 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
 Copyright 2007 LandChoices - All Rights Reserved |
Flawed Processes, Flawed Results, and a Potential Solution A Constructive Critique of Outmoded Subdivision Ordinance Provisions by Randall Arendt, FRTPI Ever wonder why the vast majority of subdivisions look so much alike, despite the fact that they are built in such varied landscapes (forest, meadow, field) and on different terrain (flat, rolling, steep)? The simple answer is that most of them are designed generically, in cookie-cutter style, with very little regard to the special natural or cultural features that give many properties their distinctive character. In most towns, subdivision design regulations have never evolved beyond the basic stage where code requirements focus on a few mundane but important points (soil suitability, wetlands, floodplains, street paving, stormwater management) and a few mundane but rather unimportant points (street frontage, lotline setbacks, lot area). The sad reality is that most towns do not require subdivisions to consist of anything more than houselots, streets, and drains. And that approvals are forthcoming more or less automatically as long as applicants bring in plans showing houselots with the minimum required size and frontage, and avoid areas that are inherently unfit for building (wetlands, floodplains, etc.). When community standards are set so very low, developers typically respond with the least imaginative designs, for nothing more is asked of them. Even in towns which understand that lot size and density are best treated as completely independent variables (controlling density directly so that lot sizes may be trimmed to produce quality open space), subdivision regulations typically suffer from four fundamental flaws, which are reflected in flawed designs. The first flaw is that most local ordinances fail to require that applicants submit detailed surveys or inventories of their site features, beyond those few which would render property unbuildable (wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes), and ditto for maps depicting the subject parcel's surrounding context. Second, most municipalities do not require Planning Board members to walk the land, essential to understanding any property, at any time during the process, and fail to involve abuttors in the process until 95% of the work has been completed, which is both insulting and counter-productive. Third, many codes (outside Rhode Island) typically require highly detailed design drawings at the so-called Preliminary Plan stage, involving tens of thousands of dollars expenditure by developers, as the very first submission. Understandably, developers are not inclined to discard such plans, even when better ways to design the developer are pointed out to them. Fourth, layouts are typically prepared by people trained in recording site data and in street and drainage issues (surveyors and engineers), but who have little or no expertise in the field of landscape architecture or neighborhood design. The solutions are four-fold: (1) require a detailed Existing Resources and Site Analysis Map of the property and a Context Map of the immediate area, (2) conduct a Site Walk with all officials, staff, and abuttors from the outset, (3) require inexpensive a conceptual Sketch Plan (or Master Plan) as the first layout document, and (4) require that these Sketch (or Master) Plans be prepared by a landscape architect or physical planner. Following this procedure allows all parties to understand what is important about the property, and to begin a process that is collaborative and consensual, instead of adversarial and combative. Based on the work I have done at the Natural Lands Trust over the last fourteen years in the state-wide Growing Greener: Conservation by Design program (supported primarily by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Department of Community and Economic Development and the William Penn Foundation ), and in Rhode Island over the last five years (supported by the RI Department of Environmental Management), the reforms which I recommend often begin with updating local subdivision regulations to include the above-mentioned items, which are described below in greater detail. a. Context Maps. The Location Map required in most ordinances should be expanded in scope and content so that staff and Planning Board members may acquaint themselves with the resources and development patterns near the development site at an early stage of the process. This kind of understanding is critical to planning for improved buffers and open space connections, and minimizing developmental impacts in the neighborhood. To minimize the cost involved, this expanded item (re-named as a Context Map), would show only data that can easily be reproduced from published sources such as aerial photographs, USGS topo sheets, FEMA floodplain maps, tax maps, and USFWS wetlands maps. These maps and photos should then be reproduced by the applicant?s engineer to the same scale (1inch = 400 feet), showing reviewing officials the location of natural features and development patterns on properties within one-half mile of the development site (just five inches on the map). b. Existing Resources/Site Analysis Plan: The Existing Resources / Site Analysis (ER/SA) Plan provides a greater amount of essential information than is typically required in most regulations, thoroughly documenting the location of a large variety of site features. It is typically prepared by a landscape architect for the developer, and is sometimes based on recommendations from historic preservation specialists and/or conservation biologists. Such information enables the site designer, the developer, and municipal officials to make much better-informed decisions. The ER/SA Plan, which should be required from the outset, tells reviewers virtually everything they need to know about the property in terms of its noteworthy natural and cultural features. Drawn to a scale of one inch equals 100 or 200 feet, it reflects a deep understanding of the site so that even the location of noteworthy trees or tree groups, laurel or rhododendron stands, unusual geological formations, vernal pools, or the depth of the public viewshed, can be identified. Regarding locations of specific features (including trees), the use of GPS (Global Positioning Systems) technology makes their documentation relatively easy and inexpensive. A growing number of communities routinely require that plans show the location of every tree greater than a given diameter, and that these trees be identified by species on the drawing. With respect to the diameter at which a tree becomes noteworthy, I recommend girths related to specific species, such as 4 inches for Eastern redbud or flowering dogwood; 6 inches for a holly, sassafras, or water beech; 10 inches for a wild cherry; 12 inches for a red or white oak; 14 inches for a tulip poplar; and 16 inches for a sycamore, etc. In this way, reviewers can identify those parts of woods that are more worthy of conservation and ?designing around? (which trees to hug and which to let go). However, I would not require this information for trees growing in areas that would not be disturbed because of their location within proposed conservation areas. In addition, I recommend identifying farmland soils by productivity class, locating vernal pools and their associated upland habitat areas (essential in the life-cycle of salamanders and other woodland amphibians), plus views into the property from public roads or highways, to enable those important considerations to be properly evaluated. Next Page > |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
| Preserve Your Land | Conservation Subdivisions | Other Choices Home | About Us | News | Projects | Sponsors | Contribute | Contact Us | Links | Kids | Media Kit LandChoices • P.O. Box 181 • Milford, MI 48381 • info@landchoices.org Privacy Statement | www.landchoices.org |
||||||||||||||||
