A Vision for Exeter: Implementing the Game Plan for Our Future

A Vision for Exeter: Implementing the Game Plan for Our Future

Phase II Final ReportDecember, 2011

page 2 A Vision for Exeter A Vision for Exeter page 3

Contents

I. Overview, Key Findings and Recommendations

II. Alternatives for the Future - What are our choices?

III. Why Build a Village?

The village as the basic building block of community

Villages for the 21st Century

Villages still matter

IV. Comparing the Costs and Benefits of Conventional and Village Growth

Fiscal Impacts

Traffic Impacts

Costs and Benefits for Natural and Cultural Resources

Costs and Benefits for Community Character and Quality of Life

V. Assessment of Potential Sites for Village Growth

Development Context

Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal

Conclusions

VI. Exploring Village Development for Exeter

Design Scenarios for the Route 102 Village Site

Design Scenarios for the Exeter Road Village Site

VII. Detailed Design for the Exeter Road Village Site

Masterplan

Key Concepts and Design Guidelines

Infrastructure Analysis

VIII. Implementing Village Growth

The Village Ordinance

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

Design Guidelines

Appendices

• AppendixA-TrafficAnalysisMemoranda,Fuss&O’Neill

• AppendixB-EconomicAnalysis,PamelaSherrillPlanning

• AppendixC-DraftZoningOrdinances

4

12

15

22

32

41

50

56

A Vision for Exeter page 3

ProjectConsultingTeam

Exeter Project Team:

Ken Barrette

Helen Buchanan

Michael Cerullo

Daniel Cotta

Jay Drew

Frank DiGregorio

Marnie Lacouture

David Lussier

Thomas McMillan

ScottMillar,Chairperson

ChrisPalmer

Richard Schartner

DavidSchweid,TownPlanner

Bill Vallone

PatideWardener

William Warner

PeterWilbur

Phase I Sponsored by:

Orton Family Foundation

The Rhode Island Foundation

Northeast Utilities

The Nature Conservancy of Rhode Island

DodsonAssociates,Ltd.LandscapeArchitects&Planners463 Main StreetAshfield,MA01330

HorsleyWittenGroup,Inc.370 Ives StreetProvidence,RI02906

ForeSeeConsulting,Inc.830 3rd AvenueLyons,CO80540

PamelaM.SherrillPlanning,LLC(with Beth Ashman Collins)201 Don AvenueRumford,RI02916

Fuss&O’Neill,Inc.317IronHorseWay,Suite204Providence,RI02908

Exeter Project Contact: David W. Schweid, AICP, Town Planner 675 Ten Rod Road Exeter, RI 02822 (401) 294-2612 [email protected]

Phase II Sponsored by:

State of Rhode Island StatewidePlanningProgramPlanningChallengeGrant

Acknowledgements

More information about the Exeter Vision project may be found at: www.borderlandsproject.org

Special Thanks to:

UrbanLandInstitute,Boston,TechnicalPlanningAssistancePanel

ProfessorEdgarAdamsandstudentsfromtheArchitectureProgramatRogerWilliamsUniversity


What is the Exeter Vision Project?

In2008,ExeterreceivedagrantfromtheOrtonFamilyFoundationtoinvolveresidentsinexploringtheheartandsoulofthecommunityanddevelopingasharedvisionforthefuture. TheprojectwasoverseenbyaProjectTeammadeupoftownstaff,residentsandbusinessownersappointedbytheExeterTownCouncil.TheintentwastoengagethepeopleofthecommunitytodeterminewhattheyvalueaboutExeterandhowthosevaluesmaybeaddressedasthetowngrows.Allfind-ingsandrecommendationsarebasedonextensivepublicfeedbackover3years-includingfocusgroups/web-basedsurveys,fivepublicmeetings,andelectronickeypadpollingtoallowthepublicanonymousinput.

What Were the Results of Phase One?

Thefirstphaseoftheprojectbeganwithaseriesofinterviews,anopinionsurveyandapublicwork-shoptogetresidents’perspectivesontheheartandsouloftheircommunityandtheirdesiresforthe future. TheTeam learned that residentshighlyvalueExeter’s ruralcharacterandsmall-townatmosphere,andfearthatitcouldbelostasthetowngrows.Analysisofpotentialfuturegrowthundercurrentzoningdemonstratedthattherecouldbemorethan3,000additionalhomesbuiltinExeter-morethandoublingthenumberofexistinghomes.Spreadoverthecountryside,thisnewgrowthwoulddestroyourfarmsandforests,degradecommunitycharacter,increasetrafficandraiseourpropertytaxestoprovidenewservices.

Facedwiththisundesirablefuture,91%oftheparticipantsatthefirstpublicmeetingsaidtheywereveryconcernedabouttheimpactsoffuturegrowth.Moreoverwhenasked“ifyoucouldchangeonethinginExeter,whatwoulditbe?,”thetopthreeresponseswere: •Developacleargameplanforgrowth •Createavillagecenterwithshops,recreationandtownservices •Createmultiplevillagecenters

Atthesecondpublicmeeting,residentswereaskedtotakechipsrepresentingthesameamountof potential new homes and businesses allowed by current zoning and place them on a map of thetown.Theycoulddistributethechipsusingexistinglargelotdevelopmentpatternsorclusterhomesandbusinessestogether.Thepublicoverwhelminglychooseanapproachbasedoncreatingnewvillagesonuptosixpotentialsites. Itwasclearfromthefirsttwopublicmeetingsthatthepublicsupportedvillagegrowth.However,thepublicsupportedanincreaseindensityonlyifitwasbalancedwithprotectionofourfarms,forests,andruralqualityoflife,andkeepspropertytaxesaslowaspossible.

Visioning Process and Timeline

Exeter’s beautiful landscapes and rural lifestyle are universally valued by the town’s residents. Most respondents are not against growth and development -- unless it destroys these resources.

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3

May 2008 June 2008 Summer 2008 October 2008

Focus Group Interviews and Web survey

First Public Workshop

Planning & Analysis

Planning & Analysis

Second Public Workshop Third Public

WorkshopFourth Public Workshop

Zoning Strategies

Fifth Public Workshop

Sept. 2010 Fall 2010 - Winter 2011 March, 2011 Summer, 2011 Oct., 2011

2012

Implementation

The growth challenge, or “Chip Game” uses a map of the town as a game board. Each playing piece, or chip, represents a given type and density of development. By placing the chips on the board, participants learn about the pattern of growth likely to occur under exist-ing zoning, and can experiment with alternatives that can allow growth to continue while preserving the features people care about.

I. Overview, Key Findings and Recommendations


A Vision for Exeter

TheVisionforExeterProjectTeampreparedthefollowingVisionStatementforconsiderationbytheTownCouncilandPlanningBoard.ThestatementwasapprovedbybothgroupsandofficiallyadoptedaspartoftheExeterComprehensivePlanin2010.

“TheProjectTeamrecommendsthattheTownCouncilandPlanningBoardin-tegratethefindingsofPhaseIofthisprojectintotheprocessofamendingtheComprehensivePlantoenhancetheTownofExeter’sabilitytomanagefuturegrowthtoachievethefollowingvision:

• Theruralcharacterandqualityoflifewillbepreserved;

• Naturalareaswillbeprotected;

• Ourworkingfarmsandforestswillbemaintainedforfuturegenera-tions;

• Environmentallyappropriateandsustainableeconomicgrowthwillbestimulated,

• Thenegativeimpactsofincreasedtrafficwillbeminimized;

• Propertytaxeswillbeaslowaspossible;

• Balancedhousingneedswillbeachieved;

• Ruraldesignandarchitecturalguidelineswillbeusedfornewgrowth;

• Individualpropertyrightswillberespected;

• Therewillbeanefficientdeliveryoftownservices;and

•Villagestyledevelopmentpatternswillbeencouraged.

Participants were asked: “what if lost would fundamentally change Exeter forever?” The top 4 responses in order of priority were: rural char-acter, scenic 102, forests and farms.

The potential build out under existing zoning could bring more than 3,000 new homes to Exeter.

Keypad polling allowed participants in the workshops to identify the issues and opportunities they were most interested in. This helped to focus attention on the need for a townwide study of growth trends and potential alternatives to sprawl.

Keypad polling was also used to ask participants to identify the type of development they believe to be a good fit for Exeter.

AttheconclusionofPhaseI,The Vision for ExeterProjectTeampreparedthefollowingVisionStatementforconsiderationbytheTownCouncilandPlanningBoard.Thestatementwasap-provedbybothgroupsandofficiallyadoptedaspartoftheExeterComprehensivePlanin2010.

Potential Village Sites

When the results of the Chip Game exercise were compiled on a single plan, six potential village sites emerged as the best can-didates. Phase II began with an evaluation of each of these areas to determine which of them might be capable of supporting village-style growth.


Participants in the third public workshop placed dots on the sites they thought should be studied further as possible locations for village development. While each of the four sites discussed at the meeting received some votes, the larg-est number of votes were cast for the site at the intersection of Exeter Road and Route 2.

The Phase II Village Planning and Public Engagement Process

ThefirstphaseofAVisionforExetercreatedaGamePlanforthetown’sfuture.Basedoninitialfeed-backfromthepublic,theTeamconcludedthattherewasstrongsupportforcontinuingtheprocessofexploringwhethervillagedevelopmentisagoodfitforExeter.WiththesupportofaPlanningChallengeGrant fromtheRhode IslandStatewidePlanningProgram,Exeterwasableto taketheinvestigationsandpublicdiscussionstartedinPhaseItoagreaterlevelofdetail.Thisincludedcon-tinuedmeetingsoftheProjectTeamandthreeadditionalpublicworkshops.Manyimportantques-tionsneededtobeanswered,suchas: Whatarethefiscal impactsofvillageversusconventionaldevelopment?Howwouldavillageaffecttraffic,qualityoflifeanddrinkingwatersupplies?Whattypeofvillagewouldfitbestwithinaruraltown,andhowcanitbeadaptedtoExeter’suniquecir-cumstances?

PhaseIIwasdesignedtolookattheinitialvillageplanningconceptsfromeveryangletoseeifthevillageapproachreallymakessenseforExeter.Theprocessstartedwithadetailedevaluationofsix

potential village sites identified by the publicinPhaseI,toseeifanyhavethecapacitytosupportavillage.Inaddi-tion to having space for new homes andbusinesses,apotentialvillagesitehas to have ample water and the abil-ity to support wastewater disposal.Italsohas tohavegood roadaccess,with the ability to absorb more ve-hicleswithoutcreatingtraffictie-ups.

Based on a an initial suitability analy-sis prepared for all the sites using a GeographicInformationSystem(GIS),the Project Team selected four sites

thatseemtohavethemostpotentialtosupportvillagedevelopment. Theyinvitedthepublictoprovide inputonthesitesatapublicworkshoponSeptember22,2010at theExeterJobsCorpsAcademy. This includedamailingthatwentouttoeveryExeterresident. FacilitatedbystudentsfromRogerWilliamsUniversity,theworkshopstartedwithanoverviewoftheVision for Exeterproj-ectandapresentationdescribingthefoursites.ProfessorEdgarAdamsandhisstudentspresentedan historical context for village growth in Exeter and spoke about the relationship of village planning to theComprehensivePlan. Participantswere then invited tobreak intosmallgroups todiscussstrengths,weaknessesandopportunitiesfordevelopmentforeachofthepotentialsites.Attheendoftheeveningeachgrouppresentedtheirfindings,andparticipantswereaskedtovoteonwhichsiteorsitestheythoughtshouldbestudiedfurtheraspossiblelocationsforvillagedevelopment.Allfoursitesreceivedsomevotes,withthemostvotescastfortheExeterRoad/Route2site.

ThemarketpotentialforvillagedevelopmentwasthefocusofaseriesofmeetingsinOctober,2010organizedby theUrbanLand Instituteaspartof theirTechnicalAssistancePanel (TAP)program.Providedatnominalcost,theTAPbroughttogetherapaneloflanduseanddevelopmentprofession-alsforaday-longsessionfocusedonthemarketviabilityofthevillageconcept.Thepanelconcludedthat there is currentlya limitedmarket fornewcommercialdevelopment,withexistingcapacity


Existing Conditions at Exeter Road and Route Two. In addition to the VA Cemetery (lower left), there are about 250 acres of farmland.

Under current zoning, most of the site would be converted to 3 and 4 acre house lots, with additional commercial buildings around the Exeter Mall.

In the Village Scenario, all of the house lots could be rearranged into a village on less than 50 acres, leaving 90% of the site as permanent open space.

Panelists participating in a Technical Assistance Panel organized by the Urban Land Institute discuss Exeter’s place in the regional economy of South County.

alongthesouthendofRt.2alreadygoingunfilled.TheysuggestedthetownfocusoncompletingexistingcommercialprojectssuchasOakHarborVillageandtheLibertyHillOfficeParkbeforeem-barkingatamajornewvillageatanundevelopedsite.itwasalsodeterminedtherewasdemandforresidentialdevelopmentandmorepeopleareneededtosupportexistingbusinessesintown.Withthisinmind,theProjectTeamdecidedtoproceedwithstudyofthepotentialvillagesiteswithafocusonprovidingavarietyofnewhometypesthatwouldprovidechoicesforExeterresidents,especiallyyoungandoldpeoplewhodon’tneedabighouse.Residential development concentrated at one of the village sites could also enhance economic activity for existing businesses on thetown’smainroads,aswellasprovidingsupportforgradualcommercialdevelopmentwithinthenewvillage.

Inthenextstageoftheproject,twopotentialvillagesiteswereselectedformoredetailedplanningstudies.Overthecourseofthewinterof2011,theconsultantsandtheprojectteammettoexploredifferentoptionsforeachlocation.Neithersiteisdesig-natedasthe“official”villagelocation;ratherthesefurtherstudiesareintendedtodemonstratehowavillagecouldworkanywhereinExeter,andwhatprinciplesthetown could put in place to make sure that village development enhances both visual character and economicopportunity. Thefirstsiteisfocusedontheareaaroundthelibrary,whichwaschosenbecauseithaslongbeendiscussedascenterofmunicipaluses.Inadditiontothelibrary,thereisspacesetasideforanewTownHall,andthereisavailablelandsurroundingtheparcelforadditionalresidentialdevelopment. The study found that there is considerable capacity for villagegrowthatthesite,butthattherearealsomanypracticalconstraintsinimplementingsuchaplan.Theseincludethepresenceofstreamsandwetlandsthatdividethesite,acomplicatedpatternoflotlinesandownership,andthefactthatseveralparcels,includingthatownedbythetown,aresubjecttoconservationeasementsthatlimitfutureresidentialdevelopment.

Thesecondsite is foundat the intersectionofExeterRoadandRoute2,and includes town landthatispartoftheformerReynoldsproperty,theExeterMall,andseveralhundredacresoffarmland.Asdescribedlaterinthisreport,theavailabilityoflandinrelativelyfewownerships,goodsoilsforwastewater disposal and the potential for public water supply make this site the best for village


growth.Again,thisdoesn’tmeanthatthisareawilleverbecomeavillage,butforthepurposesofthisstudyitoffersthemostrealisticcombinationofavailableland,roadaccessandinfrastructurepotential. Totalingabout500acresinmultipleownerships,thesitehasabout250acresinactiveagriculture,surroundedbyamixofforest,wetlandsandexistinghomesandbusinesses.Undercur-

rentzoningallofthatfarmandforestlandcouldbesubdividedinto89three-andfour-acrehouselots.Underthevillagealternative,however,those89 lotscaneasilyfitwithinasmallportionof thesite,allowingmostof the farmand forest land tobepreserved. In addition, thereis enough capacity to supportmany additional homes in the village,which could be built there instead of converting open space to house lotselsewhereinExeter.

The Team looked at numerous alternatives for the size and shape of the potentialvillageatExeterRoad. Eachoftheseoptionswasevaluatedtoseewhattheimpactwouldbeontaxrevenue,costtothetownforservices,trafficandotherfactors.Whattheteamfoundisthateach new home in subdivisions with three and four-acre lots costs the town $800-$1,000 more in services per year than it generates in taxes. Villages,ontheotherhand,arelikelytoprovidesubstantiallymoreinrevenue to the town than they cost in services: the average village home would generate surplus revenue of $1000-$1600 per year. The reasonisthatforagivennumberofnewhomes,thevillagehasmuchlessroadtomaintain,fewerschoolchildrenonaveragetobeeducated

inExeterschools,andgreaterefficiencyinprovidingotherservices.Sincemostpeopleworkoutoftown,trafficisnotgreatlydiminishedcomparedtolarge-lotdevelopment,but a village makes it easier for people to walk for some of their daily needs and allows forefficientbusservice.Notleastofall,thevillageprovidesarangeofhomesthatmeettheneedsofmanyExeterresidentsandtheirfamilies–especiallyempty-nesters,retir-eesandyoungpeoplejuststartingout--whodon’tneedabighouseonafour-acrelot,andwouldlovetoliveinaquaintvillagewhereyoucouldwalktoaparkorcoffeeshop.

Options for both village siteswerepresented at a public forumonMarch 23, 2011.Again, amassmailingwent out to every Exeter resident. Participantswere able tocomparetheconventionaldevelopmentapproachtothevillagealternative.Eachpar-ticipantatthemeetingwasablerespondanonymouslytoaseriesofquestionsusingkeypadpolling,andover84%concludedthatthevillagealternativewasthebestwayforExetertoachieveitsvisionarygoalsofpreservingruralcharacterandqualityoflife,protectingwatersuppliesandpreservinguniquelandscapes,whileatthesametimeallowingforsuitablegrowththatwillprovideservicesandsupportthetaxbase.Inad-dition,88%ofthosepresentsupportedfurtherworktorefinethevillagedevelopmentstrategyandcreatezoningtoolsthatwouldencouragevillagedevelopmentinExeter.

Asa resultof thestrongpublicsupport receivedbythevillageconcept, theExeterPlanningBoardworkedwiththeconsultingteamover thesummerandfallof2011to prepare ordinances that would allow village development to move forward in des-ignatedareas.TheseordinanceswilltaketheformofaPlannedVillageDistrict-con-figuredasa“confinedfloatingzone,”whichwillallowforvillagestylegrowthinareas

A detailed concept plan for the village was prepared to explore how homes, businesses, roads, parks, wildlife habitat and farmland could be combined into a vibrant community.

Using a technique called Transfer of Development Rights, additional homes could be built in the village by purchasing the development rights on land on neighboring properties (bottom). If the village has additional capacity, additional homes could be trans-ferred into the village from farm and forest land else-where in Exeter (top). This allows the village to grow beyond the limits of current 3-4 acre zoning while providing for permanent conservation of farmland and other sensitive open space resources.


whereitcanbesupported,withstricttowncontroloverthedensity,usesanddesignofthevillage.ThePlanningBoardisalsoexploringzoningtoolsthatwillmakeitpossibleforsomedevelopmenttobetransferredawayfromsensitivefarm,forest,andwatersupplylandsandshiftedintothevillage.This will ensure that a village will be allowed only if large areas of farm and forest are permanently protectedfromdevelopment.

AfinalpublicmeetingwasheldonOctober26,2011,publicized throughanothermassmailing,wheretheresultsoftheprojectwerepresented,includingdetaileddesignstudiesandvisualizationsoftheExeterRoadvillage.Participantsalsoheardaboutthepotentialzoningchangesthatwouldberequiredinorderforvillagedevelopmenttobeimplemented.Keypadpollingagainallowedforanimmediateresponsefromtheaudiencetoaseriesofquestions.Amongtheresults:

• 86%agreedthatExeterwillgrowinthefutureandkeepingthetownexactlyasitistodayisnotpossible.

• 89%affirmedthattheyunderstandwhyvillagedevelopmentisbeingproposedfor Exeter

• 92%agreedthattheyunderstandwhatafuturevillagemightlooklikeinExeter.

• 90%affirmedthattheyunderstandtransferringdevelopmentrightscanprotectfarmsandforestsfrombeingdevelopedinthefuture.

It isclearthatwhilethevillagedevelopmentconceptenjoysbroadsupport,someresidentsmaywantmoreinformation.Tothatend,allofthestudiesandplanspresentedatthepublicworkshopsarepresented in the following report, so that readerscandecide for themselveswhethervillagedevelopmentisworthexploringfurtherasanoptionforfuturegrowthinExeter.Overthecourseofearly2012,thePlanningBoardandtheProjectTeamwillcontinueworkingonzoningandotherimplementationoptionsforconsiderationbytheExeterTownCouncil.

A digital model of the proposed village helped participants get a sense of what the plans look like in three dimensions.


Key Findings

1.Whenbuilt-outunderexistingzoning,Exeterwilladdapproximately3,000newhomes-whichmorethandoublesthecurrentnumber.

2.91%ofExeterresidentspolledareveryconcernedaboutthefutureimpactsofgrowthsinceitwill:

• destroyruralcharacter

• eliminateworkingfarmsandforests

• increasetraffic

• addmoretownservices

• increasepropertytaxes

3.84%ofresidentspolledbelievethatvillagedevelopmentisthebestwaytoachievethe“VisionforExeter”thatwasapprovedbythePlanningBoardandTownCouncilandiscurrentlyincludedintheTown’scomprehensiveplan.

4.VillageGrowthisbetterthanexistinglargelotdevelopmentfor:

• protectingExeter’scommunitycharacterandqualityoflife;

• preservingfarms,forests,andwaterquality;

• improvingthetaxbase;

• reducingtraffic;and

• providingbalancedhousingneeds

5.Thereare4sitesthatweredeterminedtohavethepotentialtosupportavillage.ThebestsitesareattheintersectionofRoute2andExeterRoadandtheRoute95interchangearea.

6.Thetransferofdevelopmentrightsisaneffectivelandusetechniquetopreservefarmsandfor-estswhilerespectingprivatepropertyrights.Itpreserveslandwithouttheuseofpublicfunds.78%ofresidentspolledsupportExeter’suseofTDR.

7. Villagegrowthwouldonlybeallowedasatradeoffforpermanentlyprotectingfarmorforestland.

8.VillagegrowthcanbecarefullycontrolledbyruraldesignandarchitecturalguidelinesthatareappropriateforExeter.

9.VillagegrowthiscurrentlynotallowedinExeter.


Recommendations

1.Duetothestrongpublicsupportforvillagedevelopment,theTownCouncilshouldauthorizetheplanning board to move forward with completing the necessary land use regulations to allow villagegrowth.These regulationswouldbesubject to publichearingsandTownCouncilap-proval.

2.Villagegrowthshouldbeallowedatthesitesthatreceivedthemostpublicsupportandhavethebestpotentialtosupportavillage:theintersectionofRoute2andExeterRoadandtheRoute95interchangearea.

3.Sincevillagegrowthissobeneficialtothetownandothersitesmaybemoreattractivetotheprivatesector,itisrecommendedthatthetownallowavillagetobeproposedinotherappropri-atelocations.AnyadditionalvillagelocationshouldbecarefullyreviewedandapprovedbythePlanningBoardandTownCouncilwithapplicablepublicinput.

4.VillagegrowthshouldonlybeallowedifitisgoingtopermanentlyprotectfarmsorforeststhattheTowndeterminestobeimportanttoprotect.Anyadditionaldensityinavillageshouldonlybe allowed by taking development rights from another parcel that will be protected from future development.

5.ThetownshouldadoptTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)toallowdevelopmentrightsfromfarmsandforeststobemovedtoaproposedvillagesite.

6.TheTownshouldalsoallowdeveloperstopayafeeinlieuoftransferringdevelopmentrightsifthedevelopercan’tfindawillinglandownerwhowantstoselltheirrights.Thefeewouldbeestablishedinarestrictedaccountthatcouldonlybeusedtopurchaseland.Thefeeshouldbecommensuratewiththetruecostofpurchasingthemostvaluablefarmsorforestsintown.SaidfeecouldalsobeleveragedwithotherStateorFederalfundstopurchaseopenspace.

7. TheTownshouldencourage the formationofamunicipal landtrust.The landtrustwouldberesponsibleforassistingwiththetransferofdevelopmentrightsprocessandacquiringlandifadeveloperselectsthefeeinlieuofTDRoption.

8. TheTownshouldalsoconsidertheneedtocreateavillagecommission.ThisgroupshouldbeappointedbytheTownCouncilandrepresentadiversityofexpertiseandinterests.Thecommis-sion’schargeshouldbetoassistinworkingonanyunforeseenobstaclesthatmayhindervillagegrowth that are beyond the scope of the planning board such as helping to create and/or man-ageapublicwatersupplyetc.


II. Alternatives for the Future – What are our choices?

ThroughouttheVisionforExeterprocess,thefocushasbeenonidentifyingthetown’schoicesforthefutureandthencomparingthemobjectivelytoseewhichalternative(s)mightbebestfortheTown.ThebuildoutpreparedaspartofPhaseIrepresentsthechoicemadewhenthetownadoptedthecurrentzoningordinances.Itdescribeswhatwouldhappenifeveryavailableparceloflandwassubdividedanddevelopedaccordingtotheexistingrequirementsforlotsize,frontage,etc.About

aquarterof the land inExeter isalready protected. Most of theremaining land, 72.3%, is zonedforresidentialdevelopment,withjust 2.6% zoned for business orindustrial use. Focusing on theresidential zones, the buildoutanalysis found that there are some27,000acresintheresiden-tialdistricts,ofwhichabout6,700acres are either already devel-oped or undevelopable, leavingabout 20,300 acres for develop-ment. Subtracting land for thenewroadsthatwouldberequiredtomeettherequiredfrontageforeachnewbuildinglot,theanaly-

sisfoundthatthereisroomforabout3000newhomesontwo-tofive-acrelots,morethandoublingthenumberof2,273existinghomes.Theimpactofthesenewhousesonschools,townservicesand theenvironment isdescribed further insection IVof this report,butwhat is theeffectonaparticularneighborhood?

The diagram at left (figure 1) illus-trates an imaginary site of about 500acres. Likemanylargeneigh-borhoods in Exeter, it has someland which is open and undevel-oped,someinforest,andastreamruns throughpartof it. Therearefour existing parcels in differentownerships, each of which hasfrontage on an existing road, andone of the parcels already has a farmhouseonit.

Buildout Analysis: following the rules described in Exeter’s current zoning ordinance, new homes, represented by red dots on this map, were placed in any area that is available for development. While the process does not take parcels into account, and simplifies potential road layout, it provides a useful estimate of the amount and general location of future growth.

Figure 1. Existing Conditions for an Imaginary 500-Acre Site


Figure 2 shows the area subdivided under the“conventional develop-ment” approach required underthe current zoning. It assumes arequired density of four units peracre.Newroadsprovideaccess tolotswithineachparcel,andthereisroom to build each house without getting too close to the stream cor-ridor.Withsomelandtakenupbyroads,wetlands, and theoddcor-nersoflot,theresultingbuildoutis100lots.

Figure 3 illustrates what is pos-sible using the town’s existingConservation Development or-dinance. Starting with the same100 units possible under the con-ventional plan, the conservationdevelopment approach allows for those units to be clustered on smaller lots within the most ap-propriateareaofeachparcel.Thisresults in four new neighborhoods closetotheexistingroad,eachofwhich is laid out with some interior park spaces as well as to provide views from many of the homes across the protected open space.If the clustering on each of the four parcels were coordinated as shown,alargecontiguousblockofopen space could be permanently protectedinthecenterofthearea,amountingto400acresofthe500acresite.

Under the village development scenario (Figure 4) the same 100 house lots are clustered together inasingleareaofthesite.Likeconservationdevelopment,thislimitsthebuildouttothesame100homesthatcouldbebuiltundertheconventionalplan,butitallowsthemtobeplacedinthepartofthesitemostsuitableforavillage.Becausetheyareallinoneplace,lessroadisneededtoreachthenewhomes,whileparksandotheramenitiescanbesharedbyeveryoneintheneighborhood.Aparticularbenefitisthattheexistingstreamcorridor,alargeblockofadjacentwoodland,andmostofthefarmlandisprotectedasasingleundisturbedunitinthisscenario.Thisallowswildlifehabitatandwaterqualitytobepreservedandfarmoperationstocontinueasbefore.

Figure 2. Conventional Development under Existing Zoning

Figure 3. Conservation Development


The village scenario is not currently allowed by Exeter’szoning,noristhefinalalternative(5ig-ure 5), Village Development with Transfer ofDevelopmentRights(TDR).TDRisafairlycom-mon zoning strategy which allows development rights to be purchased in one area and sold to allowgreaterthannormaldensityinanother.Inthis illustration, insteadof100one-acre lots inthevillage,thetownwouldallow200half-acrelots.Asshowninfigure6,thisisaccomplishedbyrequiringthedevelopertopurchasethede-velopmentrightstoaseparate500acreparceland using those to increase the allowable den-sitywithinthevillage.Developmentwouldbelimited to the same 100 acre footprint shown inthepreviousscenario. Whilethe lotswouldbesmaller,theystillprovideplentyofroomforatypicalhouse.Meanwhile,900acresofopenspace would be permanently protected – all withoutanyexpenditureofpublicfunds.

This is the basic scenario under which a vil-lagecouldbecreated inExeter. Regardlessofthefinaldensity,theideaisthatnomorelandcould be developed under the village scenario than what is currently allowed under the exist-ingConservationDevelopmentordinance.Thebigdifferenceisthattherewouldbemuchmoreflexibility inwherethatdevelopmentoccurred

withinagivenneighborhood. IfTDRwas included,and thesitecouldsupportextrahomes, thenumberofhousesinthevillagecouldbeincreasedbytransferringunitsfromopenspaceareasoffthesite,whichwouldthenbepermanentlyprotected. Any increase indensity inthevillagesitewouldonlybepossiblethroughthepermanentconservationoffarmlandandotherresources,en-suringthattherewouldbenetbenefittothetown.

Figure 4. Village with 100 one-acre Lots.

Figure 5. Village with 200 half-acre Lots.

Figure 6. Additional homes in the village balanced by permanent protection of open space through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR).

100 homes from adjacent

farm and forest land

100 additional homes transfered

from farm and forest land else-

where through TDR


An 1884 map of Exeter identifies at least 10 distinct villages.

As societies grow, villages evolve from groups of houses to increasingly complex arrangements of spaces and uses. Photos (left to right) from Niger, Madagascar and Mali by Yahn Arthus-Bertrand.

III. Why Build a Village?

The village as the basic building block of community

Ahundredandfiftyyearsago,Exeterwasatownofvillages.WithnameslikeArcadia,Millville,Austin,PineHill, Lawtonville, Liberty,Hallville, Fisherville,ExeterHollowandSlocum,eachvillagewastheuniqueproductofgenera-tionsofpeople livingandworking inaparticular landscape.Mostare littlemorethanmuseumsnow,withatinywhitechurchorschoolhousetheonlyreminder that hundreds of people once lived out their days within walking distance.Andwhiletheirdescendantswouldprobablynotwanttogiveupthechoicesandprosperitygainedinthe20thcentury,theymaywellwonderwhat economic or social forces created those villages and then carried away communitiesthatwereoncesofulloflife.

Villageshavebeenaroundforthousandsofyears,andstillserveasoneofthemostbasicbuildingblocksofhumancommunities.Initssimplestform,avil-lage starts with dwellings gathered together to share a water supply or similarresource,toprovideaspacefor group tasks, or to allow forshareddefense. They typicallyarelaid out to encourage social inter-action,butallowforprivacyaswell:even very simple villages quicklydevelop a hierarchy of public and private spaces, paths and gather-ingareas.Villagedesignsvarywiththeir physical and social context,from a group of dwellings support-inganextended family, toamorecomplexarrangementthatoftenreflectsthesocialstructureofthecommunity. Asvillagesgrowovertime,theydevelopuniquebuildingsandspaceswhichsupportthevarioussocialandeconomicactivitieswithinthem.Thesemightincludereligiousorgovernmentstructures,communitygather-ingareas,manufacturingdistricts,andmarketplaces.


Inalloftheseexamples,theformofthevillagechang-es over time in response to the functional needs of its inhabitants. Formostofhumanhistory,villageswereinhabitedbyhunters,gatherers,fishermenor farmerswho had an intimate relationship with and dependence onthesurroundinglandscape.Rightthroughthe19thcentury,mostpeopleneededtowalkfromtheirhomein the village to the nearby fields and pastures. Thesizeofthevillage,meanwhile,waslimitedbythecar-rying capacity of the surrounding landscape to provide foodfortheinhabitants. Asthepopulationgrewandthiscarryingcapacitywasreached,thevillagestoppedgrowingandtheexcesspopulationmovedofftostart

anewvillagesomewhereelse.Ofcourseacertainnumberofvillages–especiallythoseatastrategiclocationfordefense,communication,tradeorotherpurpose–growtobecometownsandcities. Systemsevolve to ship food and other raw materials into them from the sur-rounding countryside. Remaining rural villages thatmayhaveoncebeen economically independent find new opportunities in providing foodandothergoodstomeetthedemandofnearbycitiesandtowns,andtogetherbecomepartofaregionaleconomy.

This,ofcourse,isanoversimplificationofhowhumansocietiesdevel-op,andtherearelibrariesofbooksthatdescribetheincrediblevarietyandcomplexityofpastandpresentcivilizations.But throughouttheworld the village remains as the essential building block of human so-ciety. Evenascitiesandtownsgrow,villages– intheformofurbanneighborhoods–remainasabasicunit,perhapsbecause it iseasierand safer and more socially rewarding to live and raise kids in a com-

munityofafewhundredfamilies,wherepeopleknowwhobelongsandlookaftereachother.

The Puritan settlers of New England broughtthe village concept with them. Houses weredrawn up around a common where livestock waspasturedforthenight. Landssurroundingthevillagewereparceledouttoindividuals,butmost people lived in the village and walked to theirfields.Overtime,farmersmovedouttothecountryside,butvillagecentersremainedasthefocusofcommunitylife,anddependingontheneedincludedhome,church,school,commerceand industry – a mix of uses that remain in many ofourhistorictownsandvillagestoday.

Villages like this one outside Exeter, England, have retained their traditional character because of strong national land use controls based in part on maintaining the ability to grow food locally (photo courtesy Microsoft Bing Maps).

As time went on, villages like Little Compton, RI developed a complex mix of residential, commercial, religious and government uses, all within a walkable center (photo courtesy Microsoft Bing Maps).

Early New England villages (Hadley, Mass.) brought the English forms and customs with them. A common provided shelter for livestock, and the vil-lage was ringed by agricultural fields (photo courtesy Microsoft Bing Maps).


The Suburban Century

Yet over the course of the 20th century a revolution occurred that went well beyond the historic growthofvillagesintotownsandcities–andthatwastheautomobile.Forthefirsttime,nearlytheentirepopulationhadtheoptionoflivingmilesawayfromtheirplacesofemployment.Thesubur-banlifestyle–pioneeredbyrailroadandstreetcarsuburbsthatgrewoutfrommostcities,continuedintothesurroundingcountryside.Manyhistoricvillagesweresubsumedbyatidalwaveofblandsingle-familyhomesonbroadsuburbanstreetsandcul-de-sacs.Agenerationofengineersdevotedthemselves to creatinganewhierarchyof suburban streets, collector roads, and interstates thatwouldallowtheresidentsofsuburbantownstodriveeasilytotheirjobsinthecity.Thensomeonediscoveredthattherereallywasnoneedtokeepthosejobsinthecity–whynotmovethecompanyouttothesuburbanofficepark,withcheaprentandlowtaxes?Commercefollowed,anddown-townMainStreetswitheredundertheonslaughtofsuburbanshoppingmallsandstripcenters,withtheirabundanceoffreeparking.

Supportedbygovernmentsubsidiesandwelcomedbyconsumers,theemptyingoutofcitiesandgrowthofsuburbsdefinedthelate20thCentury,andtheresultsarewell-documented.Inadditiontothesocial,environmentalandvisualproblemassociatedwithsuburbansprawl,however,thereisagrowingconcernthatautomobile-orientedgrowthpatternsincreas-ingly put suburban and rural towns at an economic disadvantage com-paredtotransit-friendly,walkableurbancenters. WhiletheAmericanDreamwasfueledbycheapandplentifuloilandgas,itmadesenseforfamiliesandbusinessestomovetothesuburbs.Commutingwaseasy,andmostfamiliescouldaffordforoneparenttostayhomewiththekids.Asenergycostsescalate,however,thesuburbswillbeataneconomicdisadvantage compared to places whose density and infrastructure al-lowspeopletolivewithoutacar.

Andthenthere’sthelifestyleissue.Today,in58.1%ofmarriedcoupleswithchildrenunder18,bothparentswork(bureauoflaborstatistics).It’sasafebetthey’dprefertospendlesstimecommutinganddon’twanttospendtheirhometimedrivingthekidseverywhere.Meanwhile,youngpeoplearedelayingmarriageandchild-rearing,andchoosingtomoveback to cities abandoned by their grandparents – made possible by the revitalization of many urban centersoverthelast30years.Combinedwithgrowingconcernaboutglobalclimatechangeandotherissuesimportanttothisgeneration,thetwo-carsuburbanlifestylewilllikelybecomeevenlessattractiveastimegoeson.

TheseeconomicanddemographictrendsaretoutedasagreatopportunityforcitieslikeProvidence,butwhatdotheymeanforExeter,wheremostfuturegrowthislimitedtofourandfiveacrehouselots?Itislikelythatthegrowthwillcontinue,butthatthemarketforExeter’slarge-lotsubdivisions–nottomentionexistinghomes–willshrink.Growthwillcontinue,butitwilllikelybethroughhap-hazardfrontagedevelopmentratherthanlargesubdivisions.Continueddevelopmentoffourandfive-acrelots–whichseemslikearelativelylowdensity–willprotectneithertheruralactivitiesoffarmingandforestry,northeruralvisualcharactervaluedbyresidents.Thuseachnewhomegradu-allydegradestheruralcharacterandlifestylethatbringspeopletoExeterinthefirstplace. Withhomesspreadacrossthecountryside,moreover,nocentersofactivityformthatcouldsupportbusi-nessandcommerce.ThestagnationofcommercialgrowthalongRoutes2and3willlikelycontinue.

The automobile allowed people to leave the city and move to the suburbs, but the resulting pattern forces reli-ance on the automobile.

Faced with loss of rural character, many towns have adopted large lot zoning like these three-acre lots in Saratoga County, NY. Despite the low density, the working landscape disappears and rural character changes into just another form of suburbia.


Villages for the 21st Century

Villagescanbepartofthesolution.Theyembodyawealthofideasforhowtoprovideforahappy,healthyandprosperouslifestylewhileminimizingsocial,economicandenvironmentalcosts.Theycanhelpprotectfarmlandandthenaturalenvironment.Theycansupporteconomicgrowthandincreasethetaxbase. Theycanprovidehomesforpeopleatallstagesoftheirlives,andprovideamenitiesthatincreasequalityoflife.Finally,theycanhelpcreatecommunity.

A village can help protect the natural environment. The rural landscape is made up of a combi-nationofnaturalandhumanelements.Naturalareasareanchoredbyponds,rivers,streamsandtheirassociatedwetlands. Forestedareasprovideforwildlifehabitat,andcaptureandfilterrain-water so it canpercolate intogroundwater aquifers. Forestsprovide timberandotherproductsandrecreationalopportunities.Wethinkoffarmland,bycontrast,asaman-madelandscape,butitisincreasinglyseenasacomplexofsoil,waterandplantsthatmustbepreservedandmanagedasafunctionalsystem.Overlainwiththesenaturalandhumansystemsaretheroads,housesandhamletsthatallowpeopletoaccessandmakeuseofthem.Theconventionallarge-lotapproachtodevelopment ignores thesesystems, focusingprimarilyonproviding roadsandbuildingsites.Naturalecosystemsandworkingfarmsthatbeenaroundforgenerationscanquicklybedestroyedwhenroadbuildingandotherconstructionsevercriticalfunctionalconnections.Eventhoughthenewhousesthemselvestakeuponlyasmallpercentageofthelandscape,thecharacterandqualityofthatlandscapeislostwhenthoseunderlyingsystemsceasetofunction.

A village can help protect farmland.Aroundthecountry,villageshavebeenusedtochannelgrowthawayfromfarmlandandcanevenhelppayforconservation.InChesterfieldTownship,NewJersey,atechniquecalledTransferofDevelopmentRightshasbeenusedtohelppreservemorethan7,400acresoffarmland.Aspartofamasterplanningprocess,thetownshipidentifiedfarmlandthatthey

wantedtoprotect.Theyalsolocatedanareaforaplannedvillage and created a detailed plan and design guidelines toguidehowthevillagecouldgrow.Developerswishingto build in the village do so by first buying development credits fromthefarmers inthecountryside. Thisprocesstransfers development rights from the farmland to the vil-lage, providing permanent protection for the farms andallowingthevillagetogrow.Todateabouthalfofthepo-tentialvillageof1,200homeshasbeencompleted.

A village can support economic growth and increase the tax base. Many towns have looked to village growth to enhanceeconomicactivity.Evenifatownhasanexistingvillageordowntown,theremaybelittleroomforgrowthat the scale desired by regional development companies

andtheircorporatetenants.ThiswasthecaseinSouthKingstown,whichin2000createdamixedusezonewhichbecameTheVillageatSouthCountyCommons.Theprojectcontainssome850,000squarefeetofmixeduses,includingretailstores,officespace,acinema,gym,daycareandahotel,aswellasapartments,condominiumsandanassistedlivingfacility.Whilethedesignissomethingofahybridbetweenatraditionalvillageandashoppingmall,andyouhavetodrivedownRoute1togetthere,ithasbeensuccessfulinboththemarketplaceandasasourceoftaxrevenueforthetown.

The Village at South County Commons combines aspects of a pedestrian-friendly village with the economic model of a regional destination shopping center. Multi-family housing and a hotel help to support retail shops on the main street


This image in Saratoga, NY shows a an existing rural landscape which, like Exeter’s has been created over centuries of farming and other hu-man uses, overlaid with the natural patterns of forest, rivers and streams, ponds and wetlands.

Under current zoning, most of the landscape will be converted to three-acre house lots. Farmland, natural areas, scenic vistas and historic rural character are all lost forever.

Using a village approach, the same amount of growth allowed by current zoning is channelled into areas where it works best. This includes expanding existing villages and building new ones, as well as creating conservation subdivisions around the edges of some of the farms.


Onalargerscale,BaxterVillage,anewcommunityinFortMill,SouthCarolina(asuburbofCharlotte,NC)wasdesignedasafree-standingvillageon1,033acres.Residentialneighborhoodswithato-talof1,400homessurroundatraditionaldowntownwith380,000squarefeetofcommercial, re-tail,officeandcivicspaces.Everythinghasbeencarefullymasterplannedtofeellikea19thcentury

town,withtree-linedstreetsconnectingaseriesofparksandpub-licspaces,andbuildingsbasedontraditionalvillagearchitecture.Originallypartofmorethan7,000acresownedbyonelocalfamily,the village itself is the first phase of a larger master plan that in-cludespreservationofa2,300acregreenway.

A village can provide a mix of homes to meet the needs of people at every stage of life. The conventional large lot subdivision re-quiresadevelopertomakeahugeinvestmentineachhomejusttopurchasethelandandbuildasubdivisionroad.Torecoupthatin-vestmentheorshemustbuildasbigahomeasthemarketwillbear.Notsurprisingly,theresultisamonocultureofsupersizedhouses.Avillage,however,usesmuchlesslandandrequireslessroadandotherinfrastructuretoserviceeachhouse.Whiletheremaybeno

million-dollarhomes,developmentcostsare reduced and the developer still makes a profit. Lots are kept relatively small,and attached units and apartments are partofthemix.Asaresultthedeveloperhas theflexibility toprovidemany sizesand shapes of home, and can vary themix to meet demand. And when resi-dents are ready to move on to a larger or smallerhouse,therearemanychoicesinthe same neighborhood – which means people don’t need to move away fromthearea just tofindahome thatmeetstheirneeds.

A village can provide amenities that increase quality of life. Another bonus of reduced develop-ment cost per unit is that there is more money available to create amenities that actually make life better.Inaconventionalsubdivisionthedeveloperspendsmostofthebudgetonexpensive,over-builtroads,landclearingforscatteredhousesites,andotherinfrastructure.Otherthanprovidingaccesstowhatmayormaynotbeanattractivearea,thisinvestmentaddsnovaluetotheproject.Inavillagesettingthereisanopportunitytospendthatmoneyonparks,playgroundsandplazas,benches,ballfields,tenniscourts,walkingpaths,fountainandcommunitybuildings.Asabonus,farmland,scenicviews,wateraccessandnaturalareasthatarepreservedthroughthevillagedevel-opmentprocessalsoaddvaluetotheproject.Eventhoughyoumayonlyowna5,000squarefootlotinsteadoffiveacres,youshareownershipofmanytimesthatamountofcommonopenspace.Eachofthesefeaturesincreasesthequalityoflifeforresidents,andprovidestangiblevaluethatisreflectedinthevalueofhomesintheneighborhood.

The Town Square in Baxter Village, a suburb of Charlotte, NC.

Simple amenities like a coffee shop and cafe that are impossible in a standard subdivision are easy to provide in a village setting.

Villages lend themselves to a mix of house types and sizes that cater to the needs of people at every stage of life (Warwick Grove, NY).


A village creates community. Suburban subdivisions can be wonderful places to live, and sometimes they are also great neighborhoods. Howmanypeople,however, live foryearsonasuburbanstreetandnevergettoknowtheirneighbors?Whilevillagelifeisn’tforeveryone,manypeopleyearn for the kind of random interaction that results from living a bit closer togetherandspendingalotoftimewalkingandbikinginsteadofdriving.Each of the elements described above supports this community feeling.Shared amenities like parks and playgrounds get people out of their homes andbringthemtogether.Retailandofficeusesallowpeopletospendmoretime in the neighborhood and less time commuting or driving to distant shoppingcenters.Protectionoffarmlandprovidesopportunitiesforcom-munity gardens and community-supported agriculture. And perhaps ofgreatestvalue,abroad rangeofhousing typesbringsyoungandold to-getherandallowspeopletoremainevenastheirlifecircumstanceschange.

Villages still matter. Asthegreatrecessionturnsintothenewreality,simpleeconomics will increasingly make the village approach seem like common sense.Rightnowthetypicaltwo-career,two-carfamilyspendsaround50centspermiletokeeptheirfleetoperating.Addhoursspentcommuting,hoursdrivingkidsaround(ortimetheyspendonschoolbuses),hoursspentdrivingtodistantshoppingcenters.Contrastthiswithafamilylivinginalargertownorcity,whoonlyneedsonecar(ornone),whocanwalkorbiketoplacestheywork,playorshop.That’saneconomicgapthat’sonlygoingtogetwider.WhileExeterisobviouslynotgoingtogrowintoacity,thevil-lage approach allows it to take advantage of some of the same immediate economicbenefits,aswellasallowingthetowntoadapttochangesthatarelikelyoverthecomingdecades.Aswelooktoafuturewhereenergyismoreexpensive,villageshavemuchtoteachusabouthowtoliveagoodlifewith lessenergy. Theycanalsoshowushowtoprotectourcommu-nitiesfromfloods,drought,hurricanesandotherextremeweathereventsthatare likelytobecomemorecommon. Finally,theyprovideatimelessexample of how to live well without having to spend the economic and en-vironmentalcapitalwhichpreviousgenerationslefttous,andwhichwe’dliketopreserveforourchildrenandgrandchildren.

The example of Wickford (above), Nantucket (top), and innumerable other New England villages demonstrates that a village setting can have higher property values and a better quality of life than subur-ban-style subdivisions in the same town.

A Vision for Exeter’s Future

Thisthenisthevision:afuturewhereExetercontinuestogrow,butwherethatgrowthisbalancedwithpreservationofthetown’suniqueruralcharacterandqualityoflife.Whileconstructionofhomesonlargelotswillalwaysbeallowed,someofthatdevelopmentpressureisshiftedfromthecountrysidetooneormorevillages.Eachvillagegrowsovertime,meetingthedemandformorediversehousingchoiceswithinaclassicsettingofquiettree-linedresidentialstreets,parks,trailsforexercise,andadynamiccommunitycenter.Surroundingthevillagewillbepermanently-protectedfarms,forests,andwildlifehabitat.TheresultwillbeamodelforfuturegrowthinExeterthatcanbemoreresilientinthefaceofanuncertainfutureandmoresustainableeconomically,environmentallyandsocially,whilealsopreservingthebestthingsfromExeter’spast.


IV. Comparing the Costs and Benefits of Conventional and Village Growth Patterns

The imaginary future development scenarios presented in this report allow us to compare the physi-caldimensionsofconventionaldevelopmentwiththevillageapproach.Theyalsoallowustocom-pare thealternatives fromthevariousperspectivesofeconomics, traffic,environmental impacts,andqualityoflife.Exploringtheresultingcostsandbenefitsshowsthatthetownfacesclearchoicesforthefuture,andthatchoosingtomaintainthestatusquowillhaveadramaticimpactonthetown.

Fiscal Impacts

It is often assumed that new development of any kind is an economic benefit to a town because it increasesthetaxbase.Whenexaminedmoreclosely,however,anincreaseintaxrevenuegeneratedby new development has to be compared with the increase in municipal costs for additional services requiredbythatdevelopment.InExeter,whichprovidesfewmunicipalservices,thelargestcosttothetaxpayerisforeducation.Infact,theaverageyearlycostforeachstudentintheschoolsystemis$11,743.(AllfactsandfiguresarefromtheKeyEconomicDevelopmentFindingsreportpreparedbyPamSherrillPlanning,thefulltextofwhichisavailableintheappendix.)WhenthisiscomparedtothetaxrevenuefromanaveragehomeinExeter($4,540.)it’sclearthatanewhousewithschool

children will cost the town more thanitbringsin.Ofcourse,everyhouse doesn’t have school-agechildren – in Exeter the town-wide average is 42 students per 100 homes. However, newhomes have a higher proportion of students than older homes – while Exeter data is not avail-able, in South Kingstown newconstruction generates nearly 60 studentsper100homes.

The following analysis is based on the imaginary development scenarios for the Exeter Road village siteaspresentedinSections6&7ofthisreport. StaringwithaConventionalDevelopmentplanundercurrentzoningthatwouldallow89residentiallotsinthearea,wecancomparetheresultingfiscalimpactstoapossiblevillagescenario.

AnnualRevenuefromConventionalDevelopmentScenario:

• Assessedvalueofafour-bedroomhouseonalargelot=$450,000

• Taxrate:$14.16per1000

• AnnualTaxRevenue=450X$14.16=$6372/year

On average, large new houses in the countryside generate the highest tax revenue, but they also generate the most schoolchildren and add the most new road to the amount the town already has to maintain. The result is a net loss to the town of between $800 and $1,000. per year.


CostofTownServices:

• Eachstudentcoststhetown$11,473.58

• AnnualRoadMaintenance:$1.29/footor$6,811permile.

Fiscalimpactfor89housesundertheConventionalDevelopmentScenario:

• $6,372/yearx89houses=$567,108/yearintaxrevenue.

• Typicalhousehas.58students(basedonnewconstruction)

• 89housesx.58students/house=52students

• 52students@$11,473.58=$596,626.annualeducationcost.

•15,250feetofnewroad@$1.29/foot=$19,673.annualroadmaintenancecost.

• Annualdeficit:$49,191.[$567,108(taxrevenue)minus$596,626(schoolcost)minus$19,673(roadcost)]

Thus each new house in the con-ventionalplanwill,onaverage,cost the town$553dollars peryear more in educational costs and road maintenance than it pays in taxes. This is onlypartofthestory.Considerthateachproperty in the potential devel-opment area is already paying taxes. This revenue would bereplaced by the revenue gener-atedby thenewdevelopment,so it must be accounted for in thecalculationofthenetcosttothetown.Thetotalassessedvalueoflandandstructuresintheexistingvillagesiteis$3.6million.Atthetaxrateof$14.16per1000thisgenerates$50,976peryearintaxes.Thesepropertiescurrentlycostthetownabout$8,800inservices,primarilyroadmainte-nancecosts. Thusthecurrentnetrevenuetothetownisabout$42,000,anamountthatcanbeconsideredpartoftheannualdeficitgoingforwardiftheareaisdevelopedfor89largelots:

•Currentannualrevenuetobelost:$42,000.

•Annualdeficitfromnewdevelopment:$49,191.

•Totalannualcosttotaxpayers:$91,191.or$1,025perunit.

Howdoesthiscomparewiththevillageapproach?Whilethesimplestvillageapproachisbasedonthesame89unitspossibleundertheconventionaldevelopmentplan, additionalunitscouldbeaddedtothevillageusingTransferofDevelopmentRights.Inthelastvillagescenario,atotalof356newhomeswouldbedevelopedinthevillage.Abouttwo-thirdsofthesewouldbesingle-familyhomes. Yetbecausethesehomesareinavillagesetting,theyarelikelytobesomewhatsmaller,withfewerbedrooms,andwillappealtoyoungcouplesandolderfolkslesslikelytohaveschool-agechildren.BasedondatafromSouthKingstown,athree-bedroomvillagehomewillgeneratefewerschool childrenonaverage than the typical four-bedroomhomeona large lot: .39 studentsper

Good schools have always been sup-ported by Exeter residents, and they remain the largest share of the munici-pal budget.


homecomparedto.58.Theremainingone-thirdofhomeswouldbeapartmentsortown-houses.Thesegeneratemanyfewerchildrenonaverage:onlyabout.05studentsperunit.Thus356homesinthevillagewouldgeneratejust93students(comparedtothe207studentswemightexpectinaconventionalplan.Thus,evenifyouassumeeachhousepayslowertaxesinthevillagethantheconventionalplan,thenetrevenuetothetownishigher:

AnnualRevenue:

• Taxrate:$14.16per1000

• Assessedvalueofathree-bedroomhouseonavillagelot=$350,000

• AnnualTaxRevenueforsingle-familyhouse=350X$14.16=$4,956/year

• Assessedvalueofatownhouseorapartment=$300,000

• AnnualTaxRevenueforsingle-familyhouse=300X$14.16=$4,248/year

CostofTownServices:

• Eachstudentcoststhetown$11,473.58

• AnnualRoadMaintenance:$1.29/footor$6,811permile.

Fiscalimpactfor356housesundertheVillageDevelopmentScenario:

• $4,956/yearx224single-familyhouses=$1,110,144/yearintaxrevenue.

• $4,248/yearx132multi-familyhouses=$560,736/yearintaxrevenue.

Totaltaxrevenue:$1,670,880.

• Single-familygenerates.39studentsx224houses=86students

• Multi-familygenerates.05studentsx132houses=7students

• 93students@11,473.58=$1,067,042annualeducationcost.

•9,700feetofnewroad@$1.29/foot=$12,513.annualroadmaintenancecost.

•Lossofexistingtaxrevenue:50acresoutof500developed=10%

10%of$42,000existingrevenue=$4,200inlostrevenue

• Totalcoststotown:$1,067,042(schools)+$12,513(roadmaintenance)

+$4,200(lostrevenue)=$1,083,755.

• $1,670,880(revenue)-$1,083,755(cost)=$587,125netannualtaxrevenue,

or$1,649perunit.

There isanotherfiscalbenefit to the townthat results fromthevillageplanningscenario,whichbalances an increase in the number of homes in one area with protection of nearby farmland and otheropenspace.UndertheTransferofDevelopmentRights(TDR)approach,theadditionalhomesin the village would only be allowed through a process that protected a comparable amount of land elsewhere–aprocessthatrequiresnopublicfunding.Thereforethetownnotonlygainsinnettaxrevenue,butalsosavesmoneythatitmightotherwisehavetospendtopurchaseconservationland.Atapotentialcostofapproximately$20,000-$25,000peracre,andapproximately1000acresoflandprotectedinthisscenario,thetownsavesbetween$20millionand$25million.Inaddition,thefarmlandremainsinactiveuseandthetowncontinuestoreceivetheannualtaxrevenue.


Conclusion

Thereforeinthisexample,singlefamilyhomesonlargelotsareestimatedtocostExeterapproxi-mately$1,025perhome.However,thevillageresidentialunitsgenerateanestimated$1,649perunitmoreinpropertytaxesthantheycostintownservices.Thisisanetdifferenceof$2,674perunit in the village scenario versus the conventional large lot development. Inthe89homeex-ample, insteadof Exeter losing$89,225on the conventionaldevelopment the townwouldgain$146,761*onthesamenumberofvillageunits,whichtranslatestoanetgaintoExeterof$237,986.Thispositivenetincreasedoesn’tincludethe$20-25millioncostsavingsforpreservingopenspacewithouttheuseofpublicfunds.

*Thesavingsfromvillageunitsiscorrelatedwithareductioninschoolagedchildren.Theexampleusedinthisstudyhadonlyonethirdofthevillageunitsasoneandtwobedroomunits,whichisaconservativenumber.Ifthenumberofoneandtwobedroomunitsisincreased,thenetincreaseinpropertytaxeswouldbeexpectedtobegreater.

This chart illustrates the dramatic fiscal benefit that village development could provide to Exeter.


Traffic Impacts

Inordertoestimatepotentialtrafficimpactsfromvillagedevelopment,trafficengineersfromFuss&O’Neillanalyzedimpactsoneachofthesixvillagesites,aswellasamoredetailedassessmentoftheExeterRoadsite(seeappendixforthefulltrafficreports).Becauseeachofthevillagesitesisononeofthemajorstatehighways,theirreportprovidesseparateinformationforeachhighway:

Route 102 – according to data collected by Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) between 2004-2008, average daily traffic varied from8,000vehiclesperdayjusteastofroute3toaround12,100vehiclesperdayjustwestofSlocumvilleRoad.Fuss&O’Neillestimatedthatthepeakhourtrafficwouldbeapproximately1,100vehiclesandthatnoticeablecongestion,suchashavingtowaitbeforemakinga left turn,willnotoccuruntil trafficvolumes reachap-proximately1,500vehiclesperhour.Moresignificantcongestioncanbeexpectedasvolumesexceedapproximately2,000tripsperhour.ThereforeRoute102,atitsbusiestpoint,canhandleroughly400additionalvehiclesduringthepeakhourbefore motorists experience noticeably increased congestion and approximately 900tripsduringthepeakhourbeforesignificantcongestionwilloccur.

Route2–Basedonthesame2004-2008datafromRIDOT,Route2carriesaround13,000tripsperdayjustsouthofRt.102,risingto14,800tripsperdayattheSouthKingstownline.Withabout1,300ofthesetripsoccurringatthepeakhour,excesscapacity would amount to about 200 additional vehicles during the peak hour be-foresomecongestionwilllikelybeexperienced,andapproximately700vehiclesbeforesignificantcongestioncanbeexpected.

Route3–BasedontrafficcountsconductedbyFuss&O’Neillin2003,peakhourvol-umesnorthofRoute102wereapproximately500vehicles,1,000vehiclessouthofRt.102and600vehiclessouthofRt.165.BecauseRoute3isafourlaneroadway,thereismuchmorecapacity,andsignificantcongestionwouldnotbeexpecteduntiltrafficvolumesreachapproximately3,500vehicles.

Fuss&O’Neillconcludedthatexcesscapacityexistsoneachofthestatehighwaycorridorstosup-portdevelopmentefforts.Theypointedoutthattheconventionaldevelopmentscenarioensuresthatallnewdevelopmentwillbeautomobiledependent,whileavillageapproachofferstheop-portunityforuseofalternativemeansoftransportthatcanreduceindividualvehicletrips.Finally,thevillagescenariocanhaveadramaticimpactonreducingthenumberofvehicletripsgenerated;mixed-usewalkablecommunitieshavebeenshowntoreducevehicletripimpactovertheirconven-tionalsingle-usedevelopmentcounterpartsbyupto40%.

Toestimatetheincreaseintrafficproducedbynewdevelopment,Fuss&O’NeillusedstandarddatafortripgenerationfromtheInstituteofTransportationEngineers(ITE).Singlefamilyhomeswouldgeneratethemosttraffic,withabout10.5tripsperday.IntheRoute2corridorthereisacapacityofaboutadditional700vehiclesperhourbeforesignificantcongestioncouldbeexpected,whileRoute2hasexcesscapacityof900vehiclesperhourandRoute3canabsorb3,500vehiclesperhour.Forourhypotheticalconventionaldevelopmentexample,with200homeson1000acres,wecouldexpect2,100tripsperday,ofwhichabout190wouldbeatthepeakafternoonhour.Evenifweas-


sumethesamenumberoftripsforthevillageasforconventionaldevelopment,thisiswellwithinthecapacityofanyofthethreehighwaycorridors.InfacttheRoute2corridor,whichhastheleastavailablecapacity,couldaccommodateabout740newhomesbeforesignificantcongestionoccurs.Asyouwillseelaterinthisreport,thisisatleasttwicethenumberofhomesthatwouldbecontem-platedforanewvillageonRoute2.

While the state highway cor-ridors have plenty of excess ca-pacitytosupportdevelopment,keep in mind that conventional development is much more like-ly to continue on the side roads away from themajor corridors,where traffic would be much more noticeable. A village, bycontrast, would have carefullyplanned entrances from one of the state highways, and couldtakeadvantageofexistingmajorintersectionsandtrafficlightstoeaseaccess.Inaddition,thevil-lageswouldincludearangeofhousetypes,includingtownhouses,cottages,andapartments,thatgeneratefewervehicletripsonaveragethandosingle-familydetachedhomes.Avillage,moreover,wouldbedesignedtomakeiteasytowalkfromone’shometoacentralbusstop,perhapstotakeashortridedowntothenewcommuterrailstationatWickfordJunction.

Costs and Benefits for Natural and Cultural Resources

Naturalresourcesrepresentthephysicalbaseofsoil,water,plantsandanimalsthatsupportsandsustains Exeter. They include thousandsof acresof forest,muchof it protectedby the state, aswellasareasoffarmland,rivers,streams,pondsandwetlands. Justas importantasspecific featuresarethe ecosystems that link them together into a larger functionalnetwork.AsdescribedandinventoriedbytheSouthCountyGreenspaceproject,theseecologi-cal networks tend to follow the river and stream corri-dors,buttheyarealsoconnectedbyforesteduplandsthat allow animals (as well as humans) to move freely aroundthearea.Iftheselargeopenspaceareasandconnecting corridors become too fragmented the ecosystemstheysupportwillnolongerfunction.Ofmoreimmediateconcerntomany,thesesameareasarethesourceofthewatersupplyformostresidents.Asshownbynumerousstudies,ifdevelopmentcon-tinuestothepointwherejust10%oftheseopenar-easareconvertedtoimperviousroofsandpavement,significantdeclineinwaterqualityisinevitable.Thevillage approach can decrease impervious cover significantly compared to conventional develop-ment,ensuringthattheoveralllevelofimperviousnessremainsbelow10%.

Calculations of excess capacity on Route 2 are based on it’s current 2-lane layout. Broad shoulders and ample site lines would allow for considerably more capacity to be generated with the addition of turning lanes and other approaches.

Rivers, streams, ponds and their associ-ated wetlands form the core of Exeter’s pristine ecosystems. They also play a key role in maintaining the water sup-ply for much of South County.


Cultural resources represent the results of hundreds – perhaps thousands – of years of human inter-actionwithExeter’srichlandscape.Theyincludehistoricbuildingsandarcheologicalsites,aswellasfeaturesoftheworkinglandscape–farmsandnurseries,barns,stonewalls,fences,countryroads,roadsidetrees,scenicviews,evencommunitygatheringplaces liketheMiddleofNowhereDiner– basically anything that people have made or upon which people place special meaning or signifi-

cance. AspartofPhase I, par-ticipants identified and ranked some of these cultural resources aspartofa“heart&soul”analy-sis.Consistentlyhighestrankedwere views of farmland from public roads, beautiful naturalareaswithtreesandwater,andhistoric buildings that represent Exeter’srichheritage.

Likenaturalresources,individu-alculturalresourcesdonotexistinavacuum,butarealwayspartofalargerlandscapesystem–a“culturalecosystem.”Ifyouprotectanhistorichouse,forinstance,butallowthefarmlandthatoncesupportedittobesubdividedintohouselots,itnolongerfunctionsasaworkingfarmlandscape–butitalsonolongercontributesinthesamewaytotellingthestoryofthetown.Farm,forest,vil-lages and the roads that connect them can add up to large cultural landscapes – think of a trip down theolderpartsofTenRodRoad,ortheswathoffarmlandalongRoute2.Likenaturalecosystems,if these cultural landscapes are fragmented and developed too much they will simply no longer function.

ThebuildoutanalysispreparedaspartofPhaseIwasabletoestimatetheimpactstonaturalandculturalresourceslikelyifthetownisfullydevelopedwiththree,fourandfive-acrelotsasrequiredbythecurrentzoningordinances. UsingGIS,theanalysiscalculatedthatover20,000acrescouldbeconvertedtohouselots.Ofthis,over11,000acrescontainsensitiveforest,farmlandandothernaturalresourcesthatwouldbeimpactedbydevelopment:

•Forestedlandslost:1,749acres

•Agriculturallandslost:1,215acres

•SteepSlopesImpacted:503acres

•HydricSoilsimpacted:2,883acres

•PrimeFarmlandSoilsLost:2,149acres

•AquiferRechargeAreasImpacted:2,618acres

Harder for the computer analysis to measure is the gradual degradation of water supplies that would takeplaceashundredsofnewhomesarebuiltinExeteroverthecomingdecades.Eachsepticsys-tem,everylawnanddrivewaycontributesexcessnutrientsandotherpollutantstogroundandsur-facewatersthatcantravelquickly.Newwellswillincreasethecompetitionforlimitedgroundwater.Asstatedearlier,assoonasimperviouscoverreachesthe10%threshold,declinesinwaterqualityofstreamsandotherwaterbodiesstarttoimpacthealthyecosystems.

The cultural landscape of Exeter is made up of individual pastures, barns, trees, stonewalls, country roads, etc., as well as the larger cultural ecosys-tems of which they are a part.


Likewaterquality,lossofecosystemcontinuityandfunctionwilllikelyoccurgradually,butonceitreachesatippingpointcanrarelyberestored.Eventhoughthedensityofhousingisrelativelylow,insomeareasitwillquicklyoverwhelmtheabilityofnaturalsystemstorespond.UnfortunatelythezoningmaptreatseverypartoftheExeterinnearlythesameway:fromanenvironmentalstand-pointthereislittledifferencebetweenthree-acreandfive-acrelots.

Aswiththeothertypesofnaturalresources,farmlandandfarmerswilllikelyfadeintoinsignificancelongbeforethebuildoutisreached.Likemostotherbusinesses,economiesofscaleplayabigroleinmaking farmingpay. Larger farms,aswell asgroupsof smaller farms, can takeadvantageofcommonresourcesandsourcesofsupply--water,equipment,labor,roads,seed,feed,veterinaryservices,equipmentrepair,etc.Asfarmsgetsmallerandmoreisolatedtheycanquicklybecomeuneconomicalifanypartofthissupportsystemisunavailable.Inadditionthereisthephenomenonofpeoplemovingtonewsubdivisionsbecausetheyliketheruralview,thencomplainingaboutthedust,noiseandsmellsthatgowithit.

The benefits of the village approach start with the simple protection of thousands of acres of farm and forest land that is possible when development is consolidated into villages rather than sprawl-ingacrossthelandscape.WhenaseriesofvillagealternativespreparedbyparticipantsinoneofthePhaseIworkshopswasanalyzedbyGIS,thetotalamountoflandimpactedbydevelopmentrangedfrom3,000acresdowntojust500acres.Evenforthehighernumber,theamountofsensitivelandsimpactedwasgreatlyreducedfromthebuildout:

•Forestedlandslost:1,001acres

•Agriculturallandslost:120acres

•SteepSlopesImpacted:121acres

•HydricSoilsimpacted:40acres

•PrimeFarmlandSoilsLost:140acres

•AquiferRechargeAreasImpacted:380acres

Thus, even the least dense vil-lageapproachusesuponly20%of the sensitive natural resource lands that would be impacted by the conventional buildout.Therealbenefitoftheapproach,however, is that itallowsdevel-operstheflexibilitytoavoidthemostsensitiveareasentirely,en-suring that ecosystems continue to function and water supplies are protected. In addition toprotectingstreamcorridorsandwetlands,uplandopenspacecorridorscanbesetasideincriticalareas to provide for the movement of wildlife and provision for hiking trails and other recreational uses.Combinedwithcontinuedeffortstopreserveentirelythemostsensitiveparcels,thisapproachcanhelptoprotectentirewatersheds,suchastheQueenRiver,thatarecriticaltothefutureenviron-mentalhealthandwatersupplyforthewholeregion.

The village approach provides the flexibility to put more homes in areas that have the best conditions for devel-opment, while preserving farms, forest and wildlife habitat.


Likewise,thechoicesallowedthroughthevillageapproachmakeitpossibleforExetertocontinuegrowingwithoutruiningtheculturallandscapesthatgivethetownitsuniqueruralcharacterandqualityoflife.Villagescanbedesignedtoincorporatehistoricsitesandbuildings,stonewalls,ar-chaeologicalsites,scenicviewsandspecialplacesintothecommunityplan-protectingtheresourc-esthemselves,butjustasimportantlyaddingtothecharacterofthevillageandenhancingqualityoflifeforresidents.Justimaginehowniceitwouldbetoarriveatyourvillagehomebywayofacountryroadrollingthroughpreservedfarmsandforests,passingancienttreesandstonewalls,andgreetingyourneighborsatacommunitybuildingfashionedfromahistorichomeorbarn.Thesearethekindofamenitiesthatcostadeveloperlittle,assumingtheyhavetheflexibilitytodesignaround

existing features,whileadd-ing substantially to the value oftheproject.

Finally, the village offersunique opportunities tocombine development with the protection of farmland and enhancement of the ag-ricultural economy. Aswithother types of resources,theflexibility that comesbyreducing the development

footprintandbeingabletosetasideatleast80%ofasiteforopenspacemakesitrelativelysimpletopreservefarmlandaspartofthevillagedevelopmentprocess.Butitalsoraisesthepossibilityofvillagesthatreturntotheoriginalvillageidea,whereacommunityissurroundedbyandintimatelyconnectedwiththelandscapefromwhichitdrawsitsfoodandwater.Alloverthecountry,peopleare rediscovering thevalueof locally-grown food,and therearenumerousexamplesofplanneddevelopmentprojectsthatincludeagriculture.Community-SupportedAgriculture(CSA)farms,or-ganicvegetable farming,permaculture andother creative techniquesarebecomingpartof themainstream.

Perhapsthemostimportantimplicationofthevillageapproachforagricultureistheabilitytosolveafundamentaleconomicproblem-howtopassfarmlandtothenextgeneration.Mostofthenewfarmingideasaredrivenbyyoungpeoplewhohavetheenergyandknow-how,butnofarmandnomoneytobuyone.Olderfarmerswhomaybereadytomoveonwouldliketokeepthelandinproductionbutcan’taffordtogiveuptheirnestegg--sotheyendupsellingthefarmfordevelop-ment.Thevillageapproachcansolvethiseconomicequationbyprovidingtheup-frontcashtobuyout the current farm owners and then including the farmland as part of a village masterplan that includesbothconservationanddevelopment.Sincethevillagecantakeadvantageofthedevelop-mentrightsthatgowiththefarmland,thefarmitselfcouldbesoldorleasedtoyoungfarmersataratetheycanafford.Meanwhilethefarmprovidesfoodandotherbenefitstotheresidentsofthevillage,valuethatisdirectlyreflectedintheeconomicvalueofthenewhomes.

Costs and Benefits for Community Character and Quality of Life

ThroughouttheVisionforExeterprocess,residentshavebeenvocalinwishingthattherewouldn’tbeanyfurtherdevelopmentinExeter.Theymovedtothetownbecauseofitsruralcharacterandsmall-townqualityof life,sowhydoweneedvillages,anyway–can’twejust leavewellenough

Farms make up only a fraction of Exeter’s total land area. With Village Development and Transfer of Development Rights, much of the remaining farmland could be saved - - at no cost to tax payers.


alone?Yetasthetowngrowsfromtoday’s2,300homestomorethan5,000,whichislikelyundercurrentzoning,theruralqualitiesresidentslovewillslowlydisappear-especiallyifthecurrentzon-ingremainsastheonlyoption.Evenwithfourandfive-acrelots,theviewfromtheroadwillconsistofaseriesofdrivewaysevery300or350feetalongeveryroad,withahousesetbackinthemiddleofthelot–perhapshiddeninthetrees,perhapsoutinthemiddleofafield.Inanycase,thesenseof driving though the countryside will be replaced with a sense of driving through an endless sub-urbansubdivision.Eveniftheroadsidetreesandstonewallsareprotected,ruralcharacterwillbechangedforever,notleastofallbecausetheactiveuseofthelandscapeforfarming,forestry,hunt-ing,fishingandotherruralpursuitswillcometoanend. Trueruralcharacter ismuchmorethanhaving some extra space around your home and a decorative mail box–it’sabouthavingatownwhereopenspaceisthedominantelement,wheretheexperienceoftravelingthroughthetownisor-ganizedbyrivervalleys,forests,ridgelinesandswathsoffarmlandratherthanstripmallsandsubdivisions.Andit’saboutmaintain-ingtheworkinglandscapeoffarmsandforests,nottomentionthepeoplewhoworkinthatlandscape.

Stopping development in its tracks is certainly one way to maintain ruralcharacter–butthat’ssimplynotpossible.Alltheprivatelandin Exeter is zoned for some formofdevelopment, and formanyowners the development value of that land represents their pri-marysourceofwealth.Youcanrelyonthefactthatmanypeopledon’tneedtoselltheirlandandlikeitthewayitis.Ifyouhaveenoughmoneyyoucanbuyitfromthem.Or youcanencourage formsofdevelopment that respect theexisting landscape.Villagescouldbepartofthisapproach.

Bydefinitionavillageconcentratesdevelopmentinonearea,generallyclosetothebestroads,andserviceablebysharedinfrastructure.Foragivennumberofhomesitwillthereforehavetheleastim-pactontheactiveuseoftherurallandscape.Aswehaveseen,thevillageapproachalsobringswithittheabilitytosave80-90%ofthelandinagivenareaaspermanentlyprotectedopenspace,allow-ingnewneighborhoodstobesurroundedbyfarms,forests,wetlandsandothernaturalareasthatprovideawealthofdirectandindirectbenefitstothecommunity. Thiscouldincludegreenwaysandnaturetrails,bufferstoprotectwatersupplies,andareasforhuntingandfishing.Increasinglypeoplearealso looking togetmoreof their food locally. Communitygardens, community sup-portedagriculturefarms,andsmallorganicvegetableandlivestockoperationsarethriving.Eachoftheseelementsispossibleusingthevillageapproach,butlargelyimpossibleusingconventionallarge-lotzoning.

VillagesprovideamechanismtomaintaintheruralcharacterExeterresidentswant,whileprovid-ingamenitiesthatenhancethequalityoflifeforeveryone.Theydosoinwaysthataremuchlessvulnerable to everything from dwindling oil supplies to the kind of extreme weather events that we arelikelytoseemoreofastimegoeson.Forinstance,ifyouhadtolivewithoutacar,wouldn’titbebettertoliveinavillagewhereyoucanwalktoastoreformanyofyourordinaryneeds,andwhereyou’rewithineasyshuttleorbicycleaccesstothecommuterrailstation?Andifthepriceofoilrisesenoughtodoubleortriplethecostofshippingfoodacrossthecountry,wouldn’titbebettertohavetheoptiontogrowatleastsomeofyourfoodlocally?Villagelifeisnotforeveryone,andnoonewillbeforcedtoselltheirhouseinthecountrytomovetoavillage,butifdevelopmentisgoingtohappen,doesn’titmakesensetodosoinawaythatbenefitsthetown?

The rural landscape is nothing without working farms and farm families. Villages can help current owners pass farms on to the next generation.


V. Assessment of Potential Sites for Village Growth

Sixsiteswere identified inPhase1bythepublicaspotentialsites forvillagegrowth(map,page5). Todetermine their suitability forvillagegrowth, theconsulting teampreparedaGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)analysismapforeachsite(figures7-10).TheanalysiswasbasedonexistingdataavailablefromRhodeIslandGeographicInformationSystem(RIGIS).Orthophotographs–truecoloraerialphotographytakeninthespringof2008–servedasthebaselayer.Thefirststepwastooverlaylandswithmajordevelopmentconstraints.Thisincludedsurfacewaters,wetlands,hydricsoils,vernalpools,ledge/outcropsandwellheadprotectionareas,aswellaslandsthatareperma-nentlyprotected.Thenextstepwastooverlaypartialdevelopmentconstraints–factorsthatdonotprohibitconstructionbutwhichwillmakeitmoredifficultandexpensive.Thisincludessoilswithaseasonalhighwatertablebetween18-36inches,floodplains,andslopesgreaterthan15%.

Theresultingmapsshowedeachofthesixsiteswithinitsneighborhoodcontext,andallowedtheteam to define a rough study area boundary for a potential village and determine how much build-ablelandwouldbeavailableforfuturedevelopment.Thesestudyareaboundariesweredeterminedbythephysicalfeaturesthatcreatealogicaledgetoapotentialvillage,suchasstreamcorridorsandwetlandswhichwouldbedifficulttocrosswithanewroad;existingsubdivisions;highwaycorridors;largeprotectedopenspaceparcels,townboundariesandsteepslopes.Whileparcelscanbecon-solidatedintooneownership,thesephysicalfeaturescannotbeignored,andthusserveveryliterallyasboundariestoeachsite.Whereitmadesense,existingparcellineswereusedasthestudyareaboundaryline.Asyouwillnoteinthemaps,thepotentialvillagesitesarenotoverlylarge,generallyfrom300-500acres,whichisaresultofExeter’scomplextopographyanddrainagepatterns.

Development Context

Thesuccessofanyofthevillagesiteswilltosomeextentdependonitsdevelopmentcontext,in-cludingthenumberofhomesandbusinessesalreadyintheneighborhood,accesstoregionalhigh-waysanddistancetotransitstations.AmapshowingeachofthesitesinthecontextofExeterandsurroundingtownswasprepared,usingdatafromthestatewide911propertyinventorytoidentifyeveryhomeandbusiness(Figure7).ThisanalysisdemonstratesthatvillagesitesintheEastpartof

Map of Exeter showing location of village study areas. For the initial analysis a seventh potential site was added to the six identified through the Phase I workshops. This was the light industrial district at the South end of Route 3.


Figure 7. Distance to Existing Homes and Businesses

Richmond

South Kingstown

West Kingston Amtrak Station

Wickford Junction

URI

North Kingstown

I-95

West Greenwich East Greenwich


Exeter,especiallyalongRoute2,wouldbenefitgreatlyfromaccesstothenewWickfordJunctionstation,approximately3milesnortheast,ortheexistingWestKingstonstation,about4milestothesouth.Easternvillagesiteswouldalsobenefitbybeingabletodrawfromalargerexistingpopula-tion.TheExeterRoadsite,forexample,hasover500existingbuildingswithin1mile,andmorethan12,000buildingswithin5miles.

Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal

Aspartoftheassessmentofthedifferentpotentialvillagesites,HorsleyWittenGroup(HW)per-formed a GIS analysis designed to assess the potential for supplying drinking water and dispos-ingofwastewaterateachlocation.TheseplanninglevelanalysesusedreadilyavailabledatafromRhodeIslandGeographicInformationSystems(RIGIS)to“screenout”soiltypes,geologicdeposits,andothernaturalfeaturesthatwouldmakeitdifficulttoyieldadequateamountsofdrinkingwa-terfromsubsurfaceaquifersortodisposeofhighvolumesofwastewaterintosubsurfacedeposits.Constraintsthatwereusedtoremovesubsurfaceareasincluded:

• Wetlandpolygonsandassociated50-footbuffer.

• Streamlinesandassociated200-foorbuffer.

• Subsurfacegeologyidentifiedasglacialtill.

• Anyexistingcommunitywellheadprotectionareas.

Theresultsofthisanalysisdemonstratedthatonlyoneofthevillagesites,theexistingExeterRoad/Route2area,showedsignificantpotentialtobothwithdrawdrinkingwateranddisposeofwaste-water.Allothersitesweresignificantlyconstrained.TheExeterRoadsite,however,includeslandwhichdrainsintothreedifferentwatersheds.Thisincreasestheriskof“inter-basintransfer”,whichisasituationwherewatermaybeextractedfromonebasinandthendisposedofinanother.Wheninter-basintransferdoesoccur,itcansignificantlydepletegroundwaterlevelsinthe“withdrawalba-sin”,causingstreamflowstodropandimpactingwetlandresourcesinthewatershed.RIDEMexam-ines these impacts closely when permitting water withdrawals in the state and any future develop-ment of a well in this area would need to include an assessment of where the associated wastewater

This map shows constraints that limit the availability of well water and the ability to dispose of high volumes of wastewater. Areas in white represent the most suitable locations for villages based on these constraints.


wouldberecharged. Eachactivity—waterwithdrawalandwastewaterdisposal—wouldneedtooccurwithinthesamebasin.

It should be noted that despite having high levels of constraints from the perspective of wastewater disposalandwatersupply,theseconditions,bythemselves,donotprecludethedevelopmentofmorecompact,village-stylecommunitiesintheotherareasassessedbyHW.Whatwouldbeaffect-edisthedegreetowhichvillage-scaledensitiescanbeachieved.Whereasiteismoreconstrained,

Most suitable locations for on-site wells and wastewater disposal systems are shown in purple on the map above. The overlay of potential village loca-tion demonstrates that those along the Route 2 corridor are the only ones with significant potential for on-site water and wastewater systems.

The map at left shows how Exeter is drained by nine or ten different river basins. Since transfer of water from one basin to another is regulated by RIDEM, village development on sites containing several watersheds must be serviced by systems that balance well-water supply and wastewater disposal within individual basins.


thescaleofbuildings, requiredsetbacks foron-sitewellsand leachfields,and thearea requiredforon-sitewastewaterdisposalwouldshapethevillageinawaythatlimitsitssizeandtheoveralldensityofdevelopment.

Conclusions

Thesiteswerenotrankedorasinglesiteselectedforavillage.Eachsitecansupportdevelopmentathigherdensitiesthancurrentlyexist. Themainissueslimitingthesizeofavillagearethe“perunit”costsofprovidingwaterandwastewatertreatment,thecapacityoflandtoabsorbwastewateratdifferentscales,andthedifficultlyofworkingaroundexistinglandusestoassembleameaning-fuldevelopmentsite.Basedonthefactorsdescribedabove,aswellastheavailabilityofland,thesurroundingneighborhoodcontextandaccesstoexistingroads,thesteeringcommitteedecidedtopresentfourofthesitestothepublicforfurtherdiscussionattheSeptember,2010publicmeeting.Attheworkshopresidentsagreedthatwhenexaminedobjectivelytherearesomeobviouscriteriaforidentifyingagoodvillagesite:

• Safeandconvenientaccesstotheregionalhighwaynetwork.

• Potentialwatersupplyinquantitiessufficienttosupportthevillage.

• Soilssuitableforsharedwastewatertreatmentsystems.

• Enoughavailabledevelopablelandtomakeavillageworthwhile.

Afterdiscussingtheresultsofthethirdpublicworkshop,aswellasthesubsequentULITechnicalAssistancePanel,thecommitteeselectedtwoofthesitesastestcasestocontinuetheprocessofexploringvillagedevelopmentforExeter.Afterareviewofthedetailedplansandvillagedesignap-proachesthatresulted,andfollowingadditionalpublicinputatthefourthcommunitymeeting,theprojectteamrecommendedthattwooftheoriginalsitesbedesignatedasreceivingareas:ExeterRoad/Rt. 2 and the I-95 interchange area. See SectionVIII formore information on the PlannedVillageDistrictandpotentialsendingandreceivingareas.

This map shows the most suitable areas for wells and wastewater disposal systems in purple, overlaid with a the study area boundaries for potential vil-lage sites along Route 2. Mostly made up of flat, well-drained agricultural soils, the Exeter Road site appears to have the fewest constraints and the best soil conditions of all the village sites.


The potential village site surrounding the Exeter Library on Rt. 102 (top left) appears to have limited potential to support a village-scale water supply and wastewater disposal system.

Likewise, the entire Route 3 corridor (left) has poor conditions for well and on-site wastewater. Obviously there are many homes and businesses in the area that are served by individual wells and septic, but it would require ad-ditional site investigation to determine the capacity of the area to support more extensive development.

The site at Route 102 and South Road (top right) displays a mix of soil condi-tions, wetlands and other factors that indicate it could support additional growth, depending on the parcels in-volved and the configuration of devel-opment. The potential for wastewater disposal is complicated here because the best soils are immediately adjacent to the stream corridors.


Figure 8. Potential Village Sites on Route 2 at Exeter Road and Oak Harbor Village

Rt. 2 North/Exeter Road

Rt. 2 South/ Oak Harbor Village

Rt. 2

North Kingstow

n

South Kingstown

Oak Harbor Village

Veteran’s Cemetery


Figure 9. Potential Village Sites on Route 3

Rt. 3 Light Industrial

Rt. 3 Light Business

Rt. 3 North/ I-95 Interchange

I-95

Rt. 3

Rt. 102

Richmond

West Greenwich


Figure 11. Potential Village Site at South Road and Route 102

Figure 10. Potential Village Site on Route 102 at the Exeter Library

North Kingstow

n

Rt. 102

TownHallLibrary

Rt. 102

Rt. 2


VI. Exploring Village Development for Exeter

Design Scenarios for the Route 102 village siteFigure 10 (left) illustrates the available area for village growth that was identified by the initial sur-veyofpotentialvillagesites.Theareaisdefinedontheeastandwestbystreamcorridors,andtothenorthandsouthbyexistingstreetsandhouselots.ItincludestheExeterLibrary,andadjacentlandwhichincludesasiteforanewtownhall.Thelargestdevelopmentparcelwaspartiallyclearedtocreateagolfcourse,whichwasneverfinished,butoutlineofthefairwaysremains.AlongtheRoute102frontagethereareseveralopenagriculturalparcels.

Existing Conditions: this maps illus-trates current conditions on the Route 102 Village Site. Most of the land is heavily wooded, except for the farms along Rt. 102 and the fairways cleared as part of a never-completed golf course development.

An enlargement of the area around the library shows the potential site for the new town hall and other town-owned land. Restrictions placed on the prop-erty when it was sold to the town limit residential growth.

Rt. 102

CellTower

Agricultural Fields

Library

Exeter Chapel


Potential Buildout Under Current Zoning: This plan shows additional frontage development along Route 102, and includes the preliminary plan for the Cobblestone Village develop-ment, which rises up the hill on the parcel that was previously cleared for a golf course. While the proposed Cobblestone plan is based on a tradi-tional village model, its location on top of a the hill will isolate it from other nearby development.

Aerial photographs show the existing open farmland along Route 102 and clearing for the abandoned golf course project on the hill to the Northwest. A more detailed view of the library site (below ) shows the site for the planned new Town Hall facing the library green. (Photos courtesy Microsoft Bing Maps).


Proposed Village Alternative: An alter-native approach pulls the development off of the hill and brings new homes closer to the existing library. The library is joined by a new town hall and additional mixed-use commercial/resi-dential buildings on the town-owned parcel. A new road connects across the back of the lots from he entrance to Cobblestone Village to the library. It could continue eastward from the library site to Widow Sweets Road, allowing current residents to get to the library and new town hall without having to pull out on Route 102.

While wetlands , streams and topog-raphy make it difficult to gather all the potential development in a single village cluster, it is possible to link a village core to the outlying neighbor-hoods with walkable village streets. Careful layout of streets and preserva-tion of existing open fields allows for the same amount of development as is possible under the conventional development plan while preserving important open space features. Note: deed restrictions placed on the town-owned site and the east side of the Cobblestone village property at the time of their sale would not allow the plan as shown to be built.

Rt. 102

Library

Exeter Chapel

TownHall


Design Scenarios for the Exeter Road village site

ThepotentialvillagesiteatRoute2andExeterRoadincludesabout500acresofland,abouthalfofwhichisinactiveagriculturaluse.Asshownina2008orthophoto(below),mostofthefarmlandisalongtheroad,withwoodedlandbehind.Tothewest(leftsideofimage)protectedlandalongtheQueenRiverabutstheLaddCenterandtheVeteran’sCemetery.TotheeastistheborderwithNorthKingstown.Northandsouth,streamcorridorsandexistingdevelopmentformtheboundariesofthestudyarea.Streamsandwetlandssubdividethesiteintothreeorfourseparateareas,butthereisgoodaccessfromexistingroadfrontagetoeachpartofthepotentialvillage.

Rt. 2 North Kingstow

n

Veteran’s Cemetery

Exeter Mall

South Road

Ladd Center

Queen River


This aerial photograph shows the study area from the south, with Route 2 and on the left side of the image. Most of the farmland is owned by the Albert Family. The Canonicus Camp surrounds the pond at the lower right. (Photo courtesy Microsoft Bing Maps).

A base map of the study area was prepared showing existing conditions, with dark green for forest, light green for farmland and lawns, and tan for existing buildings. The dashed blue line shows the boundaries of the town-owned Reynolds property.


Conventional Development Under Current ZoningUnder current zoning the study area would be divided into a mix of 89 three and four acre lots. Within the light business/residential zone that surrounds the Exeter Mall there could be nine new commercial/office buildings. To service the new homes and businesses there would be total of 15, 250 feet of new road, or 171 feet of road per unit. Each lot would have its own well and wastewater disposal system.


Using the town’s Conservation Development ordinance, the same num-ber of new homes and businesses could be clustered on those areas within each separate parcel most suited for develop-ment, leaving much of the farm and for-est land undeveloped. Under the plan shown this would result in 89 half-acre residential lots and nine commercial/of-fice buildings in the light business/resi-dential zone. This would require 11,050 feet of new road, or 124 feet per unit. All structures would have individual well and wastewater systems.

In the first village scenario, the same 89 homes allowed in the conventional and conservation development plans are clustered in a village centered on Exeter Road. The nine new commercial buildings would also remain part of the plan, replacing the existing Exeter Mall buildings. The village approach would need just 7100 feet of new road, or 80 feet per unit.

Conservation Development

Village with Half-acre Lots


This plan is an enlargement of the pre-vious village scheme, showing how the new homes and businesses could be arranged around an irregular grid of village streets. The commercial area would remain on the Exeter Mall prop-erty, but some of the buildings would be turned to face an interior main street shared with residences. Other commer-cial structures would line the frontage along Route 2. Parking would be in a shared lot in the center of the com-mercial area, hiding the cars behind the buildings and allowing the street front-age to be more pedestrian-friendly. Residential building lots would line the new streets, and most houses would have views either of a new park or of the protected farms and forest surrounding the village. With half-acre lots, water and wastewater could be either indi-vidual or shared.

Some of the land protected through the village development process could be turned into recreational fields (lower right), and there would be room for a Community-Supported Agriculture farm (CSA). Other surrounding farm and forest land would remain in private hands, with conservation restrictions to prevent further development.

This plan explores the result of doubling the number of homes in the village us-ing Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Under this scheme lots would be 1/4 acre in size, allowing an addi-tional 89 units to be transferred to the same village footprint. The TDR process would permanently protect farmland elsewhere (note that every house is not shown in this plan, just the boundaries of the house lots).

This scheme would require a shared water supply, but each house could still be serviced with and individual wastewater disposal system. The plan shows 178 total units: 160 single-family detached and 18 in attached units on 6 lots with three units per building. The commercial areas would remain as in the previous plan, with 9 buildings. With more lots to serve, there would be 9700 feet of road needed, but just 55 feet of road per unit.

VillagewithHalf-AcreLots:Detail

Village with Quarter-Acre Lots


This plan shows a village with the num-ber of lots doubled from the previous scheme to a total of 356 new homes. This is possible within the same village footprint by reducing lot sizes to 1/8 acre: a lot of about 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep. This is a very traditional vil-lage lot size, and easily accommodates a house, driveway and garage. This scheme shows some of the lots in the core of the village as attached units, with 5-10 units per building. This allows for a greater range in housing types, and provides an alternative for younger people and seniors who don’t need a single-family house but still want to live in Exeter.

The centerpiece of the village continues to be a “Main Street “ lined with com-mercial buildings, with parking hidden in the rear. All of this can be serviced with 9700 feet of new road, or just 27 feet per unit. There would be both a shared water supply and wastewater disposal system

While there are many more new homes in this scheme than the previous sce-narios, keep in mind that this would only happen through a TDR process that in this case would permanently protect more than 400 acres in the immediate vicinity, and more than 1000 acres else-where in town -- all at no expense to the taxpayer.

Even though people live closer together in a village than they would otherwise in Exeter, there can still be a very high quality of life. Pedestrian-friendly streets, such as the center of South County Commons in South Kingstown (far left) provide a lot of uses within a small area, encouraging walking and making for a diverse and lively experi-ence.

In residential areas, porches, front yards with picket fences and abundant landscaping provide a comfortable separation between public and private spaces. Because the developer spends much less per unit on roads and other development costs, there are additional funds for landscaping, parks and other amenities.

Village with Eighth-Acre Lots


VII. Detailed design for the Exeter Road Village Site

FollowingreviewofthevillageplanningalternativesfortheRoute2/ExeterRoadsite,afinalillustra-tive plan was prepared showing a village with a minimum lot size of 1/8 acre and a total of about 300newhomes(below).Theplanusesthesameoverallfootprintasthepreviousschemes,butallthedetailsofaccess,parking,pedestrianandvehicularcirculationhavebeenworkedout. Everyresidential and commercial structure is drawn to scale based on actual examples that have been successful in themarketplace. Toencouragediversityofnewhomes, themodelvillageschemeshowssevendifferenthousingtypes;thuswithinanoveralldensityofabout1/8acreperunit,densi-tieswithinthevillagerangefrom25-30unitsperacrefortheapartmentsdownto2unitsperacrearoundtheedgeofthevillage.Themostnumeroushousesareonthestandard50’x100’villagelots.


Mixed-use

Apartments

Townhouses

Duplexes

Cottages

Village Core

Village Edge

This illustration shows the village in perspective from the south, with build-ing types color-coded. The plan is orga-nized so that the denser development is within the core of the village, with larger lots along the streets around the periphery of the village.


Two alternatives for the design of the mixed use “Main Street” at the core of the village demonstrate how the de-tails can easily change while preserving the basic village design. In this case the difference between the schemes is the bottom image shows the new church that was begun on the site as the plan-ning process was underway. The plan also shows the footprints of the existing Exeter Mall and post office buildings. These could both remain as the village grows around them, being replaced in time by newer structures along the pro-posed main street.

Church

Exeter Mall

PostOffice


Existing Conditions

This perspective shows the village from the south.

Conventional Development

This shows the same view, with the farms and forests divided into 89 house lots.

Village Development

This view shows the potential village, surrounded by permanently protected farms and forest land. Keep in mind that the extra units allowed in the vil-lage above and beyond the original 89 would only be allowed through preser-vation of additional open space else-where in Exeter.

TheVillageinContext


Cross -Sections of Village Streets

Commercial Street

Primary Village Street

Secondary Village Street

Residential Alley

Each street within a proposed village will be carefully designed to accommo-date proposed uses and density and to provide safe and efficient access for pe-destrians, vehicles, and bicycles.


An aerial view of the mixed-use core of the village shows how the buildings would line broad sidewalks along a two-way street with angled parking. There could be a flexible mix of uses within the buildings, with retail and office space on the first floors, and upper story offices or apartments. Parking would be to the rear of the buildings, and most could have entrances on both sides.

A ground-level view shows the space along the street that is created by the walls of the various buildings, with slight variations in setback allowing for outdoor cafes, gardens, and display space for shops and other businesses. Parking is broken up by planted “bump-outs,” which narrow the width of pave-ment at cross walks. Street trees are provided with enough room to accom-modate future growth, and will eventu-ally form a nearly continuous canopy.

This view illustrates a residential area on the east side of the proposed village. The homes surround a small park, which is connected by sidewalks to the rest of the village. Parking is in the rear, where garages are accessed from shared drive-ways or alleys. This allows for the street frontage to be attractively landscaped, and minimizes conflicts between cars and pedestrians.


VIII. Implementing Village Growth: Draft Ordinances

The Regulatory Amendments

Asafinalpiecetotheproject,HWandDodsonworkedwithAVisionforExeterandthePlanningBoard to develop a complete regulatory package designed to enable the development of a village suitabletoExeter. Theregulatorypackagewas informedin largepartbythemyriad illustrationsdevelopedaspartoftheoutreachprocessandlengthydiscussionswithmembersofthecommunity.Theregulatorypackageincludedover40pagesofmaterialdividedintoamendmentsfortheZoningOrdinanceandtheLandDevelopmentandSubdivisionRegulations.Descriptionsoftheimportantregulatorypiecesareprovidedbelow.Completedraftsofeachsectionareincludedasanappendixtothereport.

The Village Ordinance

ThecoreoftheregulatoryworkisfoundinthePlannedVillageDistrict(the“PVDistrict”).Thisnewdistrictoperatesaspotentialnewzoningdistrictthatrequiresanactualdevelopmentapplicationtobemapped.Thecriteriaforwherethisdistrictcouldbedrawnfocusitontheareasidentifiedasthebestlocationsforfuturevillagedevelopmentaspartofthisstudy.VillagedevelopmentinExeterisconceivedofasanoptionalapproachratherthanamandatoryrequirement,andtheuseofa“con-finedfloatingdistrict”wasappropriatetothatgoal. ThePVDistrictprovisionslaythefoundationforvillagedevelopmentbysettingtheallowableusesandthepermitprocedures.ProvisionsoftheordinancerelatedtothePVDistrictalsoestablishstandardsfordimensionalrequirements(setback,height,etc.),densitylimitsforresidentialdevelopment,limitationsonbuildingfootprintsize,park-ingrequirements,andrequirementsforaffordablehousing.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

AnothercriticalpiecetotheregulatorypackageistheuseofTDR.Duringtheoutreachprocess,itwas clear that residents of Exeter would consider development at village scales and densities only ontheconditionthatTDRwasusedtoachievethosedensities.Therefore,afullsetofTDRzoningordinance and land development regulations were developed to enable the rights from existing forestandfarmlandtobetransferredtothePVDistrict.ThefulldraftoftheTDRregulatorypackagecanbeviewedintheappendixtothisreport,butkeyelementsinclude:

1.SendingAreaIdentification: The Sending Area within a TDR program is the land that is targeted forpreservation,whetherasnatural forest landorasaworking farm. These landsaregenerallyzonedforresidentialuseandarethereforeatriskforsubdivisiondevelopment.InExeter,recogniz-ingthewidespreadamountofundevelopedlandthatiszonedforresidentialuse,theTowndecidedtoincludeanyundevelopedlandintheRU-3,RU-4,andRU-5districtsintheSendingArea.

2.ReceivingAreaIdentification: The Receiving Area is the area(s) in the Town to which develop-


mentrightsformtheSendingAreawouldbetransferred.OftheeightpossiblevillagesitesexploredbyExeter,ultimatelytwowereselectedaspotentialReceivingAreas:1)thearealocatedaroundtheintersectionofRoute2andExeterRoadand2)thearealocatedjustoffRoute3adjacenttotheI-95Interchange.

3.YieldDetermination:AspartoftheTDRanalysis,alandownerintheSendingAreamustdeter-minehowmanyunitsofhousingcouldreasonablybeexpectedtobedevelopedatfullbuildout.ThisprocessoccursthroughtheuseofaYieldPlan,whichisasiteplanforasubdivisionreviewedbythePlanningBoard.IfthePlanningBoarddeterminesthattheYieldPlanisacceptable,theneachhouselotdepictedontheplanisvestedasa“developmentright”whichcanthenbesoldthroughTDR.

4.“Scoring”ofSendingAreaLands:Aspreviouslymentioned,theSendingAreainExeterwasiden-tifiedasanylandwithintheRU-3,RU-4,andRU-5districts.Thisallowsforbroadeligibilityacrossthecommunity.However,AVisionforExeterandthePlanningBoardalsorecognizedthatnotallSendingArea landshave the same level ofpriority froma conservationperspective. Thegrouptherefore developed a scoring matrix that will be used to rank land based on a series of value based criteria.Factorssuchasproximitytothevillagecore,qualityofagriculturalsoils,proximitytoaquiferprotection areas and many other factors are weighed as part of the matrix and provide incentives for developerstopursuethedevelopmentrightsforhighervalueland.

5.TDR“TransferRatios”: A critical piece to any TDR ordinance is determining the value relationship betweenhousingintheSendingAreaandHousingintheReceivingArea.Thequestionthatneedstobeansweredis,“Howmanyunitsisadeveloperallowedtobuildinthevillageforeverydevelop-mentrighttoasinglefamilyhomethatheorshepurchases?”Forexample,intheExeterSendingAreas,housingcouldbebuiltuponminimumlotsizesrangingfromthreetofiveacres.Thevalueofthesehomeswillobviouslybedifferentfromavillage-stylehomethatcouldbebuiltonmuchsmallerlotsoraspartofamixeduseapartmentconcept.Itwasthereforeimportanttodevelopatransfer ratio thatestablishes thenumberofalternativehousingstyleunits (suchasapartments,townhouse,orsmalllotdetached)thatwouldbeprovidedinreturnforremovingthedevelopmentrightsforlargerlotdevelopment.HWexaminedpropertyvaluesinExeterandotherSouthCountycommunitiesfordifferenthousingtypestodevelopareasonablesetoftransferratiostoincludeinthelanddevelopmentregulations. Transferratiosproposedaspartofthezoningaremodestfordetachedsinglefamilyunitsinthevillage,rangingfromonedevelopmentrightyielding1.2to1.7smalllot,detachedhomes.Ratioswerealsoprovidedfortownhouseandmulti-familyhomes,withthehighestpossibleyieldforonedevelopmentrightbeingfourmulti-familyunits.

6.Fee-in-lieuofTDROption: One of the more difficult elements of TDR to control is the feasibility ofanactualsuccessfulsaleofdevelopmentrights.Insomecases,theremaybeawillingbuyer,buttheremaybenodevelopmentrightsavailabletopurchase.Inothercases,theremaybedevelop-mentrightstosell,butthebuyerandsellercannotcometotermsontheprice.Inanticipationoftheseissues,ExeterdevelopedaprocessthroughwhichaprospectiveapplicantforPlannedVillageDevelopmentcanprovideafee-in-lieuofpurchasingdevelopmentrightsandmoveforwardwithanapplication.TheappropriatefeeisdeterminedbytheTownthroughapropertyvaluationprocessand the fees are deposited in a restricted account that can only be used for the purchase of develop-mentrights.

page 58 A Vision for Exeter A Vision for Exeter page PB

Design Guidelines

ThefinalmajorpiecetotheregulatorypackageincludestheDesignGuidelinesthatwillallowthePlanningBoardtoshapevariousdesignaspectsofanyPlannedVillageDevelopmentapplication.These illustrated guidelines build upon many of the narrative design guidelines that already existed withintheExeterZoningOrdinanceandsupplementtheseguidelineswithmoredetailandillustra-tions.Issuesrelatedtopedestrianmobility,bicycleandautomobilecirculation,diversityofbuildingdesign,landscaping,signageandotherelementsarecoveredwithintherevisedguidelines.Whereappropriate,designguidelineswereplacedwithinthelanddevelopmentregulationstoprovideagreaterlevelofflexibilityforthePlanningBoard.

Housekeeping Items

Aswithanylarge-scalezoningordinancereform,anumberofso-called“housekeepingitems”weredeveloped to ensure that the new provisions for village development and TDR did not result in con-flictswithexistinglanguageelsewhereinlocalregulations.Housekeepingitemsincludedtheaddi-tionofdefinitions,specificexemptionsfromstandardsthatwouldnotapplytovillagedevelopment,andreferencestonewrequirementsinthelanddevelopmentregulations.

A Planned Village District would in-clude, as part of its official plan, a dia-gram like this one that would show in detail the location and extent of each development type. A phasing plan would ensure that as the village grows over time, each neighborhood within it functions as a complete whole.

Documents

A Vision for Exeter: Implementing the Game Plan for Our Future