P&Z Reworks Proposed Open Space Preservation Rules

By Andrew Gorosko

In response to criticism leveled recently by some developers at a set of proposed land use rules keyed to maximizing open space preservation in residential subdivisions, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members are reworking their regulatory proposal known as the “open space conservation subdivision (OSCS).”

The proposed OSCS rules would provide a regulatory mechanism to maximize the amount of undeveloped land that would be preserved as open space in certain future residential subdivisions. Under such a plan, individual single-family houses would be “clustered” on relatively small building lots on a site to maximize the amount of undeveloped open space that remains on the property. P&Z members have been discussing the OSCS concept for more than a year.

(See related story on revised open space regulations on Page 1).

In talks on April 15, P&Z members generally agreed that it should be a land developer’s decision whether a residential subdivision is built as an OSCS design, or developed as a conventional subdivision design. P&Z member Sten Wilson, however, took exception with allowing developers to make that decision.

Until now, P&Z members had wanted the P&Z to determine whether a subdivision should be developed as an OSCS project, or as a conventional subdivision.

On April 15, P&Z members also generally agreed that the P&Z should require more technical data from applicants for residential subdivisions, in order to create a better basis for judging the merits and drawbacks of a given application.

P&Z members, however, still disagree on several points.

They have yet to reach a consensus on establishing a regulatory formula that would be used to set the maximum number of dwellings that would be allowed in a given OSCS design.

Also, P&Z members have yet to agree about a so-called “density bonus” for OSCS projects. Such a density bonus would allow a developer to build some greater percentage of dwellings in an OSCS project than would be allowed in a conventional subdivision.

In March the P&Z conducted a public hearing on its OSCS proposal, which drew fire from some land developers and their agents for variety of reasons.

On April 15, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil observed that the basic criticism of OSCS development at the March public hearing concerned the P&Z’s proposal to require developers to submit dual sets of basic residential subdivision plans, which would set the basis for the P&Z deciding whether a given site should be developed as an OSCS design, or a conventional subdivision design. More detailed design planning would then follow.

Mr Wilson urged that OSCS subdivisions be subject to the P&Z’s “special exception” review process, under which the agency would have much control over the specifics of a subdivision’s design.

Mr O’Neil pointed out, though, that such a special exception requirement would create regulatory barriers for developers interested in pursuing an OSCS project, thus discouraging such projects from occurring.

P&Z member Robert Poulin said the P&Z should not have the right to decide whether a residential subdivision should be developed as an OSCS design or as a conventional project. He questioned the legality of allowing the P&Z to make such a decision, which could prompt successful court challenges.

Mr O’Neil said that land developers should be encouraged to informally meet with town land use officials to discuss their residential development concepts for a given site, before those developers submit a formal development application.

Stressing that the OSCS design’s intent is the protection of water resources and wildlife habitat, P&Z member Lilla Dean suggested that OSCS designs be the only designs that are allowed by the P&Z.

Density Bonus

Mr Poulin recommended that developers be provided with a “density bonus” as a financial incentive to create OSCS projects. The P&Z offers such density bonuses to encourage the development of age-restricted housing for people over age 55, and also for affordable housing. Density bonuses allow sites to be developed with more dwellings than would otherwise be allowed by an area’s underlying zoning designation.

Ms Dean said she would endorse creating a density bonus, if it would result in the passage of OSCS regulations. She added, though, that such a numerical bonus should be a relatively small bonus.

P&Z planning consultant Dick Harrall said that density bonuses appear to be a necessary component for maximizing open space preservation in residential subdivisions in the state.

Mr Wilson, however, opposed providing any density bonus.

Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker will provide P&Z members with statistical research on past residential growth patterns as a basis for discussing development density in OSCS designs.

P&Z members agreed that the OSCS rule proposal needs must be reworked to formulate a practical set of regulations, which would encourage maximum open space preservation in residential subdivisions.

Consequently, P&Z members formally withdrew the OSCS proposal that had been the subject of their March public hearing.

Another public hearing would air the reworked rule proposal that the panel will be formulating in the coming weeks.

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.