P&Z Open Space Proposal Draws Barbs And Praise

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) latest regulatory proposal intended to maximize the amount of open space land that would be preserved in some new subdivisions of single-family homes drew criticism and some plaudits at a June 17 public hearing.

The proposal is known as the “open space conservation subdivision (OSCS).” The P&Z’s underlying goal for OSCS development is preserving up to 50 percent of a residential subdivision site as undeveloped, protected, preferably contiguous, open space land.

P&Z members have been formulating their regulatory proposal for well over a year. They opted to modify a previous version of the open space rule proposal following a March public hearing, at which the concept drew fire from developers and their agents for a variety of reasons.

The OSCS regulations are designed to conserve the remaining undeveloped landscape in a town that formerly was largely agricultural. The town 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.

At the June 17 session, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil explained that a basic change that the P&Z made to the proposed rules after the March public hearing concerns who would decide whether an OSCS-style residential subdivision or a conventional large-lot subdivision would be the development approach for a given piece of land.

At the March session, the P&Z had proposed that it determine whether a project be built as an OSCS or conventional subdivision. But that proposal met with stiff opposition from developers and their agents. The P&Z now proposes that a developer decide whether to pursue OSCS design or a conventional design.

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 clustering of buildings is intended to preserve the unique natural features of a site.

The OSCS development 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.

The P&Z recently increased the minimum percentage of open space to be preserved in new subdivisions from 10 percent of the acreage to 15 percent, representing a 50 percent increase in the fraction of the land on a site that is turned over to the town, or to a designated land trust.

Under the current OSCS proposal, the area of a building lot must be at least ten times as large as the “footprint” of a house that sits on that lot. In other words, if the ground level dimensions of a house were 30 feet wide by 40 feet long, the building’s footprint would be 1,200 square feet. The area of the building lot, for example, would then have to be at least 12,000 square feet. 

Mr O’Neil said P&Z members are considering offering developers some type of “density bonus,” which would provide a financial incentive for them to build OSCS developments. A density bonus might allow a developer to create seven percent more dwelling units on a site than would otherwise be allowed by the zoning regulations, he said.

Also, the P&Z is considering allowing a proportionally greater number of “rear lots” in OSCS development than are allowed in conventional subdivisions, he said.

The P&Z also is considering modifying development standards as now dictated by the presence of steep slopes on a site.

Public Comment

Local builder and developer Kim Danziger offered his congratulations to P&Z members on their evolving OSCS proposal. The rule proposal is improving, he said. Mr Danziger has expressed interest in creating OSCS development.

Mr Danziger, however, pointed out certain inconsistencies that, he said, he found in the proposal.

He suggested that the P&Z allow a certain measure of “design flexibility” within the regulations. Doing so would foster “quality” open space in an OSCS subdivision, he said.

Resident James Lewis of 52 Mt Nebo Road said he opposes increasing open space requirements in new subdivisions, such as those included in the OSCS proposal. He instead suggested that fees be charged to developers to create a town fund that would be used to purchase desirable open space land. Buying such desirable land would be preferable to the town’s creating many small pieces of open space in subdivisions scattered across town, he said.

Mr O’Neil pointed out that the proposed OSCS rules are primarily intended for parcels of at least 20 acres, or at least eight building lots.

Mr Danziger urged that the P&Z enact some set of OSCS regulations simply to put such land use rules in force. After such rules are in place, it would become apparent which regulatory adjustments need to be made, he said.

Mr O’Neil said, “We’ll never be able to cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s” before approving a set of OSCS regulations. He added the P&Z should get some set of rules approved so that the rules can be tested.

Resident John Leibold of 7 Steck Drive said he opposes cluster-style development, such as would be allowed by the OSCS rules.

“That doesn’t look like Newtown to me,” he said.

The rules’ intent is to provide alternative types of residential development besides conventional subdivisions, Mr O’Neil responded. OSCS development would intentionally have a different appearance than conventional development, he said.

Noting that only three P&Z members were present at the June 17 session, P&Z member Lilla Dean suggested that the panel have more members present when discussing the OSCS rules. P&Z member Edward Kelleher also attended the meeting. The P&Z has five regular members and three alternate members.

Mr O’Neil decided to continue the public hearing on the OSCS proposal to some upcoming session. A larger P&Z panel would then discuss the proposal and act on it.

The proposed OSCS regulations cover both the zoning regulations and the planning regulations. OSCS development would require a “special exception” to the zoning regulations, as well as a subdivision approval under the planning regulations.

Such open space in an OSCS development would be preserved for the purposes of wildlife habitat, natural resource conservation, historic and archaeological preservation, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and recreation.

Copies of the 20-page OSCS proposal are available for review at the town land use office.