sites and using a regression model to explain their negative effect on residential property
values is explained here.
Results: Inventory results were cataloged using ArcGIS. Maps of each corridor were
produced. 263 potential brownfield sites were identified. The sites were composed of 407
acres. An additional 219 parcels with non-functioning structures were also identified. A
regression model was used to measure the effect the potential brownfield sites have on
residential property values. The model found statistically significant results concerning
the negative effect potential brownfields have on residential property values.
3
List of Tables
Table 1: Brownfield Scenarios
Table 2: Brownfield Initiatives from Roanoke’s Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001-2010
Table 3: Roanoke Potential Brownfield Regression Results
List of Figures (Maps)
Figure 1. Roanoke Brownfield Corridors.
Figure 2. Eastern Roanoke River Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 3. Central Roanoke River Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 4. Western Roanoke River Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 5. Hollins Road and Williamson Road Brownfield Corridors.
Figure 6. Statesman Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 7. Shenandoah Avenue Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 8. West End Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 9. Campbell Avenue Brownfield Corridor.
Figure 10. Potential Brownfields – All Corridors.
4
Acknowledgement
The Roanoke Planning, Building, and Development Department has been
extremely helpful in the development of this project. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Fitzpatrick have
made data and documents readily available in a timely manner and have provided
thoughtful input and suggestions.
Thanks to Thomas Sheffer for his help during the West End Corridor field
assessment.
Many thanks are due to Dr. Zhang for his assistance on all aspects of this paper,
as well as Dr. Zahm and Dr. Randolph for their feedback and editing.
5
Disclaimer
It is imperative to note the findings in this paper do not claim any endorsement by
Mr. Shaw, Mr. Fitzpatrick, or any other employee at the Roanoke City Planning,
Building, and Development Department.
It is serious business to designate privately held property as a brownfield. The
properties identified as potential brownfields by this project carry no legal authority and
have not been approved by the Roanoke City Planning, Building, and Development
Department. No site assessments have taken place to confirm the actual presence of
contamination on any parcel. This list of potential brownfields remains the sole property
of the author and is not intended for public dispersal.
6
Introduction
In December of 2007, the City of Roanoke adopted a “City-Wide Brownfield
Redevelopment Plan.” The plan identifies nine distinct brownfield corridors within the
city and provides a description of the land uses, neighborhood plan policies, and potential
redevelopment opportunities for each brownfield corridor. Within the plan, however,
actual or likely brownfield sites are not identified. The City of Roanoke has not
developed a comprehensive brownfield inventory.
The focus of this paper is to identify potential brownfield properties within the
brownfield corridors in the City of Roanoke. This paper will present the findings of the
initial inventory of potential brownfields. This will include an analysis related to the
goals and redevelopment priorities found in the brownfield and neighborhood-level plans
to determine how well conditions on the ground match the policies contained in the CityWide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan.
Additionally, a regression model has been developed to quantitatively test the
effect potential brownfield properties have on residential property values. During
meetings with members of the Roanoke City Planning, Building, and Development
Department, it was agreed this type of model could be a useful tool to demonstrate to the
public and government officials the negative impacts created by brownfield properties,
and thus, lend itself in the argument for appropriate brownfield redevelopment.
The first section of this paper will begin with the background of the project. The
second section provides a general overview of brownfields and brownfield
redevelopment policy at the federal and state levels of government. Virginia brownfield
7
policy closely shadows federal regulations. This overview of brownfield policy will
transition into a discussion about Roanoke’s brownfield situation and the context/purpose
of the brownfield redevelopment plan.
The third section of this paper will describe the methods and logic behind the
initial inventory of potential brownfields. This will include common strategies from the
literature, as well as a description of the author’s own methods and justifications for
parcel selection.
The fourth section will present the results of the potential brownfield inventory.
This includes an appended maps package of all nine brownfield corridors. Maps of each
corridor will accompany an analysis describing how the brownfield plan and
neighborhood plans within each brownfield corridor correspond to the actual locations of
potential brownfields. This section will also look at the spatial distribution of the
identified potential brownfields as a whole group. This will provide the benefit of
viewing the situation as a whole, instead of from the perspective of distinct corridors.
The fifth section will introduce a multiple regression model as a complement to
the corridor-specific analysis. During meetings with members of the Roanoke City
Planning, Building, and Development Department, the development of a regression
model to explain the effect of brownfield proximity on property values was discussed as a
potentially beneficial tool. This section will explain the significance of a regression
model. The specific regression model developed for this project will be presented, along
with the results.
8
I. Background
In the spring of 2009, Virginia Tech graduate students within the Urban and
Regional Planning program took an introductory level GIS course. The major class
project consisted of identifying potential brownfield sites within the Shenandoah Avenue
brownfield corridor. Prior to beginning the fieldwork, the class met with several planners
with the City of Roanoke. Members of the Planning, Building, and Development
Department introduced the brownfield plan and discussed the issues and opportunities
related to brownfield redevelopment. The students divided the Shenandoah Avenue
brownfield corridor into three sections roughly equal by parcel count. Each group created
maps of the brownfield sites they identified and produced reports detailing appropriate
suggestions for redevelopment. The maps and recommendations were presented at the
VT-Roanoke Collaborative Symposium in May 2009.
In a follow-up meeting after the course concluded, Ian Shaw, a Senior Planner
with the City of Roanoke, indicated interest in continuing the process of identifying
potential brownfield sites within the eight remaining brownfield corridors. Fieldwork
took place during the summer and fall of 2009. Potential brownfield sites were identified
by visual assessment. The identified parcels were cataloged and mapped using ArcGIS
software. Maps of the identified potential brownfield sites for each corridor were
presented to Ian Shaw and B.T. Fitzpatrick, City Planner II, during a meeting in January
2010. The meeting included a discussion on how this preliminary inventory and a major
paper on the subject could best serve the City of Roanoke. The planners felt the inventory
on its own would serve as a valuable tool in the continual process of identifying the
brownfields in Roanoke. Similar to the analysis performed by the graduate class on
Shenandoah Avenue, a cross-referencing of the goals and priorities listed in the
9
brownfield and neighborhood plans could be matched up with the location of the
identified potential brownfields. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Fitzpatrick also expressed interest in
a regression model to demonstrate the negative impact the identified potential brownfield
sites have on nearby residential property values.
II. Understanding Brownfields
Defining Brownfields
According to the official definition of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which
may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant. The brownfield site definition is legally defined in Public Law
107-118 (H.R. 2869) "Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization
Act," signed into law January 11, 2002.1 The EPA estimates there are roughly 450,000
brownfields sites in the United States.2 Parcels with a history of commercial or industrial
activity are common brownfield candidates. Other typical brownfields include sites of
former gas stations, dry cleaners, and parcels adjacent to or containing railway activity.
The legal definition of a brownfield is concise, and yet open to a relatively large
degree of interpretation. The definition is composed of two clauses. The first clause
addresses complications prohibiting reuse. It is important to note complications from
reuse are not required by the brownfield definition. If reuse complications were a
requirement, the definition would be alternatively worded “…the reuse of which shall be
1
U.S. EPA. Brownfields and Land Revitalization-Brownfields Definition. NOV 13,
2009. <http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm>
2
U.S. EPA. Brownfields and Land Revitalization-About Brownfields. NOV 16, 2009.
<http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.htm>
10
complicated…” As it is written, it is only suggested that reuse, “…may have been
complicated...”
The second clause relates the reuse complications to actual or potential
environmental contamination. Actual contamination is not required, only the existence of
potential contamination. Since reuse complications and actual contamination are not
requirements, the definitional brownfield includes several combinations of conditions.
The matrix bellow summarizes the six possible scenarios.
Table 1. Brownfield Scenarios Meeting the Legal Brownfield Definition
Contaminant Present
Potential for
Contamination
(Actually Contaminated)
Potential for
Contamination
(Not Contaminated)
Reuse
Complicated
1. Reuse Complicated,
Contaminated
2. Reuse Complicated,
Contaminated
3. Reuse Complicated, Not
Contaminated
Reuse not
Complicated
4. Reuse not complicated,
Contaminated
5. Reuse not complicated,
Contaminated
6. Reuse not complicated,
Not contaminated
Table 1 illustrates the varying scenarios considered brownfields under the legal
definition. This is a result of the flexibility allowed in both clauses of the definition. As
the Virginia DEQ observes, the definition is purposely broad. The intent is to capture as
many properties as possible under the definition.3 The purpose of this table is to highlight
the fact that properties are not required to have contamination to be a brownfield.
Intuitively, if reuse is not complicated, regardless of contaminant issues,
redevelopment and brownfield labeling becomes something of a non-issue. Merely
requiring potential contamination, instead of requiring proof of actual contamination, is a
reflection of the high cost of environmental assessment. On-site environmental testing is
3
VA Department of Environmental Quality. (2004). Brownfields Manuel. 5-8.
11
costly and time consuming. Noonan and Vidich report the mean cost in 1992 dollars for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment tests to be $4,900 and $18,000,
respectively.4 It would be impractical to require the confirmation of environmental
contamination before a property could be labeled as a brownfield. Many property owners
would be unable to financially afford the process. For this reason, the definition of what
can be considered a brownfield is broad.
The Federal Brownfield Act of 2002 added some specific clarifications to the
brownfield definition. Abandoned gas stations, mine-scarred lands, sites subject to
RCRA, solid waste regulations, and those listed under the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank Program (LUST) can be considered brownfields.
There are several specific exclusions to the brownfield definition. Properties
currently undergoing remediation or having plans for remediation under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or
more commonly, “Superfund”) are not considered brownfields. Enacted in 1980, the act
gives the Federal government wide authority to respond to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances.5 A property is also not considered a brownfield if it is
on the National Priorities List (NPL). This list identifies a subset of parcels within the
EPA’s Superfund program.
Finally, a property subject to a judge, court, or administrative order entered into
consent under state or federal administrative law cannot be considered a brownfield.6
4
Noonan, Frank and Charles Vidich. 1992. Decision Analysis for Utilizing Hazardous
Waste Site Assessments in Real Estate Acquisition. Risk Analysis 12(2). 248.
5
EPA-CERCLA Overview. June 2009.
<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm>
6
Ibid, 16.
12
Federal Brownfield Policies
The EPA’s Brownfield Program began in 1995. The original program allocated
small grants to hundreds of local communities. These initial two-year pilot programs
provided funds for communities to identify brownfields and develop strategies to guide
the remediation and redevelopment of brownfield properties.7 The success of the initial
pilot programs led to the adoption of a formal brownfield law, The Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002. The stated goal of the current
Brownfield Program is to “empower states, communities, and other stakeholders in
economic redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to prevent, assess, safely
clean up, and sustainably reuse brownfields.”8 This is primarily accomplished by
providing monetary assistance and legal protection in the form of liability reductions.
Four grants offered by the program make up a large portion of the monetary
assistance provided by the EPA’s Brownfield Program:
1. Brownfield Assessment Grant
2. Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund Grant
3. Brownfields Job Training Grant
4. Brownfield Cleanup Grant
The Brownfield Assessment Grant provides support for inventory, assessment,
and brownfield related planning. An entity may receive up to $200,000 for a site
assessment, while a coalition can receive up to $1million to assess a minimum of five
7
Bucks County. 2004 Brownfields Inventory and US EPA Brownfields Pilot Summary
Report, 2.
8
U.S. EPA. Brownfields and Land Revitalization-About Brownfields. NOV 16, 2009.
<http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.htm>
13
sites. The Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund Grant provides up to $1 million to public or
private borrowers to finance cleanup efforts. The Brownfields Job Training Grant
provides up to $200,000 to fund safety and cleanup training programs as well as other
economic development activities for residents of affected communities. The Brownfield
Cleanup Grant provides up to $200,000 for the cleanup of contaminated sites.9
Uncertainty is a major determinant of private sector brownfield redevelopment.
Private developers are less inclined to purchase suspected or actual brownfield properties
if they risk inheriting the potentially expensive liability associated with a contaminated
property. The 2002 Brownfield Act includes several key provisions intended to alleviate
some of the risk associated with purchasing or owning a brownfield. Under the law, three
types of brownfield owners are offered some form of liability protection:
1. Contiguous Property Owner
2. Bona fide Prospective Purchaser
3. Innocent Land Owner
The Contiguous Property Owner clause protects owners whose property may
have been contaminated by adjacent property where known contamination exists.
Protection is available if the contiguous property owner is not associated with the
interests of the contaminating party. The Bona fide Prospective Property Owner clause
protects buyers of brownfields with known contamination, so long as they address the
issues in a reasonable and timely manner. The Innocent Land Owner clause offers
liability protection to those who purchased a property believing it did not have any
contamination.
9
EPA. Brownfields/Revitalization General Brochure-2009.
<http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/09brochure.pdf
14
To be eligible for protection under the Innocent Land Owner and Bona Fide
Prospective Property Owner clauses, parties are required to have completed the legal
process of All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI).10 The EPA requirement for AAI is the
completion of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). This process identifies
most contamination issues and prevents parties from hiding behind the curtain of
ignorance.
Virginia Brownfield Policies
In Virginia, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) handles brownfield
policy. The DEQ’s Brownfield Program provides several tools related to brownfield
redevelopment. Many of the tools are enabled in the Brownfield Restoration and Land
Renewal Act 11.
•
Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP)
•
Statutory Limited Liability
•
Limited Liability through Director Determination
•
Brownfield Amnesty Program for Voluntary Disclosure
•
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Immunity
•
Civil Charge Mitigation for Self-Disclosed Violations
•
Comfort Letters
The programs and tools offered through the DEQ are designed to encourage selfreporting and self-assessment. Similar to Federal policy, they are intended to ease
liability worries for innocent parties in the hopes of spurring redevelopment. Protected
10
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, H.R. 2869. Sec.
221-223. <http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/laws/hr2869.htm#subtB>
11
VA Code §§ 10.1-1230 through 10.1-1237).
15
parties include those listed under the EPA guidelines, as well as parties who acquire
property as an inheritance and have no reason to suspect the presence of contamination.
Government entities involuntarily acquiring property are also afforded liability
protection.12
Roanoke’s Brownfield Situation
Roanoke experienced tremendous growth during the first half of the 20th century.
Roanoke became a major railroad transportation hub and many related manufacturing and
distribution jobs grew from this economy. This growth completely leveled off in the
second half of the century. From 1900-1950, the population grew from 21,495 to 91,921
(+327%). From 1950-2000, the population only increased from 91,921 to 94,911.
(+3.25%).13 By 2008, the population was estimated to be 91,977, showing a slight
decrease.14 The second half of the century was less favorable to traditional manufacturing
sectors. As the economy relied less and less on rail, these related industries disappeared
from Roanoke. Economic withdrawal left many of Roanoke’s industrial and
manufacturing corridors with underused and abandoned properties. The manufacturing
and industrial processes previously taking place on these parcels makes them prime
brownfield candidates.
Roanoke has created the City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan as a means to
take advantage of the brownfield programs outlined above and to encourage
redevelopment in these afflicted areas. The City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan
12
VA Department of Environmental Quality, 2004. Brownfields Manuel. 5-8
<http://www.deq.state.va.us/brownfieldweb/>
13
U.S. Census Bureau, Virginia Population of Counties by Decennial Census.
<http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/va190090.txt>
14
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Roanoke
City, Virginia.
16
identifies nine distinct brownfield corridors within the city. The corridors are situated
along traditional areas of commercial and industrial land uses; i.e., near current and past
rail lines and along the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek. The corridors are named
according to the major road running through them or by their directional relationship to
the Roanoke River:
Although there are a total of nine brownfield corridors, the City-Wide Brownfield
Redevelopment Plan identifies only five: Rail Corridor, Roanoke River Corridor,
Statesman, Williamson Road, and Hollins Road. This is because the plan groups the
Western, Central, and Eastern Roanoke River corridors into a single “Roanoke River
Corridor.” West End, Campbell Avenue, and the Shenandoah Avenue corridors are
grouped into the larger “Rail Corridor.” This is somewhat confusing because the plan
does not provide overall plans, priorities, and redevelopment strategies for the larger
grouped Roanoke River and Rail Corridors. Rather, it addresses each sub-corridor
individually and generally treats it as a separate entity. To avoid confusion, this paper
will always refer to the nine corridors individually.
17
Figure 1: Map of Roanoke Brownfield Corridors
18
Roanoke’s City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan begins by justifying
brownfield redevelopment. The city is over 95% built out and most of the remaining land
is either located within the flood plain, on steep slopes, or is too fractured to provide the
necessary critical mass for large commercial or industrial development projects.15 This
leaves two general options for growth and development. Development can either sprawl
outward from the city, or growth can be concentrated at higher density within current
boundaries by reusing under-functioning and non-functioning properties. There are many
supportive arguments for the reuse of centrally located property. Infrastructure is already
in place, so less cost is incurred building new roads, water lines and sewer capacity.
Vehicular miles traveled (VMT) are reduced. Roanoke is part of a nonattainment area for
the 8-hour ozone standards established by the Clean Air Act. Reducing VMT will help
improve air quality in the Roanoke Valley. Additionally, reusing property retains tax
revenues from new development within the city and helps support existing
neighborhoods and communities.16
The City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan outlines three basic land use
goals/approaches for brownfield redevelopment:17
1. Convert underused industrial property along the Roanoke River to a green
corridor with a supporting mix of commercial and residential uses
15
City of Roanoke, Virginia. December 20, 2007. City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment
Plan, iii.
16
Michael Greenberg et al. 2001. Brownfield Redevelopment as a Smart Growth Option
in the United States. Environmentalist, 21(2). 129-143.
17
Roanoke Brownfield Plan, iii
19
2. Revitalize brownfield sites in or immediately adjacent to residential
neighborhoods as neighborhood-scale commercial operations that reinforce
Village Centers or provide opportunities for technology and entrepreneurial
business and to create opportunities for clusters and other mixed development.
3. Reinforce industrial corridors by reusing property for new operations for more
efficient land use and to strengthen the industrial base of the city.
With these three general goals in mind, the City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment
Plan presents development opportunities and priorities for each of the corridors. The
analysis section of this paper will revisit these corridor-specific opportunities and will
evaluate them using the potential brownfields identified during the inventory.
The city’s comprehensive plan is the dominant document to guiding planning
policy. The City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan draws its guidance from several
specific initiatives from within Roanoke’s Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001-2010:
From the comprehensive plan, five specific initiatives and their relevancy to brownfields
are provided, as shown in Table 2:18
Table 2. Brownfield Initiatives from Roanoke’s Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001-2010
Initiative from Comprehensive Plan
Brownfield Program Relevance
Redevelop Underused Commercial and
Industrial Sites
Most such properties by definition are
brownfields.
Invest in Critical Amenities
Brownfield redevelopment along river
allows for public greenway and park
investment, while properties proximate to
downtown leverage private investment to
support cultural events.
Shifting Gears – New Economic Initiatives
Redeveloped spaces become attractive
locations for new businesses.
18
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 2.
20
Getting Wired
Reuse of old buildings proximate to
downtown or the river attracts tech
companies, who value flexible workspaces
with historic character.
Village Centers and Housing Clusters
Brownfields redeveloped near village
centers can support mixed uses within the
village centers and surrounding
neighborhoods.
During the process of creating the City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, the
City of Roanoke solicited public input. The Planning, Building, and Development
Department held public meetings, forums, and input sessions to receive feedback and
ideas from the public regarding the City’s brownfield program and the use of EPA
Brownfield Grant Funds. Issues of concern raised by the public and found in the
brownfield plan include:
•
Provide open space and greenways along the Roanoke River corridor.
•
Evaluate how redevelopment will occur in proximity to rivers and along
floodplains
•
Look for opportunities across city, including scattered gas stations
•
Redevelopment should include mixed-uses
•
Develop an inventory of brownfield sites/redevelopment opportunities
•
Use available funds based on long-term sustainable planning principles.19
III. Methods
Brownfield Identification Issues
It is easy to define a brownfield on paper, but difficult to identify them in the field.
Several strategies are available and the most comprehensive inventory will likely employ
19
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 3.
21
a combination of efforts.
The EPA has created a suggested methodology for creating an inventory of
petroleum brownfields. This report provides specifics on a certain type of brownfield, but
the overall strategies are applicable to building a regular brownfield inventory:
• Self-Reporting
• Local Knowledge
• Property Records
• Environmental Conditions
• Visual Surveys20
Self-reporting relies on the current or past property owner to notify concerned
parties of his property’s likely brownfield status. This is an appealing strategy because it
requires little effort from those conducting the inventory. Mitigation relief is possible for
self-reporting violators as an attempt to encourage this inventory strategy because it
requires few resources from the concerned government entity.
Surveying local knowledge can include both governmental staff and local
community members. After specific property owners, these two groups are the most
familiar with conditions on the ground. Members of the planning staff, real estate
department, the EDA, as well as utility workers and regular town employees working out
in the field are going to have first-hand knowledge about conditions on the ground. Local
residents also have a big role to play. They live near and next to parcels of concern. They
may walk their dogs on the sidewalk or their children might play in the area. Local
knowledge can provide valuable leads and information about suspected properties during
20
EPA, Petroleum Brownfields: Developing Inventories. 510-R-09-002. May 2009. 1415.
22
a brownfield inventory.
A survey of property records is an important part of a brownfield inventory. Old
sales records may contain notes or clues about specific property concerns. Using old land
use maps and business directories can identify likely areas of interest.21 Parcels that were
the site of polluting manufacturing activities fifty years ago may now have homes or sit
empty. The threat of contamination may not be evident on such parcels. Current land use
maps would not call attention to these parcels of concern. Constructing a complete
historical record, especially if land use patterns have significantly shifted over time, is an
important part of developing a comprehensive brownfield inventory.
It is possible to estimate contamination probabilities using past and present land use
data. Noonan and Vidich created a probability table based on land use activity. Different
land use activities carry varying rates of contamination risk. An auto salvage yard has a
95% probability of prior contamination, while a dry cleaner has a 74% probability of
prior contamination.22
It is also important to account for environmental conditions. The extent and spread
of contamination will depend on many factors, including topography, soil composition,
and impervious surface coverage. A single property may be the source of hazardous
contamination, and depending on these and other factors, the contamination may have
spread to nearby properties. As a simple example, properties downhill of a known
polluter can be suspected to contain contamination. Using land use history and
environmental conditions, it is possible to identifying properties at an increased risk for
21
Leigh and Coffin. 2005. Modeling the Relationship Among Brownfields, Property
Values, and Community Revitalization. Housing Policy Debate. 16(2). 269.
22
Noonan and Vidich, 248.
23
contamination.
Visual surveys and inspections are an important component of building a
brownfield inventory. Visual surveys are reliant on visual clues. Clues include abandoned
and/or deteriorating buildings, especially warehouses and other types of commercial and
industrial structures. Business signs can also provide clues to past land use. Properties
that are poorly maintained and overgrown with vegetation can indicate depressed market
value and neglect. Other obvious and common clues include the presence of poorly
maintained storage tanks, debris piles, junked cars and other materials, especially
process-oriented equipment showing signs of disrepair, decay, and abandonment.
Visual inspection can be a useful tool, but it is subjective. The process of
identifying potentially contaminated properties where redevelopment may be an issue is
inherently subjective. Imagine a three-acre parcel with forty rusted cars sitting among
weeds. They are likely leaking gasoline, engine oil, coolant and anti-freeze into the soil.
One would likely identify this as a potential brownfield. But what if there is only one car?
Is it still a brownfield? If the individual conducting the survey does not consider it a
brownfield, how many cars would there need to be before it met the brownfield eye-test?
And furthermore, if the eye-test has a threshold of twelve leaking cars, is there truly
much of a difference between the parcel with twelve leaking cars and the parcel with
eleven leaking cars? Assuming the cars leak evenly, there is a negligible difference
between the two, from a cleanup, and ultimately redevelopment perspective.
This hypothetical case illustrates the danger applying subjective analysis in an
attempt to arrive at objective conclusions. The brownfield definition only allows for a
parcel to either be a brownfield, or not be a brownfield. In reality, properties range in
24
both the amount of real or potential contamination and the extent to which reuse is
complicated. For the purposes of identifying potential brownfields, a threshold will
inevitably be established. The hypothetical example illustrates how thresholds create a
false sense of accuracy. To some degree, this problem will not go away. Employing a
combination of the strategies discussed above is the best way to ensure a comprehensive
inventory of potential brownfields. By combining strategies and cross-referencing their
findings, areas of concern are likely to become evident.
Identifying Potential Brownfields in Roanoke
The preliminary inventory for the Roanoke brownfield corridors primarily
consisted of visual surveys. Due to limited resources, manpower, and time, a visual
survey was the best fit for this project. A more comprehensive inventory will employ
some or all of the other strategies detailed above. This paper does not claim to have
identified all of the brownfields within the nine corridors, nor does it assume the
identified sites are certifiably brownfields. Rather, the parcels identified as potential
brownfield represent potential brownfields as determined by the author during visual
surveys.
Distinguishing property boundaries is the most difficult aspect of this type of
fieldwork. For each brownfield corridor, aerial photography with overlaid parcel lines
was used during the surveys to provide orientation and reference points. This ensured that
parcels were accurately identified and cataloged. Each corridor required 10-20 aerials to
get 100% coverage at a usable level of detail. Having the aerials made it easy to
differentiate between separate parcels. Before arriving to the field, Google Earth and the
city of Roanoke’s online ArcViewer were used to become familiar with the corridors and
25
identify likely areas of interest. The surveys were conducted on foot and by vehicle.
Visual inspection was based on the visual clues mentioned earlier.
For mapping and analysis purposes, it is important to map parcel land use and
functionality. This information is available from Roanoke’s GIS real estate database.
Whereas zoning describes the allowable use for a property, current land use describes the
current use of that property. These two are not always the same. Due to the hierarchical
nature of traditional zoning codes, a parcel zoned for industrial use could have singlefamily homes on it. During the visual survey, parcels with non-functioning structures
were also identified. For this inventory, vacant is used to describe a parcel that is
generally void of development, or at the most, a parking lot. Non-functioning describes
parcels that contain empty structures. These could be abandoned structures as well as
buildings for lease without current occupants. Both types indicate opportunities for reuse,
although non-functioning properties, as long as the structure can be salvaged, likely
require fewer resources to reuse.
During the inventory, properties marked as potential brownfields either contained
a structure, which was functioning or not, or they were void of development (vacant). To
be identified as a potential brownfield, vacant parcels needed to have visible signs of
potential contamination.
A
B
26
C
The three pictures above provide good examples of the range of conditions for
vacant properties. Picture A is an undeveloped, vacant property. Although it is located
near other potential brownfields and other industrial land uses, there are no visually clues
indicating a potential contamination issue. This property was marked as vacant only.
Picture C, on the far right, was marked as a brownfield. The parcel contains various
rusted tanks, containers, and mechanical equipment, all kept in poor condition. This is a
good representative example of the type of vacant properties identified as potential
brownfields during this inventory. Picture B represents the uncertain gray zone. There are
two decaying vehicles on the property. A large debris pile is also visible. The debris
appears to be dirt, concrete, and other types of vegetative material. Due to the apparent
make-up of the debris and its relatively small size, this parcel would not be considered a
brownfield by this inventory. It is worth noting there are many parcels in the brownfield
corridors similar to this one. These parcels show signs of neglect and underuse, but do
not pose an obvious, high contamination risk. It may be in Roanoke’s interest to include
these types of properties as potential brownfields.
Properties with structures can also be considered brownfields. Generally, an empty
commercial or industrial building on its own was not enough to merit the brownfield
designation.
27
The two parcels pictured above are good representations of the type of parcels with
structures labeled as brownfields. The parcel on the left has little to no functionality.
There are large piles of uncovered material, along with several large tanks in poor
condition. The property on the right displays less obvious contamination risks, but there
are several barrels and debris piles visible in the background. It is also non-functioning
and in terrible condition. This combination of factors, along with being contiguous to the
railroad, is why this property was marked as a potential brownfield.
The building above was not marked as a brownfield. This building does show some
signs of neglect and disrepair, but it is generally habitable and in working condition.
There are no obvious signs of contamination visible from the outside and the previous use
cannot be determined from any signage or equipment located outside. This building is
28
non-functioning, but it is not labeled a brownfield by this preliminary inventory.
Roanoke properties on the National Priorities List (NPL) were checked to make
certain a property identified during the visual survey that was on the NPL was not
recorded as a potential brownfield since brownfield law exclude sites on the NPL from
being considered brownfields. No properties on the NPL list as of February 2010 were
identified during the inventory. The Virginia DEQ maintains a list of known brownfield
properties in the state. No properties were identified from this list.
This inventory represents a portion of all the potential brownfield within the
Roanoke corridors. Moving forward, this inventory has the potential to be expanded or
refined. The visual survey methods employed tend to identify the worst-of-the-worst. An
empty warehouse was not considered a brownfield. An empty warehouse with the roof
rusted off and oil drums scattered around the side was marked as a potential brownfield.
It is possible that in both warehouses hazardous chemicals are not securely stored and
both properties pose a contamination risk. Implementing past land use analysis would
help identify the seemingly benign warehouse as a brownfield.
With this knowledge, two immediate questions arise. The first question is: are the
brownfields spotted during visual surveys actually brownfields? As has been discussed,
this is to some degree a subjective decision. In order to improve transparency and provide
future efforts with a good base resource, each property identified as a potential
brownfield has been photographed.
The second question is: does it matter if all of the brownfields have not been
identified? The answer is both yes and no. It is always a good idea to base decisions and
analysis on the most complete data set. The effort to classify brownfields is a mix of
29
politics, market conditions, and development priorities. Depending on these factors, the
parcels with candidacy for brownfield identification can greatly fluctuate. Therefore,
being able to identify all brownfields is a relative accomplishment and has low applicable
value.23
The visually identified brownfields provide a useful starting place. The City of
Roanoke has already reduced the need for an overarching comprehensive inventory by
creating the brownfield corridors. This policy decision has effectively established the
areas of greatest concern, based upon past land use, current conditions, and anticipated
future needs. Within the confines of these corridors, brownfield redevelopment priorities
and neighborhood plans further magnify and direct the context of brownfield
redevelopment. Even if all of the brownfields have not been identified, the ones that have
paint a fairly clear picture of trouble spots.
Additionally, the lack of market-driven redevelopment indicates fundamental
problems. Government is providing funds and other legal incentives because it places
high value in the benefits derived from remediating the environmental contamination and
reusing the property. The failure of the private market to capture this positive valuation
has led to market failure and the underuse of these properties. Until the private market
can be fully incentivized to undertake cleanup and reuse, government will continue to be
the primary party involved and thus funding will always be in short supply. The City of
Roanoke will not receive enough money to fix every single brownfield property in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, it must make tactical decisions based on a number of
23
Chilton, Kenneth. Peter Schwarz and Kenneth Godwin. 2002 Final Report Verifying
the Social, Environmental and Economic Promise of Brownfield Programs. EPA BFRES
04-02. 5-9.
30
factors, including cost, cleanup requirements, willing landowners, willing developers, and
market conditions to decide which brownfields to target for reuse. Therefore, it does not
necessarily need to identify every brownfield at this stage of the process. Even though it
is incomplete, these visually identified brownfields can form the basis of a general
inventory to further refine the decision making process.
IV. Brownfield Corridor Analysis
The following sections will describe the potential brownfields identified in each
brownfield corridor. Each description will specify the number of potential brownfield
parcels identified and their total combined acreage. Each section will relate the land use
goals and redevelopment priorities contained within the brownfield and neighborhood
plans to the actual brownfield conditions as determined by the brownfield assessment.
Eastern Roanoke River – (Roanoke River Corridor)
The Eastern Roanoke River Corridor contains seven parcels identified as potential
brownfields and four non-functioning commercial parcels. The identified brownfield
parcels total 140 acres. This includes parcels of 68, 50, and 13 acres. The 68-acre parcel
was formerly owned and operated by American Viscose. It was at one time the largest
rayon textile mill in the world. The mill was closed in the 1950’s but the property
remains in use today as the Roanoke Industrial Center. Although this area has been
identified as a potential brownfield, much of the property is still in use. This corridor is a
low priority for redevelopment, according to the brownfield plan. 24 The greenway is
primarily complete through the south side of the corridor and much of the land has active
industrial uses. However, as the brownfield plan notes, if the demand for industrial space
24
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 18-20.
31
continues to decline, residential and mixed commercial uses could increase
redevelopment pressures.
32
Figure 2: Map of Eastern Roanoke River Brownfield Corridor.
33
Central Roanoke River – (Roanoke River Corridor)
41 parcels in the Central Roanoke River Corridor were identified as potential
brownfields. In total, these properties comprise 47 acres. 36 non-functioning properties
were identified. This included six residential properties and eight commercial properties
not indentified as potential brownfields. The identified potential brownfields are clustered
into two groups. The first group contains 19 acres of potential brownfields in the eastern
portion of the corridor. This group of potential brownfields is within the South Jefferson
Redevelopment Area (SJRA). The SJRA is playing an important role in Roanoke’s
economic development efforts. This area includes the Riverside Center for Research and
Technology, the Carilion Biomedical Institute, Carilion Clinic, and the Virginia Tech
medical school. This area has and will continue to receive high redevelopment priority.
The potential brownfields identified are located along the railroad tracks and reside
entirely within the 100-year flood plain. Due to the redevelopment efforts and resources
being directed at this area, this area will likely remain a top redevelopment priority. The
redevelopment plan identifies continual redevelopment opportunities moving north up
Jefferson Street.25 The western edges of these potential brownfields are situated along
Jefferson Street and may provide reuse opportunities in the future as the SJRA continues
to spur development.
The second group of potential brownfields comprises a total of 28 acres. These
properties are located to the north of Memorial St. Bridge and several public parks.
Almost all of these potential brownfields also reside within the 100-year floodplain. A
25
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 21-22.
34
significant amount of open and recreation space extends west of the potential brownfields
along the Roanoke River. These areas are the focus of the ongoing Roanoke River Flood
Reduction and Greenway Program. Extending greenspace along the river would be one
possible scenario for some of the potential brownfields located adjacent to the river.
Most of the potential brownfields are located in the southern portion of Mountain
View Neighborhood. Although the area is relatively underused, slopes and vegetation
provide good buffers from nearby homes. The neighborhood plan suggests infill
commercial development with adequate screening and buffers as an appropriate reuse.26
26
City of Roanoke, Virginia. 2003. Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End Neighborhood
Plan, 44, 47.
35
Figure 3: Map of Central Roanoke River Brownfield Corridor
36
Western Roanoke River – (Roanoke River Corridor)
Eleven parcels were identified as potential brownfields in the Western Roanoke
River Brownfield Corridor. Together, these parcels comprise 36.3 acres. This includes
several large parcels of 8.6, 7.3, and 6.1 acres. The brownfield redevelopment plan
indicates much of the underused property is near the Roanoke River and sits within the
100-flood plain.27 The brownfield assessment reaffirms these findings. All of the
identified potential brownfields are located in two masses on the east side of the corridor.
The eastern collection of parcels is 27.8 acres and the western collection includes 20.7
acres of land identified as potential brownfield. Also, five non-functioning commercial
properties were identified.
The future land use map in the Norwich neighborhood plan identifies areas to the
west of Bridge Street be used for conservation space. Both of the large brownfield masses
identified in this corridor lie just on the western side of Bridge Street. This is a good
example of plans matching up well with actual conditions on the ground. The industrial
activities within this corridor are generally viable and contribute to the tax base. The
brownfield plan reiterates industrial reuse is most appropriate for this area.28 However,
for the significant acreage of identified properties that are within the 100-year flood plan
or suffer reduced access due to railroad crossings, the potential exists for converting these
potential brownfields into greenways and increasing greenway access.
27
28
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 24.
Ibid, 25.
37
Figure 4: Map of Western Roanoke River Brownfield Corridor
38
Williamson Road
39 non-functioning parcels were identified. This includes three residential
properties and 36 commercial properties. Only three parcels were identified as potential
brownfields in the Williamson Road corridor. These parcels total 1.3 acres of land. These
findings are generally consistent with the brownfield plan. It notes the corridor does not
have a history of industrial use except for some areas near Orange Avenue. The three
brownfield properties identified are located at the southern end of the corridor, near
Orange Avenue. Although it does not have a history of industrial uses, this area is a
brownfield corridor because of the number of under-functioning properties and the
redevelopment opportunities they present.29 During the inventory, 48 vacant parcels were
identified. These sites are distributed all along the corridor, presenting numerous
opportunities for reuse. The plan notes former gas stations, car lots, and dry cleaning
operations are present and may present some environmental issues. Some of these sites
were likely missed during the inventory due to signage removal. It is difficult to spot the
site of an old gas station if the pumps and gas sign are removed.
The three potential brownfield parcels are located on the southern end of the
corridor, close to Orange Avenue. The parcels are across the street from each other and
lay contiguous to several other underutilized properties. To the north, the corridor is
bordered on both sides by residential neighborhoods. In the south, where the potential
brownfields are located, Orange Avenue, I-581, Williamson Road, and additional
commercial/industrial uses form in insulating border on all sides of these properties. This
suggests commercial or industrial reuse would not negatively impact nearby residences
29
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 37.
39
because of the buffers already in place. Additionally, the neighborhood plan aims to
discourage additional commercial use except where it reinforces existing nodes.30 The
identified brownfields are located near an existing node of commercial activity that
includes a busy gas station and a strip mall at the corner of Williamson Road and Orange
Avenue.
In many ways, the Williamson Road Corridor is one long stretch of strip malls.
One of the goals in the neighborhood plan is to establish well-defined “nodes” of
commercial activity and lessen intensity between these nodes.31 The four identified nodes
in the plan are centered on Liberty Road, Oakland School, Breckenridge, and Crossroads.
The brownfield inventory identified eight vacant properties within a 300 ft radius of
Oakland School. A two-acre vacant parcel is located next to the Breckenridge ball fields.
The City owns this parcel and has likely already evaluated its reuse potential.
Hollins Road
15 non-functioning commercial properties were identified. Two of these parcels
were also marked as potential brownfields. In the Hollins Road Corridor, 16 potential
brownfield parcels were identified. These parcels have a combined total of 24.3 acres.
Except for one small parcel, all of the identified potential brownfields are either located
along the railroad, or they are grouped together in the southeastern tip of the corridor. Six
parcels, comprising 10 acres, are located in northern tip of the small arm extending from
the base of the corridor at the south. A portion of the parcels sits in the flood plain of
Tinker Creek. Eastgate Park is located just to the north of the properties. The future land
30
31
City of Roanoke, Virginia. 2004. Williamson Road Area Plan, 44.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. 2005. Hollins/Wildwood Area Plan, 47.
40
use map for the Hollins/Wildwood neighborhood plan designates these parcels for light
industrial and light industrial uses.32
Except for one smaller parcel, the rest of the identified potential brownfields are
located adjacent to the rail line that runs through the middle of the corridor between
Hollins and Plantation Rd. Maximizing commercial and industrial uses within current
zoning is a top priority in the Hollins-Wildwood and Williamson Road neighborhood
plans. The potential brownfields are located on sites that are currently zones for
commercial and industrial uses. These sites are also well positioned for operations
seeking rail access.
In the middle of the corridor, a large number of vacant parcels were identified.
Though not tagged as potential brownfields, the high concentration of vacant properties
may be in indication of development complications. Regardless, these numerous
properties could potentially offer a range of development opportunities. This collection of
properties begins just south of the village center at Hollins Road and Liberty Road. The
brownfield plan suggests buffering industrial uses in the effort to strengthen demand for
the area’s commercial services and thus, strengthen the village center.33 There is a row of
underutilized properties on the south side of the Hollins Road, Liberty Road Village
Center. Some of these parcels offer potential for screening the industrial uses that are
further to the south.
32
33
Hollins/Wildwood Area Plan, 14.
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 34.
41
Figure 5: Map of Williamson and Hollins Road Brownfield Corridors
42
Statesman
Statesman Industrial Park and the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology
(RCIT) combine to form the Statesman Brownfield Corridor. Statesman Industrial Park is
accessed along Orange Avenue from Granby and Seibel Drive. The entrance to the RCIT
is just north on Orange Avenue, on Blue Hills Drive. Opened in 1983, the RCIT features
extremely large parcels with large amounts of green space separating the massive
manufacturing structures. As the map indicates, there are several underutilized structures
as well as several large amounts of land yet to be developed. No potential brownfields
were identified in the RCIT. These findings are predicted in the brownfield plan.34 Since
the plan was constructed after the original superfund legislation, there is a relatively low
risk of these properties being contaminated. The brownfield inventory supports the
brownfield plan’s recommendation of keeping the RCIT a low redevelopment priority.
In the rest of the Statesman Brownfield Corridor, which consists primarily of
Statesman Industrial Park, ten parcels adding up to 34.3 acres were identified as potential
brownfields. This includes a 12-acre group of three parcels adjacent to Orange Avenue.
One of the development opportunities in the brownfield plan recommends reuse options
that will improve the street presence of Statesman Industrial Park along Orange
Avenue.35 Along with this collection of identified brownfield parcels, there are also
several underutilized parcels adjacent to Orange Avenue. Should the opportunity to reuse
the potential brownfields or underutilized property arise, attention should be paid to
creating a better demarcation of space between the industrial park and the rest of Orange
34
35
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 35.
Ibid, 36.
43
Avenue. Otherwise, as the neighborhood plan for Hollins-Wildwood specifies, the goal is
to prevent further expansion of commercial strip development.36 The Statesman Industrial
Park is a viable entity and commercial and industrial reuses would be the most
appropriate choice for the potential brownfields identified, should the need for their reuse
arise. Nine non-functioning commercial properties were identified. One of these was also
considered a potential brownfield. These properties would generally be good candidates
for commercial reuse, due to their location within the industrial parks.
36
Hollins/Wildwood Area Plan, 48.
44
Figure 6: Map of Statesman Brownfield Corridor
45
Shenandoah Avenue – (Rail Corridor)
The Coke bottling plant on the eastern end and Steel Dynamics on the west
anchors the Shenandoah Avenue corridor. In total, 90 parcels were identified as potential
brownfields. Together, these parcels had a combined acreage of 90.4. Additionally, 51
commercial and residential properties not identified as potential brownfields were
recorded as being non-functioning. There are a high number of small parcels identified as
potential brownfields. Many of these small parcels are grouped together on the same
block and pose opportunities for multi-parcel redevelopment. A high percentage of the
property on the southwestern side of this corridor was identified as potential brownfields.
Along with Steel Dynamics, there are also several large junkyards.
A mix of viable and vacant industrial and commercial property stretches along
Shenandoah Avenue. Several blocks to the north, the corridor transitions into residential
uses. Loudon, Melrose, and Shenandoah West neighborhood plans have similar goals
with respect to this brownfield corridor. One goal is to encouraging appropriate industrial
and manufacturing development in the manufacturing-zoned areas along Shenandoah
Avenue. The businesses in this area contribute to the tax base and are well positioned
with access to rail along a major thoroughfare. The second goal from the three
neighborhood plans is to increase screening and buffering between the industrial uses
along Shenandoah Avenue and the residential neighborhoods to the north.37 The
brownfield inventory identified a significant number of vacant lots and empty houses.
Improving the buffering between the neighborhoods and the manufacturing zones can
help improve the neighborhoods overall attractiveness and viability.
37
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 28.
46
Most of the potential brownfields identified are grouped along Shenandoah
Avenue. In these locations, industrial reuse would seem most appropriate. However, there
are several potential brownfields located adjacent to tracts of residential property.
Potential brownfields identified on 7th, 8th, 9th, and 11th street are adjacent to residential
properties. Ideally, these properties could provide much needed buffering, either by
converting them into green space, or by adding additional vegetative screening as a
requisite to redevelopment.
47
Figure 7: Map of Shenandoah Brownfield Corridor
48
West End – (Rail Corridor)
The West End Brownfield corridor contains commercial and industrial uses on
either end, while the middle is predominately residential in nature. There are several nonfunctioning commercial structures and many vacant lots, especially on the eastern side of
the corridor. 48 non-functioning properties were identified. This included 24 residential
properties and 24 commercial properties. Similar to the land use distribution, the
identified potential brownfields are located on each end of the corridor. In total, 18.2
acres, made up of 48 parcels, were identified as potential brownfields.
The two largest potential brownfield parcels are located on either side of Sheffer
Boulevard. This area is characterized by the large rail yard at the corridor’s western end.
The potential brownfield parcels in this area are buffered from the residential areas
further east. As the brownfield plan suggests, properties in this area would be well suited
for industrial or commercial infill development.38
The rest of the potential brownfields are located on the other end of the corridor.
These parcels are located in an area where residential uses transition into commercial
type uses. A large amount of vacant parcels are also present. This area presents several
strategic redevelopment opportunities. The Jefferson Center and 13th street village center
sits on the southeastern side of the corridor. The brownfield plan indicates interest in
expanding the downtown district west towards the Jefferson Center.39 Historic tax credits
in this area are available and there are growing opportunities to shift the land use towards
residential and commercial mixed use type development. There is a row of potential
38
39
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 30.
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 30.
49
brownfields within the village center idea for residential or mixed-use redevelopment.
The rest of the potential brownfields are located further north, scattered among
commercial and vacant properties.
50
Figure 8: Map of West End Brownfield Corridor
51
Campbell Avenue – (Rail Corridor)
The Campbell Avenue corridor is the last of the brownfield corridors. Twelve
non-functioning parcels were identified. This includes six residential properties and six
commercial properties. 15.4 acres, made up of 37 parcels were identified as potential
brownfields. Except for two large parcels of 6.2 and 2.7 acres, the rest of the potential
brownfields are very small parcels, most around 0.1 acres. On their own, small parcels
are unattractive candidates for commercial and industrial reuse. In the Campbell Avenue
corridor, most of these small parcels are conveniently grouped together. In many
instances, this has been the result of subdividing a larger parcel and a single owner
retained ownership of the whole group.
A number of potential brownfields were identified on the east side of Tinker
Creek. The brownfield plan indicates that steep topography will be a hindrance to
development. This is supported by the significant amount of vacant properties in this
area. The plan suggests properties on the east side of Tinker Creek may contribute to
some infill and accommodation of the future Tinker Creek greenway corridor.40 Several
potential properties adjacent to the east bank of Tinker Creek could potentially serve in
this capacity. Increased access to the planned greenway corridor could encourage infill on
Purcell Avenue. Currently, only one home is located on this block, surrounded by vacant
parcels. Two other blocks of potential brownfields are located on the east side of Tinker
Creek, one block is on Eastern Avenue, and the other on Wayland Street and Daleton Rd.
Again, topography may be a limiting factor for redevelopment, but the Eastern Avenue
40
City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, 32.
52
sites in particular may pose redevelopment opportunities for major industrial businesses
looking to expand their operations.
On the west side of Tinker Creek, most of the potential brownfields are located in
established areas of commercial and industrial activity. The brownfield plan and the
Belmont-Fallon neighborhood plans indicate industrial and commercial use should be
concentrated in existing zones to prevent these uses spreading into adjacent residential
areas.41 This indicates industrial and commercial reuse would be most appropriate for the
potential brownfields located along the Campbell Avenue industrial district and those
parcels adjacent to 11th Street. The exception may be the seven contiguous parcels on the
north side of Gregory Avenue. A small residential section appears to be negatively
impacted by the close proximity to the potential brownfields and the nearby
commercial/industrial activities. There are a number of vacant parcels in this
neighborhood. The potential brownfields could be reused to create a better buffer
between the residences and commercial activities.
41
City of Roanoke, Virginia. 2003. Belmont-Fallon Neighborhood Plan, 34.
53
Figure 9: Map of Campbell Avenue Brownfield Corridor
54
General Analysis
The impact of the rail lines on the location of potential brownfields becomes
increasingly apparent when the perspective is broadened to include the entire city. This is
not surprising, especially considering the railroads were a primary selection criteria used
to establish the boundaries of the brownfield corridors. There are also a substantial
number of parcels located within the flood plains of the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek.
In total, 263 parcels, comprising 407.2 acres, were identified as potential brownfields.
Additionally, 219 parcels with non-functioning structures were identified.
As a reminder, the redevelopment opportunities presented in the corridor-specific
analysis fit within three main objectives:
1. Convert underused industrial property along the Roanoke River to a green
corridor with a supporting mix of commercial and residential uses
2. Revitalize brownfield sites in or immediately adjacent to residential
neighborhoods as neighborhood-scale commercial operations that reinforce
Village Centers or provide opportunities for technology and entrepreneurial
business and to create opportunities for clusters and other mixed development.
3. Reinforce industrial corridors by reusing property for new operations for more
efficient land use and to strengthen the industrial base of the city.
The brownfield inventory largely confirms the importance and relevancy of these
three objectives and the recommendations put forth in the previous sections fall within
these objectives. The general location of brownfields tends to be near and along the
City’s rivers and floodplains, and/or rail lines. In many of the corridors, potential
brownfield parcels are adjacent to residential areas and there is a great need for creating
55
better buffers. Also, most corridors feature brownfields dispersed in and among sections
of active, viable commercial and industrial businesses.
Together, each of these three objectives roughly represents a piece of the
sustainability triangle. Sustainability, in any regard, should incorporate three aspects:
environmental, economical, and societal. The first objective is primarily concerned with
protecting the Roanoke River, a valuable environmental aspect. The second objective
aims to strengthen residential communities and village centers in and around brownfields.
Many of these residential areas are distressed. The equity issue this objective addresses is
apparent. Finally, the third objective seeks to strengthen the economic base, where
appropriate.
56
Figure 10: Map of Identified Potential Brownfields
57
V. Brownfield Impact on Residential Property Value
This section presents a quantitative model to examine the impact of Brownfield
sites on residential property value in the City of Roanoke. Based upon the existing
literature,42 three null hypotheses will be tested:
HO1: Proximity to a potential brownfield site has no effect on residential property
value.
HO2: The number of potential brownfield sites in the adjacent area has no effect
on residential property value.
42
Chilton, Kenneth. Peter Schwarz and Kenneth Godwin. 2002 Final Report Verifying
the Social, Environmental and Economic Promise of Brownfield Programs. EPA BFRES
04-02.
Hao, Huili. 2008. The Impacts of Brownfields on Property Values and Private
Investments in Charlottes, NC. Dissertation- NC State University.
Kaufman, Dennis and Norman Cloutier. 2006. The Impact of Small Brownfields and
Greenspaces on Residential Property Values. Journal of Real Estate, Finance, and
Economics, 33, 19-30.
Leigh, Nancey and Sarah Coffin. 2005. Modeling the Relationship among Brownfields,
Property Values, and Community Revitalization. Housing Policy Debate, 16(2), 257-280.
Simons, Robert and Jesse Saginor. 2006. A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of
Environmental Contamination on Residential Real Estate Values. The Journal of Real
Estate Research, 28, 71-104.
58
HO3: The total area of potential brownfield sites in the adjacent area has no effect
on residential property value.
These hypotheses are testing two distinct relationships between brownfields and
surrounding property values. HO1 is a test of the proximity relationship. HO2 and HO3 are
tests of the magnitude relationship. Together, the distance from a given brownfield and
the magnitude of brownfields within a set range captures the two most telling
characteristics of a given parcel’s spatial relationship to a set of identified potential
brownfields. 500, 1000, and 1500 feet are typical ranges for testing brownfield
magnitude.43 500 feet is used in this model.
Regression Model
Based on the existing literature, the function form of the regression model is:
Ln(value) = " 0 + "1lotsize + " 2bathrooms + " 3bedrooms + " 4 brownfield distance
+" 5brownfield count + " 6brownfield acreage + " 7 pct.White + " 8 pct unemployed + " 9income + #
In the regression model, the dependent variable is the value of the property. The
dependent variable is transformed using the natural log. This reduces the effect of
outlying values and may help mitigate problems associated with heteroskedasticity.
43
Leigh and Coffin, 271.
59
The value can take one of two common forms of measurement. Value can either
be measured as property assessment value or by recent sale price. Using sales data can
introduce sampling bias. It is likely brownfields will be found in depressed areas with
low market activity. By using sales data, the study areas of interest will be excluded from
the data sample. There are reliability issues associated with assessment values.
Assessment data may be biased downward in low-income areas because a lack in sales
activity will lead to a lag in home reassessment. Due to the recent downturn in housing
market activity and the arguments put for by Leigh and Coffin44, the combined
assessment value of the land and structure was chosen as the measurement for the
dependent variable, property value.
The model incorporates three groups of independent variables. The first group
contains variables related to structural characteristics. This includes the variables lot size
(in acres), number of bathrooms, and number of bedrooms. The second group of variables
describes the relative brownfield spatial distribution. This includes the variables distance
to nearest brownfield (1000 feet), amount of potential brownfield parcels within a 500foot radius, and the amount of potential brownfield acres within a 500-foot radius. The
third group contains variables describing neighborhood characteristics. This includes the
variables percentage of white residents, unemployment rate, and median household
income. The data for this group comes from census block group demographics.
44
Leigh and Coffin, 267-268.
60
Table 3. Roanoke Potential Brownfield Regression Results
lot size
.0673882
Coefficient (log
transformation, x
=1)
.0697107
bathrooms
.1889748
.2080105
.0040017
47.22
0.000
bedrooms
.1313596
.1403778
.0032576
40.32
0.000
brownfield distance
.0341732
.0347638
.0007932
43.08
0.000
brownfield ct
-.0376063
-.0369079
.0041958
-8.96
0.000
brownfield acre
-.0238861
-.0236031
.0049724
-4.80
0.000
percent white
.0040597
.0040679
.0000862
47.11
0.000
percent unemployed
-.0095435
-.0094981
.0005498
-17.36
0.000
income
.0235702
.0238502
.0003162
74.53
0.000
constant
9.781728
17706.22
.0145316
673.13
0.000
Variable
Coefficient
Std Error
t
P>[t]
.0033583
20.07
0.000
n = 22640 R2 = 0.6839 Adj R2 = 0.6837
The model is estimated as:
ln(Val) = 9.781728 + 0.067 lot size + 0.189 bathrooms + 0.131 bedrooms + 0.034
brownfield distance - 0.038 500 ft brownfield count- 0.024 500 ft brownfield acreage +
0.004 percent white – 0.0095 percent unemployed + 0.0236 income
All of the variables in the model are statistically significant at the 99% confidence
level. There were 22,640 sample observations. This included all single-family homes in
Roanoke that had the necessary property data. The model has an R2 value of 0.68. This
indicates the model explains 68% of the variation in housing value.
Model Interpretation
Table 3 provides the standard coefficients along with the transformed coefficients.
This model has a log-level function form because housing value was transformed using
61
log. The coefficients in the model represent a semi-elastic relationship. As a rule of
thumb, it is common to interpret the standard coefficient as the proportion change in y,
given a unit change in x. This rule of thumb becomes distorted as the coefficient and/or
change in x becomes larger. The accurate coefficient conversion is calculated as: %!y =
100[exp("j!xj)-1. The converted coefficients are interpreted below.
The variable, distance to potential brownfield, has a coefficient 0.035. For every
1,000 feet closer to the nearest potential brownfield, home value decreases 3.5%. This
variable is significant at the 99% level, so H1 is rejected and it can be concluded there is a
negative effect on property value as the distance to a brownfield decreases, net of the
effects of other variables.
The variable, amount of potential brownfield parcels within a 500-foot radius, has
a coefficient of -0.037. For every additional potential brownfield within a 500-foot
radius, property value decreases by 3.7 %. This variable is significant at the 99%
confidence level, so H2 is rejected and it can be concluded that there is a negative effect
of property value as the amount of potential brownfield parcels within 500 feet increases,
net of the effects of other variables.
The variable, total acreage of potential brownfields within a 500-foot radius, has
a coefficient of -0.024. For every additional acre of potential brownfield within a 500foot radius, property value decreases by 2.4%. This variable is significant at the 99%
confidence level, so H3 is rejected and it can be concluded that there is a negative effect
on property value as the amount of potential brownfield acreage within a 500-foot radius
increases, net of the effects of other variables.
62
All the remaining variables in this model were also statistically significant at the
99% confidence level. Lot size (acres) has a coefficient of 0.069. There is a 6.9% increase
in property value for every acre increase in lot size. Number of bathrooms has a
coefficient of 0.208. There is a 20.8% increase in property value for every additional
bathroom. Number of bedrooms has a coefficient of 0.140. There is a 14% increase in
property value for every additional bedroom. Percent white has a coefficient of 0.004.
There is a 0.4% increase in property value for every percentage point increase in the
proportion of white people in the block group. Percent Unemployed has a coefficient of 0.0095. There is a 0.95% decrease in property value for every percentage point increase
in the proportion of unemployed residents in the block group. Income has a coefficient of
0.024. Property value increases 2.4% for every $1000 increase in the block group’s
median household income.
VI. Conclusions
This paper has provided an initial assessment of the visually identified potential
brownfields within the city of Roanoke’s nine brownfield corridors. This began with a
summary of federal and state brownfield policy and a short discussion on the importance
of brownfield identification, redevelopment, and the beneficial tools that are available.
The next section introduced Roanoke’s City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan. The
plan contains redevelopment goals and strategies, but does not identify specific
brownfield sites. The main effort of this paper was to conduct an initial visual inspection
of the nine corridors and identify potential brownfields. The results of these efforts were
cataloged using ArcGIS.
63
In total, 263 parcels, comprising 407 acres, were identified as potential
brownfields. Additionally, 219 parcels were identified with non-functioning structures.
Each corridor was mapped and the locations of identified potential brownfields were
analyzed using the “Citywide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan” and the neighborhood
plans.
Finally, a regression model was used to measure the effect the potential
brownfields have on residential property values. Three hypotheses related to brownfield
effect were tested. It was concluded that: Property value decreases as the distance from a
potential brownfield decreases; Property value decreases as the amount of potential
brownfield parcels within a 500-foot radius increases; Property value decreases as the
amount of potential brownfield acreage within a 500-foot radius increases. The results of
the regression model clearly demonstrate the negative impact potential brownfields in the
brownfield corridors have on property values.
The findings in this paper will hopefully serve as a useful reference for the city of
Roanoke as it continues its efforts regarding brownfield redevelopment. This inventory of
potential brownfields is neither certain nor definitive. However, until the time when
resources are available for a fully funded inventory, this preliminary inventory can
provide extra clarification to the conditions on the ground and help focus the resources of
future efforts concerning brownfield identification. The regression model quantitatively
demonstrates the negative effect potential brownfields have on surrounding residential
property values. These findings strengthen the argument for brownfield redevelopment.
The findings from this paper raise several issues for further consideration. When
the time comes for Roanoke to conduct an extensive inventory of brownfields, careful
64
decisions need to be made to determine what will pass for a brownfield. During the
course of the fieldwork, it became clear how fluid the definition of a brownfield is and
the high degree of interpretation it is susceptible to. The wide degree of parcel
characteristics among the various corridors allows for a wide range of brownfield
interpretation. For instance, the RCIT is included in the Statesman brownfield corridor.
These properties are very different from the junkyards and abandoned warehouses
located in the Shenandoah Avenue corridor. At worst, the RCIT contains a vacant
warehouse or manufacturing facility, relatively new and well maintained. Including these
properties in the brownfield corridor implies a less restrictive definition. If these types of
properties are potentially brownfields, then many more properties in this initial inventory
would be considered brownfields. It would be useful for Roanoke to set specific
parameters to the brownfield definition.
The distribution of brownfields among the corridors is not equal. Shenandoah,
West End, and the Western Roanoke River corridor contain many acres of potential
brownfields, while the Hollins and Williamson Road corridor contain relatively few
identified potential brownfields. The benefits of targeting the Williamson Road corridor
for redevelopment in this document should be weighed against the likely stigma
generated by labeling it a brownfield corridor, when the conditions on the ground do not
reflect the same risk of brownfield contamination as compared to areas like the former
American Viscose property.
The brownfield corridors are useful, initial tools. They prioritize redevelopment
and concentrate resources in areas of greatest need. Once a comprehensive inventory is
conducted, the usefulness of labeling these corridors will decrease. This is because the
65
corridor is not important, but rather the actual parcel and neighborhood that matters.
Once the corridors have been analyzed and the brownfields have been inventoried, the
focus should be on the actual parcels and the neighborhoods they make up. The CityWide Brownfield Plan is an important document and the policies and opportunities it
identifies are valuable planning tools. However, once an inventory has been completed
and the need for concentrating focus on the corridors is diminished, one suggestion would
be to reorganize the brownfield plan along the existing neighborhood boundaries, or to
incorporate the relevant brownfield sections into each corresponding neighborhood plan.
As a final word, brownfields typically are stigmatized. This paper has largely
focused on the negative effects of brownfields. But brownfields, if they are anything, are
opportunities. They are opportunities for reuse. They are opportunities for public/private
partnerships. They are opportunities for improving the community. Labeling a parcel
“brownfield” does not condemn it to issues of liability and financial ruin. Rather, it is just
the opposite. As was discussed in the first section of this paper, owners and redevelopers
can receive liability protections and grant funds to assess, clean, and redevelop the
property. Identifying a property as a brownfield is not a bad thing. Rather, labeling a
property a brownfield indicates it has great potential for future value. In this sense, being
a brownfield is a positive thing, and it is time to embrace the label, not stigmatize it.
66
Reference
Bucks County. (2004). Brownfields Inventory and US EPA Brownfields Pilot Summary
Report. 2.
Chilton, Kenneth. Peter Schwarz and Kenneth Godwin. (2002). Final Report Verifying
the Social, Environmental and Economic Promise of Brownfield Programs. EPA BFRES
04-02. 5-9.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. (2007). City-Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. (2003). Belmont-Fallon Neighborhood Plan. 34.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. (2005). Hollins/Wildwood Area Plan. 14, 48.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. (2003). Hurt Park/Mountain View/West End Neighborhood
Plan. 44-47.
City of Roanoke, Virginia. (2004). Williamson Road Area Plan. 44-47.
Hao, Huili. (2008). The Impacts of Brownfields on Property Values and Private
Investments in Charlottes, NC. Dissertation- NC State University.
Kaufman, Dennis and Norman Cloutier. 2006. The Impact of Small Brownfields and
Greenspaces on Residential Property Values. Journal of Real Estate, Finance, and
Economics, 33. 19-30.
Leigh, Nancey and Sarah Coffin. (2005). Modeling the Relationship among Brownfields,
Property Values, and Community Revitalization. Housing Policy Debate, 16(2). 257-280.
Michael Greenberg et al. (2001). Brownfield Redevelopment as a Smart Growth Option
in the United States. Environmentalist, 21(2). 129-143.
Noonan, Frank and Charles Vidich. (1992). Decision Analysis for Utilizing Hazardous
Waste Site Assessments in Real Estate Acquisition. Risk Analysis 12(2). 248.
Simons, Robert and Jesse Saginor. (2006). A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of
Environmental Contamination on Residential Real Estate Values. The Journal of Real
Estate Research, 28, 71-104.
U.S. EPA. (2009). Brownfields and Land Revitalization-About Brownfields.
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/about.htm
67
U.S. EPA. (2009). Brownfields and Land Revitalization-Brownfields Definition.
<http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm>
U.S. EPA. (2009). Brownfields/Revitalization General Brochure.
<http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview/09brochure.pdf
U.S. EPA. (2009). Building Vibrant Communities: Community Benefits of Land
Revitalization. < http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/policy/comben.pdf>
U.S. EPA-CERCLA Overview. June 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm
U.S. EPA.(May 2009). Petroleum Brownfields: Developing Inventories. 510-R-09-002.
14-15.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Roanoke
City, Virginia.
U.S. Census Bureau, Virginia Population of Counties by Decennial Census.
<http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/va190090.txt>
Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, H.R. 2869. Sec. 221223. <http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/laws/hr2869.htm#subtB>
VA Code §§ 10.1-1230 through 10.1-1237).
VA Department of Environmental Quality. (2004). Brownfields Manuel. 5-8.
<http://www.deq.state.va.us/brownfieldweb/>
68