|
|
Mass.Gov Home Page | |
State Government | |
State Online Services |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Grass Is Greener in an Open Space Residential Development By Arden Miller, CZM During the 1970s and 1980s, land development within Massachusetts increased by a whopping 45 percent, a stark contrast to the modest 15 percent growth in total population. Previously undeveloped areas that were home to birds and animals quickly became home to subdivisions and their accompanying houses, roads, septic systems, schools, municipal buildings, and businesses. As these developments grew across the state, environmentalists and residents who enjoyed open space became increasingly concerned. Bigger Is Better? In the Massachusetts towns north of Boston—an area including large stretches of wetlands, wildlife habitats, estuaries, and open spaces with unspoiled views of nature—things were no different. During this time, and into the 1990s, local regulations required new homes to be built on lots measuring one acre or more, the intention being to discourage dense development. Ironically, these requirements actually exacerbated development pressures as houses, and the roadways leading to them, were developed on tracts of land that were often larger than they needed to be. What had once been contiguous open space, home to native flora and fauna, became fragmented parcels where little of the original plant and animal life, and even less of the original character, remained. With these developments came associated municipal costs—more roads to maintain, and more stormwater runoff from the roads, which created more pollution and more water quality issues. On top of this, there was increasing concern over the loss of open space and the loss of wildlife and bird habitats. With their natural habitats disrupted, species such as wild turkeys and coyotes were suddenly making regular appearances on suburban lawns and town centers. What, if anything, could stop sprawl and preserve habitats? Sprawl, Sprawl Go Away... Enter Massachusetts Audubon North Shore (MA:NS) Director Kathy Leahy and Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Managements (CZM) North Shore Regional Coordinator Andrea Cooper. The year was 1996 and they felt strongly that things could not go on as they were. "We recognized that open space was at a premium on the North Shore and that is was not financially feasible for non-profits and municipalities to acquire it, so we began looking at other tools to protect it," Leahy explains. "In other areas of the country, developing land using [Randall Arendt's] Conservation Subdivision Design plan was helping to preserve wildlife habitats and community open space. We were curious to find out if this model would work for us." To determine if Arendt's Conservation Subdivision Design might be used in place of conventional subdivision design on the North Shore, Cooper and Leahy set up a workshop where Randall Arendt addressed local realtors, land developers, builders, representatives from environmental groups, and members of planning councils and conservation commissions. After this initial workshop, attendees, along with others in the community, were invited to discuss what was and wasn't working within the current subdivision design model with the ultimate goal of coming up with something that would work better. The first meeting, chaired by Cooper and Leahy, was attended by close to 20 people, all with strong feelings about land use and development. "Those first meetings were difficult, to say the least," Cooper recalls. "The developers didn't want the 'tree huggers' to tell them how to plan a subdivision and the environmentalists didn't want any more development on the North Shore." But despite the disparate, and often polarized views, everyone kept coming back to the scheduled monthly meetings. It took a year of hashing things out for the group to finally agree on something, and that something was that no one was happy with the existing regulatory system. "This first agreement was really the turning point," Cooper states. "After that, we were all determined to work together to find something that would work." The group, representing 18 different public and private organizations, officially named themselves the Green Neighborhoods Alliance. Between 1996 and 1997, there were many lengthy discussions, but the polarization that marked earlier meetings was no longer there. "People saw that they would have to give in on something they wanted in order to get something else that they wanted more," Cooper recalls. What came out of this year of compromises was a fully drafted regulatory model, based on Arendt's development designs, that focused on these four steps:
The Alliance took these core concepts of Arendt's, adding more flexibility and incentives for builders and developers, and christened their bylaw model Open Space Residential Design (OSRD). Of course Rome, and OSRD subdivisions, were not built in a day. After continued discussions and community meetings, the OSRD model was adopted as a regulatory tool by Newbury in 1999. Unlike a traditional subdivision where each individual house has as much land surrounding it as the owner can afford, in an OSRD development, houses are set closer together in what's known as a "cluster development." The land that would ordinarily be surrounding houses is zoned in one continuous expanse that everyone in the community has access to and views of. Ideally, the land with the most historic value, or the land that is home to species that rely on it for sustenance, is preserved. This way, natural scenery is saved and views of historic structures, such as stone walls, cow paths, rural roads, native forests, and, in some cases, even farmland with fruit trees, can be enjoyed by all. The set up is similar to living in a golf course community where, interestingly enough, up to 80 percent of the residents don't golf, but rather choose to live there for the views. Style and Substance In addition to the aesthetic desirability, there are many other benefits. First off, roads can be smaller, and fewer are required. Generally, the access to these houses is along one road, and often that road is a dead end, eliminating excessive through traffic and reducing stormwater runoff from paved surfaces. As for developers, this method streamlines review, both a time and money saver. And site development—aka landscaping and infrastructure—costs are minimized, as most of the terrain is left au natural. For realtors and those who are buying into an OSRD, it's been shown that homes in these subdivisions appreciate more than 12 percent faster than their counterparts in conventional subdivisions. Al Symes, of Symes Associates, Inc.—a real estate development and property management company-is one of the original Alliance members. "At the time we began discussing open space design, we were one of the first groups in Massachusetts to consider this as a development tool. I'm happy to see that these concepts have spread to a national level since then. Having good planning tools from the start makes everything better in the long run." Symes isn't the only one impressed with the model; in 2004, the Green Neighborhoods Alliance was one of 15 groups state-wide to receive the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Merit Award in recognition of the work they've done to "reshape suburban development to reduce sprawl and minimize environmental impacts." By 2001, seven communities had passed OSRD bylaws and the seeds of reshaping conventional subdivision design were spreading. And, to this day, the reshaping continues; as of early 2006, a total of 24 towns have passed bylaws that require developers to use the OSRD model in new developments, and another 12 have added OSRD components to their bylaws. Such developments include Caldwell Farm in Newbury, Old North Mill in Hopkinton, Assabet Estates in Westborough, Canterbury Farms in Amherst, and Bellows Farm in Acton. Each development had unique features and the flexibility of the model allowed for varying lot sizes and creative design, sometimes leading to significant savings. For example, the Old North Mill development in Hopkinton donated 20.24 acres of land to a local land trust, which resulted in tax benefits for the residents, while Assabet Estates in Westborough reduced overall roadway from the conventional 2,453 feet to 1,679 feet, minimizing road maintenance and stormwater runoff treatment costs, all while preserving natural vegetation. The viability and profitability, not to mention the environmental sustainability, continue to make this adaptable model appeal to developers, environmentalists, and residents. But, for some, that was just the beginning. Having spread the OSRD model, Cooper now convenes a monthly meeting to promote the virtues of Low Impact Development (LID), another tool for keeping Massachusetts cleaner and greener. With LID, the focus is on maintaining natural terrain and nature's water cycle. To give an example, by planting trees, shrubs, and grasses that are native to Massachusetts, individuals and businesses can realize significant savings because these plants are hardy and require no fertilization and little or no watering to survive. In addition, by reducing road width and planting natural grasses on site, less pollution runs into streams and wetlands and groundwater is able to recharge, helping to preserve drinking water supplies. Cooper's monthly LID Working Group is open to representatives from state, federal, non-profit, and private businesses and agencies—basically, any person or group that wants to explore ways to lessen the effects of pollution and development on the environment. "We've laid the groundwork through OSRD. People are more open to creative ways to save the environment and their money." Cooper states. "I think most people are willing to do things differently, but if they don't know there's a problem, they're not going to change things. We just need to keep spreading the word." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Boston, MA 02114