IMPROVING OPEN-SPACE SUBDIVISIONS IN CHARLTON, MASSACHUSETTS: CONNECTING BACK TO THE LAND

In Charlton, Massachusetts, the current open-space subdivision option doesn't work well for the benefit of people or wildlife, but rather allows the developer to cut costs without giving a more beneficial design in return. Open space "islands" are being created that have no connectivity with one another, making them little more than buffers of undisturbed land within and among developments. While these buffers are somewhat useful from an aesthetic perspective, better regulations and design guidelines would be helpful in creating more useable "corridors" for wildlife and trails for people, which in return will help to preserve wildlife biodiversity and provide meaningful recreational opportunities for residents. Fragmentation of contiguous wildlife habitat is a major cause of local declines in wildlife species. Continuing along with the status quo would perpetuate inefficient stewardship of natural resources, continue the building of subdivisions where people are separated from nature, and force local wildlife into either finding new habitat or into facing decline and eventual extinction through genetic degeneration. This study utilizes a multi-layered methodology to understand the issues: casestudies of existing open-space developments in the town of Charlton; the latest research from the preservation of biological diversity; an adapted Ian McHarg environmental overlay analysis method; and the Conservation-Subdivision design method recently put forward by Randall Arendt. These methods are then used in concert to look at a current Charlton subdivision project, Schofield Heights, to field-test the learnings from the project. Feedback is then utilized from the new designs to compare Charlton's existing open-space development regulations with the theoretical knowledge having been gained, whereby final recommendations for Charlton's regulations are made. The study concludes that if support from the local Planning and Conservation offices is provided to ease the extra design work inherent in these projects, that the benefits derived from this type of open-space subdivision planning exceed the costs for all involved.


Study Overview and Methodology
The study is organized into four parts: Problem Identification (Chapters 1 and 2); Review of the Literature (Chapter 3); Application of Leaming (Chapters 4 and 5); and Synthesis (Chapters 6 and 7). In this introductory chapter, we have briefly explored the broad problem of being disconnected from our surroundings; the remainder of chapter one will be an introduction to the town of Charlton, Massachusetts in its geographic context. The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship is the third chapter; this literature review argues that we can no longer think of the natural environment as something "out there", but rather as something we need to be connected in order to live sustainably in the world; and something we need to proactively plan for. Introduction "ground-testing" focuses the project fully onto the realities of development. Finally, chapter seven summarizes learnings and makes recommendations for changing Charlton's current regulations.

Methodology
First, brief case studies will be used to review two existing cluster/open-space development subdivisions in Charlton, broadly comparing them against some of the ecological principles that will be focused on throughout the remainder of the study.
Second, an existing parcel of land in Charlton, already identified by the owner as intended for subdivision, will be selected to utilize ecological principles discussed in the literature review, along with an adaptation of McHarg's overlay mapping method (1991), and conservation subdivision layout techniques from Randall . This work will culminate into two open-space design alternatives for this forthcoming Charlton subdivision project, hopefully providing some useable ideas for the forthcoming project.
Finally, from the learnings of this study will come a review of the existing zoning regulations in Charlton regarding cluster/open-space subdivisions, with recommendations for needed changes. Introduction wanting to locate here (due to impending deregulation of the electric industry), and new wireless telecommunications towers being erected (due to the Federal 1996 Telecommunications Act), are besieging this sleepy rural town. These impacts are beginning to divide Charlton into a number of different camps, those that don't want any changes (that will ruin their rural community), those that want economic development, and those that want to find a balance that fits with the reality of the times.
Until recently, town government has been run by a small, mostly volunteer caretaker regime , consisting of a 3-member board of Selectmen (now Selectwomen as well), and elected or appointed committees and commissions. In 1990, the town began to use part-time professional planning staff, and in 1996 hired its first fulltime town planner. A professional town engineer will be hired in 1997, and discussions for hiring a town administrator are debated in Town Meetings. Taking a look at the town zoning map in Figure 1-2 (Charlton has only had a zoning bylaw in place since 1987), one can see that about 80 percent of the community is zoned 'A' (Agricultural). Also of interest is how the JG (Industrial General), IP (Industrial Park), and CB (Community Business) zoning districts are set up along the two major road corridors in town: Route 20, which runs east-west, and Route 169, which runs southwest from Route 20 (slightly west of the center of town). Route 20 is a concern from a zoning perspective, with its 400 foot deep CB district running through most of the town; it has the making of one big strip mall! Lack of town sewer and water, and lower-than-desirable traffic counts by the major retail chains are the primary reasons it hasn't yet been developed. There are no national retail chains in Charlton today.
Highlighting the largest zoning district in Charlton, the Agricultural zoning district is a rural residential density zone requiring a minimum of 60,000 square feet for a single parcel, with a minimum road frontage width of 175 feet. The intent and purpose of the Reviewing the latest aquifer information, Charlton has a one medium-yield gravel and sand aquifer, located in southeast Charlton, in the Buffumville Lake area; it is not presently being used for public water supply needs (see

ANO ESTIMATED YIELD TO PROPERLY DESIGNED ANO CONSTRUCTED WELLS
Generally greater than 300 gallons per mlnuta from an aquifer having an atlmated transmluMty gruta than 4,011 feet squared P"r day Generally ~ 100 and 300 gallona per minute from an aquifer having an admated tranamlsslvlty between 1,337 and 4,011 feel squared per day Generally bctwccn I 0 and I 00 gallona per minute from an aq ulfcr having an atlmatcd transmlsslvlty between 134 and 1,337 feel squared per day ~ Generally less than 10 gallona P"r minute from tlD or bedrock having an admated transmlsslvlty between 0. 1 and 134 feet squared p4'r day @ Municipal well 0< weD field finished In unconsolidated deposits Ch. 2

Promise and Reality
In the State of Massachusetts, municipalities are authorized through the state zoning act known as Chapter 40A to allow the option of cluster development subdivisions through special permit. Charlton has adopted this provision, calling their version of it the "Flexible Development"; a developer who opts to use this provision of the town's zoning bylaw goes through both a special permit process and a subdivision review process. These are typically done concurrently to save time and duplication of efforts.

The Result
A review of Charlton Planning Board records shows that the Flexible Development option has been used for the design of four subdivisions to-date. Two of these have already been constructed, a third was recently approved; a fourth proposal was preliminarily approved by the Board but final plans were never brought forward.
The two subdivisions that have been constructed, Solar Heights and Henry Richards Circle, have been selected to briefly look at the results of following the Flexible Development bylaw. The locations of these subdivisions in Charlton are shown on Figure   2-3. The reason this option was chosen by the developers for these projects, and therefore the option's primary benefit to them is that significant dollars could be saved on road construction costs.
A look first at the objectives and performance standards of the flexible development option, and next at these two subdivisions that were completed shows that objectives are certainly met regarding efficient use of infrastructure and municipal services.
Looking however at for them, and people are cut off from one another. These 3 issues will now be reviewed.

Contiguous Wildlife Habitat is Compromised
In both subdivisions important consideration of adjacent streams and/or wetland areas to preserve wildlife habitat was not undertaken. Putting open space next to these areas would have left a wider wildlife corridor as the land was developed.  Walker 1989.
In both of these projects, the houses are not at all oriented toward one another in any kind of cluster, as hinted at in section 5.7.3.2 of the bylaw. "Cookie-cutter" lots facing the streets, however, are standard fare for the lots in Solar Heights; and although the lots in Henry Richards Circle face wooded open space in the middle of the cul-de-sac, they are set back about 200 feet from the street. Houses in Solar Heights are set back 50 feet from the street, but in either development anyone walking by who wanted to casually say hello to their neighbor in passing would be forced to raise their voice significantly or be resigned to just waving.
In Charlton's subdivision regulations, sidewalks are required on only one side of the street, presenting acute problems around cul-de-sacs, and general problems around the remainder of the development, as evidenced with the two projects chosen for this study.
The 600 foot sidewalk in Henry Richards Circle is a good example, it primarily (perhaps 15 Promise and Reality exclusively) benefits one out of the eleven homes in the subdivision! These sidewalk arrangements discourage residents from walking around their neighborhood. In Solar Heights, for example, a pathway could have been created between the two cul-de-sacs, but wasn't, another opportunity missed.

Drawings for Solar Heights and Henry Richards Circle
The remainder of this chapter contains a locus map of where the projects are   However tenuous, there appears to be an environmental ethic shaping land-use processes and decisions. In the comer of the world that is Charlton, where growth is beginning now to take hold, it is argued by this project that thinking sustainably and being good stewards of the land are important components of this new land ethic. There is some good news these days in southern New England: woodlands have returned to nearly threefifths of the region, black bears are prevalent, and coyotes now live in many communities (Mc.Kibbon 1995). The critical thing now is to take advantage of this rebirth; and as developmental growth occurs in the community, we should deliberately plan for the future of the environment instead of assuming it will take care ofitself 22

Schedule of Drawings:
The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship We must also be realistic, however, about the forces that make the above notions difficult to accomplish; it seems our economic system is on a collision course with the physical limitations of natural environmental systems, and our dependency on financial capital and income (for our livelihoods as well as for paying off loans), makes it unlikely that major change will occur without a crisis of significant proportions. That being said, such major changes will not be in the offing with this project, but rather a more moderate approach to change will be looked at.
Purposefully altering our natural surroundings is something we have done on this continent for the past 300 years. In southern New England, native Americans would selectively set large fires to clear woodlands for farming, creating the mosaic quality of some ecosystems; and when the colonists arrived from Europe, they began an assault on the land by cutting down the oldest trees for masts on sailing ships .
Initially, there were reports of an overwhelming abundance of wildlife and vegetation, but with the continual clearing of forest, and hunting, by the end of the 18th century, wolf, deer, elk, bear and lynx had virtually disappeared; by the middle of the 19th century 3/4 of Southern New England is estimated to have been deforested ).

Living Sustainably
While once it seemed appropriate for humankind to "subdue" the earth, it is increasingly paramount to re-align our human actions back within the earth's ability to absorb these actions (Krueckeberg 1991, Daly and Cobb 1994. There is a hierarchical relationship that the human species has between planet Earth and itself physics (of the physical planet) comes first, and ultimately. There is a physical limit to the biomass' ability to sustain the planet's species; and as we harm the biomass and the atmosphere as well, the ability to sustain the life of multiple species, including our own, is jeopardized (The biomass is the thin blanket of vegetation that covers the earth) (McHarg 1991).

23
The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship The notion of maintaining Earth's biomass capacity can be thought of as carrying capacity: the ability to support populations of species indefinitely (short of an astronomical calamity such as the expected death of our own sun). Sustainability, then, is the ability to live within the Earth's carrying capacity. . This is expanded upon: It is unlikely that there will ever be any global agreement on anything but sustainability of a level of welfare sufficient to satisfy very basic needs of survival. Hopefully, this would include sustainability of basic life-support ecosystems, biodiversity sufficient for robust ecosystems and future information needs, and sustainability of renewable resource systems at levels of regeneration sufficient to provide for substitution options to future generations (Farber 1991).
Currently, many citizens of the industrialized nations are expressing deep concern over issues dealing with the global environment. Since the advent of the atomic bomb, there has been a growing realization that humankind has not only "found" a way to alter the shape and patterns of the natural world, but has actually begun to do so on a scale heretofore unseen. Since the advent of Earth Day in 1970, there have been a number of International Summits to discuss the growing concerns, and to formulate agreements as to ways to deal with man's recent (and mostly negative) impact on the ecosystems of the world.
The concept, definition, and ensuing discussions of sustainability began in the 1970's. Broadly, sustainability means the ability to endure, and provides a perspective of both viewpoint and measurement as to where our planet is in terms of its natural resources, as well as the effects human activities are having worldwide. If environmental sustainability is the achievement of balance between the rates of resource use, resource depletion, waste disposal and resource renewal, in order to endure as a human species, then sustainable development is the human behavioral response required to achieve that sustainability. This response has been discussed as a developing environmental ethic, 24 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship which includes norms, values, and principles that guide the appropriate relationship and actions between the human species and nature.
Sustainability requires the understanding of the physical world around us; it requires acceptance that many of our natural resources are finite, and knowledge that many of our renewable resources are being consumed at rates faster than replenishment.
Environmental sustainability is the understanding that survival for our own species on the planet requires an understanding of the rates of resource use, resource depletion, waste disposal, and resource renewal. There needs to be acknowledgment that the rates at which we use the physical (natural) resources of the planet is unassailably higher than the rate at which they are being absorbed as wastes and/or replenished, and that many of our human activities are out of balance with natural processes.

Steady-State Ecology
In seeing the broad, holistic process of human life, we take raw materials, using the planet as an input source, tum them into goods using (other) materials and energy, and then output wastes and pollution back to the earth, using the planet as a "sink" . Throughput is the rate at which the ability of sources can supply the needed materials and the sinks can adequately absorb the pollution and waste. Steady-state ecology is based on the need for a balance between input and output. A steady-state ecology is capable of growing only if throughput can remain balanced ).
This has ramifications for economic development as well as suburban sprawl, for "growth" of the human footprint has not been tied to natural forces since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and has far outrun the ability of natural processes to adapt. Pollution is one symptom of this.

Carrying Capacity
The term carrying capacity is a concept that relates to the size of population that can be permanently supported by the resource base. If we look at the need for the most 25 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship primary survival resources of drinking water and food, it is thought that at most the planet could support 25 billion people (which would occur in only 80 years at current growth rates), but this population (including existing population) would have to live on a much lower caloric and protein intake than the industrialized world currently consumes, in order for everyone to be fed. Therefore current rates of food consumption, especially in industrialized countries, is not sustainable.
Fresh water provides another potent example of this lack of balance. In inhabited areas of the planet, of the net amount of water available for human use after runoff (projected for the year 2000 as 9,000 cubic kilometers) -only about 5,500 cubic kilometers is useable. Some 3,500 cubic kilometers are not useable due to pollution, which leaves the inhabited world with an excess of only about 2,000 cubic kilometers. If population grows as projected by the World Resources Institute, however, world populations in the 21st Century will need to capture additional water with new dam projects, desalinization plants, and additional transportation networks to make up for additional demands ).

Supporting Biodiversity & "Wildness"
By the late 1980's, prominent think tanks such as The Global Tomorrow Coalition began to realize that the cutting down of large amounts of tropical rain forests would have a substantial affect on the world's genetic resources, as well as adding to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. When Our Common Future was produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED 1987), the value of genetic resources was presented initially, and prominently, in terms of their economic benefit, producing billions of dollars annually for agricultural, medicine, and industrial sectors. Within a few years of Our Common Future, the need for preserving genetic diversity (now known as biological diversity, or simply: biodiversity) had broadened beyond economic values. Species, it is now acknowledged, are needed for our physical as 26 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship well as economic survival, and should also be seen as deserving preservation for their own intrinsic values (Kellert and Wilson 1993.

Biodiversity
In 1992, the United Nations convened the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, and biological diversity was discussed as one of the twenty-one key issues supporting sustainable development today and in the 21st Century. Chapter Fifteen of Agenda 21, the document that identifies and discusses these issues, deals with the conservation of biological diversity. The introduction of Chapter Fifteen starts off by stating that "the current decline in biodiversity is largely the result of human activity and represents a serious threat to human development" . It goes on to say that "urgent and decisive action is needed to conserve and maintain genes, species, and ecosystems with a view to the sustainable management and use of biological resources" (UNCED 1992).
The end result of the Earth Summit regarding biodiversity was the signing by over 150 governments of the Convention On Biological Diversity. In the ratified document, the preamble states powerfully that a "fundamental requirement for the conservation of biological diversity is the in-situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings" (UNCED 1992 When organisms cannot adapt to changes occurring in their environment, they become extinct . Homo sapiens depend on other organisms (food, and medicines derived from plants) to survive. And since we are still part of the food-chain, harming or killing off of enough lower organisms will inevitably lead back to an effect on ourselves. In a recent article printed in the Boston Globe, coral reefs thousands of years old in the Florida Keys appear to be rapidly dying (the only such reefs in the continental United States), possibly from pollution from dumping of human sewage and farm chemicals (May 1997). Not to worry, you say? .. .. They're pretty to look at, but not all that important.. . Think again. According to the article, "though reefs cover less than one percent of the earth's surface, they are home to a quarter of all marine fish species" . "For humans", the article concludes, "the destruction of reefs could hasten the collapse of fisheries by wiping out spawning and feeding grounds" (May 1997). Fish as a food provides almost 25 percent of all humanity's animal protein .
Once organisms and their genes become extinct, they can never be brought back ). As technologically capable and "efficient" as the human race has become, it is still totally impotent in creating an original gene. It has never occurred. All genetic improvements (alterations) have been made with existing genes .
A reduction of species, then, reduces the total gene pool. Though 50 percent of all the world's species is believed to (have) existed in the tropical rainforests ) the genes of plants and animals there are different from those in the temperate region of the world, such as the United States and Canada. In this country, the agribusiness method of planting monoculture crops has actually weakened crop genetic resistance to disease . In fact, new strains of resistant crops (and seed) are 28 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship only found in certain areas of the world, where they are allowed to grow wild and create their own genetic varieties through natural selection. Some of these locations are being destroyed, however to make way for hydroelectric dams, roads, and logging .
Aren't all the zoos, national parks, worldwide natural preserves, and genetic plant banks which exist enough to preserve the minimum necessary biodiversity (biological/genetic diversity)? The answer at this time, is very likely 'no', because another factor to consider regarding species is that ultimately, the genetic health of individual species is dependent on a minimum population of not only that same species but a diverse mixture of interdependent species . That minimum population of species needs a minimum of land area for its habitat (Wilson 1989, Noss and, and that habitat is being altered for human purposes. Though there is much discussion today about how many species are actually "needed", it is accepted that it takes a certain number of species for a habitat to become stabilized, and that genetic destabilization can occur below this threshold , Croonquist 1993, Tillman et al. 1994). This threshold "extirpation" occurs at about 50 individuals, below which point species experience genetic mutations and eventual extinction . Extirpation, the gradual dying off of a species, occurs for larger ground-based animals as we destroy and fragment contiguous habitat, the living terrain where biodiversity occurs  ..

Habitat
The criticality of preserving habitat to preserve biodiversity is a primary "thesis" for this project. Habitat consists of the natural surroundings where both flora and fauna can find the food, water, and shelter that they need, in an environment (climate and safety from other predators) that they can be or are adapted to . The health of a species is directly related to the health of that species' habitat, high quality 29 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship habitat leads to long-term survival and reproduction of the species that live there ).
Reduction of habitat is known to reduce the total number of species able to survive in that habitat. The quantity of species will be reduced by half, if 90 percent of the habitat is taken away . Habitat "islands", created when habitat is destroyed, alters biological processes and can lead to species extinction. Extinction due to this fragmentation is thought to have at least four causes: ( 1) exclusion of the species from the new "island"; (2) new habitat "islands" that are too small or no longer heterogeneous; (3) smaller, more isolated populations at greater risk from catastrophes or genetic deterioration or social dysfunction; and ( 4) disruption of important ecological relationships, such as the loss of a key (keystone) species ).
Fragmentation, therefore, greatly affects species population, genetic richness, and the overall biological diversity of the ecosystem .

Wildlife Preserves and Corridors
If we are to live sustainably, we must share land with wildlife, meaning being intentional about setting aside areas where wildlife can exist in natural habitats and be able to migrate to other areas. According to biologist Reed Noss, what is needed throughout the world's continents are networks of protected reserve areas the size of our National Parks, surrounded by two levels of buffered use zones, all connected by wildlife corridors . To allow enough territory for wolves, cougar, bears and other keystone species, up to 50 to 60 percent of the land mass would need to be set aside for wildlife Cooperrider 1994, Trombulak 1996). Agreeing to an arrangement of this scale will take a major shift in our environmental awareness, and an environmental ethic much stronger than currently exists. Small-scaled wildlife corridors of 50 meters (164 ft.) to 200 meters (656 ft.) in width or more can be very beneficial for wildlife other than large vertebrates, however (Desbonnet et al. 1994).

30
The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship

Protection of Wildness
How does the study of biodiversity speak to a sense of stewardship for the environment? Through recent theories such as the biophilia hypothesis and deep ecology, the need/or, and the biological connection with the environment by human beings is being discussed and debated. Many argue that our experience with the land needs to be renewed if we are to understand why we need to preserve our ecosystems (Kellert and Wilson 1993. Deep ecology asserts that we need to connect ourselves back to the biological processes we have gotten away from in civilization, and in doing so reorient our thinking and our actions to a biological/sustainable timetable. According to Grumbine the word "wilderness" separates people from nature, and is somewhere "out there" needing to be tamed or conquered by people (1994). Wildness, in contrast is "the process and essence of nature .... the source of resources and of human existence .... a place that we are adapted 'to', or live in harmony 'with"' .
Protecting wildness is done for the purpose of establishing a stronger connection to the ecology: The ultimate purpose of protecting wildness is not to preserve nature or improve upon it, but rather to learn a sense of limits from it and to model culture after it. The strategy of protecting large wildlands with ecosystem management could slow the rate of the biodiversity crisis while also providing a model that could support the nature/culture system both ways -sustaining wildness at the core of protecting protected lands as well as at the center of human communities. The promise of this strategy is that as people begin to gain direct experience with ecosystems by working to protect biodiversity, wildness may explicitly become part of culture (Grumbine 19. 94) Biodiversity Planning in a Regional Context At a local scale, self-contained biological energy systems are called ecosystems, and an ecosystem's health and stamina are based primarily on: the diversity of its species of plants and animals; on the occurrence of keystone species; and on changes/threats to 31 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship species habitats Cooperrider 1994, Haueber 1996). Ecosytems provide a number of vital functions for our planet, including maintaining the quality of the atmosphere; control and amelioration of climate; regulation of freshwater supplies; generation and maintenance of soils; disposal of wastes and cycling of nutrients; pest and disease control; pollination; and direct supply of foods (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981 ).
When thinking about biodiversity and biological processes in terms of physical scale, we need to think regionally , Noss 1992. According to Noss (1992), there are four major levels of biological organization: genetic level; species level; community/ecosystem level; and landscape/regional level. Of these, the landscape/regional scale helps plan for the broad perspective of ecology, avoiding the narrow parochial thinking (of the species and genetic levels, for example) that can undermine appropriate consideration of the larger systems upon which the species and genetic levels depend. Not surprisingly, however, there is no regional plan available today for preserving biodiversity via wildlife corridors in Worcester County, Massachusetts; there are only maps of known rare and endangered wildlife habitats.
Thinking regionally about ecology is more in tune with the environment because the natural landscape doesn't exclusively follow political boundaries. Landscape features caused by the physiography of the land, such as mountains, hills, forests, rivers, streams, for example, occur throughout multiple jurisdictions; and various wildlife traverse back and forth across self-determined territories without concern for artificial boundaries. The northern Appalachian plain, formed by glaciation hundred of thousand of years ago, helps shape the particular microclimates in the New England region. Weather does not pay attention to political boundaries! Until recently, we have considered ecological systems from a mostly static, "climax succession view"; now, we understand better that the environment works in a more dynamic type of equilibrium, and this has led to approaching the issues from a more systemic perspective .

32
The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship Where treatment of common resources such as air and water from upwind, upstream communities can impact downwind and downstream communities unfairly, thinking regionally helps confront the "tragedy of the commons" issue (Hardin 1968), by having communities act more responsibly toward their neighbors. This raises ethical issues, which will need to be worked out.

Thinking Bioregi.onally
Locally, many people have long since forgotten, or indeed may have never known where their water supply comes from, or what birds migrate through their areas at different times of the year, or what historical geologic processes caused the local topography . To become more familiar with these processes people need to look at their land in bioregional sections: 'Bioregions are geographic areas having common characteristics of soil, watersheds, climate, and native plants and animals' ... . (but) beyond the geographical terrain is a terrain of consciousness -ideas that have developed over time about how to live in a given place.  Being sensitive to the environment means getting to know it on a deeper level in order to know where we live. A bioregional "quiz" was written back in 1981 to help in such an effort; including such challenges and questions as: • Trace the water you drink from precipitation to tap.
• What soil series are you standing on?
• What were the primary subsistence techniques of the culture that lived in your area before you? • From where you're reading this, point North. • Name 5 migratory and 5 resident birds in your area.

Watersheds
One of the more prominent building blocks for bioregions has become the watershed , important because one of the human cultural characteristics  . We need in Charlton to think about where our bioregion is, based on some geographical limit of our human community and our ecological systems, so that we can plan a sustainable future.

Efficacy of Our Economic System
An important acknowledgment to be made by this study is just how strong the capitalistic market forces are in shaping our major (and indeed every-day) economic decisions. Decisions to construct residential subdivisions are rarely, if ever set in motion by altruistic motives, but even if they do begin that way they are soon subjected to the requirements of capital finance providers. When push comes to shove, cash flows must be projected to remain positive over the life of a project to assure adequate financial return to financiers, and funded projects must provide assurance of adequate profit to developers for the risks they will incur. In these circumstances of development, where time is money and profits, and where future monetary capital is often the lifeblood of people's livelihoods, it is more difficult to be thoughtful regarding regional environmental impacts of a project.
Capitalism is unsustainable from the perspective of ecological requirements because capitalism requires "growth" as its motive force, and not stasis (O'Connor 1994).
As a whole, the earth's natural resources are being consumed at rates exceeding their

34
The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship replenishment (Scientific American 1989, Goldsmith, et al.1990) which, by definition is a process that is not sustainable over the long term.

Using Economics to Explain Environmental Issues
Today, even as the long-term efficacy of the capitalism is questioned regarding the environment, scholars and thinktanks are using people's understanding of economics to explain the benefits and costs of protecting the environment. As one example, our macroeconomic accounting of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and our individual corporate accounting systems do not take into consideration the costs of pollution, depletion, and degradation of natural resources back into the environment. If we are to bring ecology and economics together, it is thought that our economic system must reflect the ecological system under which it operates; to align ourselves with the natural world in which we are a part we would need an "environmental accounting system" . Such a system would work as follows: A frequent and practical suggestion for rectifying the deficiencies with the conventional economic accounts is to develop separate or "satellite" accounts that describe the flows of resources, materials (including pollutants), and energy that underlie any economic activity. These accounts display input-output balances that are necessary consequences of physical conservation laws. The accounts show an initial stock (or "opening balance") of a resource, its dimunition through use and degradation, its augmentation during discovery or, in the case of renewable resources, through natural growth, and, finally, the total stock at the end of the accounting period (or "closing balance"). Thus, in principle, such accounts show the depletion of natural resources but also their transformation into goods and materials, some of which may find their way back into the environment in the form of pollutants. The material or energy accounts can be linked to the conventional economic accounts through the use of ratios (or input-output coefficients) that express units of energy or material use per unit of production or sales. (Peskin 1990) As another approach, the Contingent-Valuation-Method (CVM) is used to survey people on the value they would be willing to pay for an "environmental good" such as a 35 The Need For Natural Resource Stewardship new park or for being able to hunt in Maine (Brookshire and Mckee 1994). And at the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental think-tank in Washington DC, the services provided free by the environment, such as prevention of soil erosion, cleansing and recharge of the drinking water supply, the filtering of pollutants, the cleansing of our air, and the retention of carbon dioxide were recently given a value in economic terms to show how costly it would be to replicate the same functions with man-made systems. The value of nature's services reaches into the trillions of dollars (Abramovitz 1997, Costanza et al. 1997).

Synthesis
The broad problem we are faced today regarding the environment is that as a species, humans have now reached the critical mass necessary to not only physically alter the earth, but to cause change to the global climate as well. It is a climate that has no equal anywhere in our solar system; a climate that existing lifeforms are one-hundred percent dependent on for survival.

Sustainability
We are not living sustainably. The stocks of clean, raw resources are being taken out from the earth and used faster than they are being replenished, and returned faster than they can be absorbed harmlessly back into the sinks of the planet: the soil, the water, and the air. The genetic stock from wildlife species is also being depleted rapidly by human intervention, and species extinction is happening faster now than at any time in history, save with the dying of the dinosaurs ).

Stewardship
We have to start by caring for the future of the land for future generations. "The notion of land as a commodity, that is held temporarily and in trust for future generations, is an extremely appealing ethical concept. It helps establish the sometimes foreign idea that the use and ownership rights of future generations may create legitimate moral constraints on the use and ownership rights of the cu"ent generation" . (1994, emphasis in original). Beatley also mentions the thoughts of Edith Brown Weiss regarding her three "principles of intergenerational equity": "(1) each generation must protect the diversity of the natural and cultural resource base (the 'conservation of options' principle); (2) each generation must pass along the planet in no worse condition and each generation is entitled to an equal level of environmental quality (the 'conservation of equality' principle); and (3) each generation must ensure all members equitable access to the planetary legacy (the 'conservation of access' principle)" (1994).

Biodiversity
If maintaining biodiversity is valid because it properly supports sustainability, then we must learn what is needed to support biodiversity and work to preserve those things.
The preservation and conservation of wildlife diversity (the diversity of both flora and fauna) requires saving the natural land area, soil, geology, vegetation, and wetlands that wildlife depend on for their survival

Designing "Connection" into Open-Space Subdivisions
Charlton's "Flexible Development" subdivision option is not as well thought out as it might be for either people or wildlife; instead it allows the developer to cut costs without giving a more beneficial design in return. Open space "islands" are being created.
that have limited connectivity with one another, making them little more than buffers of undisturbed land between developments. While these buffers are somewhat useful from an aesthetic perspective, better regulations and design guidelines would be helpful in creating more useable "corridors" for wildlife and trails for people, which in return will help to preserve wildlife biodiversity and provide meaningful recreational opportunities for residents. As discussed earlier in this study, fragmentation of contiguous wildlife habitat is a major cause of declining wildlife species. Continuing along with the status-quo would perpetuate inefficient stewardship of natural resources, and continue the building of subdivisions where people are separated from nature.
The overall problem of "disconnection" also has an additional human dimension.
Though road width, lot sizes and frontages have been greatly reduced in Charlton for flexible developments, the resulting human settlement is still akin to "sprawling pods" of unrelated units; less a setting for a community of people than a "photographic backdrop" for each individual structure. The human scale, in short, continues to be undermined because front setbacks and porches (if they exist at all) in current flexible development subdivisions tend to be too far back from the sidewalk or the road, as they have been in Charlton's conventional subdivisions. Lot widths are also still too wide, especially in culde-sac areas, which are appropriate settings for intimate neighborhoods. 38 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions These points, as mentioned here and previously, have helped frame the overall "problem" of this study. In this chapter an integrated methodology is discussed for making improvements in our stewardship of biodiversity, for connecting with our natural surroundings, and for enhancing our human community.

Integrating the Parcel Into The Larger Ecological Landscape
Intuitively, we know that water is needed for life to exist on the planet, and that fresh water is important in our everyday lives. Fresh water for drinking has become another packageable commodity, however; many of us spend money on "clean" bottled water from Poland Springs, Maine, or from the Adirondack Mountains in New York, water that in actuality comes from natural rivers and streams. Only these particular mountain rivers and streams are away from many of us city folk, who think that the water is always cleaner away from home.
Getting to know our own local watershed's various riparian areas: the streams, ponds, lakes and woodlands, is the first major step in relating to our natural environmental surroundings. Touched on earlier, the local watershed is part of a larger bioregion. Water does not come from Stop & Shop, it is actually a finite resource that is constantly recycled through the hydrological process of precipitation, surface runoff, percolation, evaporation, transpiration groundwater flow, and vapor transport through clouds (Mauritus la Riviere 1989). The water we drink today is the same water our ancestors drank (Lamb 1990), albeit a bit more processed. Even with all the processing, as long as it rains it will go through the same cycle; and as long as there is enough contiguous, natural land remaining, this cycle can support (up to its carrying capacity) human life and wildlife.
The question that's asked with this first step is: regarding the local watershed, are there any nearby perennial streams either on site or within 200 meters (Desbonnet et. al 1994) of the site boundary? Riparian forests and vegetated buffer areas within this range 39 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions serve important environmental and ecological functions such as pollution removal, flood control, wildlife habitat and wildlife movement corridors; they should be given high consideration on the proposed project site as areas not to be developed (Croonquist and Brooks 1993, Desbonnet et. al 1994. Secondly, the local watershed should be considered in the regional/landscape context of its entire drainage area, to include physiography, vegetation, and climate (Pease 1995). Taking this regional/landscape approach can inform decisions regarding the preservation of biodiversity through a network of interconnected reserves. Looking at perennial streams in the entire drainage basin with overlays of estimated rare or threatened wildlife habitat and areas of contiguous forest, as an example, can point to the design of regional wildlife corridors and wildlife reserves .

Understanding Ecological Regulatory Mechanisms
The State of Massachusetts has several regulatory mechanisms that can provide support for the design of open space conservation subdivisions. Three will be discussed in this section: the Wetlands Protection Act, the Rivers Protection Act, and Forest Cutting Practice Regulations. When used together, these tools can provide the legal "teeth" to design local and regional wildlife riparian corridors surrounded by contiguous wildlife habitat, thereby improving the chances of maintaining area biodiversity. If any portion of a proposed project falls within this I 00 foot "buffer zone", the conservation commission must determine if the area on which any dredging, filling, removing or altering is to be done "is significant to the public or private water supply, to the groundwater supply, to flood control, to storm damage protection, to prevention of pollution, to protection of land containing fisheries, to the protection of wildlife habitat, or the protection of fisheries" (ALM Ch.131 § 40). If the determination is made that work in one or more of the resource areas impacts one or more of the eight areas of interest, then the conservation commission is to issue an "order of conditions" that will contribute to the protection of the affected interest(s) (ALM Ch.131 § 40).

Wildlife Habitat
Precisely what constitutes important wildlife habitat under the Wetlands Protection Act (the Act) has been given close scrutiny in an appendix of the regulation, and is not Using the Wetlands Protection Act exclusively to protect "wildlife habitat" as a resource area appears problematic, as each site has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and the required "proof' of habitat significance has to be made to meet the requirement. The results, at best would still produce a patchwork of individual habitat islands, which may or may not be contiguous or large enough to prevent genetic inbreeding depressions in wildlife, and eventual species extirpation (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981. The Act is still a powerful tool, however, to protect individual wetland resources that help with flood control or prevention of pollution, as examples, because these same areas (such as forested rivers and streams) are also good wildlife habitats. These protected areas can act as core reserves within a larger, more contiguously preserved buffer area, which needs to be preserved by another means. This can be accomplished with forest cutting regulations, tree conservation ordinances, and with open space development regulations, which will all be discussed later in this study.
The biodiversity preservation model just described consists of core reserve areas, surrounded by buffer areas. These two components need to be tied together with a third element: wildlife corridors . As we will see in the next section, the basis for these corridors has been legally established in Massachusetts with the Rivers Protection Act.

The Rivers Protection Act
Passed into law in August 1996, the Rivers Protection Act is designed to work along with the Wetlands Protection Act, by adding a new resource area known as the Riverfront Area, 200 feet wide, to each side of a perennial stream or river. The purposes served by protecting the riverfront area are identical to the eight interest identified in the Wetlands Protection Act.

42
Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions Applicants proposing work in the riverfront area must now obtain an "Order of Conditions" from the conservation commission, using the same procedures specified in the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, demonstrating that the proposed project meets each of the two requisite performance standards identified in the statute. The applicant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) such work, including proposed mitigation measures will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area for the following purposes: to protect the public or private water supply; to protect the groundwater; to provide flood control; to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect the fisheries; and (2) there is no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative to the proposed project with less adverse effects on such purposes. will occur in the riverfront area. Again, the Department of Environmental Protection has provided 5 criteria to local conservation commissions for making a "no-adverse-impact" determination for a project (all five criteria must be met): (i) the work conforms to the performance standards for all other resource areas within the riverfront area; (ii) an inner riparian zone of 100 feet of undisturbed vegetation .... measured horizontally from the river's mean annual high-water line is provided; (iii) within the 100-foot outer riparian zone (beyond the inner riparian zone of undisturbed vegetation), alteration of riverfront area is limited to 5,000 square feet, or 20% of this 100-foot zone, whichever is greater; (iv) stormwater is managed according to a policy established by the Department; and (v) no project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare wetland or upland, vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by the  November, 1996) The ramifications of the Rivers Protection Act (the Act) are that no disturbance of vegetation within 100 feet of a perennial river or stream is allowed for new projects, and a maximum of 20 percent of the area known as the outer riparian zone (between 100 feet and 200 feet away from the river or stream ) can be altered on a given parcel. The Act puts some powerful "teeth" into the creation of a 400+ foot wide wildlife habitat corridor along perennial waterways, and should be utilized to its fullest extent in the creation of open-space subdivisions in Charlton.

Forest-Cutting Practices Act + Tree Conservation Bylaws
What if a proposed subdivision parcel is not located near a perennial stream or nver, or consists substantially of upland? Massachusetts regulations regarding forestcutting practices combined with a locally created tree-conservation bylaw can help prevent the total denuding of a wooded site by a subdivision developer.
Forest Land is defined in Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practices as "land with at least 15% of the area occupied by the crowns of forest trees of any size that contains at least 7. 5 square feet of basal area per acre; or that is a plantation containing at least 500 trees per acre; or land recently harvested th_ at is in the process of regeneration." (304 CMR 11.03 : Definitions This clause presents an opportunity for a municipality to regulate the cutting down of forests in its community; by implementing the requirements of a local tree-conservation bylaw in the project permitting process.

Tree Conservation Bylaws/Ordinances
With the awareness level rising about the importance of trees in the environment, a number of municipalities in the nation have instituted regulations regarding the cutting and/or planting of trees during the development process, sometimes incorporating them within a landscaping bylaw, sometimes creating them in a stand-alone fashion. These bylaws typically limit the percentage of existing trees that can be removed from a parcel and/or create provisions for replacing any trees removed with a slightly higher ratio of new plantings (Duerksen 1993) With establishment of its legal viability, a tree conservation bylaw would serve to limit the amount of trees that could be cut in a given subdivision development. In Charlton, with very little public sewer at this time, the bylaw would have to be written to

Mapping Site Ecological, Visual, and Historical Attributes
Site planning involves at its basic level a first step that maps the areas of interest/concern where they either do or could exist on a given parcel, then a second step of analyzing what these various characteristics mean to the placement of buildings, structures, roads, parks, views, etc.. The third step, the most difficult, would involve taking all this information and making judgments about which areas within the parcel to develop upon for people, and which to conserve for biodiversity, aiming for a result of balancing development values with conservation values (Steiner 1991 historic/cultural/archaeological features, and views into/out of the site as valuable social features (9, 10).
One of the major concerns with only looking at the site itself is that it misses the larger, bioregional perspective that has been identified as a critical aspect to preserving biodiversity . Tying in the local with the regional scale of biodiversity preservation, the protection of smaller scale biodiversity could be handled by the creation of wildlife habitat corridors, a wooded buffer area surrounding a core of natural stream and/or river corridors. This concept is supported in Noss and Cooperrider, where many buffer zones and corridor areas proposed to preserve biodiversity in Florida run along the river system (1994  (Desbonnet et. al 1994) beyond the site's boundaries so that existing forested land and/or perennial streams and other ecological values can be identified that would suggest a potential wildlife corridor.
Recent aerial photographs, field work, and USGS maps would provide valuable information regarding these.

How Much Open-Space, and Where In the Subdivision ?
Conservation Biologists have estimated that perhaps 40 to 75 percent of land area on the continent needs to be kept in its natural state to preserve biological diversity Cooperrider 1994, Povilitis 1995). These are sizable percentages, but they are based on the need to preserve larger carnivore species, as well as natural disturbance regimes (such as fire, flood, and wind damage) . Carnivore species 47 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions are especially important to ecosystems, because as "keystone species" their presence helps maintain the natural balance of species populations. Conversely, their absence causes an imbalance among remaining species .
Preserving such large percentages of land as open space may not make sense in areas where habitat will not likely support wildlife. Preserving biodiversity where it is found, however, is a recent theoretical approach (UNCED 1992, Noss and to the problems inherent in saving species on a singular basis. Larger percentages of contiguous open space should be left intact where the landscape is most suitable. Working on the premise of having a project site where habitat is suitable for supporting biodiversity, we might aim at preserving a minimum of 50 percent of the site as open-space , having 40 percent of that be maintained in its fully natural state , and 10 percent be allocated to semi-natural open-space, useable for commons, visual relief, and/or active recreation. This would leave the remaining half of the land available for roads, pathways, and housing areas. Called edge-effect, too much of it increases the rate of predation (being preyed upon), as well as increased susceptibility to parasitism for some species (Noss and Cooperrider 48 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions 1994 ), and also alters the microclimate of the wooded area Cooperrider 1994, Blankenship 1996).

Where in the Community
If subdivision parcels are located in areas without much existing vegetation, or adjacent to land that is without much vegetation, the "creation" of new open-space through afforestation may not be as appropriate as preserving the contiguous areas of woodlands and forests that do exist, because wildlife habitat is already established. It may be important, therefore, to identify areas in the community where the creation of open space subdivisions would be a requirement, areas that are near perennial streams or rivers, or areas that are of important environmental, cultural, or aesthetic concern to the entire community. In Charlton, where almost 80 percent of the community is still forested it cannot be assumed that these areas will remain this way forever. Appropriate planning today is the only way to ensure that biological diversity will be minimally preserved for future generations.

Active Open Space
Active open-space used for common areas, such as play areas, ball fields, mailboxes, gazebos and gardens, etc. , should be interspersed among the housing units, to provide pleasant views and community connection points. In a 20 acre parcel the 10 percent guideline would allow 2 acres to be used in this manner, not a very large area, but certainly not inconsequential. The average size of a town common/ town green in New England is two acres .

Connection "Elements" Within Subdivisions
Caring for our environment means being part of our environment, and physical access to nearby woods, streams, parks, and neighbors is what provides us with that connection. These elements include nature trails, pathways, sidewalks, shoulders and roads. Other amenities, such as landscaped garden areas, park benches, gazebos, mailboxkiosks, etc., can also help to provide a "sense of place" within a community ).
Having these corridors and "points" of connection is important; having a sense of human scale among these elements is just as critical. The distances that front doors and porches are from the street, the width of the road, the location of trees, the walkability of streets, streetlighting, and particular patterns of clustering homes, as examples, relate to our sense of appropriate proportion, to what size and distances our connections with our surroundings and with one another are to be. Some of these connections will now be explored.

Open Space Access and Nature Trails
Walking through the woods is a favorite pastime for many of us, a way to get back in touch with nature, to relax, and have some quiet time. Nature is not just someplace "out there", it not only exists in our own backyards, it should be explored and explorable  Access points should be marked with signage that blends well into the surrounding area, yet stands out enough to be found; the National Recreation and Park Association provides a good background on this ).
For towns that don't have the infrastructure for water mains and fire hydrants, fire protection ponds, or fire ponds as they are sometimes called offer a good opportunity as an entry point to a nature trail, as they often will extend back far enough to get to the preserved open space. Where fire ponds do not exist, appropriately marked easement paths should be designated, so that people feel comfortable walking through the back areas of the development.

50
Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions Nature trails should also be selectively cleared and marked in accordance with established guidelines. As an example, the National Recreation and Park Planning Guidelines book recommends a cleared path of 4 to 8 feet . Trails should also be designed to take advantage of any available views, interesting terrain, and interesting natural features; and they should be adequately marked with signage/markers at heights visible to most trail users.

Common Areas
It has been recommended previously in this study that about 10 percent of the open-space area in a subdivision parcel be devoted to active open space. Studies and experience have shown that home buyers will pay higher prices for homes that look out onto created open-space such as landscaped commons and golf courses .
Volleyball courts, basketball courts, covered mailboxes, playgrounds and picnic/barbecue areas can also serve as community amenities, connection points and serene vistas which can be enjoyed and shared by all.
In a conventional subdivision these areas are not normally found, because maintenance of such common areas (including the streets, drainage, street trees, etc.) would eventually be turned over to the town, and the townspeople would not want to be responsible for the added costs involved if they could not derive the benefit of these amenities. Mentioned previously, home owner associations would be needed to care for these amenities, since the benefits derived would go chiefly to those that lived in the development.

Septic Systems
Common absorption fields, known as large scale absorption (LSA) systems should be considered as the primary design alternative for septic systems in communities (or individual open-space development projects) that don't have public sewer systems.
Supported now in the Massachusetts Title V Regulations (which covers septic systems), 51 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions they are designed so that individual septic tanks exist for each home, but effluent is pumped to a large, common area absorption field owned by a homeowner's association.
If LSA's are utilized, the required size of an individual parcel can be reduced significantly, and the extra area can go to the common absorption field, making a sizable town common, and adding to the total percentage of open space within the development.
This absorption area (or areas) will come under the responsibility of the home owner association; its location should be established on the best soils of the subdivision parcel.

Streetscapes, Roadways, and Lot Layouts
Much of our sense of community and our connection to others comes from how our homes are arranged and related to our streets and to each other. This sense of human scale and connection has a number of components: • The width of the street/road can determine how fast we drive or whether it is considered a boulevard or shared amenity for walking and playing. Suggested right of way width is 40 -50 feet, with a 20-foot wide roadway ).
• Distances from door-step to door-step across the street, or distance from one's front porch (if there is one) to the edge of the street can determine whether people get to know their neighbors or whether they remain strangers who happen to live nearby. Suggested distance of front porch to front porch is 75 feet to 100 feet ; and front porch to edge of street no more than 30 feet deep. Minimum side yard setbacks need only be 10 to 15 feet wide to maintain privacy when appropriate landscaping is utilized ).
• The intentional establishment of street trees and sidewalks or shoulders as public areas can determine whether children and adults will comfortably ride or walk around their developments. Established trees should remain whenever possible, and shoulders with swales for stormwater drainage will help to maintain a more rural appearance. The configuration of houselots in a development can also determine whether a community is characterless or colorful, isolated or charming. Multiple configurations within a development are encouraged to create an interesting juxtaposition of spaces; these should be tied together with a common element, such as signage or landscaping.
Two common patterns and two creative, space-saving patterns are now covered: 53 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions • Two of the more common arrangements: double-loaded streets with lots on both sides; and single-loaded streets with lots facing a common area are shown below:

Double -Loaded
Source: Adapted from Conservation Design for Subdivisions, by Randall Arendt, 1996. • Two of the more creative arrangements for cul-de-sacs, one that allows more lots around it, and one that puts a center island (that can potentially be used as a common area for an LSA septic absorption system), are shown on the next page:  -Is parcel near areas of critical ecological concern (within 200 yards)?

Common driveway apron
-Is parcel within 200 yards of a perennial stream, river?
-Is parcel within 200 yds.of existing trails, water bodies, cultural areas?
• Mapping and Analysis of On-Site Unbuildable Areas: -Location of steep slopes over 25%.
-Location of floodplain.
• Mapping and Analysis of on-site environmental values: -Location of best, satisfactory, and poor soil areas for septic systems.

56
Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions -Location of any known/potential aquifer areas.

• Mapping and Analysis of on-site ecological values:
-Location of important/significant wildlife habitats.
-Location of contiguous woodlands/forest.
-Location of prime farmland.
• Mapping and Analysis of on-site social values: -Location of any historic, cultural, or archeological features.
-Location of scenic views into/out of the parcel.
Using a composite overlay of the individual layers from phase one as its base map, phase two involves designing the layout of the subdivision's major elements. Prior to the following steps, however, we first need to know the actual number of lots that could be built on the parcel as a conventional subdivision. Known as a "yield plan", this important document needs to be required of the developer so that the number of lots allowed in the open-space subdivision is either the same as in the conventional plan, or somewhat higher as an incentive to provide extra amenities in the project. An incentive bonus could be adopted, for example, that allows additional housing units so long as the amount of open space is not less than 50 percent of the parcel. Alternatively, a direct percentage increase of 10 percent or 20 percent more units could be allowed. Knowing the number of lots we are aiming for (after having produced a yield plan), the design phase can begin:

II. DESIGN • Layout of conservation areas:
Allowing initially for between one-half to two-thirds of the parcel as conservation area , highlight/encircle where the following exist: 1) land nearby adjacent streams, trails; 2) areas of critical ecological concern; 57 Designing "Connection" Into Open-  Locations for LSA absorption systems, based on soils should be identified, and 58 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions finally, development of some "back acreage" via flag-shaped lots could also be a consideration . This entire process should be attempted at least twice to allow for a more objective analysis.  Next, streets should be laid out in a pattern suggested by the houses, without excessive use of cul-de-sacs. Curvilinear roads are more interesting, talcing advantage of unique or mature trees, scenic views, major rock outcroppings, stone walls, etc.
Then nature trails should be laid out using the following guidelines: they should same start and end at the same point, should take advantage of natural 59 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions features and views, should avoid "sameness" throughout, and generally have a loop length of between one and three miles ).   The result of this entire process should be one or two alternate conservation subdivision designs, each with a write-up explaining the solution arrived at. In carrying out the process itself, some elements will clearly be easy to locate on the site, but it is expected that certain values will be in conflict for the same space. Where alternative designs produce unresolveable areas of conflict, and this will likely be the case, a decision will need to be made about what value prevails, perhaps on the basis of the most practicable use of the land that can preserve the ecology. Being realistic, however, sometimes there will not be any reasonable alternatives that can keep the ecology of a certain portion of a parcel intact.

• I I I
The concepts explained throughout this chapter will next be incorporated into an actual project in the town of Charlton, where two open-space design alternatives will be created for this study. It is the intent of this process to then identify specific areas in Charlton's current "Flexible Development" regulations that need to be improved upon. 61 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions

Proposed Design Requirements: Discussion
If the ultimate outcome of this study is to make changes to the existing Flexible Development regulations in Charlton (because they currently do not work well to preserve wildlife habitat, and inadequately connect people with nature or one another), it follows that the current requirements must be suspect. Starting off on a positive note, Charlton's 40 foot right-of-way (and 20 foot wide pavement area) requirements is reasonably progressive in minimizing impervious surfaces. and common open space, mailbox areas, gazebos, etc.; these items cost extra to the developer, and compensation needs to be provided so that a legal takings challenge is not forthcoming. This compensation can be made by the allowance of additional house lots over and above the number of lots allowed via conventional subdivision standards. These incentive lots could perhaps be smaller in size, 20,000 square feet for example, provided that they are clustered around a common septic system.
Frontage requirements could be altered to allow for variations based on lot location, as long as some minimum lot width existed at the front setback line. For example, with a requirement of having a front setback range of 20-30 feet , lot width would need to be a minimum of 80 feet in that range area, with minimum side setbacks of 62 Designing "Connection" Into Open-Space Subdivisions 10 feet. On a cul-de-sac, as an example, this would allow for a house 60 feet wide (a 40 foot wide main structure with a 20 foot wide garage could fit in this space, more than adequate for a 3-bedroom home). As can be seen in Figure 4-8, this performance standard around a cul-de-sac would allow frontage for lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 to be 50 feet when the cul-de-sac is laid out as shown. When the cul-de-sac is 100 feet in diameter, this creates enough room for 6 lots, and allows a green space to be left in the middle. with over six homes are required by the Town's subdivision regulations to have "fire ponds", filled with stormwater runoff, and utilized as a water source during a fire. This will be a requirement for this design project, but other technical considerations, such as stormwater detention basins, drainage issues, etc., will not be part of the project's design requirements.  In the next chapter, the foregoing concepts and ideas will be utilized for an ongoing open-space subdivision project in Charlton, Schofield Heights.

Background
Originally submitted as a conventional subdivision design in 1987, the plan was denied approval by the Planning Board on the grounds that the lots, as designed, did not conform to the dimensions recently approved with the new zoning bylaw (the date of that Special Town Meeting, April 4, 1987 is when Charlton formally adopted zoning).
The Charlton-Oxford border runs north-south through most of the parcel's eastern section. The small portion of the parcel that lies in Oxford varies in width from 30 feet to 600 feet wide in places, and the fact that the site straddles the two towns has been an additional problem in terms of access into the site. This study is part of this process.

Overview of Site Environs
Located near the southeast comer of Charlton, directly on the Oxford town line (see Figure 5-1), the proposed site consists of nearly 104 acres of land area, some of which abuts Buffi.unville Lake, a prominent state park recreation area, featuring swimming, picnicking, boating, and walking trails. Very broadly, the site is rectangular in shape, the long sides oriented north/south with Conlin Road just off the east boundary, and Buffumville Lake just off the west boundary (see Figure 5-2). Between Conlin Road and the lake, which is a distance of about 1800 feet, the site elevation goes down from 685 feet (above sea level) to 529 feet, a total drop of 156 feet. Using a calculation for slope ((rise + run) x 100) this equates to the natural slope of the site being equal to 8.67 percent, a moderate slope .
Looking still at Figure

Analysis Phase
Taking this brief introduction further, other natural and cultural features either surrounding the project site (see Figure 5-2) or on the site itself (see Figure 5-5) should be researched and analyzed for any synergy that might be exploited for the benefit of creating open-space developments that connect people to nature and one another and for these analyses). Various maps will be needed for this research, and are available for this study in Appendix 'C'. Likewise, a wildlife corridor analysis needs to be conducted to identify areas on-site and within 200 meters (Desbonnet et al, 1994) that have potential as protected habitat corridors (see Figure 5-3).
It is clear after looking at the project site through these three analysis "lenses" that the western portion of the parcel should be left in its natural state as contiguous open space, serving as a wildlife corridor for the Little River, which runs north and south.
Additional synergy might be gained by tying into the Mid-State Trail, and by keeping intact the stone wall that runs east to west at the northern end of the site.

Design Phase
Four broad goals are sought with this project: to conserve a contiguous wildlife corridor both on-site and with adjacent parcels; to re-connect people with their natural surroundings; to re-connect people with one another; and to have a financially feasible design. It is felt that this last goal needs to come at the end of the process, and not, however, drive it from the very beginning. A fifth goal for the purposes of this project is to take a look at designing housing clustered around common septic fields, to see what it might look like, and whether having such a design could help achieve some of the other goals as well.
The design phase starts with seeing how many units can be built using the existing subdivision and zoning standards for this area in Charlton. The basic design guidelines for a conventional subdivision in this part of Charlton, which is in the Agricultural zoning district, is minimum 60,000 sq.ft. lots, each having 175 feet of frontage, minimum. The       l Figure 5 -11 , Schofield Heights .80 (/) . g.

Findings and Recommended Changes
The results of the proposed designs can be reviewed quantitatively and qualitatively. First, we shall look at the values that can be measured, such as acreage of land used for house lots, open space, and roads; secondly we will review the quality of the spaces that have been created with the designs.
A quantitative comparison can be seen in Figure 6-1, which predictably shows that road area and road length are significantly lower with schemes 'A' and 'B' than with the conventional subdivision design, which saves significant costs for the developer. Perhaps the others had just eyeballed the designs as well and assumed from past experience that roadways with homes on only one side would not be feasible. This is important because education for the development community might be needed to show that facing open space can create higher-valued properties , and though those properties are on just one side of the road, they are cost efficient. In both scheme 'A' and scheme 'B', road length is about one thousand feet less than in the conventional development, as well as requiring significantly less paving material due to narrower width requirements.

Findings and Recommended Changes
Some concern was also expressed regarding private ownership versus common ownership of areas such as open space and septic leachfields. And when asked if Charlton should consider allowing 20,000 square foot lots as long as they were attached to common septic systems, the response was split evenly, with half of the respondents saying yes, and half no . Clearly there are some questions that need to be answered before moving ahead with common septic leaching areas.
Encouragingly, most of the respondents thought that given the results, that the extra design work involved with this project was worth the effort; and surprisingly they

Recommendations
Recommendations for improving Charlton's current "Flexible Development" regulations fall into four categories: changes in terminology; changes in locational requirements; changes in the workings of the design process; and changes in design and performance requirements. These changes would bring the town closer to its goal of preserving open space, and move the community forward in making more village-scaled subdivisions, as well as preserving useable wildlife habitat in the name of biodiversity.

Changes in Terminology
To begin, the term "flexible-development" does not adequately (nor succinctly) identify what this special type of subdivision is all about; what is "flexible" anyway, and

84
Findings and Recommended Changes why should any developer be interested in pursuing this approach? A typical alternative would be "cluster development" , but this would actually be a worse title, as it tends to connote expanses of multi-family housing projects. This immediately (and erroneously) gets people concerned about their property values. A better term to call this option would be "Open-Space Development", which connotes country living as well as environmental sensitivity, a much more potent concept than is conjured up by "flexible-development".

Changes in Locational Requirements
Second, order to preserve habitat corridors around existing perennial streams and other ecologically sensitive areas, Open Space Development should be required in areas so designated on an overlay map, and optional in non-overlay residential areas.

Changes in the Design Process
Third, in the category of design process changes, it is recommended that the

Changes in Design and Performance Requirements
Fourth, changes will need to be made in Charlton's zorung and subdivision Definitions. The following changes are recommended: Section 5. 7.1 (Purpose): Should be changed to include the permanent preservation of contiguous open space for human enjoyment and to help sustain biological diversity.

Section 5. 7.2 (Applicability):
Should be changed to include the encouragement of creating wildlife habitat corridors.
• Allow lots in R-40 zones to go to 20,000 sq.ft . if connected to a sewer system.
• Allow minimum frontage on cul-de-sac lots to be 50 feet as long as minimum lot width of 80 feet exists at the building setback line.
• Require a minimum building setback line of 20 feet and a maximum setback of30 feet in Open-Space Developments.
• Allow lot frontage (up to 6 lots contiguously) on "common lanes" , provided that each end of a lane intersects a public way, and further provided that each lane is maintained by a homeowner's association. No changes are recommended.
Section 5. 7.5 (Procedure) : Should be changed to require that a conventional development "yield plan" of the parcel be drawn (with all buildable lots containing a minimum of two-thirds upland), so that the "base" number oflots to be proposed can be determined.
Additionally, sidewalks in Open Space Developments should be required to provide access to the common open space areas for as many dwellings as practical.
Lastly, Charlton's Subdivision Regulations should be changed to add a separate section for Open Space Development, so that requirements for this type of design can be understood as a whole. 88 Ch. 7

Conclusion
This study has provided a deeper understanding of the inter-connectedness and inter-dependencies between humanity, wildlife, and the natural environment. It has also shown that the greatest obstacle to our understanding and acceptance of these interdependencies is our anthropocentric frame of reference. That ultimately humans depend on the environment to survive is known intellectually, but that knowledge is cold comfort when we think about how well this concept is accepted economically and politically. The answers to the conundrum of humans and the environment lie either in physical-ethical constructs such as sustainability and carrying capacity, or in the major collapse of ecosystems and species extinction.
The preservation of contiguous open space in support of biodiversity is a valuable undertaking. Wildlife species are a necessary part of our ecosystems, representing the living library of the planet's genetic heritage. It cannot be assumed that wildlife corridors will continuously exist as we develop further and further into remaining open land, fragmenting habitat and weakening long-term species viability. We need to be proactive about preserving biodiversity, and this study has offered a basis for accomplishing this at the local level.
The regional (landscape) level is the most appropriate level in conservation biology for preserving biodiversity, but today in Massachusetts that level of planning does not yet exist. This is due to practical reasons (accurate data isn't available) as well as political reasons (because each community in Massachusetts is a small kingdom unto itself, and doesn't have to preserve areas it doesn't want to). One possible solution in the interim is for municipalities within bioregions to work together on their own to identify wildlife corridors, and to then individually craft development bylaws that collectively will protect 89 Conclusion these areas for the future. As identified in this study, local community staff support should be used to identify areas where open space development is mandatory for subdivision development, and should be involved in the design of these projects in order that preservation of useable wildlife corridors can be accomplished.
As was shown in the Schofield Heights design project, contiguous areas of open space can be preserved in a way that is sensitive to the protection of wildlife habitat, and at the same time provide people living in this community with tangible connections and use of that open space. Connections of people with one another could be improved upon as well by reducing lot widths, lot areas, and front building setbacks to a more village-like scale, while at the same time meeting septic system requirements.
That all these "connections" need to be made deliberately has provided the most important learning of this project. People have always intervened in natural processes, and this study has been a small testament that we must continue doing so. Because we are capable of altering the environment on a massive scale, however, we now need to approach nature as stewards of its future, in order to be sustained. May our timing be good.

Applicability
Flexible development shall be permitted on parcels of ten (10)  However, such open space may contain more than 50 % wetlands if the additional open space consists of bodies of water. 5.7.3.5 The number of building lots proposed may exceed the number that would normally be allowed by a conventional subdivision plan in full conformance with zoning, subdivision regulations, health codes, wetlands bylaws and other applicable requirements by 10 % if the Planning Board finds that the character of the surrounding area would not be adversely affected thereby and that all other requirements of this section are met.

7. 3. 6
No lot shown on an approved flexible development plan shall be further subdivided and the plan shall be so noted. Relocation of lot lines, street layout and open space layout may be allowed after approval, provided that no increase in the number of building lots results thereby and provided further that approval of the Planning Board is given.
If the Board determines that a proposed revision constitutes a substantial change, a public hearing shall be held at the expense of the applicant. The open space to be permanently restricted shall be conveyed to one of the following: a. The Town of Charlton for conservation, recreation, agricultural or park purposes if accepted by a Town Meeting; b. A non-profit organization the principal purpose of which is the conservation of open space; c. A corporation or trust owned or to be owned by the owners of lots or residential uni ts within the flexible development.
The Board may also require that scenic, conservation or historic easements be deeded to the Town or other non-profit organization.  5.7.4.3 If the open space subject to the restrictions established by the special permit is to be owned by a corporation or trust in accordance with 5.7.4.l c., maintenance of the common land shall be permanently guaranteed through the establishment of an incorporated homeowners association which provides for mandatory membership by the lot or unit owners, assessments for maintenance expenses, a general liability insurance policy covering the open space, and a lien in favor of the Town of Charlton in the event of the lack of maintenance.
The terms of the lien shall provide that the Town may, if it determines that required maintenance has not been accomplished as required by the conditions of the special permit, perform the required maintenance and assess the members of the corporation or trust, or the corporation or trust itself, for the cost of such maintenance.
Copies of the documents creating the corporation or trust of the general liability insurance policy , and of the lien, shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and shall be recorded in the Registry of Deeds , in the form and with content as approved by the Planning Board, as a condition of the special permit.

7. 4. 4
The open space shall not be leased, sold or used for purposes other than those authorized by the special permit.
Any proposed change to the use of the open space shall be approved by a majority of the Planning Board present and voting, provided that: the proposed use is consistent with the intent of this Section, and it will not adversely impact abutters and the use of surrounding open space by bright lights, noise or other nuisances.
The Board may impose conditions on such proposed uses. 5.7.5 Procedure 5. 7. 5 .1 A pre-application meeting with the Planning Board and other relevant Boards for review and discussion of a preliminary or conceptual plan is recommended prior to a formal submission of an application for a special permit.
Preliminary sketches of a flexible development plan and a conventional subdivision plan are encouraged to be submitted. 5. 7. 5. 2 No application shall be deemed complete, nor shall any action be taken, until all required materials have been submitted. Plans and other submission materials conforming to the Planning Board's adopted "Procedures for Applications for a Special Penni t for Flexible Development", as filed with the Town Clerk, shall be submitted to the Planning Board and Town Clerk as required by such Procedures.

5.7.5.3
The Planning Board shall, within fifteen (15) days of submission, distribute one (1) copy of the submission materials each to the Conservation Commission, Board of Health, Sewer Commission, Building Inspector, Fire Department and Board of Selectmen for review and comment.
The Planning Board shall not take final action on the plan within thirty-five (35) days of such distribution unless such comments are sooner received.

7. 4
The Planning Board shall hold a public hearing and make its decision in accordance with applicable provisions of M.G.L. Ch. 40A unless otherwise required by Massachusetts law; the Board shall hold a public hearing within sixty-five ( 65) days of the filing of the application with the Town Clerk; the Board shall file its decision with the Town Clerk within ninety (90) days following the date of the public hearing; and the granting of a special permit shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the Planning Board.
The cost of advertising the hearing and notification of abutters shall be borne solely by the applicant.
The time limits hereunder may be extended by written agreement between the petitioner and the Planning Board and any such agreement shall be filed with the Town Clerk. 5.7.5.5 The granting of a Special Permit for Flexible Development shall not be construed as definitive subdivision approval under the Subdivision Control Law.
The approval of a definitive subdivision plan showing a flexible development shall not be construed as the granting of a special permit.
However, the applicants are encouraged to request a simultaneous public hearing for both plans, if required. 5. 7. 5. 6 The special permit shall not be valid until recorded in the Registry of Deeds and no work may commence until evidence of such recording has been received by the Planning Board and the Building Inspector.
Such recording shall be the responsibility of the petitioner.

Definitions
The following terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this Section: The Quinebaug River and the French River are both tributaries of the Thames River, which they join in the state of Connecticut. For their size, these river basins have many acres of lakes and ponds. The most notable lake is on the French River. It's one of the largest natural lakes in the state and has the longest name as well: La.Ice Qiar. goggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubunagungamuagg (to the native Americans it means wyou fJshon youraidewe fish on our aide and nobody &hes in the middle. '1 Today it i.s known as Webster Laite. The basin'• terrain has many hills aesting above 1,000 feet, but its geology i.s not particularly unusual Therefore, the watershed does not harbor many rare species of plants or animals.
Both rivers were altered by federal flood control dams after major floods in 19n.
Water quality problems exist due to previous and current industrial discharges and because of low flows and sedimentation in the impoundments. Major projects are now in progress to remedy these problems. The Quinebaug, which is stocked with brook, brown and rainbow trout, offers good sport fishing. The French offers pleasant, winding, slow waters, and particularly lovely scenery when fall color decorates the banks.
Both rivers were the sites of factories and mills during the early 1800's. Sturbridge Village, the historic reconstruction of the period, demonstrates several water powered mills which still use water from the Quinebaug today.       0 It would be a difficult project to marU:t.
c.ompl.ications with design to be aware of: 2) Ghat wlaat JOll'ft rad/_. la tlae mdoled docluDalU. wlaat are JOllr cmrall oplalom el Daip Scheme "B" T (check two) a 11 adequately meets all «the p1s identified for the projcc:t (identified on page 3 of c:hapCer 5). I 1t only mcc:ts a coup1e «the goals identified ror the project. 0 It only meets a couple of the goals identified for the project. 0 It barely meets the goals identified for the projcc:t J{ It would lilc.cly be a very marketable projcc:t 0 It may or may not be I marketable projcc:t 0 It would be a diffiadt project to market. 0 It only meets I couple of the goals identified for the projcc:t a 11 barely mccts the goals identified for the project.
)a' It would likdy be a very marla: 0 It adcquatcly meets all of the goals identified for the project (identified on page 3 of chapter S).
I It only meets a couple of the goals identified for the project.
0 It barely meets the goals identified for the project. 0 It would likdy be a very marlcctablc project. 0 It may or may not be a marketable project.
' It would be a difficult project to market.
Coipplications with design to be aware of: if It would be a difficult project to mada:t.
Complications with design to be aware of: il It only mcc:ts a couple of the goals i<lc:ntified for the project. .
a It hardy meets~ goals identified for the project.
a It may or may not be • nwtrfl!Ne project. .
if It would be a ditlicul1 project to mada:t.
Comp!icatiom with design to be aware of:  IUbcivioica, willa ... pl an.a. ...-w.c "l""HI*'" 5r bada peaplo lad wildlife. Complications with design to be aware of:  a It only meets a couple of the goals jdc:nrified for the project. a 1t barely meets the goals idc:ntificd ror the project. a 1t would likely be • very marketable project.
0 It may or may not be a marketable project. 0 It would be a diflicult project to market.
Complications with clcsi tq be aware of: .
:'I. It may or may not be a ma.rkctable project.
U It would be a difficult project to marla::t.
Complications with design to be aware of: Benc:ficial aspects of design to be aware of: 2) Given what you've read/lleell in the eaclOted docameuts, what are yoar overall opiniou of Design Scheme "B" ! [cJreck two) ~ It adequately meets all of the goals identified for the project (identified on page 3 of chapter S).
U . It only meets a couple of the goals identified for the project.
U It lmcly meets the goals identified for the project.
;i It woiild likely be a very mamtable project. .
U Ii may or may not be a ma.rkctable project.
a It would be a difficult project to marla::t.
Complications with design to be aware of: Benc:ficial aspects of design to be aware of: 3) In yoar oplnloa, ls the extra work inwlved with the -lllysU and tlaign phues worth the effort! l' ~  • It adequately meets all ol the goals identified for the project (identified on page 3 of chapter S). 0 It only mec:ts a couple of the goals identified for the project. 0 It barely mec:ts the goals identified for the project a It would likely be I very marb: 0 It would be I difficult project to marlcet.
2) Given what JOU'-we read/lleell la tbe eadOled docamellta, what are your overall oplniou oC Dalgn Scheme "B" ? I It may or may not be a martmble project. a 1t would be • diffiai1t project to mamt.
3) Ia your opbdoa, II tbe extra work lawlYed witla tbe lllUllym and llalp phues worth tbe effort? IY 0 N If "No", would you reconsider if Planning 4 Conservation ""1f asistlllU¥ from the Town of Charlton wc:rc made svailable for these an:as ? 0 Y 0 N 4) Ia yoar oplaioa, doa tbe COit .mop OD tbae roadwa)'I, aJoas witla tbe 10% dauity bomu (which allowed the# oC loCI la tlala project p from SO to 55 lots) fairly compemate tbe dndoper for tbe added lD.ltial daip work and eo1t oC walldas traibf I Y D N . ~ly meets all of the goals identified for the project (identified on page 3 of chapter 5).

5) Bued
0 It only meets a couple of the goals identified for the project. 0 It barely meets the goals identified for the project.
0 It would lila:ly be a very mamtable project.
0 It may or may not be a marketable project. 0 It would be a difficult project to market.
Complications with design to be aware of: WtlG-J 9' Bc:ncficial aspects of design to be aware of: 2) Ghom what you've read/teen ID the eacloled doaunelltl, what are your overall oplDloas or Design Scheme "B" ? (check two) a It adequately meets all ofthe goals identified for the project (identified on page 3 of chapter 5).
a 1t on1y meets a c:oup1c ofthe goa1s identified ror the project. · a It barely meets the goals ideDtified for the Jirojcc( .. a 1t would lila:ly be a veiy marb:table ~ a It may or may not be a marhtablc ~ 0 It would be a difficult project to market.
Bc:ncficial aspects of design to be aware of: 3) ID y~ ls the extra work bmllved with the 1111111ysU and daip phues worth the dl'ort?