Staff began work on the proposed Open Space and Historic Resources Plan (OSHRP) in January 2000. On May 11, 2000, Town Council approved a workplan and timetable for the OSHRP. Resource assessments and analyses were conducted during the period June 2000 – February 2001. On March 1, 2001, the Planning Department presented the proposed Open Space and Historic Resources Plan to the Town Council at a work session.

A ‘public input phase’ was conducted during April and May, and four Community Information Meetings were held during this period. Citizens responded to the draft Plan and provided comments on open space preservation priorities.

A joint work session of the Planning & Zoning Board and the Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Resources Advisory Board was held on June 18, 2001, prior to the June P&Z Board meeting.

The Planning & Zoning Board requested additional information and clarification on several aspects of the OSHRP, categorized as follows:

• Areal Extent of the Proposed Open Space System (POSS)
• Conservation Subdivision Design: Description of the Process
• Conservation Developments:
• Economic Aspects, Marketability, and Case Studies
• Description of the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) Concept

A brief response to each issue follows, with a link to a more detailed report.

Areal Extent of the Proposed Open Space System. As shown on the OSHRP Plan Map), the Proposed Open Space System (POSS) contains 15,085 acres. This includes both Significant Resource Areas and Greenway/Open Space corridors shown on the Map. Within the POSS, 8,200 acres are developed, leaving 6,885 acres in the remaining, undeveloped Open Space System. Of this, 2,046 acres are within 100 foot and 50 stream buffers. Thus, the remaining, undeveloped land, available for preservation within the proposed system, is 4,839 acres, or 27.4% of the total land supply. The attached report contains a table detailing the percentages of the Proposed Open Space System.

Conservation Developments typically cluster smaller lots on a tract of land, instead of distributing them over the entire acreage. As a result, conservation subdivisions, neo-traditional villages, and other higher-density residential developments tend to be more cost effective to construct.

Despite its advantages, conservation development has not replaced conventional large-lot subdivision layout as the dominant form of residential development. However, there is evidence that buyers appreciate the value of a smaller lot near to permanently protected open space. Several studies have shown that the value of homes in cluster developments appreciated at a faster rate than did the value of homes in conventional developments, in spite of the facts that the lots in the cluster developments were significantly smaller.

Examples abound of conservation subdivision developments that preserve open space, provide a range of mixed uses, and are highly marketable to the discerning homebuyer. The National Association of Home Builders promotes conservation subdivision development as part of their ‘Smart Growth’ strategy.

The attached report contains illustrations and a case study of the open space design process, summarizes the costs and savings of conservation development, and provides several examples of successful conservation developments.

The four aspects discussed above, the findings of which were based upon comments and inquiries from the Planning and Zoning Board, will be incorporated into the proposed OSHRP as Technical Appendices.