Groton Open Space Association

Cluster Development Models Stir Questions At Zoning Commission Meeting

Two Views Of Model 75-Unit Development For Sheep Farm

 GROTON — The Office of Planning and Development Services presented several models of cluster developments at the Zoning Commission’s latest meeting, triggering a host of questions from commissioners about potential impacts. 

The models shown at the July 7, 2010, meeting were prepared by Kendig Keast Collaborative, a Midwest-based consultant hired more than two years ago to help update Groton’s land-use regulations. Planning Manager Matthew Davis and Planning and Development Director Michael Murphy used the models to illustrate their argument that offering developers the option of compact design could help the town save space and promote innovative residential architecture. 

The 63-acre Sheep Farm on Hazelnut Hill Road was the theoretical setting of the models. The farm, currently under purchase option to the Groton Open Space Association, has been used for this illustrative purpose in the past. The models showed cluster developments of 35, 50, and 75 units. 

These numbers compare with the proposed 34-house Groton Highpoint subdivision that earlier had been approved for the land before the developer dropped the project. 

The 35-unit single-family cluster model had 77% open space. The 50-unit model of single-family and townhouse dwellings had 80%, and the 75-unit single-family, four-plex plan had 62%. The larger plans had two clusters. The smallest had one. 

Groton Highpoint was proposed to have 33 acres of open space and 9 acres of conservation easements on some lots, for total open space of 67%. 

The models drew immediate pointed questioning from Zoning Commission Chairman Stephen Hudecek, who in the past has raised concerns about the impact on the town of greater residential density. 

Mr. Hudecek asked Mr. Davis and Mr. Murphy, “The purpose of changing from what we have today is to —-? Give one a one-liner–to allow more people to put more units on a piece of property?” He indicated that developers would naturally choose to build 75 units on the property, rather than 35, with negative impacts of “more cars, more pollution, more schools, more people.” He noted that the first section of the Zoning Regulations charges the commission with protection of the community. 

Mr. Davis said the purpose was to “create flexibility to allow people to develop a more sustainable built environment with greater open space protection, greater environmental protection…and in locations that your plan [of conservation and development] says are appropriate for all the good smart-growth reasons…” 

Mr. Murphy said that conventional subdivisions allow for open space exactions from developers of only 10% or 20%. He said conventional subdivisions “have done damage all over” through big lots and big roads. A “base cluster” subdivision would involve open space exactions of some 40%. Tight clustering, he indicated, could reap open space of some 75%. 

Commissioner Mariellen French questioned whether the saved open space would be securely protected or would be used by future generations for more building. Mr. Davis said he could not predict “what will happen in 50 years” but he added the land would either be owned by residents, given to a land trust or deeded to the town. Mr. Murphy said the intent would be to “permanently protect” the land. Mr. Davis said open space proposals would be referred to the Conservation Commission. 

Earlier in the meeting, Mr. Hudecek expressed impatience with the slow pace of the land-use rewrite process. Mr. Murphy said he would like to conclude the process this winter. He noted that the project has been slowed by, among other things, the loss of personnel due to budget cuts. 

The subject had arisen from a presentation to the commission by a number of businessmen who seek to ease what they said are growth-inhibiting restrictions imposed on entrepreneurs in the Nautilus Memorial Design District near the submarine base. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Davis originally argued that NMDD modifications should be considered as part of the overall land-use regulation update, while some commissioners sought quicker action, separate from the update. Mr. Murphy agreed after discussion to review the situation and report on it for the next meeting.