Charlestown

Anna Brown and Rachel Weiss

 Charlestown, a rural, coastal town located in South County, is made up of 21,075 acres.  Of that land, the majority (60.7%) is undeveloped.  Another 23.4% is classified as public lands.  Residential population density is low throughout the town, with 1.4% of the land housing “high density” (> 4 dwelling units/ acre) populations, 5.5% of the land with “moderate density” (1-3.9 dwelling units/ acre), and 7.5% of the land with “low density” (<1 dwelling unit/ acre).  Given Charlestown’s sparsely populated municipality and its coastal location, this town could likely receive a sharp influx in the number of people to settle within its boundaries.  The plan notes the importance of preserving its “rural character,” without developing procedural methods of implementation.  Overall, the town raises many important issues, such as working with adjacent communities to “define character of key resources and cooperate in protecting them.”  The weaknesses arise where methodology is lacking.  Though the Comprehensive Plan details some strategies for protecting watersheds, there are holes surrounding how zoning regulations will effectively help limit and plan growth, a necessary consideration when discussing watershed management. 

Charlestown’s plan was submitted in 1992 and received most of the initial comments later that year or in 1993.  The unapproved components were resolved over the next seven years.  The question of how, if at all, the town’s Comprehensive Plan is used, and has changed over the years since submission to the state, remains unanswered.  The Comprehensive Plan was up for review 5 years after being submitted, but to this day remains to be reviewed.  As a result, it is difficult to know where circumstances addressed (and not addressed) in the plan stand now, within the town. 

The plan is divided up into different sections: land-use, natural and cultural resources, open space and recreation, circulation, housing and economic development, among others.  Within each category, the format is set up to first present findings, often in the form of values of the town.  Following comes the overarching goal of the town, with respect to each section, and subsequent policies that would support the vision.  The Charlestown plan, which may follow standard Comprehensive Plan formatting, then breaks down the points for implementation into high, medium and lower priorities.  Such a set up helps create a plan of attack, as the number of issues raised could be overwhelming, had they no order. 

Overall, Charlestown’s plan raises many points that illustrate the town’s concern for its natural resources.  The Pawcatuck is recognized as a sole source ground water aquifer.  As a result, the Comprehensive plan focuses partially on ways to protect the watershed, including implementation of a wastewater management district.  While some parts of the plan fail to outline implementation strategies, the section dealing with wastewater management districts goes into fairly good detail about the tactics for approach. 

Charlestown’s Comprehensive Plan addresses questions related to growth management.  When compared to the Comprehensive plans of nearby towns, the Charlestown plan may seem to have definitive steps toward implementation.  One “high priority” proposal, for example, calls for development of a “planners database” which would combine “environmental/ cultural resources and constraint maps with lot information to be used as a “red flag” in reviewing developments.”  (pg. 11)  The author notes that in such a set-up, the burden of proof would fall upon the developer to prove that there are no site constraints.  As with other parts of the plan, it does not define such terms as “red-flag.”  If this database is created, however, and it becomes the responsibility of the developers to prove no harm would arise from their operations, then Charlestown will have made a significant step.  The town does not discuss plans for a build-out, though there is discussion of developing overlay mapping which would include natural resource protection standards, a groundwater overlay, with areas of high, moderate and low protection, as well as village and historic districts.

Charlestown’s Plan was submitted: 3/20/92

 Response to Plan:

 DEM- Plan voted NOT consistent with the agency’s goals (especially due to policy of non-point source pollution management)

To be included for acceptance: (submitted11/19/92, resolved 10/3/95)

·        Storm water management (routine inspection/enforcement)

·        Maintenance program for town-owned storm water mitigation facilities

·        Promotion of regional storm water management

·        Regulation of underground storage tanks (as well as inventory)

·        Protection of sensitive surface waters and ground waters from underground storage tanks (through adoption/implementation measures to protect water resources)

·        Town-wide waste water facilities plan (to solve management problems)

·        Rare species preservation and critical habitat protection

 WATER RESOURCE BOARD- Plan voted consistent with agency’s goals

 Strategy for Reducing Risks from Natural Hazards                                1/9/97

(Adopted by Charlestown Town council and Planning Commission)

 Mitigation Action (amendment of Comprehensive Plan policies and goals):

  ·        LAND USE- protect natural/cultural resources, manage growth and development to reflect natural characteristics (resources, constraints, and natural vulnerability)

·        NATURAL RESOURCES- promote establishing protective undeveloped zones adjacent to water resources

·        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- promote development that focuses on natural/cultural resources

·        OPEN-SPACE/ RECREATION- public access to the shore, beach shuttle (decrease need for more parking lots)

·        HOUSING- developmental permits

   Exeter

Amy Paretti and Evan Goldsmith

 Status of the Plan  - The Exeter Comp Plan has been adopted by both the local Planning Board and the Town Council.  The State agencies have all finished their reviews and comments have been sent to Exeter.  The town has no official planner but has just hired a part-time planner to review the comments.  The plan was submitted in 1994 using data from 1991.  The part-time planner has been hired to address the comments from the State agencies and it is unclear whether this process has begun.  The plan is basically stalled as of now.

 General Information – Although Exeter covers a relatively large land area in the watershed, the town is sparsely populated.  Over 70% of Exeter’s land area is forested and undeveloped.  According to the Comprehensive Plan, in 1994 there were 510 people employed in the town with a population of 5,500 (1990 Census).  From 1960 to 1990 Exeter has almost doubled in population (adding 3,163 people, a 94% increase).  This growth rate outpaced both Washington County (+85%) and the State of Rhode Island (+17%).  These numbers have most likely raised concerns for future land uses and development in Exeter and have been incorporated into the town’s Comprehensive Plan (see section below on Future Land Use Plan).

Build-Out - A build-out analysis was completed for the town.  The build-out was based on current zoning in 5 categories (residential, rural, conservation, business and industrial).  The steps for the build-out analysis were clearly presented.  In addition, methodology, mapping and calculations were explained.  Presently (2000) the town is estimated to be at 9% of total buildout.   Results showed that it would take until 2102 to reach total buildout.  However, in 30 years the buildout level would be close to 40%.  This indicates an anticipated major change in the town.

 Ladd Center - The buildout analysis included development propositions for the Ladd Center in Exeter.  In 1994, when the plan was written, the town fully acknowledged the importance of the future of the Ladd Center.  It was recognized as located over a Sole Source Aquifer and that development could impact the health of the Queens River due to wastewater discharge.  In regards to the development of the Ladd Center, the plan addressed the economy of the town, employment opportunities, housing demand and environmental impacts.  However, these plans have changed dramatically in the last 6 years and the Comprehensive Plan recommendations are out of date.

 The Comprehensive Plan has sections in each chapter entitled “Findings, Issues, Goals and Policies” which gives vague and general recommendations that are not followed by specific strategies for implementation (an exception to this was the Future Land Use Plan section where specific policies were presented).  An example is “current zoning and subdivision regulations are in need of revision (Section 6.1-9, p. 29)”.  Although these sections provide summaries of the pertinent issues in each chapter, they are not helpful in recommending concrete action plans.

 Future Land Use Plan – The centerpiece of the Comp plan.  The goal of this plan is to channel growth into desired areas based on restructuring of the zoning ordinances.  Part of the plan included the development of “Village Centers” which would serve two purposes.  Preserving the rural character of the town as well as concentrating growth in order to preserve open space. The plan is detail oriented citing specific recommendations for specific land-uses in specific localities.  They recognize inconsistencies between the goals of the plan and existing zoning regulations and part of the plan is to revise the zoning ordinances.  There were time-frames presented for accomplishing certain goals (i.e. Zoning regulation changes) however, it is unclear if these time-frames were met due to the pending approval status of the comprehensive plan. Currently, there is a lack of enforcement of local zoning ordinances, which has led to development that is inconsistent with local zoning laws.  This issue will obviously need to be addressed if a change in zoning ordinances happens (no use changing them if they are not going to be enforced!)

 Water - The Comprehensive Plan specifically addressed the preservation of groundwater supply and wastewater management as one of the highest priorities of the town.  They specifically sited the Ladd Center as a potential future source of groundwater that could meet the needs of future development.  However, vague suggestions for this and other aspects of the water management plan did not  provide specific guidelines for water management.  Their recommendations included the following:

  ·        An Aquifer Overlay Protection Ordinance

·        The Option of Establishing Water/Wastewater Management Districts

·        Well Head Protection Standards

·        A Plan for Acquiring Sites for Future Water Supply

·        The Adoption of More Stringent Controls Over the Installation of On Lot Wastewater Systems in the Town

·        An Educational Program on Water Conservation and On-Site System Maintenance (Section 8.9.1, page 44)

 Administrative responsibility for this part of the plan was spread between the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board and the Town Council, with no clear responsibilities designated for any group.

 

 Hopkinton

Tom Bolioli and Jeff Klein  

The Hopkinton Comprehensive Plan was completed in the end of 1991 and submitted for review in 1992. Some general observations regarding the document are as follows:

·        The plan did appear on its face to direct change.

·        It was lacking in detail in some areas.

·        Most of the statements made towards water issues were matter of fact and showed very little understanding of the more complex underlying issues.

·        The Wood-Pawcatuck watershed is mentioned a great number of times and it appears that some town action/thought had already taken place with regards to their role in watershed management.

·        Much of the data used in the study was already more than ten years old at the time of the report and is now woefully inadequate.

 Some particular notes regarding water related issues are:

A 1979 study suggested building a municipal water system for Hope Valley based on a well placed in the Wood River aquifer. They estimated that at the time it should be constructed to be capable of extracting 400gpm. This translates into over half a million gallons per day. Another particular point is that the authors did not really understand the difference between a lake and a pond. They incorrectly referred to Lake Yawgoog as a lake when in reality it is technically a pond and the most Northwest source of surface water in the town's section of the watershed. They correctly referred to Winchek pond and Blue pond as lakes but it appears their criterion was based solely on size. They also referred to Winchek and Yawgoog, among others, as natural but must not realize the manmade dam on the Southwest corner of Lake Yawgoog which controls the water flow into Winchek Pond. Whatever their origins were, they are far from natural bodies of water now. Hopkinton did mention an Aquifer Protection Ordinance that was in the process of development at the time of the report's submission. Also town ordinances have increased waterway buffer zones from the state mandated 50ft to 300ft in most cases. However, minimum lot size is 2 acres. They also say that "most" of the population is settled in the villages within the town.

 All in all, the plan seems to have been taken somewhat seriously by the authors, however it appears that subsequent town councils and planners have made little use of it and have yet to actually complete the entire submission process. It is clear that the focus of the then current town government was to reverse Hopkinton's low economic ranking among the rest of the state's towns and cities.

 The Hopkinton Comprehensive Plan is still pending approval by 6 interested state agencies. Among these agencies is the Department of Environmental Management, which sent the plan back for revisions, citing 3 specific changes which must occur for the plan to be approved by there department:

  1.      They must adopt and implement storm water management requirements (through either subdivision or, if possible, zoning regulations).

2.      They must adopt hazardous materials requirements for handling and storage.

3.      They must cite requirements for car junkyards to protect water sources.

 The general comments also mentioned a need to deal with non-point source pollution. If each of these revisions had been made and the Plan resubmitted to the DEM, it would have been approved. Unfortunately, no revisions have since been made and therefore there has been no approval by the State.

 The Statewide Planning Office was also in charge of making comments and suggesting revisions to each of the Comprehensive Plans submitted for approval. For the Town of Hopkinton, there were some definitive comments regarding wastewater disposal. The Planning Office approved the existence of a wastewater Management District. This body establishes a series of regulations about private septic systems that help to minimize the risk of leakage into drinking water. While the regulations themselves were not questioned, the Planning Office suggested the inclusion of the Village of Ashaway, whose comparatively dense population suggests a greater risk of contamination from improper septic care.

 Many of the other revisions suggested by the Planning Office were relatively minor matters of diction or terminology, and need not be discussed here. One additional comment suggested that the Recommendation section needed to be more of a Plan of Action section, since no clear means of implementation were discussed. This tends to be a trend throughout the report and will inhibit its potential as a policy making document.

 

Richmond

Dahvi Wilson and Matt Amengual

The town of Richmond first drafted a comprehensive plan in 1991.  The plan was not approved by the state of Rhode Island.  Based on comments made by the state agencies that reviewed the plan, a new version was drafted in 1997.  This new version has not yet been approved.

 Water Quality Protection- Richmond addresses water quality protection in its comprehensive plan in a number of ways.  It recognizes the importance of the watershed and of protected rivers, lakes, and ponds. The town intends to use multiple strategies, including land use regulations, to address this issue.

The following strategies for water quality protection are described in Richmond’s plan and are based on the Department of Environmental Management’s Water Quality Management Plan for Rhode Island:

·        Land will be zoned based on various environmental factors including, but not exclusive to, soil types, topography, groundwater aquifers, and compatibility with adjacent land uses.

·        A permit system will be created to regulate large water use industries.

·        A setback  from rivers and streams will be required for Independent Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). 

·        There will be an increase in the minimum lot sizes available for development in environmentally sensitive areas.

 In addition to the water quality protection strategies adopted from RIDEM’s plan, the following strategies are also included in the comprehensive plan:

  ·        Water quality issues are addressed in a revision of zoning regulations to require a 300 ft. buffer zone, called a “non-clear” zone, along “major” rivers.

·        “Waste water management districts” are eluded to as a means of promoting “proper waste water management” in Richmond.  Such districts are to be modeled on systems existing in nearby towns, including Hopkinton and Hope Valley.

·        Certain commercial and industrial uses may be restricted or prohibited in aquifer overlays areas to ensure safe drinking water supplies.  In addition, users of these areas will be required to comply with special regulations on domestic sewage management. 

 Water Allocation- Water allocation is sparsely mentioned in the Richmond Comprehensive Plan.  The plan suggests that growth will be limited around groundwater reservoirs and their recharge areas, and that the Water Resources Board will improve water systems to “coincide” with economic development.  It also mentions the limits of the aquifers which it depends on for groundwater.  It does not lay out water allocation strategies. 

 Greenspace Protection- Richmond’s comprehensive plan includes a section titled “Recreation, Conservation & Open Space Element” which is dedicated to the subject of greenspace protection.  Strategies include:

  ·        Designation of the Wood River and Trout Stream Corridors as openspace with “special value”*

·        Ensuring allocation of openspace in new developments by requiring that at least 20% of total area (excluding roads and “natural features”) is set aside for openspace.

·        Stating that any lot not used as a building or street shall be designated openspace, and its use will be limited appropriately.

·        Suggesting the implementation of street tree planting programs in Richmond’s villages

·        Calling for the identification of “existing publicly used trails or routes” and the identification of “good potential routes and connections, such as paths along the river and stream corridors.”**

·        Seeking “Rhode Island legislation for removal of liability of private landowners who grant public access easements.”

·        Coordinating with RIDEM in “efforts to acquire key tracts which will connect existing protected parcels for the combined purposes of hiking, greenways, and wildlife corridors.”

·        Creating a land trust.

 Growth Limits- Certain factors are described in the comprehensive plan that will serve to limit growth in Richmond.  These include:

·        Population thresholds set by the residents of the town (projected population for 2010 was 7200)

·        A desire to decrease the need for large residential development by increasing “the labor supply drawn from people who reside outside the municipal service district of the community”

·        Importance placed on the preservation of town character

·        Maintaining the health of the environment and the people of the town

·        Meeting or exceeding the air, water, noise, and other performance standards set by federal, state, and town agencies

·        A preference for low density development limited by natural features, cultural features, prime agricultural soils, open spaces, aquifer recharge and wellhead- protection areas, and surface water buffer areas

·        Limited groundwater supplies.

·        Desire to keep residential areas separate from industrial and commercial areas by allowing for development of the latter sort around the junction of I-95 and Route 138

 

Conclusion-The description of Richmond’s Comprehensive Plan presented here reflects the town’s attempts to assign land use based on water quality protection, water allocation, greenspace protection, and growth limits.  The 1991 plan was not approved by the RIDEM, suggesting that these attempts were insufficient.  Specifically, the Non-Point Source Program and Planning and Development of Natural Heritage divisions of RIDEM did not approve of the plan. 

A major weakness in Richmond’s plan, noted as a critical flaw by the DEM, is its overall vagueness regarding future actions and limitations.  Though the plan makes reference to many significant factors for consideration (i.e. environmental factors, excess growth, etc.), it does not outline any specific policies to ensure that these factors will be considered in development.  Perhaps a simulated “buildout” model would help them to foresee exactly what kind of problems could arise with development and thus regulate development so as to prevent them.  As it stands presently, the plan contains many ideas that could be used to prescribe a comprehensive policy in the future.  On its own, however, the plan is not specific enough to serve its intended purposes.

 

South Kingstown

Alissa Barron and Nathan James

 The South Kingstown Comprehensive Plan was approved (apparently without objection) by the state planning department in March 1996 and expires on March 10, 2001.  The plan was written from 1990 to 1996 and was a complete revision of a 1986 comprehensive plan produced before the state planning law took effect.

 The main goal of the Comprehensive Plan is the “management of growth while maintaining the high quality of life in Town.”  After two decades with population growth rates of 20.7 percent, the citizens and planners of South Kingstown have decided that action must be taken to preserve the town’s rural character and identity, as well as the health of the economy and local environment.  To avoid increasing suburbanization and sprawl, the following goals were identified by a board of citizens and city planners:

  ·        control development

·        preserve environmental quality

·        maintain the identity of the town

·        create a balanced transportation system

·        provide housing choice

·        expand the town’s economic base

 Growth and Land Use

 The current pattern of land use in South Kingstown (approximations):

  ·        88% – Residential

·        10% – Public/Other

·        1.5% – Commercial

·        0.5% – Industrial

 One of the components of the planning process was a build-out scenario based on current zoning.  The scenario found that 98% of all land in South Kingstown was zoned residential.  Based on 20-year average growth rates, the town could expect complete build-out in 2022 with 47,324 - 51,660 residents, a 92-110% increase over the 1990 population.  No maps were produced in the build-out scenario.

 The plan emphasizes that a doubling of the population is not a desirable outcome.  Therefore, most of the action items in the plan focus on curbing future residential and unplanned commercial growth.

 The Land Use Element of the South Kingstown Plan proposes nine goals “to promote orderly growth patterns based upon the natural, cultural, and historic character of the town, the land’s suitability for use and the aspirations of the citizens.”  Each goal is followed by specific policies and implementation strategies focusing mostly on regulatory growth controls through zoning.  Because South Kingstown has a permanent, salaried planning department, the potential for follow-through on these objectives appears high. 

 Water Resources

 South Kingstown relies entirely on groundwater for a source of potable water.  Accordingly, the Pawcatuck aquifer was designated a “sole source” aquifer in 1988.  Currently, there is a high quantity of groundwater in the South Kingstown area.  The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management has designated much of this water “GAA,” or the highest quality rating for drinking water in Rhode Island.  In addition, most of the GAA-rated areas overlap with portions of the reservoirs’ critical recharge area.

 The aquifers in this system that lie beneath South Kingstown are called the Mink, Queen/Usquepaug, and Chipuxet aquifers, and are saturated to a thickness of 40 feet with a transmissivity of 4000 square feet per day.  In addition, these three groundwater reservoirs are closely connected to the bodies of surface water in the town’s area.  This means that contamination of surface waters will probably affect the quality of the groundwater in the aquifers.

 According to the South County Comprehensive Plan, priority will be given to drinking water over other water uses.

 Implementation

 1997-1998 was the first year of the five-year implementation cycle.  A series of minor revisions were submitted to the state at the end of this year.  The report included current and future activities to reduce growth and an expansion of growth management policies:

·        Reduce the impact on schools – 73% of all tax revenue in South Kingstown goes to support the public school system.  New homes only provide 35.5% of the cost of educating one child.  Enrollment between 1986-1996 grew by 39%.

  ·        Open space  – 17.7% of land in the town is protected as open space, but one-third of land is vacant and subject to potential development.  The town must identify ways to protect land without directly purchasing it.

  ·        Strengthen the central core / rural periphery to avoid sprawl – South Kingstown is composed of nine villages.  Three of these were identified as a central core where growth should be concentrated.  The outlying six  and the periphery should remain more rural.

  ·        Reduce residentially-zoned land – in 1992, 98% of all land in the town was zoned residential.

 Among the projects under consideration during the first year:

 Developing a wider array of housing types.

Encouraging housing types that do not generated school impacts

Evaluating core areas for increase in density

Decrease density in periphery by upzoning residential land.

Develop village master plans.

Promote infill housing in the core.

Developing  a comprehensive growth management plan.

 Specific Actions taken:

 evaluate impact fees to reflect the number of bedrooms in a dwelling

investigate open space preservation techniques

develop subdivision design guidelines

establish municipal GIS program

implement a wastewater management district

tree inventory

goal for acquiring 100-150 acres of land for open space preservation or school sites

 Recent Growth Controls

 In 1997, the town passed a cap on the number of building permits in an attempt to limit residential growth.  Only 320 permits every two years, or 40 per quarter, will be granted.  The regulations privilege low-income housing and developers of subdivisions.  South Kingstown was the first in the state to adopt this type of growth cap; for years preceding the cap, the town was first in the state in new home starts, but has now slipped to fourth.  The permit cap is currently being challenged in court by at least on landowner.

 

Stonington, CT

Edward Allen and Kirsten Rudestam

 Highlights and salient features of the Revised and Adopted Plan of Development, June 1978 by the Stonington Planning & Zoning Commission

 A. Goals & Objectives:

1) Gradual growth.

2) Controlling future development.

3) Protect and preserve environmental and cultural features.

4) Future development must provide a continuing expansion of the economic base.

5) Promote light industrial activity.

6) Promote clustering, density transfers, planned development and open space retention.

7) Promote, retain and enhance farming, fishing and forestry.

8) Protect significant environmental resources.

9) Acquire two major recreation sites for water access.

10) Develop specific design controls for areas of historic significance.

11) Develop a long-range capital expenditure plan.

12) Designate areas for low and moderate income families.

13) Revitalize and redevelop areas in the early stages of debilitation.

14) Acquire green spaces in built-up areas.

15) Develop alternative transportation modes (system of bike paths and hiking trails).

 

B: Suggestions for management of Pawcatuck housing development.

·        Protection of natural land areas adjacent to present subdivisions.

·        Consideration of housing patterns that are better suited to the geographic features of the land.

·        Investigation of existing home in downtown Pawcatuck as rehabilitation possibilities.

·        Examine existing housing in terms of possible subsidization.

·        Creation of more green areas around the downtown residential district and diversification of street-scape.

·        Formulate a plan to restore downtown Pawcatuck’s once vital character.

 

C: Relevant recommendations for economic development policy.

·        Industrial and commercial expansion is positive if proper protections are provided.

·        A major effort should be pursued to develop an industrial base at sites which are compatible with the environment and surrounding areas.

·        Set aside a sum for industrial park acquisition and local share of site development.

·        Seek financial aid for and provide assistance to the fisherman’s dock.

·        Agriculture, forestry and other special natural resources deserve special attention and treatment as primary economic activities.

·        Possible property tax reduction options “to sweeten the attractiveness of locating in Stonington” for the above industries.

 D: Transferable Development Rights

·        In areas unsuitable for development where there are other resources that should not be disrupted the economic pressure for development can be removed by the transfer of the right to build on such sites to other sites where development would have a lesser impact.  For Stonington, green-belts, rural, residential and coastal areas should be designated preservation zones, whereas high density manufacturing development and commercial areas would be receiver districts.

E: Clustering

·        Clustering should be the preferred housing development promoted by the commission

·        Larger open spaces and further development cost reduction can be achieved by allowing for the inclusion of a small percentage of duplex and town house units

F. Growth Management

·        Limit the total number of approved family units and major subdivisions to 1.5% of the existing housing stock per year

·        Single family home construction, minor subdivisions and existing lots would be exempt

·        Large proposals must be separated from small developments and those with great impacts can be reduced in scope for any one year

G: Village Revitalization

·        Downtown Pawcatuck has substantial build up portions with core areas that are either declining or are not appropriately developed

·        Detailed studies should be undertaken to determine the revitalization programs to be implemented

H: Alternative Transportation Development

·        In addition to existing transportation modes, the town must undertake to promote and develop additional means for moving people. Special tasks include: integration into the regional mass transit district (Southeastern CT); develop special bikeway paths through scenic areas in Stonington; develop additional commuter parking sites; install summer shuttle service; develop at least three transportation centers in Mystic, Central Stonington and Pawcatuck.

I: Long Term Planning

·        Elaboration of a new zoning regulation to codify land use potential

·        Prepare an updated subdivision regulation

·        Develop plans for housing assistants, open space acquisition, recreation needs, coastal policies, infrastructure needs, drainage improvement, industrial park development, transportation report, and a historic area program

 

 

West Greenwich

Alyssa Arcaya and Colin Cheney

 Goals, Policies, Implementation Plans: The West Greenwich Comprehensive Plan has devoted several sections of its document to outlining goals, policies and action/implementation plans which will act as the town’s basic framework for meeting the state’s 1988 Guideplan.  The plan effectively outlines the town’s goals for facing future growth and development.  Goals are stated in an appropriately open-ended fashion, such as, “identify and preserve natural resources” and “develop water resource management strategies”.  One of West Greenwich’s most important goals is preservation of “rural character”.  The goal of protecting rural character seems to encompass the smaller goals of preserving historical sites and greenspace and maintaining the town’s “visual diversity”.  The plan places a lot of emphasis on making the town as visually pleasing as possible in an effort to maintain a “small town” feel.  

On the other hand, the town’s policies and implementation programs for meeting those goals are rather vague.  Language used in these policy and implementation sections is not binding or concrete; these sections are often left open-ended.  Even when the proposed actions are quite tangible, for example- “develop a comprehensive local groundwater protection strategy”-, there is nothing in the document detailing who will take on this task or when it will be done.  Statewide Planning and the RI Historic Preservation, two agencies that have yet to approve this project, commented on this fact.  A Statewide Planning memo dated 13 September 1999 read, “there is a concern with the lack of detail with the implementation activities overall.  [Statewide Planning] was also concerned that there were insufficient activities to address the multitude of goals and policies listed in the plan.”   In fact, the comprehensive plan itself was dotted with small post-it notes from the Statewide Planning office; policy and implementation sections were often marked with comments such as “?” and “Who the hell is going to do all this?”

Regional Vision: We found that the plan mentioned little about a larger regional vision for resource protection or growth management issues.  A memo from Statewide Planning dated 18 March 1999 stated, “consistency with the economic development goals and programs of contiguous municipalities was not demonstrated nor was there any discussion of regional coordination in economic development planning.”  The focus of West Greenwich’s plan mainly concerns preserving the integrity of the town’s rural character; no mention is made to working toward any regional concept of rural character. 

 Build-Out:  In the “findings” section of the chapter on Existing Land Use, the current land use patterns were described as “conventional sprawl patterns, consuming large tracts of the landscape along the town’s roadways.”  The predominant “strip style” land use also gives the impression that “large portions of the town are developed well when they are not”. It was stated that these patterns do not conform to the desired rural character of the town.  This seems to be West Greenwich’s prime concern as it outlines how it will control growth. The town has few places that could be categorized as medium or high-density areas.  Approximately half the town’s area can be categorized as protected or part of an endangered species habitat.  

The town is very concerned with protecting greenspace and containing industry to certain areas in the town.  West Greenwich’s map of projected and desired development shows that approximately 50% of the town is classified as “greenbelt overlay district”.  The purpose of these areas is to protect rural character by acting as a buffer zone against sprawl.  Again, the language in this section was quite vague.  No mention was made about what sort of development would be permitted in this area.  The town also provided for the development of small neighborhood businesses in designated areas according to “special area management plans”.  These are “mini-plans” for development- sites will include small businesses that can cater to the needs of residents in more remote areas.  These sites are found within the greenbelt overlay district.  The town has very little industry; most of it located within a technology park area.  West Greenwich is trying to consolidate future industrial developments in one off-highway site.  The town is quite concerned with keeping industry as contained as possible so as not to interfere with rural character. 

In the section on Guiding Future Development, it is stated, “projected growth from current development proposals alone is more than three times the average yearly building rate of the past years.”  The town seems very aware of the threats unmanaged growth poses to its “rural character” and wants to consider the potential of using flexible zoning laws to protect this character.

Overall Effectiveness: In general the Comprehensive Plan did a good job in outlining existing natural resources, cultural concerns, and various factors limiting growth.  It was also effective in focusing its goals to both promote the town’s cultural character and rural atmosphere, and outlining steps to protect and preserve the natural environment.  While it was strong in detailing existing conditions and a vision for the town, it was noticeably vague about how it would transform these visions and goals into actual actions and binding policies for the town.  For example, the plan stated that the Town’s Zoning Ordinance would be revised to help strengthen natural resource protection, and include planning tools such as flexible/ cluster zoning, buffer zones, and development plan reviews. However, there is little that is binding in the language of the implementation plan or any details on how and when this would be accomplished.  While the plan expresses a positive vision for controlling growth and preserving the natural resources of the town, the lack of a feasible timetable or structure to the implementation is a large weakness.  The plan also offers little vision on coordinating with other towns on growth and development issues.

 Status:  The Plan was submitted in 1995 and has yet to be fully approved.  Five state agencies have yet to fully approve the plan: Statewide Planning, DEM, Historic Preservation, RI Housing and Mortgage finance corporation, and Library Services. According to a Statewide Planning Memo of 13 Sept. 1999, West Greenwich is on its way to addressing the concerns of these agencies. DEM requested a GIS map of forest types that the Town is preparing; this is the extent of DEM’s concerns. The other major hurdle that the Town needs to address has to do with the “time frame and prioritization of implementation activities” that both RI Historic Preservation and Statewide Planning have expressed concern over. The Town is currently developing a “matrix system to provide the desired level of detail” for implementation. Also, considering Statewide Planning’s comments on internal consistency, it seems questionable whether the Town will be able to meet its goal and have its revisions ready for submission this June.

 

Westerly

Miriam Pfisterer and Will Hodges

          This plan was completed in 1991 and approved by the State Planning Council in 1995. 

 Projection

A build-out scenario was conducted to determine maximum potential development in the town.  47% of the town’s land area had been developed by 1989, when the last study was done before the plan was finished. A possible 7,285 residential units could be constructed, thus increasing the population 86%, from its current 23,621 to a total of 44,000 residents.  Local zoning ordinances are the town’s primary way to influence that growth. In devising a future Land Use Plan, the town has stated its proposed land use changes not represent a radical departure in the way the town is presently zoned, but rather strive for a more “conservative vision of the future.”

 Land Use Issues

            Current zoning has yet to distinguish between land suitable for development and land with environmental constraints.  Most future residential development will take place in marginal areas, such as those with poor soil or adjoining wetlands, and several business districts lie in sensitive coastal areas.  Many publicly-owned lands designated as conservation or recreation areas such as parks and wellhead areas actually fall under residential or commercial zoning. 

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT:  Because the town’s zoning must conform with the land use designation goals of the Plan, current zoning ordinances have to be revised.

1)      Down-zone parcels to less buildable status

2)      Employ cluster zoning which leaves land set aside and creates inter-areas for open space

3)      Develop Performance Standards for stormwater run-off, erosion and sedimentation          controls, vegetated buffers, land clearing activities, ISDS, and wetlands protection

4)      Limit future commercial development to those business districts already zoned commercial; prohibit rezoning.

5)      Encourage urban redevelopment through creative funding mechanisms like low-interest loan programs and private donations

 Natural Resource Issues

            A major issue affecting surface and groundwater resources is the fact that 63% of Westerly’s soils present a high risk for contamination from ISDS failure. Westerly was one of the first towns to provide public sewers and treatment plants have alleviated much of this pressure at least for surface water.  All of Westerly’s three aquifers have been listed as threatened and ten sites are identified for possible groundwater contamination.  Non-point source water pollution also continues to contribute to a loss of water quality.  Several of the town’s ponds are particularly sensitive to nutrient loading and areas along the shore are susceptible to erosion from development.  In order to consider these special natural resources and to plan for open space, several overlay maps have been devised according to a set of environmental characteristics. 

 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT: 

1)     Develop a list of high-priority parcels of land for protection

2)     Preserve land through direct fee simple acquisition, conservation easements, or  preferential tax programs

3)     Create overlay districts for aquifer protection, salt ponds, wetlands, and the coastal zone as a way to conform local zoning ordinances to the management objectives of the Plan.