Hotel,
housing, 66 building lots
permitted along Cold Spring Road,
planning board found; Another 100 lots near Five Corners; the best argument for
rejecting the water line is an economic one
Submitted by Sarah Gardner,
Ph.D.
Assistant director, Center for
Environmental Studies, Williams College
ONE-PAGE SYNOPSIS:
Many
studies document that farms and open land, far from draining local taxes,
actually subsidize local government by generating far more in property taxes
than they demand in services. Growth
and development do not generally lower property tax bills.
The
Planning Board’s build-out analysis found about 66 potential building lots on
Route 7 between the Bee Hill Road intersection and MGRHS, including a potential
spur partway up Woodcock Road. From
MGRHS to the Five Corners area of South Williamstown (to the Route 7 and Route
43 southern end of Waubeeka Golf course) and including a spur partway up Sloan
Road, about 100 building lots were identified. The Williamstown Market
Place/1896 House site could become a hotel with 125-180 rooms, Building
Inspector Michael Card says.
If
that zoning were challenged
by a property owner or developer on the grounds that water and sewer lines
negate the public health necessity for large lot zoning, the town may be forced
to rezone the RR2 and RR3 areas for higher density (1 acre, for example). In this case, the build-out analysis
calculations would be doubled: 132
house lots on Cold Spring Road and 200 house lots in South Williamstown.
Proponents
of the water main, including the Board of Selectmen and some members of the
MGRHS Committee, have attempted to discredit the Planning Board’s analysis, but
the Planning Board has reviewed the analysis on several occasions and has not
found cause to amend it. The Board
stands by these numbers and also supports the need to consider the build-out
potential of South Williamstown because the 16” water main would be poised for
extension to Five Corners, which would open up South Williamstown to profitable
large scale development.
All
recent land use plans for Williamstown have endorsed the importance of smart
growth to protect the town’s character as well as its appeal as a tourist
destination. The Master Plan (2002) and
the Open Space Plan (2004) recommend placing new development in downtown areas
that are already developed and already served by water and sewer. The plans state that this strategy makes
economic sense on two fronts: it revitalizes the downtown, which helps maintain
the town center as a viable commercial zone.
And second, by protecting the rural outlying areas of town from
development, Williamstown will preserve what it is known for: scenic, rural
beauty.
Protecting
the sweeping views in the gateway to town is the key to protecting the town’s
economic value: a 1992 planning study of the Cold Spring Road corridor states
that “Cold Spring Road…is an enormous economic asset that needs to be
protected. It is conceivable that with existing zoning is may someday be
pressured into more office/corporate uses or more tourist uses…the economic
value of the corridor’s natural setting...is one of the major supports for the
local economy. Controlling growth on
the corridor is, therefore, a positive economic development strategy” (Connery
Associates 1992).
1. Build Out Analysis
The
Williamstown Planning Board conducted a build-out analysis of the Cold Spring
Road corridor. Build-out analyses are a
commonly-used planning tool that calculate the maximum amount of development
possible under current zoning; they are used to help towns understand what
their zoning prescribes, or, what the future pattern of development will be.
The
build-out analysis was conducted because infrastructure (water mains and sewer
pipes) is known to increase property values and lead to development. There is concern that the water main,
combined with the existing sewer, will hasten development along Cold Spring
Road, either in the short of long term. The zoning capacity of an area must be
understood before growth occurs: afterwards it will be too late.
Build-out
analyses begin by calculating the development potential according to zoning,
next protected (APR and CR) and publicly owned land is removed from the
analysis. Unbuildable land, including
steep slopes, wetlands and rivers, and areas surrounding wetlands that are
protected by the Wetlands Protection Act and the Rivers Protection Act are also
subtracted from the calculation.
The
Cold Spring Road build-out analysis covers the area between Bee Hill Road and
Mount Greylock Regional High School.
This stretch of Cold Spring Road is primarily zoned Rural Residential 3
(RR3), which requires 2.5 acres for a building lot. The Planning Board, in an effort to err on the conservative side,
used 3 acre zoning when calculating subdivision build-out to account for land
for subdivision roads and right of ways.
There are also some Tourist Business (TB) zones along Cold Spring Road
that are subject to more intensive use.
Two
types of residential development are possible: Approval Not Required (ANR) and
subdivisions. ANR lots can be created by right along Cold Spring Road if the
required 200’ frontage and 2.5 acreage exists.
In other words, approval by the Planning Board is not required and the
Planning Board may not deny ANR applications if these dimensional requirements
are met. Subdivisions may be built on
larger parcels where a road can be built, usually a cul-de-sac, which creates
frontage for house lots.
Subdivisions
are governed by the Subdivision Control Law and are subject to review by the
Planning Board, but they may not be denied if the dimensional requirements are
met. No applications for housing developments--either
through ANR or subdivision--may be rejected because of local land use
preferences or planning objectives.
The
build-out analysis found about 66 potential building lots on Route 7 between
Bee Hill Rd intersection and MGRHS. This takes into account a potential spur
partway up Woodcock Road. From MGRHS to
the Five Corners area of South Williamstown (to the Route 7 and Route 43
southern end of Waubeeka Golf course) and including a spur partway up Sloan
Road, about 100 building lots were identified. Beginning at Five Corners, the
zoning district changes from RR3 to RR2 so the frontage requirement decrease to
150’ from Five Corners south.
Non-residential
development is also possible along Cold Spring Road. The Tourist Business zones
may be developed for more intensive use. For example, the Williamstown Market
Place/1896 House site could become a hotel with approximately 125 to 180 rooms,
according to Building Inspector Michael Card.
Institutional uses, such as nursing homes, are allowed by Special Permit
from the Zoning Board.
There
are statutory limits to local land use controls in Massachusetts: educational
and religious uses are allowed in any zone.
(This explains why the Clark/WACC was able to locate in the Rural
Residential zone.) Another use
exemption that limits local control over land is 40B affordable housing
development. These are allowed in any
zone within localities that have not
met the 10% affordable housing goal, which Williamstown has not. Neither the Planning Board nor any
governmental body can legally limit development along Route 7 or any road in
town by zoning for larger than 2.5 acres.
In
fact, the legality of 2.5 acre zoning is already questionable. If that zoning were challenged by a property
owner or developer on the grounds that water and sewer lines negate the public
health necessity for large lot zoning, the town may be forced to rezone the RR2
and RR3 areas for higher density (1 acre, for example). In this case, the build-out analysis
calculations would be doubled: 132
house lots on Cold Spring Road and 200 house lots in South Williamstown.
Proponents
of the water main, including the Board of Selectmen and some members of the
MGRHS Committee, have attempted to discredit the Planning Board’s analysis, but
the Planning Board has reviewed the analysis on several occasions and has not
found cause to amend it. The Board
stands by these numbers and also supports the need to consider the build-out
potential of South Williamstown because the 16” water main would be poised for
extension to Five Corners, which would open up South Williamstown to profitable
large scale development.
Land Use Plans
All
recent land use plans for Williamstown have endorsed the importance of smart
growth to protect the town’s character as well as its appeal as a tourist
destination. The Master Plan (2002) and
the Open Space Plan (2004) recommend placing new development in downtown areas
that are already developed and already served by water and sewer.
The
plans state that this strategy makes economic sense on two fronts: it
revitalizes the downtown, which helps maintain the town center as a viable
commercial zone. And second, by
protecting the rural outlying areas of town from development, Williamstown will
preserve what it is known for: scenic, rural beauty.
Protecting
the sweeping views in the gateway to town is the key to protecting the town’s
economic value: a 1992 planning study of the Cold Spring Road corridor states
that “Cold Spring Road…is an enormous economic asset that needs to be
protected. It is conceivable that with existing zoning is may someday be
pressured into more office/corporate uses or more tourist uses…the economic
value of the corridor’s natural setting...is one of the major supports for the
local economy.
Controlling
growth on the corridor is, therefore, a positive economic development strategy”
(Connery Associates 1992).
2.
The True Cost of Development
There
is a commonly held belief that development enhances the local tax base. Therefore, it follows that housing
development is a way to increase the wealth of towns, including schools and
other public services. This thinking is
based on the idea that more houses equal more property tax. While this sounds
logical, this logic has been disproved many times over. Numerous studies have shown that residential
land is the most expensive for local government to support: it costs the public
more money than it pays in taxes and charges.[1] It is more expensive to serve residential
areas than commercial, industrial, farm or open land. Large-lot housing developments are the most costly type of land
us for towns.
This
research, cost of community services studies, has found that revenue from
residential land falls about 25 percent short of covering the costs of the
public services they receive. The
ratios of revenues to expenditures for residential. Commercial/industrial,and
farmland/open space found in three Massachusetts towns averaged: 1:1.12 for
residential land; 1:.42 for commercial/industrial land; and 1:.33 for
farmland/open space.[2]
Another study found that for every dollar farms and open lands generated in
revenue, they required only 0.33 in services.[3] The adage that cows do not send their
children to school expresses a documented fact: farms and open land, far from
draining local taxes, actually subsidize local government by generating far
more in property taxes than they demand in services.
These
findings call into question the assumptions behind the term “highest and best
use” of land. Growth and development do
not generally lower property tax bills. It is neither accurate nor responsible
to claim that expanding the residential tax base, especially through the
development of large lot single family homes, is an economic development strategy.
[1] “Economic Benefits of Open Space,” Government Finance Group, Inc. , Public Finance Digest, Sept. 1993.
[2] “Does Farmland Protection Pay: The cost of community services in three Massachusetts towns (Gill, Agawam, Deefield),” American Farmland Trust, 1992.
[3] “Cost of Community Services: the value of farm and ranch land in Hays County, Texas,” American Farmland Trust, DATE?