Loading...
008 PAGGI,MARTIN &DELBENELLP Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors 56 Main Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 845-471-7898 845-471-0905 (FAX) April 18, 2005 Hon. Joseph Ruggiero Town Board Planning Board 20 Middelbush Road Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 RECEIVED APR 2 0 2005 TOWN CLERK Reference: Better Site Design and Site Design for Natural Resource Protection Workshop April IS, 2005 Dear Supervisor Ruggiero, Town Board Members & Planning Board Members: On Friday April 15th, 2005, I attended the above referenced Workshop along with other members of the Town. The point of the workshop was to provide an introduction to Better Site Design (BSD) Principles and how they can be implemented in development to protect natural resources. Presenters from the Center for Watershed Protection explained the 22 Model Development Principles of BSD and how they relate to their recent analysis of the Town Code. The Code and ordinance analysis was performed by the Center for Watershed Protection as a pilot project for the Wappinger Creek Inter-municipal Council. The Center for Watershed Protection made a number of recommendations for modifying the Town Code. The changes would make it possible for developers to use BSD in future site development. It is understood that the Town will need to review the recommendations and decide which are feasible and desirable for implementation. To facilitate the decision making process, the creation of an inclusive, community- wide roundtable was suggested. This roundtable would review recommendations and potential changes to the Town Code and work to create consensus on proposed code changes. The roundtable should include members of ALL relevant Town Departments and Boards, private developers, homeowners, environmental groups, industry and business representatives, fire departments, and any other Town citizens or groups interested in participating. The roundtable would be run by an independent moderator - for example a member ofthe Dutchess County Environmental Management Council. The final roundtable recommendation would be based on the consensus of all interested parties, and would therefore, describe practical, desirable, and enforceable changes to the Town Code. Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E. Ernst Martin, Jr., P.E., L.S. Charles R. Del Bene, Jr., P.E. Hon. Joseph Ruggiero Town Board Planning Board RE: BSD Workshop - April 15th, 2005 -2- April 18, 2005 It is important to note that the BSD principles relate to the Greenway Compact goals, the Wappinger Creek Inter-municipal Agreement, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Phase II Stormwater Permit requirements. These existing agreements and requirements would primarily benefit from the implementation of many of the BSD principles. The proposed roundtable process and code changes will also fit in with the Town's current activities to revise the Master Plan. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Draft Recommendations from the Center for Watershed Protection. Obviously, not every recommendation is feasible or practical for the Town. This does, however, provide a starting point for thought and discussion about possible code changes. I have also enclosed a copy of the original Code and Ordinance Worksheet prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection for your reVIew. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I would also be happy to meet with you and discuss any questions if you feel it would be useful. Very truly yours, ~~ Junior Design Engineer JES:law Enclosure cc: Hon. Gloria Morse Town Board: File Barbara Roberti Lawrence Bice, Frederick P. Clark Associates Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E. ", "; ." \J; 1~,..:f. .~ Town of Wappinger Dutchess County, NY Code and Ordinance Worksheet (COW) Code and Ordinance Worksheet TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY CODE AND ORDINANCE WORKSHEET OVERVIEW The Code and Ordinance Worksheet (COW) allows an in-depth review of the standards, ordinances, and codes (Le., the development rules) that shape how development occurs in the Town of Wappinger and identifies regulatory barriers to implementing environmentally-sensitive site design in this community. Through a series of questions, the COW systematically compares local development rules against each of the model development principles. Points are assigned based on how well the current development rules agree with the site planning benchmarks derived from the model development principles. The COW is intended to assess the community's written regulations - not how they mayor may not be implemented in real world situations. How THE COW Is SCORED The worksheet is subdivided into three categories: · Residential Streets and Parking Lots (Principles NO.1 - 10) · Lot Development (Principles No. 11 - 16) · Conservation of Natural Areas (Principles No. 17 - 22). For each category, questions are included that help identify which development rules are most in line with the site planning benchmarks and which rules are potential candidates for change. Points are awarded depending on if there are regulations that support nationally recognized standards as outlined in Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. The COW score is a general indication of a community's ability to support environmentally-sensitive development. A total of 100 points is possible. The scoring table at the end of the COW outlines the implications of a community's score. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED The COW was initially completed by Dan Wery of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. The Center for Watershed Protection reviewed the completed COW, in discussion with Mr. Wery and using the following documents: · Code of the Town of Wappinger, New York (updated 9-1-2004) · Dutchess County Health Department Regulations TOWN OF WAPPINGER COW SCORE Of a total of 100 possible points on the COW, the Town of Wappinger scored 39 points. This score indicates that the written development rules are not environmentally-friendly and that serious reform of the development rules is needed. Table 2 provides a summary of the model development principles with the Town's score. The completed worksheet, which follows, indicates how each of the questions was scored. How THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER CAN USE THE COW The COW assessment of current development rules and identification of impediments to the use of innovative site design techniques can be used to guide the reformation process of development rules in order to achieve environmentally-sensitive site design in the Town of Wappinger. This review directly leads into the next step: a detailed analysis of the Town of Wappinger's existing codes and ordinances. Through a detailed review of how the existing written regulations dictate how sites are designed, and interviews with local planners and developers, the analysis will explicitly spell out how current site design occurs, where the pitfalls might be, and where existing real and perceived barriers are to implementing better site design. Center for Watershed Protection -3- Code and Ordinance Worksheet DC Health De t. DC Health Dept. Na. Center for Watershed Protection -4- ~vuc. UlllA VI U"flU/H.,t; "Uf /1",)1tt:t:l Street Width - Design residential streets for the minimum required pavement width needed to support travel lanes; on-street parking; and emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. These widths should be based on traffic volume. Street Length - Reduce total length of residential streets by examining alternative street layouts to determine the best option for increasing the number of homes per unit length. Right-of-Way Width - Wherever possible, residential street right-of-way widths should reflect the minimum required to accommodate the travel-way, sidewalk, and vegetated open channels. Utilities and storm drains should be located within the pavement section of the right of-way wherever feasible. Cul-de-sacs - Minimize the number of residential street cul-de-sacs and incorporate landscaped areas to reduce their impervious cover. The radius of cul-de-sacs should be the minimum required to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles. Alternative turnarounds should be considered. Vegetated Open Channels - Where density, topography, soils, and slope permit, vegetated open channels should be used in the street right-of-way to convey and treat stormwater runoff. Parking Ratios - The required parking ratio governing a particular land use or activity should be enforced as both a maximum and a minimum in order to curb excess parking space construction. Existing parking ratios should be reviewed for conformance taking into account local and national experience to see if lower ratios are warranted and feasible. Parking Codes - Parking codes should be revised to lower parking requirements where mass transit is available or enforceable shared-parking arrangements are made. Parking Lots - Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by providing compact car spaces, minimizing stall dimensions, incorporating efficient parking lanes, and using pervious materials in spill over parking areas. Structured Parking - Provide meaningful incentives to encourage structured and shared parking to make it more economically viable. Parking Lot Runoff - Wherever possible, provide stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff 10 using bioretention areas, filter strips, and/or other practices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands.. 0/7 2 1/1 3 0/4 4 0/5 5 0/4 6 1/5 7 1/4 8 2/5 9 0/1 2/4 Open Space Design - Advocate open space development that incorporates smaller lot sizes 11 to minimize total impervious areas, reduce total construction costs, conserve natural areas, provide community recreational space, and promote watershed protection. Setbacks and Frontages - Reduce side yard setbacks and allow narrower frontages to 12 reduce total road length in the community and overall site imperviousness. Relax 'front setback requirements to minimize driveway lengths and reduce overall lot imperviousness. Sidewalks - Promote more flexible design standards for residential subdivision sidewalks. 13 Where practical, consider locating sidewalks on only one side of the street and providing common walkways linking pedestrian areas. 14 Driveways - Reduce overall lot imperviousness by promoting alternative driveway surfaces and shared driveways that connect two or more homes together. Open Space Management - Clearly specify how community open space will be managed 15 and designate a sustainable legal entity responsible for managing both natural and recreational open space. Rooftop Runoff - Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas such as yards, open channels, or 16 vegetated areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway and the stormwater conveyance system 5/8 3/6 4/6 0/6 3/6 4/4 Center for Watershed Protection -5- Code and Ordinance Worksheet Buffer Systems _ Create a variable width, naturally vegetated buffer system along all perennial 17 streams that also encompass critical environmental features such as the 100-year floodplain, 4m. steep slopes and freshwater wetlands. Buffer Maintenance _ The riparian stream buffer should be preserved or restored with native i 18 vegetation that can be maintained throughout the plan review, delineation, construction, and 0/4: occupancy stages of development. Clearing and Grading - Clearing and grading of forests and native vegetation at a site should 19 be limited to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fire protection. A fixed portion of any community open space should be managed as protected 213 green space in a consolidated manner. Tree Conservation - Conserve trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional 20 vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native plants. Wherever practical, 1/3 manage community open space, street rights-of-way, parking lot islands, and other landscaped areas to promote natural vegetation. Land Conservation Incentives - Incentives and flexibility in the form of density compensation, buffer averaging, property tax reduction, stormwater credits, and by-right open space 21 development should be encouraged to promote the conservation of stream buffers, forests, 0/4 meadows, and other areas of environmental value. In addition, off-site mitigation consistent with locally adopted watershed plans should be encouraged. 22 Stormwater Outfalls - Stormwater outfalls should not discharge unmanaged stormwater into 6/6 jurisdictional wetlands, sole-source aquifers, or sensitive areas. ! ' -6- Center for Watershed Protection What is the minimum pavement width allowed for streets in low density residential developments that have less than 500 daily trips (ADT)? No reference to ADT If your answer is between 18-22 feet, give yourself 4 points @'" 24 feet o At higher densities are parking lanes allowed to also serve as traffic lanes YES/ NO (Le.. queuing streets)? If your answer is YES, give yourself 3 points ~I 0 Notes on Street Width (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): Ch. 214 - Streets & Sidewalks, p. 21433, Figure 1 Do street standards promote the most efficient street layouts that reduce overall street length? 217-22F2 If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point ~ , Notes on Street Length (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): Max len th 0 dead end street is 1,500. 217-22 .21719;217-22.F. '2 YES/NO 1 What is the minimum right of way (ROW) width for a residential street? _50_ feet If your answer is less than 45 feet, give yourself 3 points ~ 0 Does the code allow utilities to be placed under the paved section of the ROW? "Underground utility lines shall be located outside of the travel~d way of the streets but, except in unusual circumstances, within the street right-ol-way. Underground service connections shall be YES/NO provided to the property line of each lot before the street is paved and may pass under the traveled way of the street." Sect. 217-23C If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point ~ I 0 Notes on ROW Width (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): However, utilities beneath the aved section are discoura ed. feet What is the minimum radius allowed for cul":de-sacs? If your answer is less than 35 feet, give yourself 3 points ~ If your answer is 36 feet to 45 feet, give yourself 1 point @'" Can a landscaped island be created within the cul-de-sac? Sect. 214-74 "The circular- shaped turnaround shall be completely paved with no center island. " If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point ~ I Are alternative turnarounds such as "hammerheads" allowed on short streets in low density residential developments? Sect. 214-74 "The circular-shaved turnaround shall be completely paved with no center island. " If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point ~ I Notes on Cul-de-Sacs (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): Cul-de-sac radius of pavement is 42.5feet. Ch. 214 - Streets & Sidewalks, Figure 15 p. 21461 o YES / NO o YES/ NO o Center for Watershed Protect:on -7- Are curb and gutters req uired for most residential street sections? If your answer is NO, give yourself 2 points c:r YESI Nb o :: Are there established design criteria for swales that can provide stormwater YES/ NIO quality treatment (Le., dry swales, biofilters, or grass swales)? . If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points c:r I 0 i Notes on Vegetated Open Channel (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 214-52,53,55,56,73, Figure 1 p. 21433; 217-23.B,p. 21720 214-72: "It is the olic of the Town that all storm draina e be enclosed in draina e What is the minimum parking ratio for a professional office building (per 1000 ft2 of gross floor area)? If your answer is less than 3.0 spaces, give yourself 1 point c:r What is the minimum required parking ratio for shopping centers (per 1,000 W gross floor area)? If your answer is 4.5 spaces or less, give yourself 1 point c:r What is the minimum required parking ratio for single family homes (per home)? If your answer is less than or equal to 2.0 spaces, give yourself 1 point c:r _3.3_ ~paces . o _5.35* _ spaces o _2_ S!..Pl3ces 1 : Are your parking requirements set as maximum or median (rather than minimum) YESI NO requirements? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points c:r 0 : Notes on Parking Ratios (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): *forshopping centers> 100,000 squarefeet. otherwise 6.7 spaces/1.000 sffirstfloor, 4/1,000 sfsecondfloo.r 24~-;97, p. 24125.0nl twoorthreesho in areasare>100,000s uare eet;most all into the <100.000s uare ootcate '0 Is the use of shared parking arrangements promoted? YES/INO If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point or I 11 I Are model shared parking agreements provided? YES'::O If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point c:r I 0'_ , Are parking ratios reduced if shared parking arrangements are in place? YES/!1iI0 If your answer is YES. give yourself 1 point or I oj I If mass transit is provided nearby, is the parking ratio reduced? YESt NO If yo~r answer is YES, give yourself 1 point c:r , 0 , Notes on Parking Codes (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 240-96, subsections A, E and F Notes: I' -8- Center for Watershed Protection What is the minimum stall width for a standard parking space? If your answer is 9 feet or less, give yourself 1 point c? What is the minimum stall length for a standard parking space? If your answer is 18 feet or less, give yourself 1 point c? Are at least 30% of the spaces at larger commercial parking lots required to have smaller dimensions for compact cars? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point c? Can pervious materials be used for spillover parking areas? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points c? Notes on Parking Lots (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 24 -9 . 24125 not a common ractice but is not rohibited in codes and has been done 10 feet o 20 feet o YES/NO o YES/ NO 2 Are there any incentives to developers to provide parking within garages rather than YES/ NO surface parking lots? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point c? 0 Notes on Structured Parking (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 240-96. C(2) "Parking garages and parking lots shall be permitted below the designjloodplain water elevation, but all such areas shall have wamin si s clearl visible that the arkin areas are sub 'ect to oodin " see 240-33F3a6 Is a minimum percentage of a parking lot required to be landscaped? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points c? Is the use of bioretention islands and other stormwater practices within landscaped areas or setbacks allowed? Sect. 240-96 CrIn all off-street parking facilities which contain 25 or more parking spaces, at least 10% of the total parking facility within the parking perimeter, excluding areas occupied by parking structures, shall consist of raised landscaped islands. as follows, except that the Planning Board may waive or modify the requirement for good cause and in the interest of good design where there arefewer than 50 parking spaces...." YES/ NO 2 YESI NO If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points c? -, 0 Notes on Parking Lot Runoff (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 240-96.C '2 Notes: Center for Watershed Protection -9- G Time to Assess: Principles 1 - 10 focused on the codes, ordinances, and standards that determin~' the size, shape, and construction of parking lots, roadways, and driveways in the suburban landscape. There was a total of 40 points available for Principles 1 - 10. What was your total score? . Subtotal Page 7 -L + Subtotal Page 8 ---1- + Subtotal Page 9 ~ = Where were your codes and ordinances most in line with the principles? What codes and ordinances are potenti~\ impediments to better development? · ! Parking lot landscaping requirements were most consistent with principles. Road design and drainage standards are most in need of revisions to meet recommended standards. Are open space or cluster development designs allowed in the community? If your answer is YES, give yourself 3 points <r If your answer is NO, skip to question No. 12 Is land conservation or impervious cover reduction a major goal or objective of the open space design ordinance? sec 240-19 "...and to promote natural resource preservation and conservation and to minimize the construction and maintenance costs... all directed towards the obiective of fosterinf! and obtaininf! land development of f!ood aualitv and desim at reasonable economic cost..." If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point <r 0 : : Are the submittal or review requirements for open space design greater than YES/ No those for conventional development? If your answer is NO, give yourself 1 point <r Is open space or cluster design a by-right form of development? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point <r Are flexible site design criteria available for developers that utilize open space or YESI ~lO cluster design options (e.g., setbacks, road widths, lot sizes)? 240-19C3 II" If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points <r , 2! : , . Notes on Open Space Design (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page#): 240-19, subsections A, Band C. YE: :0 I YES/NO Notes: I' Center for Watershed Protection -10- Are irregular lot shapes (e.g., pie-shaped, flag lots) allowed in the community? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point rr What is the minimum requirement for front setbacks for a one haff (~) acre residential lot? According to 240 Attachment 3:1 (Schedule referenced below), 35 is lowest for Y2 acre lot YES/ NO I 1 35* feet 0 - 40 feet - 0 - 20 - feet 0 If your answer is 20 feet or less, give yourself 1 point r;r What is the minimum requirement for rear setbacks for a one half (~) acre residential lot? If your answer is 25 feet or less, give yourself 1 point r;r What is the minimum requirement for side setbacks for a one half (~) acre residential lot? If your answer is 8 feet or less, give yourself 1 points r;r What is the minimum frontage distance for a one half (~) acre residential lot? If your answer is less than 80 feet, give yourself 2 points (?" I 2 Notes on Setback and Front,lges (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 24020.B - Flag & Radial Lots, p. 24035; p. 24161 Schedule of Dimensional Requirements - Residential Districts; ** 50 oot minimum street onto e, but 100 oot min. lot width as measured at the ont ard setback 50 feet What is the minimum sidewalk width allowed in the community? Must comply with ADA _None_ feet requirements of four feet, at a minimum. None cited in code, though. If your answer is 4 feet or less, give yourself 2 points (?" Are sidewalks always required on both sides of residential streets? If your answer is NO, give yourself 2 points rr Are sidewalks generally sloped so they drain to the front yard rather than the street? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point rr Can alternate pedestrian networks be substituted for sidewalks (e.g., trails through common areas)? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point rr I Notes on Sidewalks (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 217-23.A, .21720; 217-25.F., .21725 2 YES/ NO 2 YES/ NO o YES/ NO o What is the minimum driveway width specified in the community? If your answer is 9 feet or less (one lane) or 18 feet (two lanes), give yourself 2 points (?" 217-23Ap. 21722; 240-100,p. 24127; 240-100.E(J),p. 24128 12 feet -- o Notes: Center for Watershed Protection -lJ- Can pervious materials be used for single family home driveways (e.g., grass, gravel, porous pavers, etc)? Sec214-66B: "Thefirst25feetofalldriveways YESI Ntl shall be paved; any driveway with a grade 6% or greater shall be paved in its entirety" If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points or Can a "two track" design be used at single family driveways? See above If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point or Are shared driveways permitted in residential developments? no language If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point or 0 ! Notes on Driveways (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 240-100.E 3, .24128; 240-20.A - Access & Re uired Street Fronta e, . 24039 Skip to question 16 if open space, cluster, or conservation developments are not allowed in your com~unity. Does the community have enforceable requirements to establish associations that can effectively manage open space? "In the event that some part of said subdivision plat includes land to be devoted to park, recreation or open space, the Planning Board, as a condition of plat approval, may establish such conditions on the ownership, use and maintenance of such lands as deemed necessary by the YES! NO Planning Board and such conditions shall be approved by the Town Board. " Sect 240-19B5: "Ownership. Perpetual open space land, as required by this section, shall be in one of the followingforms of ownership: [1] A homeowners' association approved by the Town Board. [2] Any other arrangement approved by the Town Board as satisfying the intent of this section. "Sect 240-19.C(6)a If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points or Are open space areas required to b~ consolidated into larger units? No language If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point or Does a minimum percentage of open space have to be managed in a natural condition? No language If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point or Are allowable and unallowable uses for open space in residential developments defined? No language If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point or Can open space be managed by a third party using land trusts or conservation easements? See note above YES! NO o :: YES! NO 0; : YES/NO YES! iNO 2: : I YEs/INO Can rooftop runoff be discharged to yard areas? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points or Do current grading or drainage requirements allow for temporary ponding of stormwater on front yards or rooftops? If your answer 'is YES, give yourself 2 points (7 I 2 Notes on Rooftop Runoff (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 214-73 -House Drains, .21424 Notes: Center for Watershed Protection -12- C9 Ti me to Assess: Principles 11 through 16 focused on the regulations which determine lot size, lot shape, housing density, and the overall design and appearance of our neighborhoods. There was a total of 36 points available or Principles 11 - 16. What was your total score? Subtotal Page 10 -L + Subtotal Page 11 -L.. + Subtotal Page 12 -L.. = I 19 Where were your codes and ordinances most in line with the principles? What codes and ordinances are potential impediments to better development? Open space design and rooftop runoff were most consistent with BSD principles. Driveways and sidewalks, are in need of major revisions. Is there a stream buffer ordinance in the community? Sect. 240-32A "Alteration of wetlands or watercourses. In any district, no alteration of federal or state wetlands, permanent or intermittent watercourses, or adjacent uplands within 100 feet thereof, whether by excavation, filling, grading, clearing, draining or otherwise..." but Sect. 240-18E states ".... No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any permitted principal or accessory use in any district within 100 feet of normal water edge of the main branches of Wappingers Creek and Sprout Creek..... " If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points tJF' I If so, what is the minimum buffer width? _100 If your answer is 75 feet or more, give yourself 1 point tJF' I Is expansion of the buffer to include freshwater wetlands, steep slopes or the 100- year floodplain required? Sect. 240-32B If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point tJF' I Notes on Buffer Systems (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): 240-32; Chapter 137 Freshwater Wetlands; 240-18.D(3) Lots Underwater or Subject to Flooding; 240-1 8.E - Lots Borderin Ma 'or Streams; 240-33 Flood Prone Areas; Cha ter 133- Flood Dama e Prevention YESI NO 2 feet 1 YESI NO 1 If you do not have stream buffer requirements in your community, skip to question No. 19 Does the stream buffer ordinance specify that at least part of the stream buffer be maintained with native vegetation? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points c:r Does the stream buffer ordinance outline allowable uses? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point YES/ NO o YES/NO Notes: Center for Watershed Protection -13- Does the ordinance specify enforcement and education mechanisms? YESI ~O If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point <7 . I 0 I Notes on Buffer Systems (Include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): · Is there any ordinance that requires or encourages the preservation of natural vegetation at residential development sites? "Wherever feasible, natural vegetation shall be retained and protected." Sect. 206-10D If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points @" Do reserve septic field areas need to be cleared of trees at the time of development? If your answer is NO, give yourself 1 point @" I 0 : : Notes on Buffer Maintenance (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): DC Health De artment re lations and re uirements YESI NJo 2 i: YESI rJrJO If forests or specimen trees are present at residential development sites, does some of the stand have to be preserved? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points @" Are the limits of disturbance shown on construction plans adequate for preventing clearing of natural vegetative cover during construction? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point @" I 1 : Notes on Tree Conservation (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): YESI NO 0' YESINO Are there any incentives to developers or landowners to conserve non-regulated land (open space design, density bonuses, stormwater credits or lower property tax YESI iNO rates)? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points @" 0 i Is flexibility to meet regulatory or conservation restrictions (density compensation, buffer averaging, transferable development rights, off-site mitigation) offered to YES/INO developers? . If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points @" I 0: Notes on Land Cons. Incentives (include source documentation such as name of document, section and-page #): Notes: I' Center for Watershed Protection -14- Is stormwater required to be treated for quality before it is discharged? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points cr Are there effective design criteria for stormwater best management practices (BMPs)? If your answer is YES, give yourself 1 point (? Can stormwater be directly discharges into a jurisdictional wetland without pretreatment? If your answer is NO, give yourself 1 point cr Does a floodplain management ordinance that restricts or prohibits development within the 1 OO-year floodplain exist? If your answer is YES, give yourself 2 points (7 I 2 Notes on Stormwater Outfalls (include source documentation such as name of document, section and page #): No local requirements. Developers must follow NYSPDES guidelines, though no reference to a specific document or idelines is mentioned. YES/ NO 2 YES/ NO 1 YES/ NO 1 YES! NO Notes: C9 Time to Assess: Principles 17 through 22 addressed the codes and ordinances that promote (or impede) protection of existing natural areas and incorporation of open spaces into new development. There was a total f 24 points available for Principles 17 - 22. What was your total score? Subtotal Page 13 ~ + Subtotal Page 14 -L + Subtotal Page 15 -L- = I 13 here were your codes and ordinances most in line with the principles? What codes and ordinances are potential impediments to better development? . Stormwater out ails are most consistent with BSD. Land. tree and bu er conservation e orts are most lackin . To determine final score, add up subtotal from each C9Time to Assess Principles 1 - 10 (Page 8) 7 Principles 11 - 16 (Page 11) 19 Principles 17 - 22 (Page 13) 13 TOTAL II 39 I' Center for Watershed Protection -15- Luue UflU Vf U"",UIU...C- "VI 'k1"'~~. SCORING (A total of 100 points is available): Your Community's Score . 90- 100 r:u= Congratulations! Your community is a real leader in protecting streams, lakesi, and estuaries. Keep up the good work. i,,_ 80 - 89 r:u= Your local development rules are pretty good, but could use some tweaking irl s;ome areas. i 79 - 70 r:u= Significant opportunities exist to improve your development rules. Consider Crlelating a site planning roundtable. I 60 - 69 r:u= Development rules are inadequate to protect your local aquatic resources. Alsiite planning roundtable would be very useful. less than 60 r:u= Your development rules definitely are not environmentally friendly. Serious reform of the development rules is needed. j: \docs2\500\ wa ppinger\ wa tershed\cow. wa ppin ger .dkw .91304 .doc 10/22/20041:57 PM Center for Watershed Protection. -16- Analysis of the Development Codes, Ordinances and Practices of the Town of Wappinger, NY In the Context of the Better Site Design Model Development Principles DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS April 2005 Prepared for the: Dutchess County Environmental Management Council 2715 Route 44 Suite 2 Millbrook, NY 12545 Prepared by the: Center for Watershed Protection 8390 Main Street Ellicott City, MD 21043 CENTER FOR WilrE~SHE~ PROTECTION , . ". ,'.' .:..." , :.-:: .' -:. : . Ove~ar~hi~g I~su~s. . '.': .: ,"',' .' '. '<.'.: : .....:::..- ........: " '. - '-;"'" . ~ - . - - .-' . - '. . - . - . . The Town of Wappinger has recently come under the Phase II requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EP A) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The Town should begin to educate municipal officials about the requirements of the Phase II permit, including six minimum control measures that must be undertaken by each Phase II community: public education and outreach, public participation/involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site runoff control, post-construction runoff control, pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.(for more information on the Phase II requirements, see http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/comguide.pd;D. Some of these Phase II requirements provide an incentive for the Town to adopt many of the Better Site Design (BSD) recommendations. Additionally under the public education measure, the Township should consider educating local government staff, officials, Planning Board Members, developers, and engineers on the benefits and utility of innovative stormwater treatment practices such as bioretention areas. Education should also address the necessary considerations for cold climates. The New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual provides information on innovative storrnwater practices as well as addressing concerns of snow removal, snow storage and chlorides. Residential Streets and Parl{ing Lots Principle Design residential streets for the minimum required "pavement width needed to support travel lanes; on-street parking; and emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. These widths should be based on traffic volume. Rationale Residential streets are often unnecessarily wide, and these excessive widths contribute to the largest single component of impervious cover in a subdivision (CWP, 199.8). Narrower street widths reduce impervious cover, promote lower vehicular speeds to increase safety and can reduce construction and maintenance costs. Residential streets can be narrowed through the use of "queuing streets" where two-way traffic is handled on a single traffic lane with parking on one or both sides by having one vehicle yield to another by pulling over into a vacant segment of the adjacent parking lane. Findings Figure 4 of ~ 214 of Wappinger Town Code requires a minimum paved width of 25 feet for rural/suburban streets (those located in residential areas), which is wider than recommended by BSD. D;'q/i Wappinger Recommendations i T Recommendations . Paved width of rural/suburban streets should be reduced to 22 feet where off-street parking is not required, or 20 feet where off-street parking is required.. Queuing streets should be permitted for lower ADT residential streets, and design schematics should be available to developers to promote the use and understanding of this practice. . Principle Reduce total length of residential streets by examining alternative street layouts to determine the best option for increasing the number of homes per unit length. Rationale Total street length is often a function of the frontage, number of entrances, pedestrian safety, and physical site conditions. Guidance encouraging thoughtful, flexible and practical subdivision design criteria that reduce the overall street length can reduce impervious cover while maintaining the nwnber of desired dwelling units. Findings While road lengths that dead end into a cul-de-sac are maximized at 1500 feet, alternative layout designs that can reduce impervious cover associated with longer streets are not encouraged. . The Town should encourage the use of more efficient street layout. Recommendations . Provide examples of alternative layout designs and incentives to encourage developers to use these alternate designs. Principle Wherever possible, residential street right-of-way widths should reflect the minimum required to accommodate the travel-way, sidewalk, and vegetated open channels. Utilities and storm drains should be located within the pavement section of the right of-way (ROW) wherever feasible. Rationale A wide ROW is needed when utilities and sidewalks are located some distance from the paved section of the roadway. Wide ROWs increase the area that must be cleared during road construction, as well as consume land that could be used for housing lots. Applying design techniques such as narrower street and sidewalk width requirements can reduce ROW widths. i . Recommendations marked with an asterisk (*) align with Greenway Compact Guidelines. See Appendix C for a comparison of Better Site Design (BSD) principles and Greenway Guidelines. Drafi Wappinger Recommendations ., .;, Findings Figure 4 of ~ 214 of Wappinger Town Code requires a minimum right-of- way width of 50 feet, which exceeds the width recommended by BSD. ~ 217-23.C stipulates that underground utility lines "be located out of the traveled way of the streets." According to Town officials, the sanitary sewer runs under the paved portion of the road. Water lines and storm sewer pipes are placed outside of the paved area, and other utilities such as cable, electricity, and telephone typically share a single trench outside of the paved portion. Recommendations · Placement of utilities under the roads should be permitted and encouraged, not just across or along side. Appropriate guidelines for maintenance responsibilities should be included. · Reduce minimum ROW width to 45 feet as recommended by BSD. Principle Minimize the number of cul-de-sacs and incorporate landscaped areas to reduce impervious cover. The radius of cul-de-sacs should be the minimum required to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles. Alternative turnarounds should be considered. Rationale Reducing the impervious cover associated with conventional cul-de-sac turnarounds can be accomplished by reducing the minimum paved turning radius, by redesigning the turnaround with a landscape island or alternative shape, or by reducing the total number of turnarounds by modifying street layouts. Findings According to Figure 15 of ~ 214, cul-de-sacs must have a paved radius of 42.5 feet, and g 214-74 requires cul-de-sacs to be "circular-shaped" and "completely paved with no center island." Recommendations · Cul-de-sacs should not be by-right and should only be used when in the best interest of the community. Alternative turnarounds that can accommodate emergency vehicles and eliminate the need for school buses to back up are available and should be encouraged where feasible. .; When used, cul-de-sac turnarounds should incorporate environmentally sensitive design features. This may include landscaped islands and the incorporation of stormwater treatment practices such as bioretention areas. The New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual provides plans and technical standards for bioretention areas and other stormwater treatment practices. · The site plan review process should include an education component of the options and associated benefits of using alternative turnarounds. Drc?fi Wappinger Recommendations 3 Principle Where density, topography, soils, and slope permit, vegetated open channels should be used in the street right-of-way to convey and treat stormwater runoff. Rationale Streets contribute higher loads of pollutants to urban stormwater than any other source area in residential developments (Bannerman, et aI., 1993 and Steuer, et al., 1997). The use of vegetated open channels in the street right- of-way to convey stormwater runoff can remove some of these pollutants and decrease the volume of stormwater generated from a site. Findings 9 214-72 states that the Town's policy is that". . . all storm drainage be enclosed in drainage pipe. . ." regardless of the traffic volume on the road. According to Town officials, swales are in place along Airport Drive, but the common practice is to install curb and gutter in all developments. Recommendations . Allow the use of engineered swales where soils, slope, and housing density permit . Provide design guidance or refer to swale design specifications set forth in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual for proper open channel engineering to avoid ponding of water for excessive periods of time. The New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual provides landscaping specifications and native plant lists for stormwater management practices in Appendix H. I j Principle The required parking ratio governing a particular land use or activity should be enforced to curb excess parking space construction. Existing parking ratios should be reviewed for conformance taking into account local and national experience to see if lower ratios are warranted and feasible. Rationale A parking ratio typically expresses the minimum number of parking spaces that must be provided for a particular land use. The Town currently has the ability to reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces. To strengthen this process there should be a specific step in the plan review process to ensure that the level of impervious cover is minimized. I ..- [)/'{!/i Wappinger Recornmendations '" Findings ~240-96.B(4) requires 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area (GF A) for shopping centers over 100,000 sq. ft. of GF A. Shopping centers with less than 100,000 square feet of GF A are required, on average, to have 5.4 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. ofGFA, which is higher than the BSD recommendation of 4.5. According to Town officials, nearly all businesses in the Town fall under the lower area threshold. The Planning Board can allow a decrease in the required parking ratio (~240-96.F) of up to 50% in certain circumstances, with the stipulation that the reduced number of spaces be held in reserve and be landscaped until such time as they may be needed. Recommendations . Maximum rather than minimum parking ratios should be established to prevent unnecessarily large parking lots but allow for additional parking when the need is demonstrated through a parking study. . For spillover parking areas, encourage the use of pervious materials. · The Planning Board should encourage parking studies and subsequently exercise its right under ~240-96.F to reduce required parking spaces and increase parking landscaping. Principle Parking codes should be revised to lower parking requirements where mass transit is available or enforceable shared parking arrangements are made. Rationale Parking demand represents the actual number of parking spaces required to accommodate the parking needs of a particular land use. Depending on site conditions, it may be possible to reduce the number of parking spaces needed. For example, when mass transit is available nearby, or when shared parking is utilized, the number of parking spaces constructed may be reduced. Findings ~ 240-96.A permits a "single common facility" to accommodate off-street parking requirements for structlU"es or land uses on two or more adjacent lots when a legal document assures the continued existence of said parking facility. ~ 240-96.F allows the Planning Board to waive the number of parking spaces required with the stipulation that the land be preserved in landscaping in the event it is needed for parking in the future. Recommendations . Parking ratios should be reduced where shared parking arrangements are in place or mass transit is available. · A model shared parking agreement should be made available to developers. The model agreement should include standard language Drq/t PVappinger Recommendations 5 r 1'- specifying the rights and responsibilities of each landowner, and ramifications of future changes in land use including the need for additional spaces. * . Where opportunities exist, shared parking arrangements should be promoted during the initial plan review. * 1,- Principle Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by providing compact car spaces, minimizing stall dimensions, incorporatingi efficient parking lanes, and using pervious materials in spill over parking : areas. Rationale Parking lots are the largest component of impervious cover in most commercial and industrial zones, but conventional design practices do little to reduce the paved area in parking lots (CWP, 1998). The size of a parking lot is driven by stall geometry, lot layout and parking ratios. Findings 9240-96.B(1) stipulates that standard parking stall spaces be 10 feet wide and 20 feet long, which is longer and wider than the BSD recommendations. Slightly reduced dimensions (9'x 18') are available in certain parking situations for 10% of spaces that are reserved as employee parking. Current Town codes do not specifically prohibit the use of pervious material in overflow parking situations, and this has been done in the past. . Reduce minimum parking stall dimensions to 9 feet by 18 feet in all cases where 90 degree parking is in use. . Encourage or require the use of pervious materials in spillover parking areas. . Design examples of efficient parking lot layouts should be provided tlj) Recommendations developers to show how impervious cover can be reduced without losing parking spaces (See the Dutchess County Greenway Connection Report, Greenway Guide E-3). . . A minimum of 30% compact car spaces should be established in ordet to help reduce the parking lot size and corresponding impervious cover. Principle Provide meaningful incentives to make structured and shared parking mort economically viable. Dr{!/i Wappinger Recommendations 6 Rationale Given the economics of parking lots (above-ground garages may be fbur times the cost per space of a surface lot), incentives can be provided that would encourage vertical parking structures, which can significantly reduce impervious cover. Examples of incentives include tax credits, stormwater waivers, or bonuses for density, floor area, or building heights. Findings Parking garages are not prohibited (see language in ~ 240-96.C(2)), but there is no specific guidance provided. Recommendations · The Planning Board should encourage the use of structured parking, where feasible and practical, by offering tax incentives. Principle Wherever possible, provide stormwater treatment for parking lot runoff using bioretention areas, filter strips, and/or other practices that can be integrated into required landscaping areas and traffic islands. Rationale Parking lots generate high volumes of stormwater runoff, and high levels of stormwater runoff contamination from pollutants deposited on the lot surface. Findings ~240-96.C requires 10% of a parking lot that serves at least 25 cars to consist of "raised landscaped islands." The requirement of having these islands "raised" eliminates the possibility for integrating low impact development designs for stormwater treatment into the landscaping. Recommendations · The Planning Board should encourage the integration of low impact development practices (e.g., below-grade bioretention areas, swales, filter strips, etc.) into landscaped areas and traffic islands, including those required by S240-96C, to help manage and treat stormwater runoff. Developers and engineers should be provided with design examples and referred to the New York State Stormwater Design Manual for detailed specifications. · Specific vegetation standards should be set for landscaped areas. At a minimum, native species should be required. (See the Dutchess County Greenway Guidelines E-l and E-3 and native plant lists in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual Appendix H.)* [)l'{{fl Wappinger Recommendations 7 I' Lot Development Principle Advocate open space development incorporating smaller lot sizes to . minimize total impervious area, conserve natural areas, provide communi~ open space, reduce total construction costs, protect water quality, and ' promote watershed protection. i ,- Rationale Open space or cluster development is a compact form of development thati concentrates density on one portion of the site in exchange for more open i space elsewhere. This type of development translates into less impervious cover and reduces the amount of stormwater runoff and associated pollution. Findings S240-19.B and .C allow for conservation and open space subdivisions, respectively. While this section promotes "natural resource preservation and conservation," it states that the main objective is to provide for "land development of good quality and design at reasonable economic cost." For conservation subdivisions, the Planning Board may be authorized to modify the lot area and dimensions, but no specific dimensions are provided in the Town code for conservation subdivisions. The Planning Board may also require open space subdivisions when certaih environmental objectives are more easily met through this type of development including protection of certain water resources and minimization of hazards from development on erodible soils. S240-19.C(3) requires front and rear setbacks of35 feet and side setbacks of 15 feet, and: the required amount of open space is no less than 50%. Open space subdivisions are not by-right forms of development. g240- 19. C( 5) states that "the Planning Board shall develop standards and criteri4 to be used during the review of an open space development" in addition to i the standards set forth in this section. Recommendations . Amend the requirements of S240-19.B to make open space and cluster developments by-right. . Require minimum forestation, reforestation and afforestation standards to ensure that forested areas and significant environmental areas are protected and enhanced. Dt'(~fi Wappinger Recommendations 8 Principle Relax side yard setbacks and allow narrower frontages to reduce total road length in the community and overall site imperviousness. Relax front setback requirements to minimize driveway lengths and reduce overall lot . . rmpervlOusness. Rationale Often subdivision codes have very strict requirements that govern the geometry of the lot. Relaxing or reducing setbacks and utilizing non- traditional designs can minimize imperviousness while reducing driveway and roadway lengths and minimizing the area subject to clearing and grading. Findings For the R-20 zoning district, which is comprised of single family homes on approximately a half acre, ~ 240 Attachment 3 requires the following: side setbacks of 20 feet, front setbacks of 35 feet, and frontage of 50 feet. These setbacks are higher than recommended by BSD. For open space developments, minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet, frontages shall be no "less than 80 feet for half the lots in any group of housing units or less than 50 feet for the remaining lots in any group of housing units." Side setbacks are to be "not less than 15 feet," and front setbacks be no less than 35 feet. Recommendations . Front yard setback requirements for conventional and open space developments should be reduced to a minimum of 20 feet. . Side yard setback requirements for conventional and open space developments should be reduced to a minimum of 8 to 1 0 feet. .. Frontage requirements for conventional and open space developments should be reduced to a minimum of75 feet. Principle Promote more flexible design standards for residential subdivision sidewalks. Where practical, consider locating sidewalks on only one side of the street and providing common walkways linking pedestrian areas. Rationale Sidewalk requirements are an important element of many subdivision codes and are intended to protect pedestrians and address liability concerns. However, requirements should be flexible enough to meet pedestrian demands, while minimizing the amount of impervious cover. Often, sidewalks are unnecessarily required where the demand has not been met by development trends. Findings No language regarding specific material types or widths associated with Drqfi fVappinger Recommendations .9 I I, i sidewalk construction was found, with the exception of a minimum sidewalk width of four feet in mobile home parks (~240-51.B(3)). Town officials indicate that sidewalks are not required on both sides of the street~ alternative pedestrian networks are not allowed, and sidewalks that are I constructed are not to be sloped to adjacent front yards. I ,- Recommendations it Establish ordinance language that clarifies when and where sidewalks are and are not required that is based on pre-determined criteria such as average daily trips, zoning density and site design. Where required, sidewalks should be no more than four feet wide i and, where feasible, should be located only on one side ofthe street.! Where practical, consider alternative pedestrian networks and the us~ of pervious materials in lieu of traditional concrete sidewalks. . . Principle Reduce overall lot imperviousness by promoting alternative driveway surfaces and shared driveways that connect two or more homes together. Rationale Studies show that 20% of the impervious cover in residential subdivisions can consist of driveways (CWP, 1998). Flexible local subdivision codes can allow developers the ability to address this concern, while minimizing impervious surfaces and increasing design efficiencies. Findings ~ 240-100.E(1) states that all driveways must be at least 12 feet wide. According to S217-23A, driveways over 500 feet long must have a 50 foot' by 12 foot pull-off every 500 feet to accommodate fire-fighting apparatus. 9214-66 states that the first 25 feet of all driveways must be paved, which' according to Town officials is due to maintenance concerns over the Town's ROW easement. Any driveway with greater than 6% grade must bp paved in its entirety. I The Town Board recently passed an amendment to 9 240-20 to regulate shared driveways, which are allowed to serve no more than three lots. It . requires a common driveway easement, construction plan, and maintenanc~ agreement approved by the Planning Board. Recommendations . Driveway widths should be reduced to 9 feet. . Encourage and provide design guidance for two track driveways and permit pervious materials for driveways. . Remove the pull-off requirement for driveways over 500 feet long at require that the pull-off be constructed with pervious materials. . A shared driveway model agreement should be created that is readily available to developers to help reduce legal concerns and remove a ' potential barrier to the use of this technique. DrajiWappinger Recommendations 10 · Consider establishing a program for conserving land similar to the . Open Space Protection Plan resolution of the Town of Clinton, NY to facilitate more open space in the community. * Principle Clearly specify how community open space will be managed and designate a sustainable legal entity responsible for managing both natural and recreational open space. Rationale Open space management is often poorly defmed in most communities leaving the design and maintenance of the space up to the homeowner, associations, or other entities that may be ill-equipped to properly maintain high quality open space. Findings S240-19.C regulates open space subdivisions in which "permanently deeded open space area [that is] not less than 50% of the gross lot area." According to Town officials, impervious cover is not limited or prohibited in this open space and recreational areas including tennis courts are often built on the open space area. Open space shall be owned by a homeowners' association approved by the Town Board or some other entity, which according to S240-19.C(6) is "the Town or a qualified not-for-profit organization pursuant to Article 49, Title 3, of the Environmental Conservation Law." All property rights, except uses not allowed by the conservation easement remain with a homeowners' association. Recommendations · Clearly defme the allowable and unallowable uses of open space. The emphasis for open space should be to limit impervious cover and maintain at least a percentage in natural vegetation. · Open space management requirements should be created for all zoning districts not just open space developments. Principle Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas such as yards, open channels, or vegetated areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway and the stormwater conveyance system. Rationale Sending rooftop runoff over a pervious surface before it reaches an impervious surface can decrease annual runoff volume from residential development sites by as much as 50% (Pitt, 1987). Df'{!!i Wappinger RecommendaNons lJ ! ' Findings 9214-73 states that rooftop runoff can only be piped into a stormwater catch basin pending approval of appropriate permits. This regulation, as well as the fact that temporary ponding is allowed on yards indirectly promotes disconnected rooftop runoff because an extra step is required to i connect to the storm drain sewer. i I, Recommendations . Where practical and feasible, require that drainage of rooftop runoffl be directed into the grass or a landscaped area on the property. Encourage the use of rain gardens, or landscaped areas that are engineered to treat stormwater. I, Dt'(~/i Wappinger Recommendations JJ Conservation Of Natural Areas Principle Create a naturally vegetated buffer system along all perennial streams that also encompasses critical environmental features such as the I OO-year floodplain, steep slopes and freshwater wetlands. Rationale Vegetated systems along shorelines, wetlands and streams can protect water quality, reduce flooding impacts, provide wildlife habitat, serve as a recreational resource and offer many economic benefits to the local community. Findings The Town does not have an ordinance that explicitly requires a vegetated buffer along streams. It is simply a setback requirement that prohibits clearing and grading within 100 feet of a permanent or intermittent watercourse or federal or state wetland (~240-32.A). While ~240-32 states that development on steep slopes is to be avoided wherever possible, and that the Planning Board will take this into account during the site plan review, there is currently no requirement prohibiting development in the floodplain. "Hilltops, ridge lines and steep slopes. For the purpose of preventing erosion, minimizing storm water runoff and flooding, preserving the Town's underground water resources and protecting the Town's character and property values, it is the intent of this chapter to prevent the development of hilltops, ridge lines and steep slopes and toward this end, wherever possible, new construction shall avoid such areas and existing vegetation in such areas shall not be disturbed. The Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector shall take this objective into consideration in reviewing and acting on any plans submitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. For purposes of this section, steep slopes shall be considered to be those areas with an average slope in excess of 25% over a horizontal distance of 100 or more feet (~240-32)." ~240-33.F(3) provides guidance on how to site structures in "flood-prone areas." Recommendations · A 100-foot buffer should be required along all perennial streams, 100- year floodplains, steep slopes and other sensitive areas. Extension of buffer requirements to intermittent streams should also be considered (See the Dutchess County Greenway Connection Report, Greenway Guide D2). * · Buffer vegetation goals should be established for all buffers. · A minimum buffer should be required on all wetlands less than 12 acres in size not covered under New York State Law. This buffer should be large enough to maintain wetland integrity and adjustable based on the size of the wetland. Drc!/i Wappinger Recommendations 13 r-I Principle The riparian stream buffer should be preserved or restored with Town- approved vegetation that can be maintained throughout the plan review, delineation, construction, and occupancy stages of development. ! ,- Rationale In many communities that have stream buffer ordinances, the buffer is merely a line drawn on a map, which is virtually invisible to contractors I and landowners. The key to effective preservation and management of local buffer program is development of a strong buffer ordinance that outlines the legal rights and responsibilities of the local entity that is responsible for the long-term management of the buffer. Findings Town codes do not govern buffer maintenance as no vegetated buffer is currently required, but ~240-32.A prohibits clearing and grading within 100 feet of a permanent or intermittent watercourse or federal or state wetland. I' Recommendations . Mark the buffer before clearing and grading begin~ to avoid any damage or encroachment by construction equipment. . Education, inspection and enforcement of buffer areas should be a priority of the Town to ensure effective protection of the buffer and associated significant environmental resources. * Principle Clearing and grading of forests and native vegetation at a site should be limited to the minimum amount needed to build lots, allow access, and provide fITe protection. A portion of any community open space should be! managed as protected green space in a consolidated manner. Rationale It is desirable that as much of a site be conserved in a natural state as possible. Common tools to limit clearing are: erosion and sediment control ordinances, grading ordinances, forest conservation or tree protection ordinances, and open space development. Findings According to ~206-10 of the Town's Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance, grading of land within the 100-year floodplain or certain watercourses is not permitted without a special permit. It also requires tha~ the "smallest practical area of land" be exposed at any given time, and land should be exposed for the "shortest practical period of time." Dutchess County Department of Health Regulations require that the entire septic field be cleared of trees during development. ,,- [)t'{!/i Wappinger Recommendations /..; Recommendations · Site fingerprinting and phased construction should be expressly noted in the zoning regulations as a preferred practice. The Sample Local Law for Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control, found in the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials (NYSDEC and NYSDOS, 2004), provides language to regulate phasing as well as additional language required under the Stormwater Phase II program for construction site stormwater management. * · Forestation, reforestation and afforestation requirements should be established in order to encourage developers to limit clearing and grading, and to promote protection of natural vegetation. * Principle Conserve trees and other vegetation at each site by planting additional vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use of native plants. Where practical, manage community open space, street rights-of-way, parking lot islands, and other landscaped areas to promote natural vegetation. Rationale Native trees, shrubs, and grasses are important contributors to the overall quality and viability of the environment. In addition, they can provide noticeable economic benefits to developers and homeowners. Findings The Town does not require preservation of certain forest stands or specimen trees during clearing and grading.' · Set minimum standards for preservation of forests or specimen trees in a forest conservation ordinance. Baltimore County, MD has a forest protection ordinance that could serve as a reference. * Recommendations · Forestation, reforestation and afforestation requirements should be established to encourage developers to limit clearing and grading and promote protection of natural vegetation (See the Dutchess County Greenway Guide E5). * Drc{fi Wappinger Recommendations 15 Principle Rationale Findings The Town currently has no language addressing land conservation incentives. I' Recommendations . Allow open space development to be by-right as an incentive for land conservation. . Consider providing stormwater credits or property tax reductions as incentives to conserve land. . Consider establishing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program similar to the program established in the Town of Clinton. Principle New stonnwater outfalls should not discharge unmanaged stormwater intq jurisdictional wetlands, sole-source aquifers, or other water bodies. I' Rationale Stormwater management requirements can be used to control the quantity i and/or the quality of stormwater runoff from new sites. The stormwater runoff quantity contIols can minimize flooding and reduce downstream erosion. Stormwater runoff quality measures can reduce the level of pollutants that enter the waterway and contaminate water sources. t Technical guidance on the selection and implementation of stormwater credits will be available from the NYDEC in 2006. Currently, there is no formal review process to account for stormwater credits, but they may be considered for future permitting decisions. DN!/i rVappinger Recommendations 16 Findings While construction activities greater than one acre fall under the requirements of the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES), the Town of Wappinger currently has no reference in its code to this requirement or to relevant New York SPDES documents or New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Recommendations . Include reference to New York State SPDES requirements in the Town codes as well as a reference to the requirements and design guidance in the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. The Sample Local Law for Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control provides language to address these requirements. The Sample Local Law is structured as amendments to existing zoning, site plan and subdivision laws and can be found in the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials. . Local requirements should prohibit the discharge of unman aged runoff to natural wetlands. References Baltimore County, Maryland. Forest Conservation Ordinance. Article 33. Environmental Protection And Resource Management, Title 6. Forest Conservation. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=alp: baltimoreco md Bannerman, et. al. 1993. Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater. Water Science Technology, 28(3-5): 241-259. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 2003. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual. Prepared for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City MD. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ dow/toolboxfswmanual/ Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1998. Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City MD. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York State Department of State. 2004. Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials. http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/publist.htm Pitt, R. E. 1987. Small Storm Urban Flow and Particulate WashoffContributions to Outfall Discharges. Doctorate Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Steuer, et. aI., 1997. Sources ofContarnination in an Urban Basin in Marquette, Michigan and an Analysis of Concentrations, Loads, and Data Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report, No. 97-4242. Drajt Wappinger Recommendations /7 Drc!fi rVappinger Recommendations /8