Town of Washington Master Plan & Regulatory Audit: Interim Results May 20, 2008 Presented by: 30 Bank Street Lebanon, NH 03766 www.uvlsrpc.org
Introduction & Purpose Compare the Master Plan to the regulations which drive land use planning decisions Identify if community goals are consistent with or contradict implementation policies The Master Plan must be consistent with regulations in order to further community goals Review issues with Planning Board before drafting recommendations
Audit Process Create checklist of all Master Plan vision and goal elements Incorporate Conservation Plan goals into the checklist Create criteria to simplify the comparison Review and compare the Master Plan to regulatory standards Identify problems, issues and observations Identity needed Master Plan improvements
Regulatory Tools The following regulatory tools were evaluated: Land Use Ordinance (Zoning)-including provisions for Floodplain development and telecommunication towers Subdivision Regulations Site Plan Review Regulations Impact Fee Ordinance Noise ordinance Capital Improvement Program* Recycling Ordinance Road weight limits E-911 Ordinance *financial planning tool
Table: Town of Washington Planning Priorities Built Environment Natural Environment Social Environment Mange growth to minimize visual and environmental impacts Ensure that growth concurrent with infrastructure capacity and CIP Protect historic resources Ensure that development is compatible aesthetically with the character of a bedroom community Encourage the rehabilitation of the housing stock Restrict industrial growth that is in conflict with the Master Plan Vision Protect rural character Protect the public's health by ensuring the safe disposal of wastewater and septage Preserve Class VI roads for emergency and recreation access Provide safe movement of traffic Protect open space and greenbelts surrounding village areas Protect scenic resources Conserve land with environmental or scenic value Mange and conserve agricultural lands, forests, surface and ground water and all other natural resources for long term sustainable production and use Protect the town's water quality, wetlands and aquifers Protect the natural ability of the landscape to withstand flooding. Promote the conservation, protection and responsible management of natural resources Protect the productive capacity of forest land for its current and future benefits Protect and enhance the ecological integrity of the town's diverse natural communities and wildlife habitat Sustain unique village centers Protect cultural resources Encourage community volunteerism Maintain recreational opportunities through protection and connection of Open space Protect high quality of life Encourage cottage and home-based business Protect and sustain small farms in the present and in the future Provide adequate public safety Provide education that exceeds state standards Source: Town of Washington Master Plan, 2006 and Conservation Plan 2007.
Evaluation Criteria Direction of Growth Towards specific districts, e.g. Villages Density Do densities promote rural character? Form Consistent with a rural bedroom community? Land use Promote cottage industries and agriculture Open space Promote open space around villages Transportation Promote safe movement of traffic Environment Protect wetlands, aquifers, forest, water bodies and scenic resources Housing Promote investment in the housing stock
Big Picture Results The Master Plan does not articulate the town s vision for the desired location, nature, and extent of future development The Master Plan could be improved to better describe the connections between regulatory tools and the environment The existing zoning ordinance structure, e.g. the 4-acre minimum lot size town-wide, will likely result in a rural-suburban development pattern The Town of Washington is not utilizing all the available regulatory tools to promote its vision
Big Picture Results (cont.) Provisions within Site Plan Review and Subdivision are lacking specific standards to guide development The tread between the Master Plan and regulations could be improved, e.g. the CIP and impact fees The Town of Washington is not providing for a diverse housing stock Administrative amendments are needed and are an opportunity to improve organization of regulations
Policy/Regulation Built Environment Natural Environment Social Environment Master Plan & Conservation Plan Does not provide a clear future land use directive i.e. no future land use map. No connection between natural resources and wildlife habitat. Rural character and quality of life need to be better articulated. Core principles could be simplified. Zoning One zoning district with a four acre min. lot size will likely result in suburban-style development. No design review provisions. Lighting for signs not required to be down lit. Only minimum parking requirements. No protections for aquifers, steep slopes (outside of cluster). Consider the four-step cluster development process. List of permitted uses needs clarification and better definitions. No accessory dwelling unit provisions. Subdivision Road designs should be for all users. No access management provisions or provisions to connect dead-end streets. Few environmental performance standards for subdivision design. Standards much less strict if not a cluster subdivision. Cluster subdivision does not include nonresidential uses, which promote interaction. Site Plan No standards for the location of parking. No access management provisions. Few environmental/natural feature performance standards for subdivision design (e.g. landscape standards, preservation of stonewalls & dark sky) No provisions to facilitate common or open space. No dark sky provisions. Impact Fee Noise Difficult to implement without a large volume and fast pace of growth. Not implemented during building permit. Not part of the zoning document. No formula for assessments. Are fees levied at building permit/coo stage? Weak linkage to the Master Plan and CIP. No definitions for fee payer or new development. Town does not have equipment to measure sound levels. CIP Master Plan projects are not included in the CIP. Recycling No encouragement for recycling. Other (driveway regs., rules of procedure, missing policies, E-911, road weight limits, noise ordinance etc.) No historic districts or demolition permits. No driveway grade standards. No class VI road policy. No maintenance program for town buildings. No scenic road designations. No health regulations with septic system inspection process, or other, to address undersized lots. No Class A trail or Fire Lane designations. No education program to inform residents about town affairs.
Master Plan and Conservation Plan Administrative Issues Master Plan core principles could be reorganized and simplified Conservation Plan is not adopted by reference in the Master Plan Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation Transportation elements are weak Weak linkage between environmental features such as soils, wetlands, and water bodies as they relate to ecosystems and wildlife habitat Village districts not mapped Missing Components No clear future land use directive i.e. no future land use map Rural character and quality of life need to be better articulated No scenic roads or fire lanes identified
Zoning Administrative Issues No written cluster development process-e.g., identify key features first, then development areas, structures, and roadways List of permitted uses needs clarification and better definitions (light manufacturing, business use, and cottage industry) Clarify regulated shore land, perennial or intermittent Clarify permissive or prohibitive ordinance structure Could move parking standards outside of zoning into subdivision and site plan to avoid Town Meeting requirement for amendments
Zoning (Cont.) Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation One zoning district with a four acre min. lot size will likely result in suburban-style development No places identified for village development or mixed uses and associated dimensional requirements No flexibility in parking requirements-only minimum parking requirements Provisions outside of cluster development are unclear e.g. are steep slopes regulated outside of cluster developments? Lighting for signs not required to be down lit. Cluster development restricted to single-family residential
Zoning (Cont.) Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation (cont.) No incentives for cluster developments. No consideration of telecommunication tower lighting Height restrictions do not include windmills Promotes a housing stock that is homogenous Setbacks for accessory buildings from water body shore is inadequate Cluster exemptions may undermine promotion of vision. No clear criteria for issuing conditional use permits e.g. what makes a parcel ill suited for cluster development?
Zoning (Cont.) Missing Components No protections/consideration for aquifers, prime agriculture land and forest land No design review provisions No accessory dwelling unit provisions No steep slope and ridgeline regulations No historic district Regulation of excavation may go further than RSA 155E No performance standards for the operation of a home-based business (e.g. noise, traffic)
Subdivision Administrative Issues Administrative updates needed to be consistent with current laws (regulation of vernal pools, timeframes, and more) Preliminary consultation not required Fire department and other emergency services should review applications before final plat Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation Standards less strict outside of a cluster or major subdivision Road designs should be for all users e.g. bikes and pedestrians No access management provisions Required road widths may be excessive in some instances Missing Components Cluster subdivision does not include multifamily and nonresidential uses Few environmental performance standards for subdivision design. No Low- Impact Development (LID) provisions (grass swale and impervious surfaces)
Site Plan Administrative Issues Unclear how home occupations are permitted. Is a public hearing held for home-based business review? Not requiring the submission historic structure locations Fire department and other emergency services should review proposals as soon as possible Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation Few /weak environmental/natural feature performance standards for site plan design (e.g. LID provisions-landscape standards, preservation of features e.g., stonewalls, large trees, buffer size) Landscaping standards don t act to minimize urban landscaping Parking not required to be placed in the rear of buildings. Permeable parking lot surfaces are not encouraged Down directed lighting not required. No dark sky provisions No provisions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities Missing Components No provisions to facilitate common or open space No flexible parking standards. No access management provisions
Impact Fee Administrative Issues Difficult to implement without a large volume and fast pace of growth Not clear when imposed. Implemented during building permit issuance? Not part of the zoning document If not further refined, consider using off-site exactions instead Move definitions into definitions section Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation No formula for assessments Weak linkage to the Master Plan and CIP Missing Components No definitions for fee payer or new development
Noise Ordinance Administrative Issues Difficult to administer No equipment to measure noise levels for enforcement Missing Components How dba is determined Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation How dba is measured is unclear Is it an average? Define warning devices Exemptions seem to cover most problems that would be encountered
Capital Improvement Program Administrative Issues Not integrated with Impact Fee Ordinance Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation No estimate for future development s impact on the town s infrastructure and what improvements may be needed Missing Components Master Plan projects are not included in the CIP Planning Board does not have a section were capital planning and ordinance projects are included
Other Administrative Issues Regulations are fragmented into many separate ordinances No maintenance program for town buildings other than CIP Enforcement of building code administratively challenging for small community Consistency Issues and Level of Implementation No driveway grade standards No scenic road designations Street addressing ordinance does not allow shared driveways No encouragement for recycling Missing Components Not utilizing health regulations with septic system inspection process Not utilizing historic districts or demolition permits Not utilizing Class VI road policy Not utilizing Class A trail or Fire Lane designations No education program to inform residents about town affairs Not utilizing new tax incentive program available for housing rehabilitation Not utilizing the betterment assessments for road improvements, RSA 231:29 No agricultural commission
Next Steps Board reviews interim results containing the identified issues and inconsistencies Commission staff will prepare recommendations to address the identified inconsistencies A final meeting will be held to review the recommendations with the Board Commission staff will provide a reference document identifying problem areas A list of recommendations, organized by administrative, priority and lower priority changes, will be provided
The End Questions/Comments?