Open Space Preservation—

Borough Zoners Propose Cluster Housing Rules

By Andrew Gorosko

The Borough Zoning Commission (BZC) has slated a public hearing for Wednesday, May 16, on a set of proposed land use rules, known as the Residential Open Space Development (ROSD) zoning regulations, which would permit single-family houses to be clustered on a site, thus allowing a large amount of undeveloped open space land to be preserved at the site.

The hearing is slated for 7:15 pm at Edmond Town Hall, 45 Main Street.

On April 19, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) reviewed the proposed ROSD zoning rules as submitted by the BZC and endorsed the proposed rules.

Although the borough has its own zoning commission, it does not have a planning commission, and thus the P&Z serves as the borough’s planning agency. In the more than 60-square-mile town, the P&Z has zoning jurisdiction over about 58 square miles and the BZC has zoning jurisdiction over about two square miles.

If the BZC approves ROSD zoning rules, it would allow developers to apply for such clustered residential construction projects under the “special permit” provisions of the borough zoning regulations. Special permit applications undergo stricter review than typical development applications.

The May 16 public hearing is intended to allow the public to comment on the ROSD rules, which would potentially allow a new residential development format for several large tracts that remain in the borough.

Under the BZC proposal, the new rules would allow for greater flexibility and creativity in the design of single-family-house developments to preserve larger open space areas and the natural features of land parcels. The proposed rules would require at least 50 percent of a site to remain undeveloped.

The rules would pertain to any land parcel, or contiguous parcels, that are larger than 25 acres and that lie entirely in a residential zone.

At least three areas in the borough would appear to meet those criteria.

*Hunter Ridge, LLC, a development firm, owns approximately 30 acres at 41-47 Mt Pleasant Road. The site has R-1 (Residential) zoning. The firm’s proposal to build 14 houses at the site, which extends downhill from Mt Pleasant Road to the Taunton Lake shoreline, has been mired in litigation in Danbury Superior Court since 2005.

*The Walker family owns an approximately 91-acre parcel, locally known as Walker Farm, at 22 Sugar Lane, which has R-1 zoning. The large majority of the parcel lies within the borough.

*The Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation owns approximately 136 acres at 60 and 20 Castle Hill Road. The large majority of the property lies within the borough. The property has a boundary along Taunton Lake. The land has R-1 zoning.

Under the terms of the BZC regulatory proposal, the rules would allow the construction of clustered, detached single-family houses with either attached or detached garages. The site would be served by private streets that would be maintained at the expense of a private homeowners’ association, similar to a condominium association.

The rules would allow the construction of a clubhouse, community center, cabana, picnic pavilion, swimming pool, tennis court, or other passive or active recreation facility. Such facilities would be used by the people living at the complex.

The BZC offers a proposed construction density calculation formula describing the number of dwellings that would be allowed at the site. The presence of steep slopes and wetlands would limit the potential construction density of a site. The maximum number of dwellings at a site would be limited to one dwelling per acre, based on the gross acreage of the property.

Also, at least 50 percent of the parcel would need to be preserved as open space land under the terms of a conservation easement. Such open space would be allowed to contain trails, bicycle paths, picnic tables, docks, and storage for boats without motors.

The minimum front setback distance from the street for such development would be 200 feet. The minimum side and rear setback distances would be 100 feet.

The minimum separation distance between single-family dwellings on the site would be 20 feet. A detached garage would need to be at least five feet away from its dwelling. Also, such detached garages would need to be at least 20 feet away from any other buildings on the site.

The dwellings in a ROSD project would need to be connected to public sanitary sewers and connected to a public water supply. Public utilities for the project would need to be installed underground.

Also, a site’s layout would need to minimize the physical disturbance to existing steep slopes and also minimize the creation of steep slopes.

 Attorney’s Comments

Attorney Donald Mitchell, who serves as the BZC’s lawyer, noted that the remaining large undeveloped properties in the borough to which the ROSD rules would apply are physically difficult properties to develop.

The ROSD regulations would be beneficial in terms of protecting the environment by allowing a relatively smaller area to be developed and allowing a relatively larger are to be preserved as open space on a site, in comparison to the single-family house construction that occurs in a conventional subdivision, he said.

Also, private roads in a complex would not require public maintenance, he said.

Mr Mitchell said he expects that eventually the large remaining properties in the borough would be developed, adding that the enactment of the ROSD rules would create a regulatory framework for such development.

The BZC’s intent in formulating such proposed rules is to have the owners of dwellings in a ROSD complex live in those dwellings, Mr Mitchell said.

Mr Mitchell said he hopes the May 16 hearing is well attended to provide the BZC with public comment on the proposed ROSD regulations.