P&Z Seeks To Spur

Open Space Preservation

By Andrew Gorosko

At an August 11 session, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members discussed with a small group of realtors ways that the town could stimulate developmental interest in an existing set of local land use rules intended to maximize the amount of open space that would be preserved in certain residential subdivisions.

Although the Open Space Conservation Subdivision (OSCS) regulations have been in effect since August 2004, no developer has ever pursued a residential development project under the terms of those rules. The OSCS regulations are intended to curb suburban sprawl by “clustering” the houses that are built on a site, thus preserving adjacent contiguous open space areas.

“No one’s been interested in our [open space] conservation subdivision,” P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean told the three realtors who attended the P&Z meeting. The P&Z spent much time formulating the regulations, she noted.

In other towns in the region, such as Bethel and Woodbury, similar developmental designs have proven successful, she said. Perhaps the P&Z’s regulations, which allow such development, are flawed, she said.

P&Z members believe that the OSCS rules could have been used for the design of several local residential subdivisions, including the proposed Sherman Woods project off Sherman Street in Sandy Hook, Ms Dean said.

However, the Sherman Woods applicant was not interested in pursuing such an OSCS development design.

The Sherman Woods developer has an appeal pending in Danbury Superior Court over the Inland Wetlands Commission’s (IWC) October 2009 decision not to issue a wetlands permit for the proposed 38-lot development on a 158-acre parcel. The Sherman Woods developer never submitted a subdivision application to the P&Z, not having received an IWC approval for the project.

Marjorie Cramer, a Conservation Commission member, told P&Z members that the OSCS approach to maximizing open space preservation is the way that local residential development needs to proceed in the future. People who live in such developments quickly develop a “sense of community” due the clustered design of a project, she said.

P&Z member Dennis Bloom pointed out that OSCS development designs allow less roadway to be built. Also, the houses cost less money to build, he said. Mr Bloom said that a decade ago, he would have opposed such development, but he now strongly supports such growth.

P&Z member Robert Mulholland said that houses that would be built in an OSCS-design subdivision would not necessarily need to be smaller houses than the homes in conventional subdivisions.

Realtors

Realtor Carol French told P&Z members that many people who move to Newtown do so because the town is perceived as being less developed than other regional towns, thus retaining a sense of the “country.”

However, some potential new home buyers may perceive the presence of a large amount of open space in a subdivision as a liability, she said.

“We can’t build something that’s not going to sell,” she said, in questioning the salability of houses in an OSCS subdivision.

New houses that have been built in Newtown have tended to be larger houses in view of local land costs, she said. 

Of the OSCS approach, she said, “It’s sort of unproven…Who’s going to be the first to do it?”

“There has to be some real benefit to the homeowner,” said realtor Brian Hunter.

“What’s going to benefit the homeowner, as far as the product is concerned?” he asked.

Ms Dean said she does not believe that OSCS development would offer homeowners any particular tax benefits.

As the amount of local land remaining for development decreases, people then consider building homes on land that formerly would not be considered for such a use, she said.

If future residential development employs the conventional single-family residential subdivision designs that have been used here until now, such growth would alter the town’s character, she said.

Mr Hunter said, “[OSCS] sounds good, but it’s going to take a builder with some courage to do it.”

Realtor Bob Maurer said, “It’s great concept.”

The P&Z may need to seek out some out-of-town builder to pursue OSCS-style residential development here, he said.

Ms Dean said there are some large local farms that she expects eventually would be developed.

She suggested that OSCS development be marketed as having a low impact on the environment and as requiring low maintenance.

“I think that if somebody would do it, it would work, “ Mr Maurer said.

He noted that when developers are asked about pursuing such an alternative residential development approach, they respond that such growth has not occurred here in the past.

“I think it’s a great concept. I think it could work,” Mr Hunter said of the OSCS approach.

Although local land prices have dropped, there are not many new home buyers, Ms French noted.

Mr Mulholland said that builders simply have not reviewed the financial aspects of an OSCS approach to residential development. They should do so, he added.

P&Z member Rudolph Pozek said the P&Z should find a builder who has developed land in another community with open space preservation as a goal, so that they could discuss the topic with that builder.

Mr Hunter suggested that the P&Z contact academicians who could advise it on the topic.

It has been difficult for the P&Z to generate developmental interest in the OSCS approach to residential development, Mr Bloom noted.

The P&Z plans to hold a discussion session with builders/developers on OSCS development on September 20. Ms French suggested that engineering firms be invited to discuss the cost aspects of development.

 

OSCS Approach

The town’s conventional residential subdivision rules require that at least 15 percent of a subdivision’s area be designated as undeveloped open space land. The P&Z increased the minimum open space requirement for conventional subdivisions from ten percent to 15 percent of a project’s area in April 2004.

A conventional subdivision, which would be built on a hypothetical 100-acre site, thus needs to have at least 15 acres designated as open space.

By contrast, an OSCS project built on a 100-acre site would have 50 acres designated as open space.

In 2003, Harrall-Michalowski Associates, a planning consultancy, performed an extensive study for the P&Z on the workability of OSCS development in Newtown.

In August 2004, after nearly two years of consideration and revision, P&Z members unanimously approved both zoning and planning regulations that are intended to maximize the amount of undeveloped land that would be preserved in some new subdivisions of single-family houses.

The P&Z had mentioned the need for such regulations to preserve open space in its 1981 Town Plan of Conservation and Development.

In the P&Z’s paradigm for OSCS development, land in a subdivision would be categorized as three types of real estate: relatively compact, privately owned, individual single-family houses and their yards; public open space land that is open to the general public; and privately owned open space land that is open to the property owners in that subdivision.

The P&Z’s goal for an OSCS project is to keep one-half of the site from being developed. Thus, of a hypothetical 100-acre site, 50 acres would be used for home sites and roadways, 15 acres would be preserved as open space that is open to the general public, and the remaining 35 acres would be privately owned open space available for use by the subdivision’s property owners.

Such privately owned open space could be used as a location for large-scale septic systems for multiple houses in the subdivision, for community water systems, and for stormwater drainage systems.

OSCS development is intended for sites of at least 20 acres, or at least eight building lots. The regulations would be applicable to residentially zoned land which now has one-, two-, and three-acre zoning.

The regulations’ goal is to provide greater flexibility and creativity in residential development design with the goal of maximizing open space preservation.

Open space land in an OSCS development would be reserved for wildlife habitat, natural resource conservation, historic and archaeological preservation, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and recreation.