Subject: Open Space Mixed Use Development Overlay District (OSMUD)
To the Members of the Planning Board:
Thank you all for the time and considerable attention you have given the Legacy Farms Development project especially the OSMUD zoning and Master Planning effort. The planning for a project of this size and scope is considerable, and as a voter I appreciate the level of effort you have put forth to ensure that this initiative gets a solid start with a zoning article that supports a Smart Growth development project that balances dense development with purposeful open space.
Fred Merrill, from Sasaki, pointed out, “That’s what the East Hopkinton master plan strategy was all about: trying to strike that balance of development and conservation with mixed-use development that would be fiscally positive and still provide meaningful open space.”
There are three areas that continue to concern me as we approach Town Meeting seeking a 2/3 affirmative vote for the zoning article.
1) Open Space: Open Space is and has always been a key feature of the planned community called Legacy Farms. From the beginning, the vision for the property has been a planned development to include no more than 940 dwelling units, 450,000 square feet of commercial space and 500 acres of open space. Each component is intended to balance the other key components, and all are essential for success at Town meeting. Substantial deviation from one is likely to trigger a response from a given constituent group.
As a matter of practicality, the zoning has to reflect that original and long-
standing vision in order to gain necessary voter support across all constituency
groups. My concern is that by using the catch-all category “restricted land”
without specifying open space we risk support from key voter groups in the
same way we would if the zoning article called out for more/less residential
units or more/less commercial space; the key elements— open space,
residential and commercial development— exist in a carefully crafted balance
with each other.
The zoning article put forward for support from key Town Boards and then
Town Meeting simply must be true to the commitments made in June 2007 for
a carefully planned development that balances density with meaningful open
space.
2) Municipal Uses: I support the idea of some property being set aside for future municipal uses, and I think that argument can be made successfully at Town Meeting. I think it is very reasonable to consider a cap on the number of acres; this is a planned community, so it should be possible to target a specific number of acres that will be necessary for future municipal uses. Additionally, the developer should not be expected to accept future municipal uses being proposed haphazardly around the carefully planned community.
Lastly, the voter needs to understand clearly that the zoning article only allows for the stated uses; the Town would still need to acquire the property to
use it for municipal purposes in the future.
3) Dwelling units in the commercial zone: This is a tricky issue. I support the principals of Smart Growth, and I know that Continuing Care or Assisted Living projects can be very revenue positive; they do consist of dwelling units, however, and we have to be forthright with TM voters that the zoning currently allows for more than 940 residential units. In my opinion, this triggers a negative reaction from almost every voter because the concerns folks have with the project are largely centered on the numbers of people that will reside there or travel to and from. Any dwelling unit must be counted against the total of 940 maximum; if there is a deviation from that cap, the voter needs to understand and be willing to accept that potential increase in total new residences. I think it matters little to the voter if the dwelling units are identified in the zoning as allowed as “a strictly residential use” or as a “commercial use”. The voter will be most concerned with numbers (total) of residences.
Excerpts from the OSMUD with my suggestions.
Page 2
CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OR ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY -- A facility providing living accommodations and communal facilities for
persons over age 62 and that includes at least: a) 24-hour on-site responsible staff; b) a
common dining area in which at least one main full meal is served each day; c) optional
laundry, housekeeping and personal services available to residents; d) transportation
services; and e) common indoor and outdoor passive or active recreational areas. Such a
facility may include: a) a medical or nursing home component; and b) retail sales and
services for the convenience of residents, accessible only from inside the facility.
….
DWELLING USE -- Use as Dwelling Units as defined in §210-4, but specifically not
including residential units that may be part of a Continuing Care Retirement Community,
Assisted Living Facility or similar institution.
My comment: All dwelling units have to count toward the total number of residential units; if that number changes, or is allowed to change because of the zoning, some accommodation must be made. Residential units tucked into the commercial uses will challenge our chances of getting the necessary 2/3 vote at Town Meeting. Please revise this section and reinforce the dwelling unit cap, or make necessary accommodations to balance the allowed increased residential component (whether that residential component is categorized residential or commercial). Given a finite number of acres, it may be hard to balance the open space commitment, commercial component and residential cap if more residential units are allowed as commercial uses.
Page 3
RESTRICTED LAND – Land devoted to uses permitted by §210-170A, which may
include (1) land left substantially in its natural state; (2) land that is restored or
landscaped, including irrigation, detention and/or retention ponds or stormwater
catchment areas and subsurface utilities; (3) land used for agricultural purposes; (4) land
improved for active and passive recreational uses, including pedestrian, bicycle and
equestrian trails, or other municipal uses not including a building greater than ___ square
feet; (5) food preparation and sales areas, restrooms, parking and access areas, and
similar uses, structures or portions thereof, operated in association with other Restricted
Land uses; and (6) Not more than 30 acres of land that is restricted for the benefit of
landowners within a particular area of the OSMUD District or a particular Development
Project. Restricted Land shall not include land set aside for road and/or parking uses that
are not accessory to other Restricted Land Uses.
My comments: It seems that (1), (2), (3) and (4) -except for “other municipal uses…feet” could be categorized as traditional open space, and I recommend doing so. (5) could also fit within the open space guidelines which support active and passive recreation uses including access and small refreshment/facility structures.
Municipal uses should be categorized in its own category and capped at a planned and agreed to number of acres.
(6) appears to be its own category, but can easily fit within the concept of open space from a conservation/view shed perspective, yet space that is private and not maintained for the public’s access. I think this point clearly made can garner TM support.
Please reconsider including “open space” so defined within the body of
the zoning article. Traditional open space included within the OSMUD
reflects a long standing commitment to the public by both the developer
and the Town Boards. It simply must be included, defined and quantified within the OSMUD to follow through on that original shared commitment and to establish necessary voter support. It should be noted that
Thank you for your kind consideration of my comments, Muriel Kramer