Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Figure 3-4. Optional vs. Mandatory Clustering <br /> <br />Many states (e.g., Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Nevv Hampshire, Nevil Jersey, penn, sylvania, Vermont, and <br />\-Vashington) provide for cluster zoning in their planning and subdivision enabling legislation. :vfost of these <br />states allow local governments to offer it as an option to developers. A fe...v states (c.g., r<ew York) givc the <br />local planning board the pm-ver to require developers to submit a proposed cluster plat. <br />.\1andatory provisions can be used on a case-by-case basis for proposed developments that \\.'ould destroy or <br />remove more than a specified percentage of whatever land the community seeks to protect, including floodplains. For <br />example, a number of towns in ~:Iassachusetts have adopted a Farmland/Open Space Conservation and Development <br />bylaw that encourages flexible subdivision layouts and prohibits new development of farmland from consuming more <br />than 50 percent of the parcel. Arendt (1994) advocates that developers be required to submit t'wo sketch plans-one <br />depicting gross density in a conventional site layout and one depicting gross density in a cluster pattern. lIe believes <br />that, given a graphic illustration of the h\'o options side by sidc, property owners and the planning and zoning board <br />will recognize the land conservation value of the duster option. <br />Ceneral provisions for cluster subdivisions are usually found in a supplementary section of a zoning ordinance. <br />These provisions typically include the following items: <br /> <br />. A statement of purpose <br /> <br />. A provision permitting transfer of densities within the subdivision <br /> <br />. Review criteria <br /> <br />. Identification of districts \,vhere the cluster option is allowed <br /> <br />I\:finimum size requirements <br />. Open space requirements <br /> <br />conjunction to steer development into a cluster <br />configuration. In a floodplain, the cluster concept is <br />usually applied so that the homes are grouped on the <br />natural high ground area of the site or on a small, <br />contiguous, filled area \vith the remainder left as open <br />space or recreational land. NFIP communities that <br />participate in CRS can receive credits for keeping open <br />space free from development. The open lands may be <br />publicly or privately o\vned as a park, golf course, <br />private grounds, or similar use. Additional credit can be <br />received if deed restrictions are placed on the property <br />to prevent future O\vners from developing the lands and <br />if the open space is left in an undisturbed natural state. <br />The cluster method has fang been advocated by <br />planners and has become increasingly common in the <br />last several decades, particularly in the Northeast. <br />Because it usually all()\.vs a developer to achieve the <br />same gross density as conventional development would <br />allow, clustering has emerged as a common tool for <br />subdivisions and planned unit development sites that <br />contain any sort of sensitive and government-regulated <br />environmental features. <br />There is a perception in some areas that cluster <br />development is simply a euphemism for high-density, <br />multifamily development. The fact is that open space <br />zoning or cluster development is also a means for <br />developing single-family homes on separate lots to <br />obtain open space and recreational amenities. There are <br />common fears that the open space in the cluster <br />subdivisions will be developed in the future. The latter <br />concern is unfounded because cluster ordinances usually <br />stipulate that further subdivision of the open space that <br />is part of the initial development is prohibited. <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />Even in communities that a11m.\' cluster development <br />as an option, these "nonconventional" developments <br />are subject to more rigorous revie\v than conventional <br />developments. Knmving that these developments 'will <br />be scrutinized more closely has been identified as a <br />deterrent to pursuing cluster as an option among <br />developers (Arendt 1991; Arendt 1994). <br />Concerns of property owners about cluster <br />development (e.g., privacy, density, housing types, <br />future uses of the open space) can be addressed <br />effectively in an ordinance. Most ordinances require the <br />developer to stipulate \vho is responsible for managing <br />and maintaining the open space. Homemvners <br />associations are often used to manage common <br />recreational lands. See Appendix E for examples of a <br />cluster development ordinance. <br /> <br />Density Transfers, Credits, and Bonuses <br />Integrally related to the cluster concept is the notion <br />of density transfer. Developers can be permitted to <br />transfer density from one part of the site to another as a <br />means of encouraging cluster development or to meet <br />minimum buildable area requirements. A straight <br />transfer of density would not necessarily increase the <br />total number of d\velling units al1()\.ved (the gross <br />density), it \'Vould simply concentrate the development <br />on the least sensitive portions of a site. <br />Some communities provide density bonuses for <br />developers \'vho choose a cluster pattern over a <br />conventional layout. Density bonus systems generally <br />a11mv the gross density of a site to be increased in <br />exchange for a preferable site plan, such as a cluster <br />development, in '\vhich all building sites are out of <br />