Shutesbury Board of Selectmen Meeting Minutes March 31, 2008 Select Board members present: Chairman Rebecca Torres and Ralph Armstrong. Absent: Debra Pichanick on leave of absence for at least a month for family reasons. Planning Board members Present: Chairman Deacon Bonnar, Carole Mizaur, Joanne Sunshower, Jeff Lacy, Stephen Bressler and Linda Rotondi. Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Chairman Charles DiMare, Jon Thompson, and Thomas Williams. Board of Health members present: Chairman William Elliott. Conservation Commission members present: Randy Stone. Also present: Town Administrator David C. Dann, Administrative Secretary Leslie Bracebridge, recording, Guest Speaker: Civil Engineer Tony Wonseski of SVE Associates, Greenfield, MA representing Cinda Jones of North Amherst and Cowls Land and Lumber Company and Shutesbury property owner. See also attached copy of attendance sheet. Becky opened the meeting at 7:11 P.M. thanked everyone for coming out and laid out the meeting ground rules: * Focus on positive things in the proposal, not on our differences. * Share information about a document that is difficult to understand. * Listen to and understand each other to make a positive experience for everyone. * No over-speaking and no repeating. Becky introduced Cinda Jones whose family owns 3500 acres in Shutesbury. Cinda: * A number of professionals concur that the proposed zoning causes as much as a 50% drop in parcel yield on her family’s property from the current zoning. * Parcel yield loss leads to lost incentives for Conservation Restrictions (CR’s). * Introduced Engineer Tony Wonseski of SVE Associates of Greenfield to present an analysis of the proposed zoning’s impact on a hypothetical lot and a real Cowls family lot in Shutesbury. * Shutesbury’s zoning is a potential model for other towns. Cinda is legally challenging Shutesbury’s proposed zoning because the Cowls family also owns large land holdings in surrounding towns. * Presented a 3-year progression of Cowls trail signs: From welcoming to requesting respect for private property to proposed wording if Shutesbury’s zoning passes restricting recreation to members of the Shutesbury Forest Landowners’ Association only. SVE Associates Engineer Tony Wonseski: * Declared that he had recently worked for the Town of Shutesbury on a culvert replacement design and that the project is done. SVE Associates Engineer Tony Wonseski (continued): * Was asked by WD Cowls to do a comparative analysis of the existing zoning bylaw and the proposed to determine the effects of the new zoning bylaw: 1. More criteria in the proposed zoning than the current 90,000 square foot and 250 foot frontage, including zones. 2. Parcel yield is very important. If a property yields 20 lots using one set of criteria and then goes down to 5 using a second, then Tony concludes a reduced value. 3. Declined to speculate on costs which are market driven. He is an engineer by profession. He looks at land and found the Planning Board’s worksheet to be very helpful. Fictitious typical road/typical property analysis: All properties have their unique constraints and opportunities. The new bylaw favors cluster/open space development. A look at property yield on the fictitious property analysis reduces the marketability of that property. Subdivision opportunity with today’s zoning on the fictitious property yields 57 lots. Using the new zoning calculation sheet there would be 22 to 30 units before incentives, 45-60% of the current zoning parcel yield. Concerns: * Steep slopes defined as 20%, in other towns a steep slope is typically 25%. The stricter standard makes more land un-developable. * Fixing the unit count in forest conservation by dividing by 10 is much stricter than division by a suggested 3 (acres). * In New England you also have septic/sewage and wells, if cluster is less than an acre you can do septic/sewage but it’s expensive. * Cutting yield reduces market value. People look at 150 acres and see 15 lots; they don’t do the analysis which is expensive to develop and discretionary. * Density bonuses and transfers are good things meant to get beyond original yield. In Shutesbury they must be used to achieve the current zoning yield. * Buyers will see it as straight ten-acre zoning. They won’t go through the open space development it will be the burden of the seller. * The development impact statement (DIS): It’s good for the town to have that information. Many towns require one. The bylaw doesn’t note any thresh hold. Most towns require one with 10 to 12 lots. You could do a 2 lot DIS statement. * Proposed zoning section 5.5-1 does not set minimum lot sizes in open space design; rather it is dependent on Title V. Somewhat disagree with the approach as minimum lot sizes fix the count from a yield stand-point. * Article VII: With all the costs that are sunk into a project, how many years does it take to make money back allowing 8-10 units per year? It could be costly if the absorption rate is very high and one has to wait and build in phases. Questions and Comments: Steve Bannasch: The valuation is based on the number of lots and also the cost of developing the lots. The current sub-division regulation costs are expensive. Both current and proposed are discretionary with the Planning Board. If site costs are huge it may make no more sense to do 60 units than 24. You do what the land will give you. Hugh Harwell: The 20% slope factor is only in for a statistical yield calculation. The land can still be developed; though there is also a slope restriction in the subdivision regulations. Tony: Requests on Cinda Jone’s behalf to go back to 25% slopes. Hugh: We all know wetlands and floodplains are regulated elsewhere, but the slope factor is not regulated elsewhere. It is double counted as a statistical factor and also a site design factor. Tony:You just loose lots, you never gain lots. Tony wishes it could be softened. The Planning Board has huge discretion. If you don’t follow what they think, they can deny you a permit. Jeff Lacy: The Planning Board has looked at 25-30 parcels in Shutesbury. Generally the wetlands are in the way of roads. We have slope restrictions for new roads. The sub-division regulations are key for roads. Every piece of property is different. When looking at market rate, they will not go through fancy analysis, they will look at acreages. Bud Kellogg: The problem is that it’s not going to be open space for everyone. The owners will decide who can use it. Tony: There is a place in the zoning that can say it’s open to everyone. Jeff Lacy: In the actual Shutesbury properties looked at, we have seen parity and some increases with flexibility and 70-80% open space. A subdivision would have required ½ mile of road; that’s expensive for three additional units. Open space design could do shared driveways and a by right site plan review. It could be a wash and the single family 1.69 acre lots would be amidst open space. Veronica Richter: The options should be incentives rather than the only way. Real Example Analysis: The Eddy Lot with Current zoning: 85 acres and 41 lots: * With the proposed zoning checklist Tony gets 18 lots; maximum. * Planning Board members noted that the sub-division regulations require 1640 feet between entryways for a legal loop road in a sub-division and the Eddy Lot map shows only 1600 feet of frontage, so the Eddy Lot could only have one unit, not 41 and with a shared driveway, there could be 6 units on the lot. * It was pointed out that the sub-division regulations are difficult in the first place. Not many people have 1640 feet of frontage along the road. Dan if there is an incentive for conservation restrictions. For creating density in clusters. The incentive there is not the incentive to put it in the conservation restriction. The alternative would be to develop it.. the value of the restriction is based on Hugh Harwell: No developer/appraiser would determine market value so simply. When negotiating an agreement, there are many factors that come into account. Tony: Is not an appraiser, recognizes the value of a view shed for example, but “the big kicker” is yield. Planning Board Chairman Deacon Bonnar: Volunteers the services of the Planning Board to do the comparisons on lots. The comparisons all come out with results different from what we’re hearing tonight. This proposal is both pro-development and open space. Let a professional take the worst lots and work with Planning Board and arrive at a consensus. Becky Torres: there would be a benefit for them to work together. Cinda Jones: Wonders how to incorporate Title V without getting into a huge expense. Hugh Harwell: Wonders if one of the assumptions of the zoning is ending up with small lots that septic systems can’t be put in. Lots of sites, no matter what the zoning says will have to go to nitrogen systems. Working with open space design one could have very small building spaces with nitrogen credit areas, or one could go to the next level of shared sewage systems. It boils down to what works for individual sites. There are many ways to address these issues. Jeff Lacy: There are no specified lot sizes in the open space design. They all have to meet the basic Title V of an acre perhaps, and the running average is 1.5 acres on the properties the Planning Board has sampled. Selecting the most developable of Cowls properties and saying that has to be matched sets the bar way too high. Tony: Need to be talking in the same amount of yield matching up. Michael DeChiara: Would you think the current zoning is sufficient? Is this what we want to create going forward? The town has to address the needs of the current households and maximize the quality of life for the current people. How would that be done if not through zoning? Becky Torres: Michael’s question is outside the scope of Tony’s professional expertise. It’s a give and take on a number of issues. Wetlands protection, MESA, it’s not just sub-division and zoning. If we can do cluster and closely match yield there would be benefits. Sue Essig: Feels it’s so unfortunate that everything is extreme in this town. Proposals and reactions are extreme. She was at a conference on Saturday focused on the status of zoning around the state. Three acre lots tied to a coastal area with implications was deemed acceptable zoning. She didn’t hear any zoning in Western Mass all the way to the to the Berkshires that approached the ten acres. Further west in Rowe and Charlemont they have 2 acre zoning. Veronica Richter: When the zoning was re-vamped in the 80’s, as a land owner she lost a considerable number of lots. Jeff Lacy: Offers that less than a quorum would be very happy to meet with Tony and Cinda and review multiple Cowls parcels for yield. Cinda: Would be happy to try that with Tony. Becky: A very positive result of the Dodson memo is that the Planning Board had originally required an overall unit calculation and will now use documents. Deacon: We have looked at the Flinker memo; we have not had a vote. That mode of analysis might be an improvement, and the cellar holes may be changed. Becky: The Planning Board is taking all feedback seriously. The best way to move forward is to work together. A meeting of those three parties as a very positive step. Johanna Hayes: Has the Planning Board discussed decreasing the divisor from 10 to 3? Jeff Lacy: We’ll talk about it, but we have to see the results. If the divisor was cut the units would go up in many cases and the town would see more development. Parody is one thing but a whole lot of increase is another matter. Joanne Sunshower: People can show up at meetings, talk individually with members, write things down. All communication is welcome and respected. We’re still taking a fresh view on things. Deacon Bonnar: Open space design is a more reasonable way to design, evading the current sub-division regulations. We’re looking for appropriate development. In most cases sub-division is the relative bar Becky Torres: We have existing sub-division that is prohibitive. The Planning board wants greater flexibility while hanging onto the large open space. It’s a struggle of how to do that best. Hugh Harwell: The idea of trying to shape this proposal to achieve parody with the allowed development of current zoning is reasonable however what we don’t know is if the land has the capacity to hold all the people that the current zoning allows. Can we allow so much development that no technology can support it? Tony Wonsescki: There is a way to do it without 10 acre zoning. Becky Torres: The ten-acre piece throws the attention. Work the math out. Stephen Bannasch: The continued strong focus on yield is a red-herring. Value is what you can buy and sell for later. Becky closed meeting at 8:35 PM. Attendees milled in conversations for 40 minutes more. Selectmen voted to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Bracebridge Administrative Secretary 080331 Selectboard 1