Protect the Partrick Wetlands
and our Community
|
Presenter: Matthew Mandell |
|
Character has been an issue that ARS has embraced as well.
(Slide)
ARS formally requested to the conservation commission that house #1 not be saddled with a 45 foot setback because that would force them to build a house that was out of character with their project.
(Slide)
As proposed this house is out of character with their own project, but in choosing to build it anyway they are essentially circumventing what Conservation had intended by not wanting a house in such a fragile location.
A central theme I'll introduce now, that I will point to throughout my presentation, is there is an excessive number of houses being proposed on the available land.
(Slide)
Allow me to define available land. According to Randall Arendt in his Model Ordinance Provisions for Conservation Subdivision Design in 4 step process writes, all primary conservation areas, in this case the wetlands, are to removed from calculations, all inaccessible land is also removed, what he called the adjusted tract acreage, or available land in this case about 9 acres.
(Slide)
As I said there is an excessive number of houses being proposed on the available land. 22 houses on 9 acres. Here we are looking at about 14 on maybe 5. This is being done to maximize their return at the expense of character, the environment, the local community and even the "neighborhoods" they will be creating. In this case House #1 is only there because they have an aesthetically pleasing location to put it on. It shouldn't be there, it's out of character, which they already know, and it will obviously impact the environment. And I will speak to your jurisdiction over that later on.
In the WPCA hearings, Steve Folb, a partner in ARS, spoke and I quote, "All I want to do is build houses that are in character with the area."
Earlier in these proceedings the architects for Roger Ferris spoke of the character of the surrounding houses, essentially the types and styles and the materials used, to justify the houses that they are proposing. Now while any one of their houses would certainly be in character, when you begin to be cookie cut the design and place them 26' feet apart is where character is lost. Building them all over 4000sq is where the character is lost.
ARS says that being in character is important, yet the design, proposal and application does not achieve this.
Let's look at the neighborhood and three roads that all abut the Partrick Wetlands
(Slide)
Oakwood......
(Slide)
Lowlyn ......
(Slide)
Partrick ......
This is the character of the neighborhood.. Houses with yards and back yards and space between them.
(Slide)
This is not.
(Slide)
Nor this
(Slide)
And this back yard at 38 Partrick
(Slide)
Will become this.
This is not in character with the neighborhood.
(Slide)
As you know the surrounding properties are all zoned AAA 2 acres per house and across Partrick AA 1 acre per house. This is in direct contrast to this proposal which puts 2.5 houses per acre of available land, 22 houses on 9 acres. AAA houses are over 100' apart from each other, that's the minimum due to the regulations, most surpass that. AA are over 60' from each other and AAA to AA over 75' apart. These again the minimums most are greater. This again is in direct contrast to the houses they have proposed at 26' to 52' apart. While I'm not saying that clustering is wrong conceptually, what I have issue with is the placing of the houses on whatever land they find and the proximity to abutting neighbors, the road and the overall change of character it will bring.
This is not a new concept for us. I will submit my prior reasoning on this issue into the record to allow you to refresh your memories.
(Slide)
Randall Arendt the noted expert on OSRDs is clear in his writings and in his designs that views from the roads should be protected and that abutting neighbors should be consulted and their views and property be protected as well. This proposal does not do that.
Here is an example of Arendt's work on a land in Mass.
(Slide)
What a regular subdivision would look like.
(Slide)
And how he would design it. Note, there are no wetlands here. All the houses are placed away from the existing roads and there is a large usable open space in the middle for everyone to use.
(Slide)
In 1998 the owners of 46 Partrick Road requested a zone change Application 98-092 to allow their AAA property to be cut into three one acre parcels suitable for three houses. The P&Z commission denied it. Some of the reasons behind this were are follows
1.To Prevent the Over crowding of Westport
2. Preserve the semi-rural atmosphere that makes Westport so desirable.
3. Sited the 1997 town plan that Westport is almost entirely built up and that existing natural and built resources were valued more.
4. Increased traffic at 20 more round trips per day.
5. Protect residential neighborhoods
6. Retention of the low density district
7. Commission must consider the Plan of Development
8. Study the possible effect of this change.
These are all wonderful reasons to have stopped what would have been an increase to density, traffic and a change in character to the neighborhood. The question I have, and I know that was for a zone change, but it was for more houses in the end anyway, how if over-development is bad 1/4 mile down the road, why isn't it bad 100 feet away?
Over there building 3 houses on 3 three acres was not allowed, but over here on the same side of the road allowing 22 houses on 9 available acres is acceptable?
The character of a neighborhood is all about its consistency that's what keeps it intact. The answer to this issue is simple.
(Slide)
These are the zoning regulations which give you the authority to protect character and more.
44-5.7 Character and Appearance
That the location, size and design of any proposed building structure or use,... will be compatible and harmonious with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood... their location on the site in relation to streets... and adjacent residences and their relationship to the natural terrain, watercourses, waterbodies, wetlands and vegetation.
43-1 Purpose
The purpose of this process is to review the development plans of an applicant to assure that they... protect adjacent properties, through appropriate design considerations and siting of buildings, structures.
(Slide)
44-6 Special Permit Standards
In reviewing a Special Permit application or an application for a change in a Special Permit use,
the Commission shall consider all the standards contained in § 44-5, Site Plan Standards and
Objectives, herein, and shall take into consideration the public health, safety and general welfare
and may prescribe reasonable conditions and appropriate safeguards to assure the
accomplishment of such standards and objectives. In granting any Special Permit, including any
change in a Special Permit Use, the Commission shall determine that the proposed use conforms
to the overall intent of these regulations and shall consider in each case whether the proposed use
will:
(1) Be in conformance with the Town Plan of Development;
(3) Not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent areas located within the close proximity
to the use;
(7) Preserve important open space and other features of the natural environment related to
the public health, safety and welfare;
(8) Not obstruct significant views which are important elements in maintaining the character
of the Town or neighborhood for the purpose of promoting the general welfare and
conserving the value of buildings;
(10) Be in scale with and compatible with surrounding uses, buildings, streets and open
spaces.
This is what Westport and Old Hill looks like. There proposal doesn't.
Next part of Speech, No Usable Open Space.