Whatever number of new development projects we end up with and whatever the pace of their construction, there is concern about project design in the broadest sense. This includes making each project fit better into its surroundings and responding to other community concerns, such as housing affordability, wastewater treatment in sensitive watersheds, habitat protection, energy conservation, building design, etc.
In some ways, it is easier to deal with these issues, since they don’t affect the number of buildings that can be built. There will be less resistance from property owners to designing their projects somewhat differently, provided they are still able to build. However, even if better designed, each new house still contributes to the increase in population, traffic, and many other impacts associated with growth.
Often, several tools could be used to achieve the same design objective. Many of these tools are regulations and it will be up to each town to decide which it wants to implement.
Objective D4: Ensure that development and redevelopment projects are better planned and designed.
The other sections of the Island Plan discuss a variety of tools – including regulations, incentives, programs, and projects – for better protecting environmentally significant areas, for increasing housing affordability, for respecting community character, for minimizing visual impact in significant viewsheds and vistas. These strategies are relevant irrespective of what is decided about the amount, location, and rate of growth. For example:
· Open Space – require preservation of natural vegetation of portions of property in critical habitat areas, require no-cut zone along scenic roads (see section 7);
· Water – requirement that projects meet nitrogen-loading limits for their watersheds; use of Low-Impact-Development principles (see section 10);
· Energy – requirement that all buildings, or at least those larger than a given threshold, meet efficiency standards (see section 5);
· Building Design – design guidelines and review process to ensure that new buildings harmonize with their context, particularly in traditional older neighborhoods, and that their visibility from scenic roads and the coast are minimized (see section 3).
In general, the permitting process should ease permitting for clearly desirable projects by making more them “as of right”, while providing additional review for more sensitive projects by requiring that they have special permits, site plan review, and in some cases, MVC review. In addition to the specific strategies recommended throughout the Island Plan, there are three general strategies that are listed here, and which would impact not only the specific conception of individual projects, but could also impact the other concerns discussed above related to the amount, location, and pace of development.
· Strategy D4-1: Require project review for sensitive projects: Town boards and the MVC can use project review to ensure that the amount of development that takes place on a property is appropriate. First, the MVC could change its DRI Checklist and towns could change their regulations so that there is additional review in areas where projects propose higher densities than that preferred. (For example, with the current DRI Checklist, a ten-lot subdivision requires MVC review; in Resource Protection Areas, this could be reduced to, say, six.) Another possible approach could be to require MVC review of projects of greater than a given density in highly sensitive areas. Secondly, the MVC and town boards could use the Land Use Guidance Map in project review. For example, they could encourage higher-density Comprehensive Permit (40B) projects in Business and Opportunity Areas, and discourage them in Resource Protection Areas.
· Strategy D4-2: Provide density incentives for desirable development: There are a number of ways in which density incentives can be given to encourage desirable types of development, such as affordable and community housing. This could include allowing accessory units, allowing extra units in multi-family projects, or allowing development on smaller, original-size lots, provided the extra units were permanently deed-restricted for affordable and community housing. In areas where the minimum lot size was increased (e.g. sections of Edgartown and Oak Bluffs were changed from 5,000 to 10,000 s.f. minimums), the size could revert back to the original lot size for appropriate projects.
· Strategy D4-3: Set up a system of mitigation fees: In many communities, if a project causes impacts for wastewater, traffic, municipal services, affordable housing, the developer of the property pays mitigation fees to offset costs which must then be dealt with by the community. This system could be instituted on the Vineyard. There has to be a direct relationship between the project and the impact and the fees have to be proportional to this impact. It would be desirable to exempt affordable housing, and possibly year-round housing. Having to pay mitigation fees equal to the full cost of a projects’ impacts would have some deterrent effect on development, especially in locations where the impacts (e.g. wastewater treatment, traffic) are the highest. This could result in some reduction in the total number of buildings erected.
No comments:
Post a Comment