APPENDIX H

TO:             Concord Long Range Planning Committee

FROM:        Rick Taintor

DATE:         December 31, 2003

This memorandum presents zoning options to promote the preservation of farmland in Concord. While a wide range of regulatory tools is theoretically available to promote the preservation of agricultural land, only a limited number of these tools are appropriate for use in Concord because the remaining privately-owned farmland in Concord consists of a limited number of relatively small parcels scattered across the town. This memo focuses on zoning options that appear to be most appropriate in Concord.

Additional zoning strategies to encourage large-scale clustering and farm-based businesses are described in Farming and Forestry Strategies, a report prepared in 2001 for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the Rhode Island Rural Lands Council as part of the South County Watersheds Technical Planning Assistance Project. The full report may be viewed and downloaded at the following web sites:

·                   http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/bpoladm/suswshed/pdfs/farmstrt.pdf

·                   http://documents.taintorassociates.com/southcountytpap/farmstrt.pdf

Profile of Concord’s Agricultural Land

Currently in Concord there are 53 parcels with a total of 843 acres that are classified as forestry (Chapter 61), agriculture/horticulture (Chapter 61A), or recreation (Chapter 61B).  Of these, 28 parcels totaling 427 acres are agricultural/horticultural parcels containing 5 or more acres of land.

Current Use Assessment Parcels (Chapter 61, 61A, and 61B)

Source: Town of Concord GIS database

Parcels in agricultural use are concentrated in three major areas across the Town. One cluster, totaling more than 150 acres, is in the vicinity of Nine Acre Corner with parcels on Sudbury Road, Fitchburg Turnpike and Plainfield Road; and extends north to include parcels on Williams Road, Old Road to Nine Acre Corner, and Sudbury Road near Route 2. Several parcels on Monument Street and Old Bedford Road in the northeast part of Concord represent approximately 120 acres of agricultural land. Additional agricultural parcels totaling nearly 100 acres are in the northwest part of the Town, along Lowell Road and Barrett’s Mill Road.

Concord’s agricultural land is all zoned for residential use, but in several zoning districts. Parcels in the Nine Acre Corner area, on Monument Road, and on Lowell Road are zoned Residence AA (80,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area). Those on Barrett’s Mill Road are primarily in the AA district, but the street frontage is zoned for 40,000 sq. ft. lots (Residence A). Finally, the Old Bedford Road agricultural parcels are zoned for Residence A and Residence B (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area). These differing zoning situations must be taken into account along with environmental conditions when considering the development potential of each parcel.

In addition to the parcels classified as agriculture, forest, or recreation land, there are 61 parcels over 5 acres in area that are in various open space classifications:

Vacant Land Parcels, 5 Acres and Larger

Source: Town of Concord GIS database

Concord’s privately owned open land is characterized by small parcel areas. Only 23 open land parcels (including vacant developable land as well as land classified under Chapter 61, 61A and 61B) are 20 acres or greater in area, including seven parcels in the Chapter 61A program; and only seven open land parcels (including two Chapter 61A parcels) are larger than 40 acres.

In addition to this small average parcel size, ownership of agricultural land in Concord is fragmented among many individuals: the 53 parcels in Chapter 61, 61A, and 61B classifications are owned by at least 46 separate owners, of whom only a few have large parcels. To be effective, farmland preservation strategies should be targeted to the specific needs of the current owners.

Zoning Strategies for Farmland Preservation

In Massachusetts, it is not permissible to establish minimum lot areas that are consistent with agricultural use (for example, 20 or 40 acres); and such minimum lot sizes would not be appropriate in Concord in any case given the limited number of large parcels. Accordingly, zoning strategies to encourage farmland preservation must be based on providing incentives and options for landowners. Examples of such incentives and options include:

·       Promote cluster residential development with a high required percentage of open space. The amount of farmland that can be protected through this approach is proportional to the permitted density of the developed portion of the parcel, which in turn is related to the types of residential structures that are built. Concord’s current provisions for Residential Cluster Development and Planned Residential Development do not provide effective means of preserving farmland because their required percentages of open space (50% and 25% respectively) are too low given the relatively small size of the Town’s agricultural parcels.

The following approximate percentages of total tract area can be preserved as common open space depending on the type of residential structure:[1]

Single-family (cluster)         50%–70% open space

Townhouses                       80%

Garden apartments              90%

Thus, multifamily development (townhouses or apartments) can be much more effective than detached single-family dwellings for preserving farmland.

·       Permit accessory retail uses in connection with agricultural use of the property. The Farming and Forestry Strategies report referenced above includes a model zoning ordinance to permit farm-based retail sales. This option is useful where the landowner wants to continue farming but needs a supplementary source of income; but it does not provide a return comparable to residential subdivision in a strong housing market such as Concord’s.

The obvious concern with allowing farm-based retail sales is the change that it would bring to the character of the area (including generating higher traffic volumes on rural roads), even while it would preserve significant tracts of farmland.

·       Permit other non-residential and non-agricultural uses on a small portion of the property in connection with preservation of open space on the remainder.  For example, some communities permit rural landowners to use barns and sheds for small manufacturing operations, or to use their land as a base for construction-related businesses (including landscaping, snowplowing, hauling, etc.). However, these types of uses do not appear to be particularly appropriate for the kinds of agricultural parcels that exist in Concord.

These zoning strategies can be applied in one of three ways:

·       Create a new zoning district with different development standards from the existing residential districts. Concord has taken this approach with respect to its Limited Business districts.

·       Create a special overlay district within which regulations of the underlying district are modified by stricter controls and/or the provision of additional development options. To date, Concord has used overlay districts solely to impose controls to protect natural resources (floodplains, wetlands, and groundwater) and not to provide for alternative uses or development standards.

·       Permit the new development options within one or more existing residential districts, subject to a minimum parcel area requirement. This is the simplest approach and would be comparable to the way that Concord currently permits the Residential Cluster Development and Planned Residential Development options.

Recommendations

The most effective farmland preservation strategy for Concord would be to provide a strong residential alternative to single-family residential development (conventional subdivision or cluster development). This means permitting a residential density that is significantly higher than allowed with single-family development. Based on the limited number of large agricultural parcels and their distribution throughout the Town, it is recommended that this strategy be pursued as an option within existing zoning districts, rather than through the creation of a new zoning district or an overlay district.

The availability of the existing Planned Residential Development option is an obstacle to implementing this strategy, because it allows an increased residential density without requiring preservation of a large percentage of the tract. One approach, therefore, would be to increase the open space requirements for a PRD in the Residence AA district. Currently, a 20-acre tract with no wetlands or floodplains in the AA district would be eligible for development of a PRD with 32 dwelling units, preserving only 5 acres of the site as “common open space.”

It is recommended that the Town consider modifying the PRD option within the Residence AA district along the following lines:

·       Increase the minimum required tract area to 10 acres. There are 36 privately-owned parcels of this size in the Residence AA district, totaling approximately 990 acres. Individual tracts that are smaller than 10 acres will generally not support both development and remaining areas that are significant for farming.

·       Increase the required open space percentage to 75%. This would preserve 7.5 acres of a 10-acre parcel, 15 acres of a20-acre parcel.

·       Increase the allowable residential density on the tract to four times the “basic density.” For a tract with no wetlands or floodplains this would translate into the equivalent of a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area. Currently the maximum residential density is three times the basic density, corresponding to a 27,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area.

At maximum development of all qualifying parcels, this would increase the residential buildout in Concord by 518 dwelling units while preserving 744 acres of existing open space.[2]

This strategy is appropriate for the pattern of open space parcels that exists in the Town of Concord. However, it depends on incentives (higher density of development and lower infrastructure costs due to clustering of that development) rather than on mandates and as such it is limited in how effective it can be in preserving open space. In addition, there is no guarantee that any open space preserved by a PRD would be used for farming (only 9 of the 36 eligible parcels, totaling 230 acres, are currently in the Chapter 61A program).

Finally, the modifications to the PRD provisions suggested in this memorandum should be considered in conjunction with the recommendations contained in my October memo relating to cluster development options.