P&Z Reworks Open Space Protection Rules

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have revised their proposed land use regulations designed to maximize open space preservation, with an eye toward crafting a more workable set of rules to conserve the remaining undeveloped landscape.

At a May 6 session, P&Z members modified their proposed regulations, which had been the subject of a March 18 public hearing.

At that March meeting, some land developers and their agents had leveled a range of criticism at the proposed “open space conservation subdivision” (OSCS) rules, questioning the then-proposed rules’ practicality and effectiveness in maximizing open space preservation.

Changes to the proposed rules made on May 6 by the P&Z followed discussions on the regulations held on that day and on April 15.

Because the P&Z has withdrawn the rules proposal that it had submitted to the March 18 public hearing, the panel will now conduct another public hearing on its reworked version of the regulations. That hearing is slated for June 17.

P&Z members have been discussing creating such land use rules for more than a year, as the local landscape continues to be consumed by conventional single-family residential subdivision development. During the past 20 years, approximately 14,000 acres of vacant land, representing 36 percent of the town’s total land area, were developed as residential subdivisions. The community character of areas that were developed changed from “rural” to “suburban,” and the natural landscape and ecosystems of those areas significantly changed due to the grading of 2,700 house lots and the construction of miles of subdivision roads and stormwater drainage facilities.

The OSCS approach would allow large amounts of open space to be preserved at no cost to the town. The amount of land preserved would represent more acreage than the town likely would have the financial means to acquire.

OSCS development would “cluster” single-family houses on relatively small building lots on a development site to allow a relatively larger amount of undeveloped open space to be preserved on that site.

The P&Z recently increased the minimum percentage of open space to be preserved in a subdivision from 10 percent of the acreage to 15 percent, representing a 50 percent increase in the fraction of the land on a site that would be turned over to the town, or to a designated land trust, for passive or active forms of public recreation.

Specifics

Under the P&Z’s current OSCS proposal, a developer would determine whether he wants to pursue an OSCS design for a given subdivision, rather that a conventional design.

In the proposed rules that were submitted to the March 18 public hearing, developers would have been required to submit conceptual designs for both OSCS subdivisions and for conventional subdivisions for a given piece of property. Based on those designs, the P&Z would have decided which development approach should be used for that property. Detailed design planning would then have been formulated by the developer for the P&Z’s choice.

The P&Z’s ability to select the design approach for a given property was a major criticism leveled by developers at the March 18 hearing. The developers questioned the legality of providing the P&Z with that power.

The OSCS design approach is intended for sites of at least 20 acres, or at least eight building lots. P&Z members, however, would consider an OSCS development design for smaller projects, in certain cases.

The P&Z’s underlying goal for OSCS development is preserving up to 50 percent of a site as protected, preferably contiguous, open space land.

For example, if a 100-acre parcel were designed as an OSCS development, 50 acres would be set aside as open space land. Of that 50 acres, 15 acres would be designated as open space owned by the town, or by a land trust, and would be reserved for public use. The remaining 35 acres of open space would be privately owned undeveloped land, which may or may not be open for public use.

Density Bonus

Another key criticism of the OSCS rules, which was raised at the March 18 public hearing, focused on the OSCS rules not providing developers with any development “density bonus” for their site, if they agreed to pursue an OSCS design.

Under the initial OSCS rules proposal, the P&Z specified that developers be allowed to build only the number of dwellings that would be allowed by the property’s underlying zoning designation. Thus, the developer would not be allowed any “density bonus” or greater number of dwellings on the property as a financial incentive to build an OSCS development.

The P&Z currently offers such density bonuses to encourage the creation of elderly housing in EH-10 zones, and affordable housing in AHD zones.

On May 6, P&Z members discussed at length developing some numerical formula that would provide developers with a density bonus. Such a bonus would allow developers to build some greater number of dwellings on a site than would otherwise be allowed as a financial incentive to create OSCS developments.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil suggested that the incentive be a ten percent “sweetener.” Under such a plan, if the zoning on a site would allow 30 single-family dwellings to built there in a conventional subdivision, such an incentive would allow ten percent more, or 33 dwellings to be built there. Mr O’Neil said he expects a ten percent bonus would be a good incentive.

P&Z member Lilla Dean responded, “Ten percent seems like a lot, I think.”

P&Z member Robert Mulholland said he would not oppose a ten percent incentive, provided that the physical size of the houses would be limited by the land use regulations to prevent very large houses from being built.

Ms Dean then suggested a compromise. “Maybe it ought to be a graduated benefit,” she said, suggested a variable density bonus, depending upon the specifics of a project.

“That’s fine by me,” Mr O’Neil responded.

After further discussion, Mr O’Neil suggested a flat density bonus of seven percent, to which members agreed.

Under such a plan, if the zoning on a site would allow 30 dwellings to be built, the seven percent multiplier would raise that number to 32.1 dwellings.

Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker explained that the number of such bonus dwellings would be “rounded down,” resulting in 32 units.

Consequently, if a typical house in such an OSCS development were to sell for $500,000, then the density bonus would mean that 32 houses could be built, translating into an aggregate $16 million, instead of the $15 million that 30 houses would bring.

Developing a residential subdivision as an OSCS project would require two public hearings, the first of which would involve an applicant’s request for a special exception to the zoning regulations, at which the “conceptual” aspects of the project would be aired.

The second hearing would focus on the specifics of subdividing the parcel into smaller multiple building lots for individual single-family dwellings.

Big Houses

Mr Mulholland said he expects that developers would unfortunately seek to construct very large houses within OSCS subdivisions, resulting in those clustered buildings creating a physically crowded effect on the property.

“There’s a big market for high quality smaller homes,” he pointed out.

Mr O’Neil observed that builders will build the buildings that buyers are willing to buy.

“Given today’s [housing] market, I’m just very discouraged,” Ms Dean said of her hopes for OSCS development.

Mr Mulholland urged that the P&Z enact some regulations that would limit the size of houses.

Other P&Z members responded that such a regulation would likely be nullified by a successful court challenge.

Mr O’Neil suggested that the P&Z enact regulations that would establish proportional standards concerning house sizes versus lot sizes.

Of the need for explicitness in the rules, Ms Dean said, “We need to be as clear in these [OSCS] regulations as we can possibly be…We can’t lead people down the garden path.”

Ms Dean suggested that OSCS development be arrayed in wedge-shaped lots situated along a curving road, in which the narrower section of the wedge would be the road frontage for the lot.

Mr O’Neil observed that after some developer eventually builds an OSCS development, the P&Z may need to review the regulations to improve them. The OSCS proposal is based on various developmental assumptions being made by the P&Z, he said.

After the age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condominium complex was built on Walnut Tree Hill Road, the P&Z revisited its EH-10 regulations to make them more workable. Walnut Tree Village was the first large condo complex built under the EH-10 rules. When completed, the project will have 189 age-restricted dwellings.