· The desired amount of overall development and
· Where such growth should occur.
These issues bear on questions such as how many new houses could or should be built? How much of a population increase would that mean? How much of the currently undeveloped land would end up being either developed or protected as open space?
Number of Houses: As noted on page 2-2, present zoning and available land would allow construction of about 7,400 additional main houses and other primary buildings on Martha's Vineyard.
In addition, construction of guest houses could have an increasing impact on the Vineyard. As the number of available building lots declines, there will likely be increasing desire to add guest houses. A preliminary estimate is that present zoning would allow about 9,000 additional guest houses. Though limited in size, each could accommodate a family and thereby generate similar impacts to a main house. Even if only a portion of the possible guest houses were built, the total increase in the number of houses and the corresponding increase in population would significantly change the character of Martha's Vineyard. (The projections in this section are based on construction of 4,4000 guest houses, about half the preliminary estimate, to be revised in the final Plan.)
Present Land Use: Currently, of the 57,000 acres of land on the Island:
· 30% is fully developed (16,980 acres, in 2008),
· 40% is protected open space (22, 889 acres),
· 30% is “available” for future development or protection (17,181acres), namely 19% on parcels with no development and 11% that could be subdivided off from partially developed parcels.
Each year, about 800 additional acres of land are developed and 200 acres are protected as open space. If this trend continues, about 80% of the “available” land – 13,000 acres of woods or fields that we now take for granted as part of the Island’s open space – would end up being developed.
Location of Development: Up to about 1970, most of the Island’s settlement pattern was structured around the three main town centers – Edgartown, Oak Bluffs, and Vineyard Haven – that were surrounded by dense, traditional neighborhoods. Elsewhere, there were a few small village centers – West Tisbury, North Tisbury, Menemsha, Beetlebung Corner – but most of the Island was rural, with farms and wooded areas sprinkled with housing.
In the 1970s, the pace of development surged in the 1970s and began moving increasingly to the countryside, where it has the greatest impact on the Island’s most significant natural resources. Since then, substantial growth resulted in newer, car-oriented subdivisions close to town or in rural areas, and a lot more housing in rural areas. The town centers of Edgartown and Vineyard Haven are now split between their historic downtown sections and their newer, car-oriented, uptown areas.
Based on available land and current zoning, this trend of spreading out development will accelerate in the future, with almost half (48%) of new development scattered across the countryside, compared to 24% before 1970 and 34% from 1970 to 2005. Development in town would drop to 34%, compared to 70% before 1970 and 43% from 1970-2005.
Development in or close to towns:
§ Makes best use of existing infrastructure such as roads, sewer, and town water,
§ Makes it easier for people to walk, bike, or take a bus to most destinations (increasing mobility for those with limited car access, and reducing car use and related congestion, energy use, and pollution), and
§ Makes it feasible to treat wastewater in plants that remove most of the damaging nitrogen.
Development in the countryside has the greatest impact on significant natural resources, destroying or fragmenting significant habitat.
§ Forces most people into their cars for most trips, since it is not practical to provide good transit in very low density areas, especially to houses up rural roads.
§ Means depending on individual, on-site septic systems that don’t remove enough nitrogen from wastewater to avoid polluting coastal ponds.
Growth Scenarios and their Impacts: The Island Plan prepared three scenarios outlining a range of possibilities for future growth, with varying amounts and locations of development. It contrasts what would happen with a continuation of Present Trends (buildout based on present zoning on available land), with a Modest Growth Scenario (based on a reduction in development, especially in environmentally sensitive areas), and a No Net Growth Scenario (with very little additional development, offset by “undevelopment” in other areas).
The table on page 2-8 describes these scenarios, and looks at their impacts using nine indicators. Comparing these impacts illustrates why continuing the trends of the past thirty years is not sustainable or desirable. Developing all available land as presently permitted under existing zoning would result in excessive growth that would undermine those characteristics of Martha's Vineyard that residents and visitors treasure the most.
By some measures, such as feeding ourselves, we have long passed a sustainable level. For other factors, we are at a tipping point. Two especially critical factors are traffic and wastewater, because of the inherent limits of the Island’s network of two-lane roads to absorb more traffic and of the Island’s natural ecosystems to absorb more water-borne nitrogen.
Since traffic congestion rises exponentially as we approach and exceed the capacity of our network of two-lane roads, excessive growth permitted by current zoning would put us into the untenable position of either accepting traffic congestion many times worse than we now experience, or facing significant, costly road widenings and installation of traffic lights in many locations; or both
Since the cost of wastewater treatment increases substantially as we exceed the capacity of natural ecosystems to treat nitrogen, excessive growth would force us to either allow our coastal ponds to become terribly polluted, or spend hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with the excessive nitrogen.
The analysis of impacts demonstrate that, if we erect all the buildings that current zoning allows, we would see the character and environment of the Island, and our quality of life, deteriorate in many other tangible and intangible ways.
The Island at build-out if all available land is developed. The future lies somewhere between these two extremes. Based on present trends, about 4/5 of the available land would likely be developed.
Island at Build Out if all available land is developed. (top) The future lies somewhere between these two extremes. Based on present trends about 4/5 of the available land would likely be developed.
Island at Build-Out if all available land as open space (bottom)
Relation Between Growth and Property Values: In the past decade, the median home sales price on the Vineyard has more than tripled and is more than double what a year-round family with a median income could afford. The primary reason property values are so high is because Martha's Vineyard is a small, beautiful island and many people in the United States wish to vacation or retire here. They can pay far more for a seasonal vacation house than can most year-round residents with an income earned on the Island. This competition with second-home buyers increasingly makes it difficult for even moderate income homebuyers to get a foothold in the Vineyard housing market. The desirability of the Vineyard, so is vital to our visitor-based economy and livelihoods, also is the principal contributor to high property values.
One concern sometimes expressed about scaling back the amount of growth is that it would make housing even less affordable. The assumption is that the law of supply and demand means that limiting the number of houses will result in a corresponding increase in cost. However, there is no evidence that open space protection or other measures that limit growth would have a significant enough impact on demand from off-Island to reduce high property values. Even if there were 50% more houses on the Island today, there are enough off-Islanders wanting to purchase an East Coast, seaside vacation home that the prices would probably stay pretty much where they are today. Even if the prices went down a bit, the average house would still be totally out of the reach of most year-round residents.
Simply allowing for more houses would not significantly impact housing affordability. This needs targeted measures such as the ones outlined in section 5 (Housing).
Relation Between Growth and the Construction Industry: A second concern about the possibility of scaling back the amount and rate of development is its relation with the construction industry, which is important to the Vineyard economy. Over the past two decades, the number of new home starts declined from about 700 to about 200 a year (not counting the drop to about 100 in 2008 due to the recession). However, the number of Vineyarders working in construction has remained constant since 1985 at about 15% of all jobs. This is because the construction industry was once dependent almost exclusively on new development on undeveloped land, but in recent years, 25-40% of the annual value of construction is for additions, renovations, and replacements of existing buildings. This includes about 15% for new houses or guest houses on already developed lots.
As the Island recovers from the current economic crisis (which is hitting construction especially hard), it is likely that an even lower proportion of construction jobs come from building new homes on vacant land, so reducing the rate of this type of development would have a limited impact on the total number of construction jobs. We can also anticipate that, as workers get older or based on changing job opportunities, a few hundred construction workers may transition over to the new growth sectors of the economy outlined in section 6 (Livelihood & Commerce).
Relation Between Growth and Taxes: A third concern about limiting new development is the impact on property taxes, or of “taking land off the tax rolls”. An MVC study of this several years ago indicated that residential development costs more than the taxes it pays, and that open space protection results in lower costs to the town. Over the past twenty years, the population of West Tisbury grew from 1,000 to 2,600, and its tax rate spiked upwards. Most kinds of development end up costing a town more than the taxes they bring in, though the impact of seasonal homes has not been analyzed.
Land Use Mapping: The preparation of the Island Plan involved extensive analysis and detailed mapping of the Island according to a variety of interrelated criteria. Six key maps are the:
1. Natural Resources Map
2. Water Resources Map
3. Hazard Mitigation Map
4. Built Environment Map
5. Housing Development Suitability Map
6. Economic Development Suitability Map
These maps were combined to produce the Vineyard Land Use Guidance Map. It identifies which areas are most appropriate for additional development and in which it is preferable to limit the amount of development and or preserve land as open space.
The map divides the land into two main areas- Town areas and Rural Areas- and nine sub categories that can accommodate various amounts of growth and that seek varying levels of resource protection and protection of existing character.
<you can view this map at the bottom of the post>
Objective D1: Preserve and reinforce the traditional settlement pattern of the Island.
The Island’s traditional settlement pattern, with three main town centers, several villages, and a rural countryside, has been somewhat undermined by the spread and visibility of development throughout the Island. We can not only limit further deterioration, but we can restore many of the areas where recent development is not in keeping with desired development patterns.
· Strategy D1-1: Limit significant new development in outlying areas: We should avoid creating new areas of commercial development, new town centers, or large, dense neighborhoods in other parts of the Island. Large and dense new subdivisions should remain prohibited, though we should allow smaller clusters of housing in rural areas when they are combined with open space protection, especially for affordable housing.
· Strategy D1-2: Restore and improve areas that were developed in problematic ways in the past: There are many ways that we can “heal” areas which were developed in ways that undermine the Island’s traditional development patterns. Car-oriented, mainly single-use commercial areas can be transformed into mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented areas better linked to the historic town centers. Destroyed or fragmented habitat in rural areas can be restored, as can the character of country roads with overly visible new development. .
Objective D2: Reduce the amount of future development, especially in environmentally sensitive areas.
A development approach that results in an amount of development somewhere between Scenarios 1 and 2, with less total growth than what is currently permitted, especially in environmentally sensitive locations, would provide a better balance between allowing for a reasonable amount of growth and the desire to protect the qualities of Martha's Vineyard.
Achieving the objective of reducing the total amount of future development – for the whole Island or for specific areas – would involve using a combination of several of the following techniques that deal directly with density. In addition, some of the other strategies throughout the Island Plan will likely also result in less overall new development. (See also the recommendations about commercial and industrial development in section 6.)
· Strategy D2-1: Adopt the Vineyard Land Use Guidance Map: The Vineyard Land Use Guidance Map, described in section 2.4, is central to changing the amount and especially the location of future development. It shows which parts of the Island should have little or no development – such as the Resource Protection Areas – and where additional development is desirable, or at least more acceptable – such as the Business and Opportunity Areas. Once finalized and adopted, it should provide the framework for other measures that should be adopted by each Town and the MVC, such as the other tools described below.
· Strategy D2-2: Change zoning regulations affecting density: The most straightforward single tool is to change zoning regulations to increase or decrease the minimum lot sizes required to build multi-family buildings, single-family houses, guest houses, and accessory units, as well as non-residential development. This might include reducing or enlarging the districts where each of these uses is permitted. It could also be more permissive or restrictive about having more than one dwelling unit on a property – guest houses, accessory units, and assisted living or retirement communities – in certain areas. For example, in Resource Protection Areas (explained in section 2.4), it would be desirable to increase the minimum lot sizes for main houses, or at least for guest houses; in Business and Opportunity Areas, the extent of zones where multi-family housing is allowed could be enlarged. Also, allowing more accessory units in certain areas is a way to accommodate more families without making a major change to the neighborhood’s character. In older neighborhoods, revising the lot dimensions so they are similar to what they were when the areas were first built would reinforce the traditional character, and would allow for infill development. A related measure is to be more permissive about the construction on substandard lots in areas where growth is favored.
· Strategy D2-3: Revise subdivision regulations: In addition to the changes to minimum lot sizes, other changes to subdivision regulations could limit further subdivision of existing parcels in highly sensitive areas, such as the Critical Resource Protection Areas. Also, the MVC Act could be used to ensure that so-called Approval Not Required (ANR) subdivisions, which are currently exempt from town review in Massachusetts, are reviewed on the Vineyard.
· Strategy D2-4: Increase tax incentives for land preservation: Several tax incentives already encourage protection of agricultural land or preservation of open space. Possible measures that could be used to encourage the preservation of private land include lowering municipal tax rates on open space.
· Strategy D2-5: Accelerate the rate of open space protection: Increasing the rate of open space preservation from the current 200 [150?] acres per year could be helped by creating additional sources of revenue, and target acquisition based on the Land Use Guidance Map, to prioritize areas of significant natural resources.
· Strategy D2-6: Set up redevelopment programs for opportunity areas. The Island Plan has identified several Opportunity Areas where there could be significant transformation in the coming decades. The redevelopment of these areas could include setting an overall concept, preparing an urban design plan, changing zoning, carrying out public improvements, and promoting development. (See section 3.4 for more detail about Opportunity Areas.)
· Strategy D2-7: Extend and finance infrastructure in growth areas, and limit infrastructure connections in conservation areas: Towns could adopt policies provide town water and sewer in priority development areas – with the community shouldering much or all of the cost – in order to facilitate development where growth is desirable. However, in order to avoid encouraging development where it is not wanted, infrastructure connections should be restricted, or if allowed, be charged entirely to property owner. In most areas where public water or sewers are extended for public or environmental health reasons as opposed to intentionally supporting or promoting development, it is important that extensions of municipal infrastructure be accompanied by “growth neutral” restrictions that don’t allow more development than what would have been previously allowed without the extended infrastructure.
No comments:
Post a Comment