Conservation Development Passes With Amendments

On August 31, in spite of a barrage of false claims and disinformation and an intense lobbying effort, the Town Council voted 3 to 2 to adopt the Residential Conservation Development Ordinance, an ordinance that now updates the town’s 34-year-old Cluster Ordinance’s rules regarding major residential subdivisions in Charlestown.

The false claims and disinformation gained traction when an attorney who regularly represents developers sent letters to property owners and a local newspaper and then members of a political group spread these false claims and disinformation on social media.

There were residents who spoke, and wrote, during the hearing against adoption of the ordinance. Even more residents expressed their opinions in favor of adopting the ordinance at the hearing and in correspondence with the Town Council. Among those opposed, most did not understand the provisions in the ordinance and were responding to disinformation disseminated by a political group.

The false claims and disinformation were refuted over the course of the public hearing until most people understood that land was not being “taken” from landowners or those who wished to develop large parcels of land.

During the hearing, the following facts were established:

• Owners and/or developers of large residential subdivisions can create the same number of lots as they could under the current cluster ordinance or as a conventional subdivision.
• Owners of land wishing to divide their property into fewer than 6 lots are unaffected, and individuals who own a single, smaller parcel of land are unaffected. The ordinance affects only developers of large parcels of residential land that is being subdivided into 6 or more lots.
• Provisions of the updated ordinance are in line with RI law, including state regulations regarding stormwater control and low impact development.
• Land designated as open space will remain forever as open space and will not be developed in the future.
• Those developing land continue to have the choice to divide their open space equally among all the lots in their subdivision or keep the open space in private ownership. Although RI law, and the town ordinance, provides those subdividing large parcels the opportunity to transfer their open space to a land trust or to the town for public use, this is a choice and definitely not required.
• Half-acre lots are not required, or even preferred. Subdivisions may contain lots of various lot sizes, and, on average, those subdividing large parcels will likely provide lots of more than an acre with access to significant open space. Owners do have the choice to propose lots as small as half an acre as they seek to protect the natural, historic, and cultural characteristics of their property. Flexibility to create a subdivision with differing lot sizes may also save them and the town money.

The old Cluster Ordinance has served the town well over the past 34 years, and its provisions remain. Clustering and conservation development, a type of cluster, move development away from wetlands and other sensitive areas and site development more thoughtfully. The update refines how that can be accomplished in discussions with applicants.

Conservation development is a proven approach to land development that is the single most effective tool that can be used to protect groundwater now and into the future, according to Scott Millar of GrowSmart RI and Lorraine Joubert, Director of Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials at URI, both of whom provided technical assistance through a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Town Planner Jane Weidman and the Planning Commission. The provisions of the updated ordinance clusters houses to provide increased protection for our groundwater, wetlands, ponds, forest and important wildlife areas—all without reducing development potential or land values.

It appears that some do not want any cluster zoning. Instead of proposing substantive changes to update the town’s existing cluster ordinance, they argued against provisions that have been part of an existing ordinance that was initially adopted 34 years ago. Moreover, some argued against any zoning controls at all, saying that they should be able to do whatever they want to do with their property, regardless of the impacts on their neighbors or the environment.

During the course of the hearing, amendments that clarified what the ordinance will and will not do were adopted. Most of the amendments were presented by Charlestown Town Planner, Jane Weidman.

One of the amendments Ms. Weidman submitted, which was adopted by the Town Council, reduced slightly the required amounts of open space. Because most developers will use the ordinance to reduce their developments’ footprints, and save both money and natural resources, even with the reduced open space requirements, the ordinance will be a positive step when compared to existing development practices. However, even with this change, Councilor Deb Carney and Councilor Grace Klinger voted against the ordinance.

On August 31, Ms. Carney also proposed a series of amendments that not only would have weakened the updated ordinance, but also would have resulted in much less environmental protection than that provided by the town’s existing cluster ordinance. One amendment proposed by Ms. Carney would have removed the requirement to cluster development in major subdivisions and would have turned aside 34 years of progress in protecting the resources the town depends on to protect its drinking water and the quality of life that taxpayers said in the recent town-wide survey they want.

Other amendments were not adopted. For example, a good amount of the discussion focused on the need to protect the open space as open space into the future. Ms. Carney proposed an amendment to remove the requirement that the open space be permanently protected with a conservation easement, because she said that there was supposedly opposition to the town holding easements. This amendment failed on a 3 to 2 vote with Ms. Carney and Ms. Klinger opposed to conservation easements and Councilors Cody Clarkin, Susan Cooper, and Bonnie Van Slyke in favor of continuing the long-standing practice of protecting preserved land from development with a conservation easement that can be enforced by an independent party.

Without an easement it would be much harder to enforce conditions that the land not be developed in the future. The town does not have to hold the easement. State law allows that the “developmental rights and other conservation easements on the land may be held, in perpetuity, by a nonprofit organization, the principal purpose of which is the conservation of open space or resource protection.”  Thus, a nonprofit organization such as Audubon, the Charlestown Land Trust, or The Nature Conservancy could hold an easement.

Ms. Carney’s amendments, if passed, would have put the interest of a very few who have the ability to do major subdivisions above the interests of the environment and taxpayers of our town. Adopting Ms. Carney’s amendments would have served a very small class of developers, such as the eight different land development corporations, all but one from outside Charlestown, that, in the last seven years have built eight major residential subdivisions in Charlestown.

The environmental and tax impacts of weakening the ordinance would have affected all the people of Charlestown and circumvented provisions that are meant to increase environmental protection, reduce long-term negative impacts to taxpayers, and at the same time, provide ways for those developing land to reduce their own costs.