Full Text:

Builder Sees Difficulties Ahead: P&Z Revises Its Regulations Governing Open

Space

(with cuts)

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Following a lengthy public hearing March 19, Planning and Zoning Commission

(P&Z) members approved revised open space regulations which are intended to

provide developers with a better sense of the type of open space land that P&Z

members want donated to the town or to land trusts.

During the hearing, P&Z members heard three categories of comments on the open

space rule changes they had presented.

One school of thought, expressed in written comments by Town Engineer Ronald

Bolmer, held that the revised open space regulations are not specific enough

and should be made clearer.

Another viewpoint expressed by several developers held that the revised

regulations are too rigid and do not provide enough flexibility in designating

open space areas in subdivisions.

A third, intermediate point of view maintained by some members of the Newtown

Neighborhoods Coalition, suggested that the P&Z's proposed rule revisions

should be refined somewhat.

In the months preceding the hearing, P&Z members had considered various

versions of revised open space rules. P&Z members initially addressed the

matter in late 1996 at the neighborhood coalition's urgings. The citizens'

group had proposed revised rules then, but P&Z members turned down those

proposals, saying they would develop their own version.

Following the March 19 hearing, P&Z members made a minor change to the open

space rules and unanimously approved the new regulations.

At the hearing, Kim Danziger, a developer and builder, said, "Preserving the

character of Newtown is really important to me."

He noted, however, that the open space regulations are "extremely

contradictory and they're going to be extremely difficult to enforce."

Emphasizing continguous open space in subdivisions is not always a good idea,

he said. Mr Danziger also questioned the need for a minimum ten percent of the

land in a subdivision to be designated as open space.

In past regulations, the P&Z encouraged that ten percent of the land be

designated as open space. In the new rules, the P&Z requires a minimum ten

percent open space.

Mr Danziger pointed out that under Monroe's land use regulations, he was able

to dedicate 33 acres of a 96-acre parcel as open space, provided that he

received a "density bonus" on the construction site.

"I'm disappointed with the open space regulations," Mr Danziger said. He urged

that P&Z members provide developers with more flexibility. He pointed to the

Greenleaf Farms subdivision in Poverty Hollow as a good example of open space

planning.

Coalition member Kurt Gillis of 50 Jeremiah Road, a member of the

neighborhoods coalition, urged that P&Z members adjust the new open space

regulations as needed, but that they act on them promptly.

"It appears the regulations will benefit the town as a whole," he said in

urging that the P&Z accept more discretion in deciding on open space parcels.

Mr Gillis said modifying the open space rules is only one of many steps needed

to improve local land use regulation.

Attorney James Ledonne represents Blakeman Construction, a development firm

that is constructing the Rollingwood subdivision off New Lebbon Road. Mr

Ledonne said the revised rules would limit developers' flexibility in

designating open space. Open space regulations should be less restrictive, he

urged.

Charles Spath of Spath-Bjorklund Associates, a Monroe engineering firm, said

the P&Z's revised open space rules are not systematic enough to explain to

developers what should be designated as open space, unless a "pre-application"

meeting is held between the P&Z and the developer. P&Z members must review the

"uniqueness" of each site in deciding what makes for valuable open space

there, he said.

Coalition member Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road urged P&Z members to

protect the town's remaining rural character through strict open space

regulations.

"Unfortunately, money is what talks," he said, adding that developers seek to

maximize how much they can build on a given piece of land.

Coalition member Jane Macomber of 9 Parmalee Park Place urged P&Z members to

use strict language in the regulations to secure quality open space parcels in

subdivisions.

Coalition member Eric Roundy of 24 Buttonball Drive said past open space

donations appear to have been "afterthoughts," resulting in donations of

varying desirability. Mr Roundy suggested use of pre-application meetings and

site inspections by P&Z members to gauge a property's open space potential.

Written regulations cannot cover every conceivable case, he said.

The new rules: contain a statement of the P&Z's intent in acquiring open

space; clearly define what types of property the P&Z wants designated as open

space; and establish priorities in acquiring open space. The rules require

open space donations that are physically representative of a subdivision, with

the aim of obtaining better quality land than has been donated as open space

in the past. The P&Z will have the option of acquiring open space land

containing a valuable natural feature, such as a bog, marsh, swamp, overlook

or brook.

The regulations retain the P&Z's option of obtaining a "fee in lieu of open

space" which would be placed in a fund for open space land acquisition of

property outside the subdivision.

The acquisition of open space land is now prioritized in the following

descending order:

Connecting new parcels of open space with existing or proposed greenway

corridors for pedestrian, bicycle or bridle paths.

Expanding existing open space and recreational areas which are present on

adjoining properties.

Preserving, relocating and/or enhancing existing trails which have public

access rights.

Conserving and protecting wildlife habitat areas, natural or scenic features

and resources, and historic and archaeological resources.

Meeting neighboring and/or community-wide recreational needs.

Preserving agricultural lands.