Open Space Residential Development Four Case Studies

FUNDED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

JULY 2000

Evan G. Belansky, Regional Planner

Stacey L. Justus, Environmental Planner

Four Case StudiesOpen Space Residential Development

A COMPONENT OF THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN PROJECT

CONDUCTED BY THE METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION

Though there have been volumes of text writtenabout cluster subdivision, and slightly more thanhalf of the 351 communities in Massachusettshave some type of cluster provision in their zoningbylaws, this method of development has beenlargely underutilized and has come to evoke nega-tive reactions from many residents. This does nothave to be the fate of the cluster principle.

The continued subdivision of land affects how ourbuilt environment is defined and perceived. His-torically, conventional approaches to subdivisiondevelopment have ultimately produced little morethan house lots and streets—a seamless blanketof wall-to-wall subdivisions with no open space.After several decades of this sprawling pattern ofdevelopment, communities have begun to experi-ence its ecological and economic consequences.Ironically, visionary conservationists and plan-ners had foresight and drafted the first “clusterzoning” provisions nearly 30 years ago. However,although these provisions promoted improvedresidentially designed development, rarely werethey realized. Communities continue to receiveconventional “cookie-cutter” layouts or clusterdevelopments that fall short of their promise.

As a response to the negative perception (andoften failure) of cluster subdivision, the Metro-politan Area Planning Council (MAPC), funded bythe Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,undertook this project to promote and enable theuse of Conservation Subdivision Design (CSD),arguably the best reform made to traditional clus-

ter-type zoning to date. By serving as an educa-tional tool particularly for Town planners, plan-ning boards, and developers this project is in-tended to elevate the use of this alternative landdevelopment technique to one that is commonlyaccepted and utilized.1

The three main components of the ConservationSubdivision Design Project are: 1) a detailedplanning discussion/commentary of the basicelements for consideration within a cluster-typeopen space subdivision bylaw; 2) a Model OpenSpace Residential Design/CSD Bylaw2 and ModelSubdivision Regulations, and; 3) this Casebook offour existing open space/cluster subdivisions inMassachusetts. The first two components areincluded in a booklet that is available fromMAPC.3 This Casebook is the third component.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose of this Casebook is to show,by example, attractive and profitable residentialsubdivision developments that also achieved thepreservation of resources of several Massachu-setts’ communities. This casebook presents localofficials, developers, landowners, homebuyers,activists, and others with positive examples ofcluster-type subdivision and the benefits of landdevelopment practices that consider environmen-tal, cultural, and fiscal resources as equally im-portant priorities.

Several myths and misperceptions about openspace/cluster development in Massachusettswere brought to MAPC’s attention during thecourse of this project. These myths include:

� Myth #1: Cluster/open space developmentsare not profitable for the developer.

� Myth #2: Cluster/open space developmentsare undesirable places to live and the homescannot and will not sell for as much as homesin conventional subdivisions.

� Myth #3: The land left undeveloped as openspace is not valuable land, rather it is noth-ing more than the left over, undevelopableland.

� Myth #4: The special permit requirement isan obstacle to the creation of cluster/openspace subdivisions in Massachusetts and nodeveloper will choose to build such a subdivision.

As a secondary purpose, it was our hope that thisCasebook would dispel these general myths andmisperceptions that pervade regarding cluster/open space developments.

PURPOFDDFFJSFSSSFSE

1 Randall Arendt is the author of this development techniqueand has written extensively about it. For sources of informa-tion refer to the List of References at the back of this document.

2 MAPC has been working collaboratively with the Green Neigh-borhoods Alliance on the creation of the model bylaw. GreenNeighborhoods Alliance is a group representing diverse land-use interests who have come together to promote CSD and towork for the preservation and protection of the North Shoreregion of Massachusetts. Contact Mass Audubon Society,North Shore Conservation Advocacy, for more information at(978) 927-1122.

3 Copies of The Conservation Subdivision Design Project areavailable from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council at(617) 451-2770, 60 Temple Place, 6th Floor,Boston, MA 02111.

THE CASES

Four examples are presented in this Casebook.Each utilizes photographs, site plans, and tablesof statistics to present the built environment ofeach development. The development process, asguided by the special permit, is also discussed.Parties involved in these developments wereasked specifically for an explanation of the realand perceived obstacles posed by the specialpermit requirement for cluster subdivisions inMassachusetts. As these cases explain, the spe-cial permit requirement did not stand out as anobstacle or hindrance to the development process.

Appendix A presents the Subdivision InformationForm created and utilized during the selectionand information gathering stages of this project.Based upon this questionnaire, several categoriesof information emerged and are discussed whereinformation was available, including financingand developer profit, home value and apprecia-tion, open space, and the special permit and de-velopment process. Additionally, there is a dis-cussion of unique aspects, such as affordablehousing in Amherst and wastewater in Acton.

The reader must keep in mind that while thecases presented here are indeed well-designedopen space/cluster subdivisions, none of themexplicitly utilized the Four-Step design processcharacteristic of Conservation Subdivision Designby Randall Arendt. However, each of the casesselected were truly representative of the cluster/open-space design model, where house lots arereduced from the requirements in the underlying

zoning district, but without any significant in-crease or decrease in the overall housing densityof the project.

This casebook simply presents four good ex-amples of existing alternatives to conventional“cookie cutter” subdivision design in Massachu-setts. MAPC does not claim that these four arethe best open space or cluster subdivision ex-amples in the state, only that they are notewor-thy and present well as case studies. In otherwords, they each have a lesson to teach us.

SUMMARY

This development achieved the following:

� preserved 74% of the parcel as open space;the majority as contiguous open space adja-cent to the Assabet River and the SuAsCoReservoir

� reduced the lot sizes from 50,000 to 15,000square feet

� eliminated lots abutting the Assabetriverfront area

� preserved an old stone “cow chase”

� maximized view sheds from several parcels

� reduced roadway from 2,453 feet (conven-tional plan) to 1,679 feet (open space plan)

� the landowners who sold their farmland forthis development retained two parcels on thenortheastern edge; one was the existingfarmhouse and barn which remain occupied

SUBDIVISION PROFILE

Original Concept Plan Engineer: FrancesZarette, P.E., Land Design, Inc., Shrewsbury, MA

Developer: Jon Delli Priscoli, Brigham Develop-ment Company, Marlborough, MA

Assabet EstatesWestborough, MassachusettsOpen Space Community

Total Parcel Lots/Units allowed Lots/Units allowed Lots/Units built Protected Openby Conventional Plan by Cluster Plan under Cluster Plan Space

32.6 acres 18 single family lots 18 single family lots 18 single family lots 24 acres (74%)(50,000 sq. ft. each) (8,000 sq. ft. min.; (15,000 sq. ft. each)

15,000 sq. ft. max.)

An old stone cow chase, historically used by farmers to lead cattle to water, was preserved in this open space commu-nity design and remains a prominent aesthetic feature.

Zoning: This parcel lies in the Residential ZoningDistrict and was developed as an Open SpaceCommunity (OSC). Under Westborough’s ZoningBylaw, Section 4300, any applicant with a pro-posal for the subdivision of land into a develop-ment with the potential to create more than sixresidential house lots on a property or set of con-tiguous properties in common ownership mustprepare and file an OSC Concept Plan. The appli-cation procedure is as follows:

1) Applicants submit Concept Plans for both anOSC and conventional design. At the first oftwo public hearings, the Planning Board willreview and shall decide which plan the devel-oper will build. If they are to build an OSC,the Board will grant the developer a SpecialPermit with conditions.

2) Applicants then proceed under SubdivisionRules & Regulations where they will submitPreliminary and Definitive Subdivision Plans.A public hearing will be held at which the De-finitive Plan will either be granted or denied.

Yield: Based on conventional yield—the totalnumber of lots shall not exceed the number oflots which could reasonably be expected to bedeveloped under a conventional plan in full con-formance with zoning, subdivision regulations,and health codes. The formula yielded 21 lots,however the maximum number of buildable lotswas 18.

Conservation tools: Open space will ultimatelybe owned and managed by a Homeowners Asso-ciation. As a condition of Definitive Plan approvalthe open space had to be placed under a Conser-

vation Restriction granted to the Town and ap-proved by the state Executive Office of Environ-mental Affairs.

Incentives: There are many in Westboroughincluding:

� OSC carries less rigorous requirements forroadways and lot sizes, which translate intoreduced infrastructure. In other words, thisdeveloper was required to do less construc-tion but could still build the same number oflots with the same size houses as those al-lowed in a conventional subdivision.

� Because the Special Permit is granted at theConcept Plan phase, developers are assuredthat they will be able to build and OSC beforethey invest significant time and money inhard engineering costs. This up-front permitprocess removes much of the uncertaintyfeared by many developers in other SpecialPermit processes.

� Because the Planning Board decides whenan OSC will be built, incentives to entice adeveloper to choose OSC are not necessary.In this case, this developer found that be-cause the Board favored this type of devel-opment it did work cooperatively with himthroughout the process.

AFFECTS ON THE DEVELOPERS’

PROFIT

According to Zarette, in Westborough and simi-larly priced communities, where the land valuesare high the cost to lay infrastructure becomes

insignificant primarily because prices charged forthe lot and house can be high enough to coverany infrastructure costs. Faced with this sce-nario, reduced infrastructure costs alone wouldnot have been enough of an incentive for him tobuild a cluster (if profit was indeed the only moti-vation). The decision itself was not an issue how-ever, as the OSC design was chosen by the Plan-ning Board.

Developer Jon Delli Priscoli, who completedZarette’s design and was responsible for the per-mitting and building of this OSC, commented thatthe price of land is what really drives this and alldevelopment. Because this land was so expen-sive, every little bit of saving in infrastructurewas certainly a help to his profit margin. Infra-structure savings did result from reduced roadlength and width, and reduced requirements fortwo-side sidewalks and street lighting. Becauseall lots are served by town water and sewer andthe roadway to service the homes was shorterthere were also savings in the associated shorterdistances to run these pipes.

HOME VALUE AND APPRECIATION

According to the Westborough Assessors officelots in an OSC (at 15,000 sq. ft.) are assessedmarginally the same as conventional size lots (at50,000 sq. ft). The assessors believe this to bereasonable because the market does bear thesmaller lots—the fact in Westborough is thatpeople pay the same amount of money for a simi-larly sized home on a 15,000 as they would on a50,000 sq. ft. lot. Simply put, one lot equals one

Surface Waters

100-Year Floodplain

Wetlands

WATER RESOUCES MAPSurface Water, Flood Hazard Areas and Wetlands

Town of Westborough, MassachusettsJanuary 1994

LEGEND

SuAsCoFLOOD CONTROL

PROJECT

lot, regardless of its size. The bottom line is thateach is only one buildable lot on which the sameone house could be built, and reduced lot sizes inan OSC do not significantly diminish the as-sessed value of the property.

While a 15,000 square foot lot (land only) is as-sessed at approximately $121,000 a comparableconventional subdivision lot will be assessed atapproximately $126,000. There is an added valueof 25% for lots with a water view, however thevalue of open space proximity is not somethingthat the assessors factor into their valuation.According to Assistant Assessor Joseph Wisboro,open space value is hard to quantify, however, hebelieves that it is most likely a factor in the deci-sion of the homebuyer.

The median square footage of Assabet Estates’houses is around 3,200. Four of the eighteenhomes were originally purchased in 1996 andthen resold in 1998—all reaped reasonable re-sale values (see table above).

OPEN SPACE

Seventy-four percent (74%), or 24 acres, of thisparcel is preserved in perpetuity as open spacewith the potential for passive recreation use only.

Both the Special Permit decision andDefinitive Subdivision approval specifiedthat a Conservation Restriction shall beplaced on the open space and granted tothe town prior to the release of lots forbuilding purposes. A Homeowners Asso-ciation was formed to ultimately care forand maintain the open space. To date, it

is still owned by the developer with plans to re-lease the land when the Town accepts the road-ways. According to the town, there is still road-work that must be done prior to acceptance.

All of the open space lies adjacent or connects tothe SuAsCo Flood Control Project, a lake knownlocally as Mill Pond (the headwaters of theAssabet River). The Assabet flows north from

Mill Pond and along the eastern border of thisparcel. Historically, the land adjacent to theAssabet Estates parcel was wetland. Ultimately,the River was dammed in the name of flood controland many historical parcels now lie under water.

The Planning Board’s review of the OSC ConceptPlan stated that the “six houses on the end of the

Square Bought in 1996 Sold in 1998footage (nearest 1,000) for: (nearest 1,000) for:

2,954 $289,000 $378,000

2,938 $289,000 $365,000

2,745 $250,000 $366,000

3,397 $255,000 $359,000

Existing Homes

LOT A:occupied by former owner

LOT B:occupied by former owner

ExistingHome

ExistingHomes

26

27

Land owned and protected by theCommonwealth of Massachusetts

Assabe

tR

iver

The Water Resources Mapshows the location of thissubdivision in relation tosurrounding wetlands andwaterbodies (parcel furtherdetailed above). All of thehouses in this OSC weresited outside of the river andponds’ 100-year flood plain.The assessors parcel mapshows a closer look at thelayout of the house lotswithin the parcel boundaries.

short cul-de-sac are set smack in the middle ofthe open field, in effect breaking up the continu-ity of the field and altering one of the property’sprime open space attributes.” As a response tothis the developer drew the houses away fromthe center of the field and also moved two lotsout of the open space to become as-of-right lotson the edge of the property. The result is not onlyvisual retention, but actual integrity of the origi-nal field. The developer stated that it was hiswish to leave the field “raw” and intact while stillaccommodating the allowed development poten-tial of the parcel.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Prior to development this parcel was a farm. Thefarmers who sold the land to become Assabet

Estates remain today in the original farmhouseand barn. The developed land consisted of whatwas historically a hay field, meadows, and a for-ested area containing wetlands.

The farmers hired Frances Zarette, who designedthe original Concept Plan and took care to pre-serve and respect the character of the parcel. Itwas not possible to preserve the entire field andmeadow area from development because the for-ested area contained too much wetland. Zarette’sprocess for creating this concept plan consistedof several steps. First, walking the land and cre-ating an inventory of existing conditions. Second,locating pockets of land where houses would bestfit. Finally, laying the roads to serve the “pocketsof houses.” Without his knowing it, Zarettes’steps are similar to those of the four-step conser-vation subdivision design process coined by

The open space has been left in its natural state, much of it as wild meadowland. Here themeadow abuts the road that separates the two cul-de-sacs and is home to a resident fox.

When entering Assabet Estates the dominant view is of the edge of the preserved meadowand the Mill Pond (SuAsCo Flood Control Project) beyond, not of the houses.

Randall Arendt (See List of References).

Working off of Zarette’s original design, Jon DelliPriscoli took over as project developer in theearly stages and saw the project through theentire approval and permitting process. He com-pleted all infrastructure and built 50% of theallowed homes, then sold the remaining finishedlots to another builder.

APPROVAL TIME FRAME

� January 1993: Concept Plan submitted con-sisting of the Conventional and Open SpaceCommunity designs

� March 1993: Public Hearing initially held onAssabet Concept Plan (continued twice)

� May 1993: Special Permit for Assabet Es-

tates Open Space Community granted withconditions

� October 1993: Application for PreliminarySubdivision Plan received by Town

� January 1994: Submission of Definitive Sub-division Plan by developer

� March 1994: PublicHearing held (contin-ued until later thesame month) andPlanning Board ap-proved the DefinitiveSubdivision Plan withconditions

SPECIAL PERMIT

It is mandatory inWestborough to file aConcept Plan upon whichthe Planning Board willdecide whether a develop-ment will be built accord-ing to the conventional or open space designplan. In this case, the Board determined thatAssabet Estates would be an Open Space Com-munity and so granted a Special Permit. Ap-proval language indicated that “the developmentof this property as an OSC would be more benefi-cial to the Town than would likely be the caseunder conventional subdivision.” According tothe Board, the conventional plan “layout unnec-

essarily impact[ed] wetland resources, particu-larly in light of the fact that there [were] otheroptions available for lot design and routing roadsmore effectively.”

The Special Permit was granted with severalconditions, including:

� lot density, street layout, sewer, water, drain-age, and other design details to all be deter-

This OSC included two as-of-right lots on an existingpublic way. From the rear of one of these lots there is aclear view across the meadow to Mill Pond.

The view from the open space at the edge of Mill Pond looking toward the houses clus-tered on Edward Dunn Way (those located closest to the water’s edge) does not revealthe houses themselves, rather the edge of the pre-existing forest.

Requirement: Waiver granted:

Sidewalks installed on both sides of proposed installation of sidewalks on only one side ofroadways proposed roadway

Road width – 26 feet 24 feet allowed

Street lights at intersections, curves, and cul-de-sacs installation of a street light only at the intersectionof Fisher Street and Assabet Drive; a light baseand hook-up provided in the west cul-de-sac

SUBDIVISION AND BYLAW WAIVERS

mined during the forthcoming Preliminaryand Definitive Plan approvals;

� the open space parcel shall be placed under aConservation Restriction.

After receiving a Special Permit Delli Priscolithen proceeded with the Preliminary and Defini-tive Subdivision Approval processes. The processtook approximately six months from October 1993to March 1994—not an unreasonable amount oftime according to this developer. He also charac-terized Westborough as neither easy nor unrea-sonable to deal with, rather in his opinion the de-velopment process was “reasonable.”

LESSONS LEARNED/FURTHER

CONSIDERATIONS

Consider a cluster-type bylaw, such as Westbor-oughs’ OSC, that allows the same yield as it

Roads are 24' wide; granite curbing was unnecessary and therefore not required.Several stone walls were preserved by this design. At the time this report waswritten, the developers’ obligations to the roadways were not yet completed.

would on the parcel developed un-der a conventional by-law (in otherwords, it precludes a density bo-nus). An important question be-comes how alternative versus con-ventional development affects adevelopers’ profit. There are a fewscenarios under which a developercan achieve equivalent profit foreither design:

1. the houses in the OSC must becomparable in selling price tothose in a conventional development;

2. if houses in the OSC commanda lower price tag then they would if in con-ventional style development, then infrastruc-ture reductions (and other cost savings) inthe OSC must result in enough savings tocover that loss; or,

3. some combination of lower priced houses inthe OSC with infrastructure savings can yieldan equivalent profit.

It stands to reason that if, for example, homes inan OSC sell for the same amount as in a conven-tional and the developer saved money from infra-structure reductions, that the OSC will actuallyyield higher profits than could a conventionaldevelopment. In this case study large, expensivehomes were built on smaller, clustered lots andthe developer saved money due to reduced infra-structure requirements. It was likely that thisOSC was actually more profitable than a conven-tional development could have been. (The price

paid for the land was a constant—the land waspurchased prior to the decision of the PlanningBoard to chose either an OSC or conventionaldevelopment plan.)

Evidence of developer cost savings can be foundin a study that compared conventional subdivi-sion with well-planned, cluster-type projects. In astudy for the National Association of Homebuild-ers, Sanford Goodkin compared costs associatedwith site development (clearing, grading, paving,drainage, landscaping, etc.) for a conventionalplan and a cluster plan and concluded that thecluster approach saved the developer money,costing 34% less (See List of References).

Cluster developments are often categoricallycriticized as resulting in lower-valued homes thatwill not yield a reasonable return of investment.Assabet Estates dispels this myth. Its homeshave a comparable, if not higher, assessed valueand sales price than similar homes inWestborough. In 1990, Jeff Lacy examined mar-ket appreciation rates in Amherst and Concord,Massachusetts, for conventional housing devel-opment versus clustered housing with perma-nently protected open space and showed that thelatter resulted in a higher rate of return on in-vestment (See List of References).

SUMMARY


� use of a central private waste watertreatment plant

� incorporation of Exclusive Use Areas

� created affordable housing (foursingle-family homes)

� provided a variety of house lots sizedfrom approximately ¼ to one acre

� added open space with trail connec-tions to existing open space

SUBDIVISION PROFILE

Developer: Ronald Peabody, NorthwestDevelopment, Acton Massachusetts

Zoning: The Bellows Farm subdivisionwas approved as a Planned ConservationResidential Community (PCRC). Basedupon final approvals (see DevelopmentProcess), Phases I, II and III are locatedwithin the PCRC zoning district and inZone 3 & 4 of the Groundwater Protec-tion Overlay District. Phase IV, as re-vised, is located partially within thePCRC zoning district and within the


235 acres 235 units 177 attached 2 117 3-4 bedroom homes Minimum of 60% ofbedroom Town Homes /351 total bedrooms total parcel required/354 total bedrooms Minimum = 141.51

Provided = 154.07

Bellows Farm Subdivision as built including open space,Briar Brook Village Condos, The Arbors Town Housesand Bellows Farm single family homes.

Bellows FarmActon, MassachusettsOpen Space and Landscape Preservation Development

R-10/8 residential zoning district. The portionwithin the R-10/8 district is also located in Sub-district A of the Affordable Housing OverlayDistrict.

Yield: According to the 1982 PCRC bylaw, themaximum number of dwelling units permitted shallbe the number obtained by dividing the total area ofthe tract including the open space by one acre.

Conservation tools: Approximately 154 acreswere preserved as open space of which 130 wereconveyed to the Town of Acton in the care of theConservation Commission as open space. Ap-proximately 24 acres are owned and managed bythe Home Owners Association.

FINANCING

Bellows Farm is one cluster type development ina portfolio among others. Although the ability toobtain financing is not problematic due to North-west Development’s track record, Mr. Peabodystated that it was achieved with a significanttime investment. Many of the concepts regardingcluster type developments such as reduced lotsizes, shared amenities and legal entities andstructures are unique and due to their unconven-tional nature generally do not receive the samelevel of attention as conventional subdivisiondevelopment. Mr. Peabody continued by statingthat the real estate industry as a whole, includ-ing brokers, lenders and developers are generallynot knowledgeable about the basic concepts ofcluster type development; and therefore it is of-ten perceived as risky.

reasonable explanation for the significant saleprice difference may be related to the totalsquare footage of Effective Floor Area (EFA),which is defined as all space, both finished andunfinished. #14 had 2,089 EFA while # 12 had2,685 and # 10 had 3084.

The second and third lowest sale prices werelocated at #1 and #10 Winding Wood Lane. #1had an EFA of 2,625 and #10 2,559, both ofwhich comparable to higher priced units. Anexplanation for the price difference may be re-lated to the specific location and lot size.

Within Bellows Farm Phase II, the single familyhomes were built in 1998. Along LongmeadowWay, sale prices ranged from 393,257 to499,162. The lowest sale price of 393,257 was#22 with 2,906 sq .ft of living area, the first lotand located along the main interior road. Thetwo highest were #7 at 471,335 with 2,937 sq.ft. of living space and #10 with 2,778 sq. ft. ofliving space. Again, it seems as though sale

AFFORDABLE UNITS

During the Phase II, III and IV Special permitand Definitive Subdivision Approval Process, theproponent proposed a voluntary affordable hous-ing contribution consisting a four dwelling unitswith a maximum sales price of $94,500 and onedwelling unit with a maximum sales price of$120,000. These units were proposed to besmaller (1,500 to 1,800 sq. ft. and 2-3 bedrooms)than the market rate units (1,900 to 2,300 sq. ft.and 3 bedrooms). Ultimately, the developer pur-chased five existing homes for rehabilitation andconstructed one new home. These units wereprovided off site according to the Local InitiativeProgram (LIP) guidelines.


The Arbors, the Phase I town house componentwas built in 1988 and 1996. Based upon asses-sor databases units along BlueHeron Way and Winding WoodLane, built between 1995-1996,had sale prices ranging from232,000 to 388,153 between1996-1997. The lowest saleprice of 232,000 was BlueHeron Way #14. The two high-est sale prices were #10 and#12 Blue Heron Way. Basedupon similar locations at theend of a cul-de-sac and beingcorner or end units, the only

Townhouses along Blue Heron Way.

price is somewhat influenced by location. How-ever, it is interesting to point out that the spe-cific size of a lot may not be as much of a deter-mining factor. For example, unit #10, having thehighest sale price of 499,162 is located on a30,666 sq .ft. lot while #8 with a sale price of452,380, 2,778 sq. ft. of living area is located ona 40,946 sq. ft. lot.

Mr. Peabody noted that cluster type develop-ments are frequently appraised for less than con-ventional subdivision development, however thisis often due to a comparison with condominiumtype development rather than single ownership.In the case of Bellows Farm, particularly it’sincorporation of Exclusive Use Areas (EUA seebelow), Northwest Development felt as thoughthis comparison was not appropriate and resultedin a diminished appraisal and ultimately a dimin-ished value. Therefore, with the understandingthat a comparison did not exist, Northwest Devel-opment proposed that the units be appraised and

the value determined by comparison tounits within the development. North-west Development and the Assessor’soffice worked cooperatively to imple-ment this work plan.

OPEN SPACE

The northern and northeastern bound-ary of the parcel lies adjacent to theTown of Acton’s Nashoba Brook Con-servation Area. According to the origi-nal Subdivision Master Plan approvalin 1986, approximately 119 acres com-

prising the northern most portion of the parcelwas conveyed to the Town of Acton in 1987 asConservation /OpenSpace Donation. Inaddition, the origi-nal approval placeda condition that anaccess easementshall be providedfrom Davis Roadto the conservationproperty.

According to thePhase II, III and IVrevised approval in1995, The Conserva-tion / Open SpaceDonation did notalone comprise theminimum openspace area of 60%

as required in the Bylaw. Therefore, the recordstated that Planning Board assumed that docu-mentation was presented during the 1986 permitprocess, showing additional open space withinthe construction Phases II, III and IV to meet the60% requirement. During the approval of therevised Phase IV, a condition requiring a secondpoint of access to the Town conservation landand a 4 car gravel parking lot at the end of BriarHill Road was included.

Although the 1982 PCRC bylaw did not regulatethe quality of the common open space as it re-lates the % of wetlands, this issue was reevalu-ated as part of the Phase IV revised permit pro-cess in which the revised PCRC bylaw of 1997contained a new provision stating “the minimum

Single family homes along Longmeadow Way.

The central community open space area consists of a club house, in-ground pool (on right),tennis courts (on left) and an open field as seen in the foreground.

required area of the Common land shall not con-tain a greater percentage of wetlands than thepercentage of wetlands found in the overall tractof land on which the PCRC is located”. Basedupon this provision, it was calculated that theoverall tract contained 31 acres of wetlands or14.25%. Therefore, of the minimum 141 acresprovided as common open space, 123.27 acreswas upland resulting in a total of 17 acres or12% classified as wetlands. The remaining 17acres of wetlands was incorporated into the openspace along with an additional voluntary increaseof 13 acres within the residential development.

According to the Master Deed governing BellowsFarm, that open space shall be used for a combi-nation of the following: passive recreation, drain-age and utility easements, conservation pur-poses, storm water drainage and active recre-ation including a pool, tennis courts, sports com-plex and ancillary parking.

TREATMENT PLANT

The entire Bellows Farm development, both theArbors town houses and Bellows Farm singlefamily lots, in addition to the adjacent BriarBrook apartment complex all share one commonwaste water treatment plant. Massachusetts lawrequires that there be only one owner of a commontreatment plant, however there were actuallythree distinct condominium associations involved.The Arbors, Bellows Farm and Briar Brook condoassociations created a joint association, FarmBrook Trust which would, in name, be the ownerof their common wastewater treatment plant.

The plant was originally constructed in the late1970s to serve the Briar Brook apartments only;they generated over 10,000 gallons per day (gpd)of sub-surface discharge therefore requiringtreatment according to 314 C.M.R. 5, (the Mas-sachusetts Discharge Permit Program). Becausethe soils were not conducive for on-site septicsystems, the developer of Bellows Farm proposedto connect to the Briar Brook treatment plant.The Arbors development was connected, and thecapacity of the treatment plant was increased to60,000 gpd. Recently the capacity was increasedagain to 120,000 gpd to serve the remainder ofthe single family homes.

The permit process involved both the local Boardof Health and the Massachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection. According to DougHalley, Health Inspector, the treatment plant ismaintained and operated by a private engineeringfirm. The operator is requiredto submit monthly reports toboth the local Board ofHealth and the Departmentof Environmental Protection.The report includes waterquality testing of the dis-charge and groundwatermonitoring samples. TheTown of Acton established anenterprise fund in which feesare charged for treatmentplants that are then used fortown personal for oversightof the individual plants ratherthan using local tax revenues.

EXCLUSIVE USE AREAS

Although all the units within Bellows Farm areserved by a central sewer treatment plant andare part of a condominium, each dwelling unit isprovided with an Exclusive Use Area (EUA). Asdefined in the Master Deed, a EUA has the samemeaning as the word “lot.” It is further definedas the exclusive right and easement for the use ofso much of the condominium land being shown asa separate lot or parcel of land bearing the samenumber identical to the Unit. Each dwelling hasthe responsibility for the upkeep and mainte-nance of all entrances, patios, decks, walks,stairs, driveways, parking areas, lawns, plantings,shrubs, recreational facilities, conduits, ducts,pipes, wires, meter area and other installationsand facilities of every kind being situated on theunit’s lot including the roof. Mr. Peabody indi-

An example of an EUA including private recreational amenities and landscaping,being utilized by the condo owner in the same manner as a privately owned backyard.

cated that a major advantage of EUA’s is that iteliminates liability for the condominium associa-tion of individual septic systems.

Mr. Peabody also stated that the incorporation ofEUA’s has been a helpful marketing tool. Market-ing materials reference the EUA’s as a means ofenjoying the privacy of an individual lot with all ofthe benefits associated with community amenities.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The development process for Bellows Farm con-sisted of two different developers. Keystone As-sociates, Inc., the original proponent, went bank-rupt. Northwest Development purchased theproperty and submitted revised plans.

Approval Time Frame

� May 1982: Town Meeting approved rezoningof 237 acres as an R-4 District authorizingthe Planning Board to hear an application fora Special Permit pursuant to “Planned Con-servation Residential Community” bylaw.

� July 1986: Keystone Associates Inc. submit-ted Special Permit application and DefinitiveSubdivision Plan for the creation of Phase Iand approval of a Master Plan for a 4 phaseresidential development.

� December 1986: Special Permit and Defini-tive Subdivision approval granted for Phase Iconsisting of 60 Town Houses with a maxi-mum of 150 bedrooms and 177 Town Houseswith a maximum of 354 bedrooms for theremaining Phases II, III, and IV.

� May 1995: Northwest Development submitsrevised Special permit application and Defini-tive Subdivision Plan for Phases II, III and IV.

� May 1995: Planning Board opens publichearings.

� July 1995: Planning Board closes publichearings.

� August 1995: Special Permit and DefinitiveSubdivision approval granted for revisedPhase II, III and IV consisting of 117 singlefamily units with a maximum of 351 bedrooms.

� April 1997: Northwest Development submitsrevised Special Permit application and Defini-tive Subdivision Plan for Phase IV.

� July 1997: Planning Board opens public hearing.

� September 1997: Planning Board closespublic hearing.

� October 1997: Special permit and DefinitiveSubdivision approval granted for revisedPhase IV consisting of a land swap of 24acres between the Proponent and an adjacentproperty owner.

SPECIAL PERMIT

Although Northwest Development only gainedapproval for a revised Phase II,III and IV of Bel-lows Farm, Mr. Peabody did submit several gen-eral observations regarding the review and ap

Requirement: Waiver granted:PHASE I:

� Maximum 500' cul-de-sac � 3,100' long Bellows Farm Road approved.

� Two access points be provided for every 60 units � Allowed a single access at Davis Road, atemporary cul-de-sac.

� Standard paved width of 26' � Allowed 24' paved width

� Display all existing vegetation to be preserved � Waived due to large areas of undisturbed landand limits of disturbance. (donation areas) and selective thinning would be

determined in the field.

PHASE II, III AND IV (REVISED):

� 5.3 cfs peak runoff in watershed area � Waiver granted to increase peak runoff in watershed area to 7.1 cfs.

� sub-drains � Waiver to allow for open drainage trenches andswales

� Maximum l,500’ length for a single access street � Longer single access street approved by the PBin 1987

� Maximum of 40 units on a cul-de-sac � Greater number of units approved by PB in 1987.


Common driveway approximately 12-14 feet in width serving 5 homes.

proval process. Mr. Peabody acknowledged theinherent concerns with the special permit re-quirement such as vague and cumbersome regu-lations, discretionary nature and the potential fora lengthy public hearing process. In addition hestated extractions, essentially impact fees, fromthe developer are common under the special per-mit process. Furthermore, as the regulationsbecome increasingly more restrictive and manyBoards lack the same level of sophistication,Mr. Peabody believes it is essential that the localboards have professional staff for technical ad-vice. With that stated, Mr. Peabody emphasizedthe need for the developer and the local Boardsto enter a give-and-take negotiation in good faith.

Infrastructure savings resulted from the waiversgranted to the PCRC Bylaw and the SubdivisionRegulations as outlined above. Furthermore, as

clarified in the revisedPhases II, II and IV approval,the common drives servingthe housing clusters offDavis, Bellows Farm andBriar Roads were deemed tobe accessory to the singlefamily uses and thereforewere exempt from the Subdi-vision Regulations. The waysserve as private common drive-ways serving limited numberof homes.

LESSONS LEARNED

Based upon experience, Mr.Peabody stated that local regulations have be-come increasingly more restrictive and cumber-some and extractions or “impact fees” are fairlycommon practice within the special permit pro-cess. Mr. Peabody, however, is quick to point outthat although these two factors are significantdisincentives compared to the conventional by-right process, developers who have committed tobuilding cluster type developments, whether forpersonal or business reasons, understand theinnate pros and cons of the process.

Mr. Peabody believes that professional develop-ers aware of the pros and cons, who choose vol-untarily to enter the special permit process, ex-pect to participate in good faith give-and-takenegotiations. Finally, Mr. Peabody strongly be-lieves that local Permit Granting Authorities thathave professional staff, such as planners, signifi-

cantly improve the process and the quality of thefinal product.

This case study identified two unique elementsthat made Bellows Farm successful. The use ofa common wastewater treatment plant can notonly result in improved environmental protection,but it allows for increased design flexibility. Asseen in this case study, there are certain legalissues that need to be addressed, but they are man-ageable. In addition, if the Department of Envi-ronmental Protection (DEP) oversees the moni-toring of systems, it is seen as a means of reduc-ing a local board’s staff time and costs associatedwith inspecting individual septic systems.

For extensive information on Title 5 (includingon-site shared systems and alternatives to Title5 systems that are approved for use in Massachu-setts) please refer to the DEP’s web page atwww.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/t5pubs.htm, orcontact:

Steven Corr, Environmental EngineerInnovative Alternative Technologies Program617.292.5920

This subdivision’s establishment of Exclusive UseAreas is an innovative and unique method forproviding individual lots with all of the amenitiestypically associated with a condominium. Thepromotion of the EUAs in marketing materials forthis subdivision was beneficial to the developer.

SUMMARY


� preserved and restored an old farmhouse

� created affordable housing (4 single-family homes)

� provided a variety of house lots sized fromapproximately one-half to two acres

� minimized curb-cuts on a heavily traveledsecondary road by utilizing common driveways

� maximized view-sheds from several parcels

� provided infiltrating catch basins to protectfarmland at the bottom of the hill fromunnecessary stormwater runoff

� enabled design creativity through reducedfrontage and flag lots

� preserved contiguous open space and createdtrail connections from the subdivision to anexisting network of trails

SUBDIVISION PROFILE

Developer: Ronald J. LaVerdiere, Amherst, Mass.

Zoning: The Canterbury Farms cluster subdivi-sion was developed on 26.1-acre parcel of whichapproximately 23 acres are located within theAquifer Recharge Protection overly district and3.1 acres are within the Watershed Protection

Total Parcel Protected Open Space Lots/Units allowed Lots/Units allowed Lots/Units builtby Conventional Plan by Cluster Plan under Cluster Plan

26.1 acres 9.2 acres (35.2%) prohibited 13 lots/19 units 15 lots (ranging from ½ to2 acre lots; four affordable)

The developer promoted the Holyoke Range State Park connection in his marketing materials which included this trailmap showing the subdivisions’ connection and access to the Park.

Canterbury FarmsAmherst, MassachusettsCluster Subdivision

overlay district. Because the parcel lies withinthese Resource Protection Overlay Districts con-ventional subdivision is prohibited by the AmherstZoning Bylaw. Residential development of this par-cel was only allowed as a cluster design.

Yield: Because it is an affordable cluster, densityof the parcel can exceed the allowed density for astandard subdivision. Density was calculated bya formula taking the parcel area, subtracting10% of that area, and dividing that number bythe minimum lot area of the zoning district inwhich that parcel is located. The developer wasgranted 13 lots and 19 units. However, becausehe wanted to build single family affordable homes(as opposed to duplexes) the Town and developercame to agreement over what resulted in 15 lots.

The developer benefited from the incorporation ofaffordable units into his plan because he wasable to pre-sell the affordable units due to theirhigh demand. These pre-sales leveraged helpwhen the developer sought bank financing, a keyat the time this subdivision was built. This is agood lesson for development in times of economicdownturns however, in hot real estate marketspresales are not necessary to get bank financing.

The decrease in lot sizes for the affordable homesdecreased development costs and enabled thedeveloper to turn a reasonable profit (therefore,not giving him a reason to abandon plans foraffordable units).

Because the Town allowed a “pork chop” shapedlot, the developer was able to create a very large

Reducing frontage enables a design that otherwise may not be possible. Seen above is theparcel with the smallest frontage in Canterbury Farms– it is for the largest lot. Thisreduction enabled the developer to “fit” another lot without extending the road and sub-tracting from the open space.

Conservation tools: Open space is owned andmanaged by a Homeowners Association.

Incentives: Provision of affordable housing inorder to affect the Town’s Rate of DevelopmentBylaw—build units at a faster rate.

FINANCING & DEVELOPER PROFIT

Infrastructure savings for the developer resultedfrom the reduced road length and width (built at24 feet), and the provision of a sidewalk only onone side of the road. Two common drivewayswere built. For two of the affordable units a com-mon gravel driveway was used which helped en-able the developer to increase the profitability ofthe affordable lots.

Gravel driveways are characteristic of the surrounding rural area and did not detract fromthe aesthetics of the development or the affordable housing (single family affordable unitshown here).

lot on which he sited the second-most expensivehome. The most expensive lot in CanterburyFarms was the one with the best view. Both lotswhose rear lot lines abut the open space were thethird and fourth most expensive homes. Had thedeveloper not been allowed to build a pork chopshaped lot, he would have lost a significantamount of revenue and the subdivision may nothave been profitable.

AFFORDABLE UNITS

In keeping with the surrounding rural neighbor-hood character, the developer wanted to providesingle family affordable units as opposed to du-plexes. Had this development been sited closer todowntown Amherst, multifamily units wouldhave been in character.

The four single-family affordable units originally soldfor $98,000 to $125,000. Affordable housing agree-ments were created to ensure that they remain “af-fordable” in perpetuity; they will re-sell for 19% lessthan their appraised market value. The advantagesgained by the quick-selling affordable units made theproject worth while for the developer. An increasednumber of units, in this case, would not have madefor a more profitable subdivision.

Although the Amherst bylaw states that afford-able units must be “geographically dispersedthroughout the development” it was not practicalto do so on this small, narrow parcel. The devel-oper thought that the small acreage of the afford-able lots and the size and character of the sur-rounding homes was such that to scatter themthroughout this small development would not

have resulted in an appealing design. He did en-sure that the affordable units built were of highquality, and that the materials used were suchthat they blended with the surrounding homesand did not scream “affordable.”


Today, all lots in Canterbury Farms have beensold. It is interesting to note the order in whichthey sold:

1. All four affordable lots sold first (sellingprices ranged from $98–125,000).

2. The old restored farmhouse sold second($165,000).

3. Moderate priced homes were the next to sell(ranging from $195–230,000).

4. The most expensive lots and houses weresold last.

The most expensive home (at $410,000) was noton a lot that abutted the open space, but rather itwas the home with the best view—overlookingfields, farmland and mountains far to the north(Lot 10 on the plan to the right).

The largest lot (ironically with the smallest front-age) in the subdivision at 98,700 square feetoriginally sold for $395,000 (land and house).Today, the developer believes that if the ownerswere to sell, it would easily resell for $500,000(Lot 3 on the plan to the right).

One of the two lots that abut the open spaceoriginally sold in 1996 for $365,000. In 1999that lot resold for $449,900, yielding a rate of ap-preciation consistent with the market at that time.

This shows the lot lines of the 15 homes in CanterburyFarms and the undeveloped open space. The “pork chop”or “flag” lot 3 is easily recognized.

LOCUS PLAN

N�

OPEN SPACE

The rear boundary of this long, narrow parcel liesadjacent to the 3000-acre Holyoke Range StatePark. Therefore, the rear half of the parcel (far-thest from the existing road) became the pre-

Plan held; developer presented both 14 and12-lot plan because the yield was still anoutstanding issue. The Public Hearing wascontinued twice.

� January 1990: Special Permit approved for13-lot (15 unit) cluster subdivision

Special Permit

Although mandatory in the underlying zoningdistrict, the development process is by SpecialPermit approval. The developer did not expressproblems or discontent with the process andfound the Planning Board willing to negotiate sothat community and developer needs were met.Ultimately, the Special Permit approval languageindicated that Canterbury Farms was a favorabledevelopment meeting the requirements and in-tent of the cluster bylaw. Generally, Special Per-mit findings state:

� development achieves the positive featuresof a cluster subdivision including, maintain-ing community character, retaining a largeamount of undeveloped open space, provid-ing efficient road layout (750') and afford-able housing, and providing a design thatworks with the topography of the site andwill create the effect of homes terraced ona hillside

� lot sizes larger than the minimum required bythe bylaw were accepted because this helpedCanterbury Farms fit with the character ofthe surrounding neighborhoods and farmland

� development adequately addresses protectionof the watershed and aquifer rechargethrough good stormwater management and a

At the top of the cul de sac, between two lots, this accesstrail was created. It wanders through the open space andconnects to the larger, abutting trail system of theHolyoke Range State Park.

served open space. This shortened the distanceof the proposed road and maximized the contigu-ous open space that could abut the State Park.

After reviewing the preliminary cluster plan,Amherst asked the developer to negotiate withthe Department of Environmental Managementfor the purpose of deeding the open space intotheir care to be added to the State Park. Ulti-mately however, the developer formed the Canter-bury Farms Property Owners Trust (the Trust), anon-profit Massachusetts Trust organized for thepurposes of conserving and maintaining openspace in the subdivision (in effect, aHomeowner’s Association). The land is currentlynot under a conservation restriction nor is it ac-cessible to the public.

The developer marketed the Trust in the materi-als for Canterbury Farms, stressing each home-owners stake in and ownership of the 9.2 acresof undeveloped land set aside as common openspace and available for their use. Although hesaw this as a positive for marketing purposes, hewarns other developers that the creation of theTrust and the associated Covenants of the subdivi-sion were extremely costly and time consuming.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Approval Time Frame

� June 1989: The Planning Board approvedthe preliminary cluster subdivision plan for a14-lot (16-unit) cluster subdivision.

� November 1989: Public Hearing for the Spe-cial Permit and Definitive Cluster Subdivision

reduction of lots from the number originallyproposed, therefore minimizing the impact onthe aquifer and watershed

LESSONS LEARNED/ FURTHER

CONSIDERATIONS

Because the designated open space is not cur-rently under a Conservation Restriction its pro-tection in perpetuity is not ensured. Amherst hasexpressed interest in transferring open space own-

ership from the Homeowners Association to thelocal Holyoke Land Trust. There are clear advan-tages–having the land protected by a group whosemain purpose is conservation makes sense. No onecan buy a house in Canterbury Farms unless theyagree to and sign the Covenants. This may meanthat a homeowner is not particularly interested inthe protection of the land, but yet becomes thesteward of that land simply by buying a home inthat subdivision. There is concern by the Townthat this is not necessarily the best scenario forlong-term land protection.

Developer Ron LaVerdiere believes that improve-ments to the Amherst bylaw could be in the formof incentives for affordable clusters that wouldgrant a density bonus as an increase in the num-ber of lots rather than an increase in units. An-other incentive Amherst could utilize would be toincrease lots in exchange for open space (i.e., forevery three acres left undeveloped, the developercould be allowed to create one additional lot). Thetown may argue that where cluster is mandatoryincentives for its use need not be given. However,to achieve other community goals, such as afford-able housing, such incentives may be valuable.

It is perceived that proximity to designated af-fordable units will lower the property value ofadjacent homes. In this case, the developer be-lieved that single-family affordable units wouldhelp to maintain the value of the more expensivehomes in this subdivision because their marketvalues, though affordable, are higher than afford-able duplex units. In most subdivisions, there isdisparity in home values and striking a reasonable,marketable, balance between these values is a chal-lenge to developers. In Canterbury Farms thatdisparity ranged from values of $90,000 to ap-proximately $400,000, a level of disparity thatthis developer believed was not too great tothreaten the marketability of the subdivision.

While perhaps a landscape architect could havecreated an even better design that consumed lessof the parcel within lot lines, Canterbury Farmsis a very good example of many benefits of openspace design.

Developer wanted to build 15 single-family units; receivedpermission to divide two lots to create four single-familyaffordable lots, at three-eighths to one-half acre.

Slope of 10% on the internal road

Three lots situated toward the rear of the property at thetop of the hill are served by individual private wells. Theremaining lots are all served by town water.

All lots served by private septic systems. No provisionswere made for septic systems on the affordable lots; thosehome-owners bear the same responsibility for the mainte-nance and repair of their septic system.

To extend sewer service to Canterbury Farms would haveinvolved a one and one-half mile sewer line extension andnew pumping station (approximate cost of $800,000.00) andwould open much farmland to growth pressure. Because thedevelopment area was within the Aquifer Recharge ProtectionDistrict, septic systems were a good choice.

Abutting property owners were particularly concernedwith runoff and drainage. Preliminary cluster plan called fora detention basin at the bottom of the hill; rejected in favorof a design providing for on-site recharge of roof runoffthrough dry wells and road runoff through leaching catch-basins with oil and grit traps within the road right-of-way.

Allow sidewalks on only one side

Yield calculations granted 19 units on 13 lots. TheAmherst cluster density bonus comes in the form of addi-tional units, not lots.

8% maximum slope grade

Town water required for all lots

Town sewer for all lots

Waiver granted:


Requirement:

Sidewalks on both sides of a new road

Stormwater management

SUMMARY


� lot prices were scaled according to proximityto the open space therefore creating a clearexample of a cluster development that quan-tified the value of open space

� reduced density in an area of town thatwould have suffered negative effects had the

originally approved 43-lot conventionalsubdivision been built

� nine approved lots were not built, rather20.24 acres of additional land were donated toa local land trust; tax benefits of this creativealternative enabled the developer to buildfewer lots and still earn a reasonable profit

� placement of all wetlands within the pro-tected open space

� public access with a small parking area forthe open space

� creative process and trust between the Townand the developer resulted in a better designand a subdivision with less impact andgreater community benefits

SUBDIVISION PROFILE

Developer: Ronald Roux, Hallmark Properties,Inc., Hopkinton, Massachusetts

Landscape Architect: John Copley andAssociates, Inc.

Zoning: The parcel lies within the agriculturalzoning district, where both conventional andopen space and landscape preservation develop-ments (OSLPD) are allowed. Old North Mill wasdeveloped as an OSLPD.

Yield: The bylaw requires density calculationsby three methods that are then used as a guidefor the Planning Board. The density calculationformula in the bylaw permitted 59 lots. Thesubmitted Concept Plan contained 43 lots. Thesubmitted sketch of a Conventional Plan con-tained 43 lots. The Board granted a maximumof 43 building lots.

Conservation tools: Open space is owned andmanaged by the Hopkinton Area Land Trust.

Old North MillHopkinton, MassachusettsOpen Space and Landscape Preservation Development

Frontage property that would have become a road to serve nine lots; instead this quiet road will retain its rural character.

LOT 35

Incentives: use of dead end streets; reduction inroadway right-of-way and pavement width; reduc-tion in intensity regulations; waiver of the perim-eter buffer requirement.

FINANCING

Flexibility by the town enabled good design prin-ciples and therefore infrastructure savings. For

example, the Town allowed road width decreases(from 26 to 20 feet) and didn’t require drainagestructures on all roads. Rather, the roads weredesigned so the road shoulders could absorb thesheet flow. The design also enabled minimalgrading, cutting, and filling by adapting the loca-tion and placement of structures and ways to theexisting topography.

As seen in the plans below, the Concept Plan

shows nine lots (numbers 35–43) that do not ap-pear on the Modified Concept Plan, where thesesame lots have now been designated as Parcel B.What happened to those nine lots is an interest-ing story.

The developer determined that the greatest valueof Parcel B lie in it remaining as open space. Inthis subdivision maximizing profit did not meanbuilding the maximum number of lots permitted.Contributing factors included:

� parcel B contained wetlands, therefore, Con-servation Commission filings would entailsignificant time and money;

� avoiding cost of building infrastructure for thenine lots;

� avoiding the carryingcosts extended over thetime it would take topermit and completethe building; and,

� because Old North Millwas marketed (andpriced) as an openspace subdivision, thevalue of three otherhomes (lots 14–16)rose significantly be-cause they would nowback onto open spacerather than onto otherhouse lots. (See pricingstructure used and theadded price of a homeabutting the open space.)


100.11 acres 59 lots (per density 43 lots 34 lots Permitted: 31.75formula) acres (31.72%)43 lots (per conventional As built: 51.99 acresplan) (51.93%)

2. Modified Concept (Built)1. Concept Plan (Permitted)

The developer could realize greater financial ben-efits for only through a more creative approach—donating Parcel B to the local land trust andtaking the tax credit. The value of the tax creditwas determined by appraising the land or deter-mining the expected value after the infrastruc-ture (roads, sewers, public utilities) construction.The cost of the houses that could be built on thelots is not included. In this case, the tax creditcould be spread over five years and such amountcould not exceed 30% of the developers taxableincome in any given year. (This credit was pos-sible according to the tax laws at the time of thisdeal. Any developer wishing to explore a similaroption needs to check the existing tax code.)Such a donation of land was clearly in the bestfinancial interest of the developer at the time ofthis project.


Hallmark Properties, Inc. is a design builder soall home prices vary. However, the prices of thelots themselves (for land and infrastructure butno house) are of the greatest importance for thiscase study. The developer sold and priced the lotson a scale that reflected the proximity of the lotto the open space.

There were three categories of lots available inOld North Mill: 1) those with frontage on theexisting town road; 2) those fronting the internalsubdivision road, abutting other house lots, and;3) those fronting the internal subdivision road,abutting the open space. The developer placed a$25,000 differential between each category. In

other words, a house lot adjacent to the openspace commanded an up front payment of $50,000more than other lots in the same development.

Because of this differential, as a design builder itwas profitable for Hallmark Properties, Inc. torequire a more expensive home on those lots thatcommanded the higher open space prices. Inother words, the most expensive homes in the

subdivision abut the open space. Economically, itwould not have been wise for the developer to buildless expensive homes on the most expensive lots.

After completing the design and permitting of OldNorth Mill, Hallmark Properties, Inc. sold 12 ofthe 43 lots immediately after laying the requiredutilities. Homes on these 12 lots will be built bydifferent developers and prices are unknown.

Requirement: Waiver granted:

Road right of way – 50 feet 40 feet allowed

Road width – 26 feet 20 feet allowed

Dead end streets prohibited allowed four dead end street because an OSLDP

Percolation testing two percolation and deep hole tests on each lotis not required at the time of definitive plansubmission

Perimeter buffer requirement – 100 feet 0 feet allowed

Homes with frontage on the existing town road. The developer saved as many trees as possible and did not disturbexisting stone walls and outcroppings whenever practical.


OPEN SPACE

While the main impetus for not building the ninelots on Parcel B may have been developer eco-nomics, the benefits to the community were alsogreat. The amount of open space conserved inthis subdivision increased from 31.75 acres to51.99 acres, or from 31.72% to 51.93% of thetotal parcel. The entire open space parcel will beowned by the Hopkinton Area Land Trust, a pub-lic non-profit organization formed for the pur-poses of preserving, protecting, and managingland in Hopkinton.

View from the side yard of a home abutting the openspace. This homeowner paid an additional $50,000 upfront simply to have the open space as their backyard.

There were 16.15 acres of wetland on the prop-erty, all were included in the delineated openspace. The developer believes that because thewetlands deserve the most protection, includingthem in the open space area will ensure theyhave the needed protection. If wetlands are in-cluded within the lot lines, a homeowner will, ineffect, own the wetland. It is therefore subject to

abuse, neglect, and destruction by actions, inten-tional or not, of the homeowner. Keeping themwithin the protected open space best ensurestheir long term protection.

This open space is not connected to any otheropen space. But for a small parcel of Town ownedland, Old North Mill is entirely surrounded byresidential development. Instead, this project didthe best it could to create some open spacewhere none existed before. The 52-acre parcelwill have a publicly accessible trail system and asmall parking area will be provided.

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

In 1988 a conventional subdivision plan was ap-proved for property. Unhappy with this designand the change to flood plain levels, the towntook the developer to court but lost their lawsuit. Luckily, no conventional development wasever built by the previous owner and eventuallythe parcel was purchased by Hallmark Proper-ties, Inc. While they could have gone ahead andbuilt according to the approved conventionalplan, Hallmark decided to build an open spacedevelopment according to the Open Space andLandscape Preservation bylaw of Hopkinton.

Approval Time Frame

� 1988: Conventional Subdivision Planapproved for previous owner

� May 1997: ConceptPlan submitted to Townby Hallmark Proper-ties, Inc.

� June 1997: SpecialPermit granted

� November 1997: De-finitive Plan approved

Special Permit

If you go to the Town Halltoday and look at the ap-proved Concept Plan, thenine lots of Parcel Bwould appear as thoughthey are going to be built.In fact, they could bebuilt. However, based onlyon a good faith agreement

Conventional Plan

between the developer and the Town, it was deter-mined that they would never be built. In order forthe developer to apply for a tax credit those lotsneeded to appear as approved. Therefore, theTown approved the lots with the developers’promise that they would not be built.

Additionally, the developer was granted a reduc-tion in the percentage of open space to permit45,000 square foot minimum lots—again withthe understanding that nine lots were not to bebuilt, the percentage of open space would actu-ally be greater than what was shown on the ap-proved plans. This highlights the working rela-

tionship between the parties that was necessaryto make this a successful subdivision—one thatwas profitable for the developers and met thetown’s goals.

LESSONS LEARNED/ FURTHER CON-

SIDERATIONS

All of Hopkintons’ OSLPD’s to date have beenbuilt with large homes on smaller lots. Somereaders may consider this to be a shortfall of thisparticular case study. It is essential to note thatthis is not a failure of the Hopkinton bylaw itself,

A perfectly functional 20 foot wide,single-sided sidewalk, dead end road in Old North Mill.

or of OSLPD principles, since it is not written toencourage variety in the housing stock or thecreation of affordable (or even non-luxury) hous-ing. In May of 1998 the Planning Board did at-tempt to pass a bylaw intended to address “alter-native housing” however it was adamantly re-jected by the majority at Town Meeting.

The cost of land in Hopkinton is extremely highand the market is currently extremely “hot.” Be-cause the bylaw does not allow any density bonusand is not mandatory, the question one may askis why then would a developer chose to under-take the Special Permit process rather than sim-ply building a conventional subdivision. Reducedcost of infrastructure is often a good answer, butin hot markets in desirable communities the de-veloper can often pass those costs along to thehomebuyer.

The answer in Hopkinton is simple—the Plan-ning Board and town planner, other local boardsand local officials, and a majority of town resi-dents strongly support and advocate for the useof open space development. Conventional devel-opment is frowned upon and fought against inHopkinton. Residents and local officials havechosen a higher standard for their communityand work hard to achieve it - this includes work-ing cooperatively with the development commu-nity through the Special Permit process toachieve a win-win development.

APPENDIX A: SUBDIVISION

INFORMATION FORM

General Information

� Name and location of subdivision

� Name of designer, developer, landscape architect

� Has anyone involved built other clusters?

Subdivision Statistics

� development timeline

� total number of acres

� number of acres permanently protected

� how was the yield plan determined?

� number of homes:

1. allowed under conventional_________

2. allowed under the cluster plan_________

3. allowed vs. built in the cluster_________(in Hopkinton the developer deeded a few allowedparcels to the town—was financially better to get thetax break rather than building the homes. Has any-one else experienced something similar?)

� number of affordable units

� Size of lots:

1. allowed for conventional _____

2. allowed for cluster plan_____

� Street dimensions

1. Money saved by not building the full length ofroads proposed under conventional design?

2. How much land area was saved from becom-ing impervious due to shorter roads?

Home Values and Appreciation

� Original selling price of homes

� Would the original selling price have beendifferent if these homes were built in a con-ventional subdivision?(Note: If they are more expensive, than that is abig plus for cluster. If they sold for the same andthe number built was the same, then the devel-oper made more money by building a cluster—this will hold true if they saved money on infra-structure costs due to reduced requirements un-der the cluster bylaw.)

� Any resale values? Are there trends availableyet that could show overall appreciation ofthe development?

Open Space

� Who manages the open space? land trust /homeowners association / city or town

� Is it under a conservation restriction (CR)?

� What was the basis for the decision to pre-serve the area that was preserved (i.e., was itbecause it was meadow, forest, view-shed,wildlife habitat, wetland, farmland, scenic,land that could not be developed anyway, landthat would not perk if septic was required,created connections to other preserved areas)?

� What was the process that determined whichpart would be set aside as the open space(i.e., is there a design review by multipleparties, drafted by a landscape architect, soiltests to determine most valuable agriculturalsoils, connections to other open areas, com-munities of wildlife living there, or other)?

� Uses of protected open space (i.e., active,

passive, impervious uses, trails)

Development Process

1. Explain the real and perceived obstaclesposed by Special Permit requirement

2. Flexibility, benefits, and advantages to thebuilder and to the community of this alterna-tive to conventional subdivision design

3. Did the developer take advantage of incen-tives in the bylaw (i.e., such as density bo-nuses for including affordable housing)?

4. Methods of wastewater treatment (any DEP-approved alternative systems to Title V orshared systems)

5. Process the developer and Planning Boardwent through—highlight keys to their success

6. Did you get a different result than you wouldhave without using the cluster regulation?

LIST OF REFERENCES

Arendt, Randall. Rural by Design. Chicago: Ameri-can Planning Association, 1994.

Arendt, Randall. Conservation Design for Subdivi-sions: A Practical Guide to Creating Open SpaceNetworks. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1996.

Arendt, Randall. Growing Greener: Putting Con-servation into Local Plans and Ordinances. Wash-ington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999.

Goodkin, Sanford R. Higher Density Housing –Planning, Design, Marketing. Washington: Na-tional Association of Homebuilders, 1986.

Lacy, Jeff. An Examination of Market Apprecia-tion for Cluster Housing with Permanently-Pro-tected Open Space. Center for Rural Massachu-setts, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. August1990.

Mainewatch Institute. Green Development, Balanc-ing Development with Conservation: Nine CaseStudies of Rural Subdivision. Hallowell, Maine.June 1992.

Massachusetts Historical Commission. Preservationthrough Bylaws and Ordinances: Tools and Tech-niques for Preservation Used by Communities inMassachusetts. Prepared by Christopher Skelly,Director of Local Government Programs. December17, 1998.

CREDITS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This publication was prepared by the staff of theMetropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC).MAPC is the officially designated regional plan-ning agency for 101 cities and towns in the Bos-ton metropolitan area. The Council offers techni-cal assistance to its member communities in theareas of land use, environmental quality, housing,energy, transportation, and economic development.

This publication is one component of a largerproject, the Conservation Subdivision DesignProject, funded in full by the Executive Officeof Environmental Affairs.

Credits

Project Manager &Principal Author: Stacey Justus

Planner and Author: Evan Belansky

Graphics: Mara Callahan

Technical Review: Martin Pillsbury

1999-2000 MAPC Officers

Richard C. Walker, III, President

Mayor William J. Mauro, Vice President

Mary Ellen Lavenberg, Treasurer

Donald A. Walsh, Secretary

Special Thanks

To several local officials in the four towns fromwhich these cases were taken, particularly theTown Planners of Acton (Roland Bartl), Amherst

(Robert Mitchell), Hopkinton (Elaine Lazarus),and Westborough (Jim Robbins), as well as theHealth Agents and Assessors. Additionally, thiswork could not have been conducted without thecooperation and support of the land developerswho designed and built these subdivisions: JonDelli Priscoli, Brigham Development Company;Frances Zarette, Land Design, Inc.; RonaldPeabody, Northwest Development; Ronald J.LaVerdiere, Amherst, MA; and Ronald Roux,Hallmark Properties, Inc.

Open Space Residential Development Four Case Studies

Documents

Transcript of Open Space Residential Development Four Case Studies