Frances Topping: Charlestown Proposes Conservation Design
The following letter appeared in local newspapers and is reprinted here with permission of the author Frances Topping. Frances is Vice Chair of the Charlestown Planning Commission
On July 11 at 7 pm, the Charlestown Town Council will hold a public hearing to consider replacing the town’s current cluster design ordinance (mandatory for land development projects with more than five homes) with what is called Conservation Cluster Design (CCD). Conventional subdivision is still available for subdivisions of five lots or fewer.
The proposed ordinance allows greater flexibility. Several towns in Rhode Island have CCD ordinances that have worked well in these communities. Employing CCD protects resources more effectively, allows for and encourages a diversity of lot sizes and housing choices to accommodate a variety of age and income groups and residential preferences, while at the same time reducing the adverse impacts of development on the environment such as increased lawn fertilizer and runoff from impervious surfaces like driveways and roofs.
Additionally open space enhances mental and physical health, provides for wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, and wetlands. Although not everyone may agree about the value of such things, many do. In Charlestown we are reliant on our environment and who does not want clean air, clean water, and pleasant surroundings.
The difference would be how these homes could be arranged on the property, i.e. a property may be developed more sensitively by taking into account special features of a property. Whereas a subdivision is typically divided into approximately equal lots according to its zoning, this CCD emphasizes designing around natural and cultural features before setting lot sizes and placement. The number of homes that could be built on a parcel, however, would not change. The number would be determined using the same method as that used for many years. The result would protect public drinking water; more effectively plan for growth, protect farmland and open space, prevent sprawl and consolidate growth within the proposed development, and instead of cookie cutter subdivisions, there is variety, and instead of sprawl, there is cohesion.
There have been some who complain that there would be more open space required, and that is land “taken” from the developer. That is not what would happen. Rather, if there is flexibility in design and the overall foot print is smaller, there would remain more open space on a given parcel for its residents. An added benefit to the builder is that a more compact development can reduce construction costs.
The new ordinance would not prevent the building of more affordable houses. It could encourage them by allowing more flexibility and making the infrastructure less expensive for the developer. To be counted by the state as affordable, a house must be deed restricted, but a home need not be deed restricted to be affordable. For those preferring smaller lots with less upkeep having access to communal open space, a home in this type of development might be ideal. Some lots and homes might be larger. People have different needs.
This ordinance also would not affect any current applications done under current regulations.
Frances Topping
July 9, 2022 @ 9:09 am
Frances gives a persuasive argument for Conservation Cluster Design from the standpoint of the end product. That product results in economic efficiencies to both the homeowner and the developer. Let’s face it, when the developers are on board someone is saving money. Also, the resulting pattern(s) are often aesthetically pleasing as opposed to rank and file arrangement of houses. This is so important in some rural areas of the country that open spaces between structures are protected where necessary by adequate covenants, running with the land, conveyances, or dedications.
Moreover, I am impressed by the cooperative relationship between the developers and the public planners that assures independent initiative and evaluation. My wife and I moved here twenty years ago from a HOA development in Virginia that had many acres of common forested land. We enjoyed the plan so much, we retired to Charlestown which is similar in zoning and development planning.
July 7, 2022 @ 8:14 pm
From what I can see from the diagram these appear to be fairly small building lots similar to the 1/4 acre lots of years ago. The housing also appears to be somewhat crowded together. I don’t see this as a benefit to the home owner where his neighbor practically sits right on top of him. And by having community land that is for everyone’s use who would control this? Take care of lawn maintenance tree trimming ect. Also what if someone wants a sizable lot say 1-2 acres, what then. Overall this does not make a lot of sense to me.
July 8, 2022 @ 10:13 am
The diagram is showing existing subdivisions in Charlestown and those are probably one acre lots. Cluster has been mandatory for major subdivisions since 2000. All minor subdivisions, 5 or fewer lots, can still be developed as conventional large lot subdivisions. For lots in the R40 zone, there isn’t much change. The proposed zoning changes mainly apply to about 40 parcels in the R2A and R3A zones in Charlestown. Most new subdivisions in the R2A and R3A will be minor subdivisions. The current subdivisions on Hidden Meadows Road and Whispering Pines (both of these are off of Shannock Road) would be consistent or very nearly consistent with the zone changes, but developers would have the option to make the lots smaller or vary the sizes more and reduce road frontage. Making the roads shorter saves the developer money, but long term will save the town a lot of money in maintenance and eventual repair or replacement of the road. The common land is usually natural open space and doesn’t require a lot of maintenance, but just as in the current regulations, the maintenance is the responsibility of a homeowner’s association.