Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190673 Louden Rd Cons Subdivision Tom Denny Corr 3-9-20 To: Mark Torpey, Chair,Planning Board From: Tom Denny, Chair, Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) Re: proposed Louden Road conservation subdivision Date: March 9,2020 Hi Mark, Susan Barden relayed the Planning Board's request that the OSAC render an advisory opinion regarding the conservation priorities on this parcel and the recommended location of the conservation easement. We circulated the applicant's materials to the committee. Two members of the OSAC walked the property on March 5,joined by Susan Barden and Tina Carton from City Hall, and Wade Newman,the applicant. After discussion among committee members,we would like to share these observations and make these recommendations. We will discuss: • The design as submitted by the applicant,which we view as a"conventional subdivision." • Areas on the parcel that are of highest priority for conservation • The oossible location of five additional houses,with the intent of conserving substantial, meaningful,contiguous open space • Subdivision into parcels and ownership structures for holding the easement Some preliminary considerations: • Determining the best site plan for this parcel involves many technical elements—siting of wells, septic fields,road dimensions,driveway cuts on a busy road,etc. The OSAC has no particular expertise in these matters. We leave it to the Planning Board and City planning staff to make determinations on these issues. We will limit our discussion to general concepts that relate most directly to the maximum conservation of the open space assets on the property. • According to the applicant,there is no constrained land. He states that there are no large areas of steep slopes and that there are no regulated wetlands. Except for visual examination during our site visit,the OSAC did not verify these statements. Conservation subdivision vs. conventional subdivision The current plan seems to conform to the design of a"conventional" subdivision(as referenced in 241- 12(A)2). Although the applicant proposes conserving land throughout the subdivision by means of conservation easement(s),the scattered placement of the development envelopes within the parcel is that of a conventional subdivision. More specifically,the six lots into which it subdivides the parcel(1)are scattered across the entire area of the parcel, (2)have widely separated and buffered development envelopes, and(3)require relatively long,private driveways to access the development envelopes. The plan does not employ the kind of clustering illustrated in Figure IV,2b Conservation Analysis: Sample Preliminary Plan,in 241-12(B)2.b. The result of this conventional design for the site is that the open space in the proposed conservation easement is fragmented rather than contiguous. In our view,this plan does not conform to the criteria for a conservation subdivision as spelled out in the Subdivision Regulations. Areas on the parcel that are of highest priority for conservation This parcel is a bit unusual for the Greenbelt because,according to the conservation analysis prepared by the applicant,it has no constrained land. The applicant identified no wetlands and no significant areas of steep slopes. The most valuable natural resources on this property are its second-growth forested areas. The ridge that runs east-west through the center of the parcel is at the heart of this valuable conservation area, and the forest fans out to the north and the south as one approaches the western boundary. So the most valuable conservation area vaguely resembles a triangle,with one point near the east edge of the ridge and the base,or at least a long side,running along the west boundary. This forest is well on its way from pioneering red and white pines(some of which have been weakened by pine weevil)to climax hardwoods,including substantial oaks and maples, among others. We would recommend using an easement to conserve the largest possible area of contiguous,undisturbed forest land in the center and western portion of the property. Following the guidelines of the Subdivision Regulations,241-12(D)1,we recommend leaving the "natural landform features"of the central ridge "in its natural state,"by"[minimizing] cuts and fills." Similarly,the regulations call for the "[preservation] of existing vegetation patterns and species mix and density." This is particularly important in the forested area. Recommended location of structures and conservation easement. In order to preserve the large contiguous forested area in the central and western areas of the property, conservation design standards would require the clustering of development envelopes in the southeast and the northern sections of the property. It would also call for minimizing the amount of pervious surfaces, including driveways,that would fragment the contiguous open forest spaces. We would recommend that the houses be placed more densely than the plans indicated.We recommend situating them in two clusters,one at the southeast area of the parcel(houses 4, 5,& 6) and one at the north section of the parcel (houses 2& 3,plus the existing house 1). Cluster 1 (southeastern section of the parcel)—We recommend shifting the development envelopes of houses 4, 5, and 6 so that they are clustered more closely within the southeast quadrant of the parcel. The current plan has the development envelopes set back quite far from both the property lines and from the development envelopes of other houses in the subdivision. This spacious layout does not conform in our view to clustered design. • One possible design to accomplish this would be to build a short,hammerhead road(private or public),with short driveways,to serve houses 4, 5,and 6. Houses 5 and 6 could be sited to the south of this road and house 4 could be sited to the north of this road. There may be other solutions for access,which we leave to the Planning Board's expertise • We would recommend that the development envelopes for houses 5 and 6 be clustered closer to the southern and eastern boundaries,that there be less space between their development envelopes and also less setback between their development envelopes to the property boundaries. • We recommend moving house 4 to both the south and east, closer to the eastern boundary and closer to the hammerhead road. This would allow for greater conservation of the forested ridge. • Although some wooded buffering is desirable between the existing neighbor to the south and houses 5 and 6,we think that 15-20 feet of trees separating the neighbor from the development envelopes should be sufficient. Narrowing this buffer will facilitate the proposed clustering. • Similarly, 15-20 feet of buffer seems sufficient between the development envelope for house 4 and the thin strip of neighboring property,in part because this section of the neighboring property seems undevelopable. • In our view,wooded buffering from Bog Meadow Run seems optional. Bog Meadow Run is not a "rural road corridor," so buffering at the streetside is less important from a conservation perspective than creating additional space for contiguous conserved land within the conservation easement area. If the applicant prefers buffering, 15 feet of trees as buffers along the development envelope of house 6 should suffice,rather than the 50-foot buffer shown in the plans. Cluster 2 (northern section of the parcel) • We recognize the desirability of setting additional houses in this area at some distance from Louden Road and the mall across the road. • Nonetheless,we would recommend a closer clustering of structures,farther north than is shown in the plans. We would recommend moving the development envelope for house 2 perhaps 25 feet to the east and north,which will increase the contiguous forested land that can be conserved. • And we recommend moving the development envelope of house 3 perhaps 25 feet to the north for the same reason. Relevant City planning documents: In reaching these recommendations,we consulted various City planning documents,most importantly the City's 2002 Open Space Map and the Subdivision Regulations (City Code,chapter 241). Of particular relevance from the Subdivision Regulations was section 241-12 (Conservation Subdivisions) and especially sections 241-12(A),which outlines general purposes,241- 12(B),which lays out criteria for conservation analysis and the nature of clustered development,241- 12(C),which deals with allowable uses and ownership issues within the subdivision, and 241-12(D), which lays out rural design standards. We include just a few relevant excerpts from these documents here,with emphasis added by the OSAC. • 241-12(A)1 —"The purpose of this article is to achieve a balance between well-designed residential development, meaningful open space conservation, and natural resource protection in the countryside by requiring conservation subdivisions rather than conventional subdivisions." • 241-12(A)2—"Conservation subdivisions result in the preservation of contiguous open space..." 2002 Open Space Plan— summary of valuable open space and recreational resources • CDD (p. 7) "It ensures that new subdivisions will preserve significant open spaces without sacrificing development potential." • p. 9—"The Conservation Subdivision Design approach begins with the identification of open space resources present on the site to be developed (agricultural land,historic or scenic views,significant woodlots,etc.)." Ownership issues and responsibility for the conservation easement(s). Several options seem possible. We are sure that the Planning Board,with its experience,will find the best solution for this. • HOA—Establishing a Homeowners' Association would be useful for managing both the hammerhead street and for managing the conserved lands as a contiguous unit. • Reciprocal right of enforcement—Enforcing rural conservation easements is a challenge for the City. If there is no HOA, and the conserved area is divided among one or more of the subdivided parcels,the OSAC believes it would be important to require that the parcels be subject to mutual "reciprocal right of enforcement" so that neighbors could assist the City in protecting the easement as intended. • Private ownership of the conservation easement area,divided into unequal-sized parcels,with some parcel(s)having ownership of most of the conserved area and other parcels having no ownership. It may be desirable to concentrate ownership of the entire area under easement,or at least all of the ridge,in the control of house 4,which would then have by far the largest of the parcels. Other candidates to own portions of the area under easement would be houses 5 and 2, and possibly 3. Under the more clustered layout we recommend,the existing house (house 1) and house 6 would seem to have little reason to be owners of the contiguous forested conserved area. • Relatively equal sized parcels. With the clustered approach,this has the disadvantage that it would involve six strangely shaped,thin slices cutting across the conserved area. This seems undesirable. • Access: We would strongly recommend that all the owners within the subdivision have deeded access and rights to enter the conserved area for appropriate,specified uses. In conclusion,it might be useful to note that the City of Saratoga Springs' Conservation Easements were created in accordance with the provisions of Section 49,Title 3 of the Environmental Conservation Law or Section 247 of the General Municipal Law. The law states that the goal is "to preserve or maintain the scenic,open,historic, archaeological, architectural,or natural condition,character, significance or amenities of the real property." If the OSAC can answer any questions or be of any further assistance to the Planning Board in this matter, please feel free to contact me.