Land Use

Land Use Introduction

The Land Use chapter examines the current land use patterns throughout the Town of Littleton. Knowledge of current land use, coupled with the study of the local zoning bylaw identifies land development trends. If these trends do not best suit the interest of the community, then change is required. This section provides guidance to maximize the foreseen opportunities, as the community grows. This Chapter also, identifies potentially problematic situations, such as inappropriate or conflicting adjacent land uses that may evolve.

To better understand the context of growth within the community, a synopsis of Littleton’s history is provided, with major emphasis on the Town’s physical development. The historic context of the community’s development will be considered. Then, an analysis of current land use patterns within the community is undertaken. This step begins with a look at recent changes in land use over the past three decades. An overview of present land use patterns, making note of prominent characteristics and interrelationships between differing land use areas are also discussed. Next, a brief review of relevant current demographic trends, primarily from the 1990 census and more recent town sources, are summarized. A more detailed analysis of demographics in the Town of Littleton is provided in the Housing element of this plan. This section is followed by a buildout analysis that will calculate the potential maximum results of development in the Town of Littleton. The buildout analysis is a synthesis of past development data and future potential development as directed by the present zoning bylaw for all land use types in the community.

In the final part of this Chapter, recommendations for town-wide future development, land use and conservation considerations, as well as suggested improvements for specific areas are provided. Together, the analysis of past development, present demographic data, and forecasts of future trends will implicate the most prudent choices.

Historic Overview of Land Use Development

The Town of Littleton has a well-documented history that characterizes the growth and development of New England that ranges from a period of active pre-European settlement, through agrarian and industrial birth to the forefront of high technology. First known settlement of the area was by the Nashoba tribe of Native Americans. Their vitality was dependent upon the local ponds and rich hunting grounds of the then forested landscape. The Nashoba legacy has influenced Littleton through the names of neighborhoods, water bodies and major streets. The Nashoba Tribe greeted the first Europeans in the early seventeenth century, willingly converted to Christianity and lived peacefully with their new neighbors for some time. In 1654, the area was deemed the “Sixth Indian Praying Town” by the Massachusetts General Court. During the King Philip Wars of 1675-1676, the 50 or 60 members of the Nashoba were no longer trusted by the Europeans or other native American tribes and were therefore placed in “protective custody” first in Concord and later moved to Deer Island in Boston Harbor. Unfortunately the Nashoba did not fair well in the exposed environment of Deer Island and few survived to return to the Newtown section of Littleton, which was a 500 acre tract set aside for the Nashoba when Littleton was incorporated as a town, in 1714. The last of Newtown was relinquished from Nashoba ownership when it was sold to pay for the invalid care of the tribes’ sole remaining member.

Settlement of Littleton occurred in a pattern that is typical of New England. One time Indian trails became links between colonial farmsteads. Local taverns and Inns served stagecoach routes that connected population centers like Boston and Keene New Hampshire. The heart of Littleton focused on the common where goods and services were provided for travelers and the mainly agrarian society. The farms that still stand today, some of which still produce crops, found conditions particularly favorable to apples potatoes and livestock. This area is still known as home to nationally known Veryfine, producers of fruit juices.

In the 1840’s access to this region changed with the coming of the Railroad. Soon thereafter, a federal livestock quarantine station was established to serve the port of Boston. Eventually some industry would find its way to Littleton including icehouses, barrel makers and a suspender factory.

However, for some time to come agriculture would remain the mainstay of the local economy. As late as the 1940’s, Littleton was host to 25 dairy farms, 11 poultry farms and numerous orchards, for which Boston provided a ready and accessible market.

After the Second World War, many small ponds in Littleton attracted summer visitors. Many small cabins were clustered in compact lakeside communities. Littleton was desirable as a vacation community because of its natural beauty and low tax rates. Eventually these structures would experience conversion to year round homes.

Greater economic opportunity arose with the construction of State Route 2 and Interstate Route 495 that meet within the town’s boundaries. This new access would lay the countryside open for new residential and commercial development. Littleton now began the transition from a rural agricultural town to a suburb of Boston. Littleton has since followed a growth pattern similar to that of much of non-urbanized New England. Littleton is still home to some agriculture but residential growth pressures are raising property values. Good access and regional orientation are providing an ideal setting for vastly prosperous high tech industries.

Land Use Characteristics

The town of Littleton can be characterized as a rural/suburban community located in the gentle slopes of northeastern Massachusetts. Littleton is 26 miles northwest of Boston, 12 miles south of Lowell, and 20 miles east of Fitchburg. Town boundaries encompass about 17.5 square miles. Littleton is bounded by the towns of Ayer and Harvard to the west, Groton to the northwest and Westford to the northeast. To the south and southeast lie the towns of Boxborough and Acton respectively.

Access to and from Littleton is exceptional. Interstate route 495 bisects the town from northeast to southwest, with two interchanges that connect with local roads. The community is also bisected by State Route 2, which is not only a major route radiating west from Boston, but also serves as the primary northern east/west connector to the western part of the state. Both I-495 and Route 2 are limited access high-speed corridors upon which much of the states commercial and private vehicular traffic relies. Other state routes that pass through town and serve the local area are Routes 2A, 119, and 110.

The roughly east/west Boston and Maine railroad line represents another mode of passenger and freight transportation to and from town. Regular MBTA commuter rail service to Boston is currently offered on the Fitchburg Line, with public parking for about 15 cars. Rail freight service is also a feasible commercial option.

The center of Littleton, which retains some New England village character, has tree lined streets, with several small shops located in older detached buildings, and historic farmhouses. The bulk of residential development exists in the areas of Littleton Common and around Long Lake. Homes clustered around the town’s lakes and ponds reflect the character of a one-time vacation area with small lot sizes and many modest “summer camp”-style houses, most of which have been converted to year round residences.

Areas to the north of I-495 tend to be more rural in nature and generally more sparsely developed, with the exception of a residential node clustered around Forge Pond. Most areas in town show evidence of past prolific agricultural activity, where now few farms remain and rolling open land has been given over to numerous subdivisions with spacious homes and expansive lawns. Littleton still has some significant tracts of open and forested land, which are greatly valued by the citizenry.

Good regional access is responsible for the location of the majority of Littleton’s commercial and industrial activities. Commercial activity is largely to meet the most basic needs of community residents. There is a single strip mall, but no large shopping malls or conglomerate shopping centers in town. For a largely residential community, industrial activities in town are considerable. Littleton is well placed on the outer edge of the regions spreading high technology belt. Compaq Computer Corp. and related manufacturers provide employment in town adding much needed diversity to the community tax base. Other major employers in town are reflective of the regional growth and construction, with the mining and handling of materials used in building.

Almost one third of the town’s land area is dedicated, to some degree, to open space uses. Approximately half of this dedicated open space is used for agriculture, forestry, or recreational uses by the current owners. There is no guarantee that this land will remain dedicated to open space in the future. About 5% of the area in town is water surface. About 40% of Littleton is presently undeveloped and its fate is not known. Due to regional development pressures, it is likely that these are the parcels that will be given over to new residential, commercial and other “urban” uses.

As with much of the northeastern United States, this region is considered by many as the ideal location to live, work and play. Littleton has the distinction of being able to suit all these needs and retain the flavor of a small New England town. Many of the older homes and farms of Littleton are New England vernacular architectural styles that have historic appeal. The attractive character that gives Littleton its charm also brings pressure for changes in land use of its remaining pastoral acreage. As new homes and support services develop, measures should be taken to preserve this appeal.

Land Use Analysis Land Use Change

The development of any single tract of land rarely changes the overall character of a community. Over time however, with changes to the existing land uses and the development of open lands and their need for support services, changes in the overall community character will slowly evolve. For this reason, it is important to assess the status of land use in Littleton at different points in time, as shown in the following table.

Table 2 ‑ 1 LAND USE CHANGE FROM 1971 TO 1991

Land Use	1971 Acreage	1985 Acreage	71-85 Change in Acres	71-85 Percent Change	1991 Acreage	85-91 Acreage	85-91 Percent Change	2001 Acreage	92-2001 Acreage	92-2001 Percent Change
Cropland	1,528	1,259	-269	-17.6%	1,158	-101	-8.0%
Pasture	208	188	-20	-9.6%	156	-32	-17.0%
Forest	5,485	5,124	-361	-6.6%	5,030	-94	-1.8%
Wetland	538	526	-12	-2.2%	518	-8	-1.5%
Mining	50	176	126	252.0%	170	-6	-3.4%
Open Land	270	97	-173	-64.1%	215	118	121.6%
Active Rec	0	15	15	0.0%	15	0	0.0%
Passive Rec	33	37	4	12.1%	41	4	10.8%
Water Rec	0	2	2	0.0%	2	0	0.0%
Res <1/4 Acre	11	18	7	63.6%	18	0	0.0%
Res 1/4–1/2 Acre	677	786	109	16.1%	803	17	2.2%
Res > 1/2 A	836	1,087	251	30.0%	1,266	179	16.5%
Commercial	115	203	88	76.5%	227	24	11.8%
Industrial	227	305	78	34.4%	366	61	20.0%
Urban Open	81	161	80	98.8%	116	-45	-28.0%
Trans	333	333	0	0.0%	333	0	0.0%
Waste Disp	0	2	2	0.0%	0	-2	-100.0%
Water Rec	569	569	0	0.0%	573	4	0.7%
Wood Per.	261	232	-29	-11.1%	216	-16	-6.9%
Total Land	11,222	11,120			11,223

Source; MAPC (1998)

The table above shows the changes in Land Use that have occurred, over a 20-year span, between the years 1971 and 1991. Observation of the gains and losses in various land use categories show how Littleton has changed, as well as giving some indication as to how change is likely to continue. Comparison of the percentage change between the 71-85 categories and the 85-91 categories will give some indication as to the pace of land use change, but bear in mind that these categories do not represent equal increments of time. In addition, total acreage of each year sampled is expected to vary slightly due to differing survey methods. While this phenomenon will have some affect on absolute numbers, trends are still revealed by noting the general changes.

Over this 20-year period, residential lands, with lots greater than 1/2 acre in size have increased by over one third. During the six-year period between 1985 and 1991, acreage in this category was developed at a rate of almost 30 acres per year, while during the 14 year period from 1971 to 1985acreage was developed at a rate of only about 17 acres per year. While the greater time-span will reflect more economic fluctuation, these finding still indicate the quickening pace of development. Changes in both residential land categories below 1/2 acre generally reflect activity on preexisting lots, and in time, these figures will remain static. Note that no activity has occurred on lots below 1/4 acre after 1985 and activity on lots between 1/4 and 1/2 acre have dropped off significantly after that same point in time, since no new lots of that size can be legally created.

Over the past 20 years, commercial uses in town have increased by nearly 50 percent. Industrial uses have also grown by nearly 40 percent. This represents considerable growth in both of these categories and is indicative of a community with an economically healthy variety of land uses. The towns location is key to much of this phenomenal growth in two ways; First, eastern Massachusetts has experienced record commercial growth in the past few decades, due to the electronics boom, resulting in a prosperity that has affected us all. Second, Littleton is bisected north to south and east to west by two of the regions major highways. Excellent access is largely responsible for Littleton’s economic vitality. In spite of all the commercial and industrial growth, the town has retained much of its suburban/rural character rooted in an agrarian past.

Conversely, the percent change column also shows the total area losses of the land uses that have been converted over to new functions. The table shows loss of about one quarter of both crop and pasture lands over the past 20 years. Three-fifths of the total decrease in pastureland has occurred in the recent six years between 1985 and 1991. This may be reflective of the quickening pace of development in town. Open land, woody perennial and forest categories each show a 20-year loss of just over 20, 17, and 8 percent respectively. Total acreage converted to other uses in all five these categories over these 20 years equals about 977 acres or roughly nine percent of the total land area in town. The majority of this land, 455 acres, has come from the Forest category. Forested land is documented here as the most dominant undeveloped land use. Its reduction of only 8 percent over this 20 year span is indicative of it’s relative proportionate size to other land use categories, but it is evident that drastic future change in use will come from this category. In order to retain a desirable rural character, it will be important to preserve some significant tracts of this forestland.

Interestingly, relative increases in recreation land use have not been very significant. NEEDS WORK . Passive use land, such as picnic and nature study areas have shown an increase of almost 20%. However, this increase only brings the total area for the passive land use category to 41 acres. An increase in passive use areas does not necessarily bring the loss of rural, open or forested character. In fact, enhancements to this land use category can bring a greater likelihood for open space preservation.

The proportional relationships between major land use categories comparing developed, unprotected undeveloped and dedicated open space as they existed in 1997, are shown on the following chart:

Figure 2 ‑ 1 Developed, Undeveloped and Open Land Chart

Source; Littleton Open Space and Recreation Plan, 1997

Figure 2‑ 1 shows the proportion of developed land versus land that is unprotected undeveloped and dedicated open space. All developed lands referred to above include residential, commercial, industrial and built infrastructure, and cover under one third of the total land area. Undeveloped and open land comprises the remaining 72% of the total land area of Littleton. Undeveloped land, in this case refers to unbuilt tracts of land with no current dedicated use that could conceivably be developed at any time, with appropriate municipal approvals. Open land in this case refers to the current status of a number of open land uses (refer to the following table) since a considerable portion of it (about 77%) is assumed here to be held in private ownership and it could quite possibly be made available for development in the future.

The following table shows that just over 47% of the open land category is dedicated toward agriculture. Although agricultural land is involved in productive use, it provides rural character. As property values rise, agricultural land usually becomes particularly vulnerable to development. Planting of higher value crops and the public purchase of development rights can control the further reduction of this land use category.

Table 2‑ 2 Developed, Undeveloped and Open Land

Land Use	Proportional Acreage	Percent of open Land	Acreage	Percent of Total
Open Land			3,577	33
Conservation	811	22.7
Park and Rec.	14	0.3
Multi Purpose	412	11.5
Private Rec.	269	7.5
Forest/Wooded	383	10.7
Agricultural	1,688	47.2
Developed Land			3,000	28
Undeveloped Land			4,183	39
Total	3,577	100	10,760	100

Source; Littleton Open Space and Recreation Plan, 1996 Data

It also appears that only about 23% of the open land category is publicly owned and therefore most likely to be held as open land in perpetuity. While some permanently protected open space may be overlooked by this implication, this condition serves as a strong indicator that a significant portion of all dedicated open land in Littleton may some day be confronted with the prospect of development. Without additional permanent open space, future development in Littleton will have to be done so responsibly, using contemporary land planning techniques and public vigilance, in order to maintain a small town feel

Utilizing Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) data, it is possible to tally and compare the proportion of developed land uses in town. These findings will provide strong evidence of the predominant developed land use interests in the community.

Figure 2 ‑ 2 Developed Land Use Proportions

Source; MAPC, 1991 Data

This Table shows the proportion of land uses on all developed land in Littleton. 1991 MAPC data found in Figure II-1 has been utilized. Residential uses, at over 73%, consume the lion’s share of developed land in town. This finding implies that the dominant interest for land use in the community is residential. Past trends of new residential development in town reinforce the common belief that this trend will continue in the future. Additional development pressure will be applied to the small portion of commercial land (8%) as new services are needed to support future residential development, but there is a shortage of commercial land in town. Industrial land, currently at 18.8% of all developed land, is known to diversify the tax base, provide local jobs, and enhance the overall fiscal vitality of a community, but often at the cost of rural character and other potential impacts on community quality of life, if inappropriately located, but available land of this type is also in short supply. The industrial uses on this chart include mining as well as the industrial category. While the trend indicative of a slight reduction in mining operations appears (see Figure II-1 ), it will possibly be offset by new industrial development in the years to come. Agricultural land is often considered as developed because of its productivity, but since it has been counted as open land due to its contribution to rural character, it’s acreage has been omitted from this part of the analysis.

Zoning Regulations Residential Zoning

The Zoning Bylaw in Littleton mirrors the basic pattern of traditional zoning that is generally employed nation-wide. Adopted at the annual town meeting in 1988, setback, frontage and minimum lot sizes for residential uses are straightforward. Maximum height and lot coverage requirements also guide the conformity. Fortunately, land use issues in town are largely uncomplicated and, for the most part, the Bylaw meets the typical needs of the community. A current zoning map has been included on the following page denoted Figure II-6.

Table 2 ‑ 3 Residential Zoning Characteristics

* Includes building plus paving.

Source; Town of Littleton Zoning Bylaw, 1998

A zoning bylaw is the traditional method to ensure that minimum standards of light, air and greenspace will exist in areas of new residential development. These characteristics also lay the pattern that is considered fair use of property rights and is what the general citizenry have come to expect with single-family residential development. However, this form of residential development also is responsible for the pattern known as suburban sprawl, where many square miles of a community are dedicated toward regularly spaced housing that often reflects little of the traditional local character. The sprawl pattern also contributes toward lengthy drive times to work and greater costs to the community to provide roadways and service lines to homes spread greater distances across the countryside.

Littleton has but one residential zoning classification. It is more common for the typical community to maintain two or more residential zoning categories, each requiring different minimum lot characteristics. This is an effort to promote the development of neighborhoods of varying densities and character. The success of that concept is sometimes controversial with regard to efficient land use, but in general, the required building lot size does tend to have an effect on the value of the home that will be built.

For typical single-family residential development, it is unlikely that this form of residential zoning can or will change radically in the near future. However it is possible for the community to direct and encourage new residential growth in alternative ways that can promote the protection of rural character through enhanced open space preservation, yet still result in homes with the desired spacious feel of the more traditional pattern.

The bylaw does address the possibility of alternative development scenarios through an Open Space Development provision. This provision identifies the importance of preserving significant tracts of open land and defines a minimum parcel requirement of 10 acres for which a permit can be applied. The intent is to provide some number of dwelling units, determined by a provided formula, concentrated at a higher level of density on one portion of the parcel, while preserving the remainder in perpetuity as open space. The incentive to the developer is to reduce the infrastructure costs associated with the construction of a full sized traditional subdivision. With this, the provision addresses the possibility of a thoughtfully planned cluster development or garden apartment village.

The local Zoning Bylaw does not address the existence of Approval Not Required (ANR) lot subdivisions where, if requirements described in Figure II-6 can be met along an existing roadway, the planning board has no input as to the development of this parcel. Due to State statute, un-reviewed development is within the rights of the landholder abutting a roadway. This practice can eventually lead to a situation where virtually all roads in the community will be lined with homes while much of the back lands behind those homes, will remain undeveloped and out of view to the casual passer by. This condition will serve to eliminate rural character long before the community is near its full buildout potential. ANR lots also have the potential to land-lock back lands out of future development. While this statute cannot be changed on the local level, some measures can be taken by the community to affect these outcomes.

Current Zoning is shown on the previous page as Figure II-6, Zoning Map. Since all residential lands have the same zoning classification, this serves as no indicator as to where greater development is likely to occur. Other factors will affect development preferences of residential land, such as ease of access or site soil conditions will have a greater influence.

Commercial/Industrial Zoning

Non-residential zones are located in patchwork areas, mostly oriented along major transportation routes such as I-495, Route 2 and along the railroad line at the northern end of town. Most, but not all, of the commercially zoned land is located at the center of town near Routes 2A, 110 and 119. Commercial and Industrial zoning characteristics are described in the following table and discussed thereafter;

Table 2 ‑ 4 Commercial and Industrial Zoning Characteristics

Source; Town of Littleton Zoning Bylaw, 1998 .

Developed commercial and industrial zoned lands are currently a modest amount of total land in Littleton. About 240 acres of land (approximately 2.2% of all land in town) are zoned commercial and about 564 acres of land (approximately 5.2% of all land in town) are zoned for industrial use. It should be noted that both commercial and industrial zoning characteristics in Littleton does not address the concept of floor area ratio (F.A.R.), a common zoning practice, but this bylaw does provide maximum height and lot coverage requirements. This approach should be sufficient to properly guide new development in these land use categories as the Planning Board does review each new proposal.

The Littleton bylaw also addresses activities in aquifer and water resource districts. Most aspects of the subject in this bylaw pertain to specific commercial and industrial development and activities. More recent awareness of the importance of water resources has generally furthered the control of such provisions. Water resource protection has become another tool for the preservation of open space and the natural environment.

Many parcels in town were developed before zoning was enacted and therefore most of them do not conform to current regulations. This condition applies to some of the older commercial structures in the center of town. This development pattern results in the typical New England village character that is familiar to this region. If an existing building in this area must be replaced due to fire or other catastrophe, zoning provisions limit the time in which rebuilding must occur and dictates that the same footprint of the original structure must be used. Other nonconforming structures that predate zoning are the converted summer homes found in several locations around some of the area ponds. In general, these structures are subject to a replacement or disuse limit of 2 years, but any alterations must conform to the current zoning requirements.

A review of building permit data from 1985 to 1999 not only shows the total amount of new development but it also gives some clues to the pace at which the community grows. The table below shows the number of building permits issued each year, from 1985 to 1999, for new residential construction, and new commercial/industrial (Com/Ind) structures. Demolition of standing structures has also been included for consideration of the conversion and or replacement of dwelling units that were at one time summer only residences. As property values increase, this practice tends to become more common.

Table 2 ‑ 5 Building Permits Issued

Source; Littleton Town Reports from years 1985 through 1999.

The table shows a pattern that is reflective of land development in the State of Massachusetts during the time studied. Residential building permits generally show an overall increase in the rate of issuance. This would imply that the pace of home construction in the community is quickening.

Usually, there is a pattern where commercial/industrial development increases to meet service demands anticipated by new home construction, but this phenomenon is not supported by the data. This is likely due to a shortage of available commercially zoned land in the community. This table might indicate that the commercial building space shortage came to fruition in the late 1980’s when no new permits were issued. Interestingly, demolition permits peaked at this time, after which there was a modest resumption of commercial permit issuances. However this reduction of new commercial/industrial structures in 1989 and 1990 also coincides with the cooling of the statewide economy. In the early 1990’s, as the economy improved, new commercial construction rebounded modestly on the remaining available land. At that time, new home construction increased to new levels, also reflective of this positive economic trend. This data indicates that there is now pent-up demand for local commercial services.

From the building permit information provided on the previous table, an observation can be made about land use changes. From 1985 to 1999, 585 new residential building permits were issued. Current zoning in Littleton, discussed in the previous section, requires a minimum residential lot size of one acre. With this in mind, 585 new building permits issued, infers that at least 585 acres of land have been converted to residential purposes from other uses in the last 14 years. While the majority of building lots can be assumed to be one acre in size as required by zoning, some lots will be larger due to natural, legal or preferential conditions. With this, 585 acres can be considered the conservative estimate of the increase in residential land use from 1985 to 1999. In reference to Table, Land Use Changes Between 1971 and 1991, residential land use of all parcels for the period 1971 to 1985 can be calculated this way: 251 parcels assumed at one acre in size, plus 109 parcels at one half acre (54.5 acres) plus 7 parcels of one quarter acre (1.75 acres) equals a total of 307.25 acres of land that was given over to housing over that 14 year period. When comparing the 1971–1985 and 1986–1999 figures on the table below, the average acreage of land per year converted to housing shows dramatic acceleration.

Table 2 ‑ 6 Residential Land Use Rate of Increase

Source; MAPC 1998, Littleton Annual Reports 1985-1999.

There were a total of 47 Commercial/Industrial building permits issued for the period 1985 to 1999. Minimum lot size requirements for Business (B) are 15,000 sq. ft., but there are no minimum lot size specifications for either industrial category (I-A and I-B). While it is highly likely that some open land has been converted to this land use type, it is not possible to speculate as to how many acres have been changed over for these purposes.

Protected Lands and Natural Resources

Littleton has evolved as it has in part due to the existence of natural factors, which have influenced cultural decisions that have effected change. Within the towns boundaries lie tracts of open land that remain from an agrarian past, with some parcels still in productive use. With the decrease of agricultural activity, and a rise in population, these tracts are now under pressure for land use change. Littleton encompasses water resources that have been subjected to intense residential development, and that are still significant to conservationist and recreational interests. Established mining operations are located to take advantage of its vital natural resource while newer economic activities in town are more generally sited to take advantage of regional transportation routes. These factors need to be weighed when developing a future vision for Littleton.

In Littleton, there is privately owned undeveloped land that is currently held in what is termed Chapter 61, 61A or 61B status. These are known as preferential tax treatment programs, in which a conservation minded landowner can enroll a tract of land. Chapter 61 applies to forested land only, where an approved 10-year forest management plan is filed with the State Department of Environmental Management (DEM). In exchange, this exempts the parcel from 90% of the regular property tax due on that land for that 10-year period. The town is also entitled to 8% of any commercially sold forest products harvested from that parcel. If the landowner decides to pull out of the program, a penalty of up to 5 years back taxes, plus interest, known as a rollback tax, is applied. This 10-year arrangement provides temporary protection from development. Chapter 61A lands are productive agricultural lands and town determined tax exemptions vary dependent upon crop valuation. Chapter 61B lands are privately owned recreational/open space use lands. The town provided 50% tax break stipulates that no products or crops may be taken from the land. Parcels in both the 61A and 61B programs must be enrolled by the owner every year to maintain this status, and therefore they potentially provide significantly less protection than Chapter 61 status. This program works successfully as an incentive for open land preservation, but it should be noted that the town does receive less tax revenue as a result. In addition, the protected status of the land is temporary, lasting only as long as a given parcel is enrolled but the town has first refusal rights to purchase the property if it is put up for sale while in the program. The following table shows the total acreage of each private protected land classification

Table 2 ‑ 7 Protected Private Open Land

Source; MAPC, 1999 .

2150.8 acres of Chapter 61, 61A and 61B protected land represents 19.2 percent of the total 11,223 acres (MAPC 1991 data source) of land in Littleton. Most of this land (1544.3 acres, or 13.7 percent) of all land in town is Chapter 61A, agricultural land which only has an annual protection cycle. With the regional increasing trend of new home construction and the general decline in agriculture, this program represents minimal open space protection at best.

However, participation in this program should be encouraged since participants not only reap the benefits of the programs reduced tax rate, but they also maintain their property for the desired use. Chapter 61 land can still be utilized as harvested forestland as long as a management plan is approved by DEM. 61A status allows the farmer to continue crop production and can provide enough of an incentive for agriculture to continue, rather than disuse and sale of the property for development. 61B status includes uses such as golf course and other sports activities. With this, the commercial operator has the additional incentive to maintain a business while also providing valuable open space in the community. The town could take measures to further encourage more landowners to become involved in the Chapter 61 program by raising public awareness of the enrollment process and the benefits.

Littleton has several water resources. In town there are seven significant open water bodies that total 579 acres or 5.1 percent of the total land area. Approximately 53 acres of land are owned by the town for protection of the public water supply. Littleton Light and Water operates four wellheads located on three sites. Current theory supports the idea that watershed ownership is the best way to ensure water quality. Further acquisition of land for water quality protection can often work as one scenario to help maintain undeveloped land in the community.

Other conservation land, as of the 1997 Open Space Plan, includes 758 acres for a total of totals 811 acres when added to town owned water resource protection lands. 38.6 of the above mentioned acres are owned by the town of Concord, for the protection of its water source, Nagog Pond. These conservation lands represent just over 7 percent of the total town land area. Park and Recreation Department lands, comprised mostly of maintained playing fields, total about 14 acres in addition to the above figure.

Buildout Analysis

The buildout analysis is a land planning technique that predicts the greatest possible amount of development that can occur within a study area, utilizing the parameters provided by the current zoning bylaw. This tool provides insight on potential future burdens on community infrastructure. During the process of determining buildout, a constant rate of future growth is calculated based on past growth trends, and forecasts provided by MISER Use of a projected growth rate can not only estimate the length of time needed to reach buildout, but it can also provide some insight into the time that it will likely take for the study area to reach certain growth thresholds, such as when an additional school will be needed. With this, the likely pace of future growth will be ascertained, and the community can plan accordingly.

To calculate buildout, it is necessary to determine the maximum amount of buildable land that is available for development. Areas deemed unbuildable land, include water surface, wetlands, floodplains, radically steep slopes, and protected openspace, are subtracted out of the total land area. Land development characteristics, as described in the local zoning ordinance, are then applied to remaining land area amount, and the figure that results equals the potential buildout.

Table 2 ‑ 8 Buildout Total Land Area

Source; Littleton Open Space and Recreation Plan, 1996 and Ken Kreutziger, AICP, 1999

According to data from the Littleton Open Space and Recreation Plan, the total land area of Littleton is 10,760 acres. After subtracting out unbuildable lands and lands already developed, the remaining buildable acreage equals 3,781, which is 35% of Littleton’s total area. Already developed land equals about 28%, inferring that upon complete buildout, developed area of town would equal 63% of the total land area. It would be safe to deduce that little of Littleton’s current character would remain.

The 3,781 buildable acres is distributed amongst areas of the community that serves each land use. The table below shows the proportions

Table 2 ‑ 9 Buildable Land Area

Source; Littleton Assessors Office, Kreutziger AICP, 1999

The largest category of available land, at 64 percent of all available land, is slated for residential purposes. Available commercial land, at 9 percent is in short supply, and it might be necessary to consider rezoning additional land to this category in order to create a more balanced economy in the community. Unlike residential uses, commercial and industrial lands generate more tax revenue than they cost in services to the community.

The acreage figures shown above the parameters of the existing zoning bylaw. Current zoning characteristics are shown on the following table, and details of the bylaw are discussed in greater detail earlier in this section.

Table 2 ‑ 10 Current Zoning Characteristics

* Includes paved areas

Source; Littleton Zoning Bylaw, 1998

Buildable lands of each use are then calculated to determine the maximum possible amount of development, utilizing current zoning. Buildout capacity within each zoning category is shown on the following table.

Table 2 ‑ 11 Total Buildout by Development Type

Source; Kreutziger AICP, 1999.

In Table 2 ‑ 11 Table 2 ‑ 11 all three figures in the right column are of significance with respect to total buildout. Nearly 2.6 million new square feet of commercial and over 7.4 million new square feet of industrial floor space will be added to existing amounts. The majority of land in Littleton is currently zoned for residential uses, which tends to place significant demand on resources and infrastructure without providing much return in the form of property taxes collected. As the community reaches buildout it will have to provide resources and infrastructure support for over 2300 new homes.

The span of time required to reach buildout can be approximated using existing town population data. Population data, discussed in Section III (Housing), states that from the year 1990 to 1999, Littleton’s population grew by 1017 persons, which can be translated to about 113 new persons in Littleton each year. The average household size in Littleton is 2.69 persons. It is assumed that rate of growth and household size will remain constant. With this, it is inferred that 42 new households are created in Littleton each year, from now until buildout is attained.

If residential buildout in Littleton equals 2371 new homes, and the housing stock is being added to at an average rate of 42 homes per year, then full residential buildout will be reached in only 56 years. At this time, there will be 6441 new residents added to the current 1999 population of 8280 for a total population of 14,721 persons at full buildout.

With a constant rate of growth established, it is also possible to predict growth milestones nearer, and thus more meaningful, to the present day. Conditions 25 years in the future, or year 2025, can be ascertained by the factors utilized to predict buildout. At a growth rate of 113 persons per-year, there will be 2825 new residents in the community. This translates to a need for 1050 new dwelling units.

These findings can be used to guide related growth decisions. It is possible to apply the same projections to the growth of specific population segments, and thus, they can be assessed to anticipate potential future need. With the utilization of 1990 and 1999 population age distributions it can be determined that persons between the ages of 5 and 11 are increasing at a rate of 19 per year. If this rate is assumed constant, in year 2025 there will be a total of 475 new persons between the ages of 5 and 11. Educators generally agree that the ideally sized school accommodates about 400 students. With this, in year 2025 Littleton will be just beyond the point where a new elementary school will be needed. The new junior and senior population has not been addressed here and those increases will be affecting other schools within the system.

If school aged children population growth predictions are carried over to full buildout, longer term school needs can be studied. In year 2056 there will be a total of 1064 new persons between the ages of 5 and 11 years. This would imply that 2.5 new elementary schools each housing 400 students would be needed. For comparison, all figures are shown in the table below.

Figure 2-3 Buildout Impacts

Source; Kreutziger AICP, 1999

The buildout analysis, while somewhat theoretical, is an important tool that assesses the potential impact of current zoning and tests the limits of community land-area resources. Shorter term predictions, such as the 25-year scenario employed earlier in this section, provides some tangible insight into growth potentials that lie in the near future. These insights allow communities to better anticipate future infrastructure needs and modify zoning techniques to bring better results.

All elements of the Master Plan support the concepts described in the Land Use Concept Plan and the Open Space Concept Plan. These two maps embody all the goals and policies that were adopted to guide the Master Plan as recorded in Chapter I of this Master Plan. The chapters of this plan have been integrated together so that proposals and recommendations of one element are mutually supportive of other elements when they address issues of the other elements.

An overall future land use concept has been developed and is shown on the Land Use Concept Map, Figure II-16. This map addresses areas in town that are presently experiencing development pressures or where it is perceived that pressures will occur in the future, due to land vacancy or redevelopment potentials. These areas have been identified as having a particular character that is generally to be preserved, but in some cases, they present a certain suitability to accommodate enhancements as well as new changes.

Proposals made here are conceptual and overall; they do not determine the exact fate of any particular parcel of land. The ultimate form and outcome of the open space concept, for instance, is subject to collaborative agreements and exchanges made with and between town officials, private landholders, developers and the community at large. To more completely describe the proposed concepts, each area identified on the map is explained in the following narrative.

Littleton Common and the adjacent Foster and King Street neighborhoods evoke a strong New England village character. Current suburbanization lays out a land use pattern that is contrary to that of the town center. Infill development of remaining vacant parcels and redevelopment of other parcels (as private motivation dictates), at a higher density level than allowed by current zoning, will appear more like it’s surroundings. This effort not only preserves existing village character, but also provides opportunities for new commercial services as well as lowering costs and elderly housing options. Basic design review for structures and signage should be configured so that new construction will be of harmonious character.

Designation of this area as a newly derived village center zone district would allow these objectives to be realized. TDR, (Transfer of Development Rights) strategies suggest this area would be designated as a “receiving area” which would allow for increased density when compared to current zoning standards. The result would allow new construction to replicate, but not exceed, the existing spatial character, which took shape before the enactment of current zoning.

The Long Lake area is considerably developed and while it is responsible for much of Littleton’s recreational/residential character, its density presents water quality concerns. While recommendations of this plan do not include significant future development strategies in this neighborhood, town efforts to establish a sewer system for existing homes should be focused here first, when the time comes. The local issue of wastewater management has been maturing and has sparked a diversity of sentiments and opinions. In time, consensus will ratify the necessity for municipal sewerage. As more private septic systems in this area require replacement, a community-based solution will be the best choice to ensure a continued high quality of life.

Most of the Nashoba area is currently open, scenic and highly prized by many of the towns residents. Much of the local agrarian character has remained while other highly visible locales in town have become more developed. It is recommended that a considerable amount of this area be preserved as open for future generations. Several methods can be employed by the town to direct the future of these parcels including outright purchase, development rights acquisition, the transfer of those development rights to other parcels, and scenarios involving the lease of town owned agricultural lands.

Open space in this area could serve as a destination in the proposed open space network with the main linkage to the network through town owned land to the south. Parcels to the northwest of this area adjacent to commercial uses extending to Littleton Common are shown developed as mixed-use, where commercial endeavors would serve surrounding areas that are already developed. New residential uses in the mixed-use area could be more affordable and of similar character to the older established neighborhoods. New construction in this area could also be sited to take maximum advantage of the benefits provided adjacent open spaces. Development scenarios here would be best served by a TDR scenario; development in the village area would be designated a “receiving area” to match the existing densities of the adjacent established neighborhoods, while areas to remain as agricultural land would be designated as “sending areas”.

This section of town still has considerable areas of un-subdivided, undeveloped land. A key feature of the proposal for this area is careful integration of new development proposals into the proposed open space network. A green corridor, with connective links to adjacent neighborhoods must be maintained in order to join the northern and western ends of town. A connection must also be designated to a future pedestrian/bikeway bridge that will span Route 2 and lead to a future MBTA commuter rail facility. This key feature will provide alternative commuting options to local residents that work in the city. Residential development in this area would benefit from a mixture of cluster housing, facilitated by a new cluster-by-right zoning bylaw provision, and traditional detached single-family dwelling proposals. Selected additional parcels adding to the Newtown Hill open space preserves could also be designated as a “sending area” in a TDR scenario thereby enlarging this hilltop open space resource.

While some areas around Long Lake are already densely developed, a significant amount of open space still remains in areas to the south. The community needs to identify and choose a selection of parcels to preserve as open space, either through conservation restrictions, development right purchases, or outright land purchases in such a way as to maximize the effort. This concept calls for connective greenway links that would not only act as a buffer between existing and new neighborhoods, but also provide a bike/pedestrian transportation alternative connecting to the Route 2 overpass providing a connection to the anticipated future commuter rail station. Cluster development would work as one method to preserve open space for the proposed network.

New office research and development uses located on lands near the intersection of Routes 2 and 495 will serve the community well in several ways. In order to remain financially rigorous as the community approaches buildout, the town will need to dedicate additional lands to this use category. New commercial uses in town will also provide additional local jobs. The proposed location of these activities will provide maximum access for traffic from out of town while minimizing traffic disruption to residential areas. The non-residential use of lands adjacent to the highways will serve to buffer traffic noise impacts from residential areas more distant from the highway. The proximity to the connective open space network and future commuter rail stop will also create opportunities for alternate transportation modes for workers within this area.

Situated on the western most corner of town, this area should grow with a coordinated effort between developers and the community to take full advantage of its natural character. The adjacent vast conservation parcel and nearby wetlands assure that a wooded New England character with ideal wildlife habitat will remain for future generations. Elements of the open space network should be interspersed with new residential development to create a close connection to the natural setting and wildlife habitat. A cluster-by-right zoning provision would foster cluster development, which is one method to preserve open space for the proposed network. In a TDR scenario, agricultural uses in this area could be designated as “sending areas” achieving greater preservation of farmland as open space.

The current mining operation on Route 2A will remain vital as long as the existent natural resource continues to provide raw materials. In the future, as residential development pressures mount, safety and noise issues regarding heavy trucks on local streets will become even more of an issue than it already has. When the natural resource is finally depleted, this land should be reclaimed for planned community residential use. Frontage on Route 2A, the considerable distance from Littleton Common, and the expanse of potentially developable land, all combine to create an excellent opportunity for development of a planned satellite village center, where commercial, municipal and residential land uses could be mixed. The satellite village center would serve as a focal point where commercial and municipal services, such as convenience shopping, and a fire department substation, would be complimented by more affordable forms of residential development for the elderly and younger working families. Areas central to the new village would be designated a village center zone, with mixed-uses as well as taking advantage of the cluster provision. Development surrounding the satellite village could take the form of primarily cluster housing and would be oriented toward the center while also being networked into the town-wide connective greenway. TDR strategies in this area could call for transfer of units from other areas in the Town in order to preserve open spaces at those locations. As a “receiving area” plans for the West Littleton Village could focus and direct development to achieve the desired village effect.

Currently, a large portion of this area of town is in a natural state, but it is under pressure for residential development. Cooperation with and between developers would create numerous open space opportunities for pond access and networked greenways that would provide buffers as well as linkage to other parts of town. The expanse of space and the distance from the town center implicates a possibility for future municipal facilities such as a new school and play fields that would be integrated into the open space network. Cluster-by-right would also work well in this area of town to preserve open space while creating alternative homes in pleasing natural surroundings. Selected parcels to create a Proctor Hill open space preserve and lands in agricultural use could be designated as a “sending areas” in a TDR scenario thereby preserving the hilltop and farmland as open space.

Open Space Concept

As Littleton matures its character can be expected to change. More homes will be built on currently open land, population increases will dictate new demands for upgraded infrastructure, and some natural features will either be preserved or give way to new uses. Community input has shown that long-time residents, as well as those new to town, hold the present local character in high regard. It has been demonstrated throughout much of this planning process that preservation, and even enhancements where possible, of the small town feel is one of the highest priorities. Paramount to retaining its small town feel and character is an interconnected system of open spaces. The Open Space Concept Map, Figure II-17, illustrates the structure for such an open space system.

To achieve this desire it will be necessary for the community to exhort influence on the coming development pattern with particular attention given to how open spaces are connected. This can be done through the utilization of a number of strategies, including conservation easement purchases, local promotion of the Chapter 61 preferential tax treatment program, development of subdivision regulations that promote collaboration with developers to preserve open space, and the outright purchase of key undeveloped parcels. Ideally, these efforts should be coordinated by one community entity that would be able to track available parcels and development activities, while also staying up to date on the latest funding scenarios available to maximize municipal spending power.

The main theme of the open space concept presented here is to develop an interlaced network that connects key parcels of land to yield a contiguous greenway that is highly visible throughout the community and never very far away from any point. This concept includes newly designated open space as well as the incorporation of lands already owned by the town. Some new acquisitions will be notable high visibility parcels, while other open space elements will be common dedicated greenspace within approved subdivisions. The resultant contiguous greenway is also to have a trail and/or bikeway system so that the network will not only provide a “green screen” between locales, but it will also add a community-wide linkage system that connects neighborhoods, services and open space destinations. This arrangement is also the ideal for the preservation of wildlife habitat, because few, if any, points in the system will be isolated. This conscious and coordinated effort will bring the maximum visual greening affect, while also serving the dual purpose of a connective trail system for recreation and transportation.

Other features of the concept include numerous access points to the network in existing neighborhoods as well as green fingers that will pass through new neighborhoods. Green connections that cannot be directly made such as over Routes 2 and 495 are to be connected via distinct sidewalk layouts along appropriate bridges and roadways. Also proposed is a greenway connection to a future pedestrian or bikeway bridge that will span Route 2 and lead to the anticipated commuter rail station that is to be located on that site.

It is expected that funding to construct the bridge can be attained from sources that support alternative transportation enhancements, such as the Inter-modal Surface Transpiration Equity Act (ISTEA) or the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). In May 1998, ISTEA was, in large part, succeeded by TEA-21, which authorizes enhancement funds for public agencies, authorities and commissions. It provides a unique opportunity to preserve, restore or enhance components of our inter-modal transportation system, which before ISTEA, were not traditionally funded by the Federal Highway Administration or the Massachusetts Highway Department. Among the list of eligible project types under the “enhancement program“ are facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. In addition to recreational and commuting access the network can also provide pedestrian or bike connections to schools and local services.

As Littleton reaches buildout in the coming decades, implementation of a greenway network has the potential to bring overall enhancement to the community. The network will preserve small town character by ensuring that open land is evenly dispersed throughout the community and always close by. Established neighborhoods will benefit from open space screens that will protect existing character and end perceived threats of potential adjacent new development. New tracts of housing will be thoughtfully planned, with visual boundaries that reduce the scale of potentially vast areas of development. Contiguous placement of open space will preserve wildlife habitat, while also providing environmentally attuned recreation space, as well as giving the town a new set of non-motorized connections between local destinations. Incorporation of the open space network proposal with other scenarios presented in this master plan will result in a community similar to that of many more affluent towns in the region, but with the added feature of a greater range of available housing and employment opportunities.

Proposals and Recommendations

Littleton retains some of its past agrarian New England character, but the community is experiencing suburbanization. People are attracted to the community because it is a good place to raise a family. The location is convenient to employment and services, the school system is of high quality, and there is still a good amount of open space. Because of these assets, the pressures for new residential development are mounting. While new growth in the community, along with its associated changes, cannot be stopped, steps can be taken to control and direct new development that will preserve and even highlight the local cultural and natural significance.

Careful consideration of the alternatives, a willingness to greet new development concepts and readiness to adapt to new conditions or strategies will work as the best tools for the future. The following list of recommendations provides guidance for directing new proposals and lays groundwork for the overall concept. The “big picture” that consolidates recommendations made in this element and others of the Master Plan is described in detail with the Land Use Concept and Open Space Concept Maps before these recommendations.

A key element of early New England land use pattern was the village center. Re-establishment of village centers with mixed uses have gained more attention lately as towns seek to restore the ambiance of villages where residents can live, shop, and obtain services without getting in their car to drive to the nearest strip mall or big box retailer.

Devise a mixed-use bylaw that will encourage new development proposals to include a mix of uses, such as convenience retail, local services and elderly housing. Village Center status would be achieved by rezoning an area where such a district is desired. The first locale recommended for this change is the Littleton Common area.

Such a zoning district represents a logical alternative to sprawl. By allowing for mixed uses in a village setting (including a mix of housing types), the dependence on an automobile for errands can be reduced. Additionally, this type of zoning encourages re-use of existing, and often abandoned or under-utilized, structures rather than new construction that exacerbates sprawl conditions.

Diversity and flexibility are important concepts in establishing a village-zoning district. Changes in allowable land uses and dimensional requirements are usually necessary to ensure a variety of smaller commercial businesses and offices, with residential dwelling units perhaps allowed above non-residential space and maybe some allowance for multi-family units. Other important considerations include design standards, landscaping, building scale, and compatibility with existing buildings and surroundings. Signage is another important element in the creation of a village center.

TDR is a complex tool that allows municipalities to designate development rights to be transferred from one parcel or area of town to another. It is particularly useful when one portion of the town has valuable resources such as open space or historic buildings, while other parts of town are suitable for new or additional development.

A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Provision in the Zoning Bylaw can be instrumental in shaping the community through the preservation of rural open space because of the allowance of higher densities in village centers and other selected areas. This provision enables the owner of an undeveloped tract of land, in a designated “sending district”, to sell the development rights of that parcel to the owner of another parcel, in a designated “receiving district”, that is to be developed. While the net result is for the same overall density in the town as before the transfer, one parcel owner has now paid another parcel owner for the right to build at a higher density, while the other has received payment for the development value of that land that is now legally preserved as open space or agricultural land. Techniques that will provide dedicated public open space are needed to achieve the envisioned environmental quality and a connective network of open spaces for trails and wildlife corridors.

Investigate additional ways for the town to preserve farmland with the intent of retaining it’s use for agricultural purposes through outright purchase and lease or the development rights purchase from the current owner with one strategy being the TDR zoning provision described above. The primary farm lands identified are those along Route 119 between Powers Road and the developed area adjoining Littleton Common, and selected tracts in the Forge Pond and Bruce Street neighborhood areas.

Maintain the open space vision provided in the Master Plan that proposes a distinct network that will interlace developed areas with greenspace while also providing a connective foot/bike path system. See the Open Space Concept Map and its description. These objectives can be best achieved through the use of open space development, cluster by right provisions, and TDR plus purchases of land or easements.

The process for adopting the CPA begins with a Town Meeting vote in favor of adoption. This is done by placing a ballot question at the next regular municipal or state election either by the Board of Selectmen or by citizen initiative. If approved, a Community Preservation Committee is established, which studies the Town’s needs and resources and conducts public hearings. The Committee then makes recommendations for CPA projects and spending is authorized by Town Meeting. A minimum of 10% of the funds must be spent on open space, affordable housing, and historic preservation (no more than 5% can be used for administrative purposes). The remaining percentage can be divided in accordance with the Town’s needs.

It is recommended that the Town adopt CPA. Note that the prioritization strategy described above will be an important component of the activities of the Community Preservation Committee.

Recommendations from the Land Use and Housing Subcommittee

A key element of early New England land use pattern was the village center. Re-establishment of village centers with mixed uses have gained more attention lately as towns seek to restore the ambiance of villages where residents can live, shop, and obtain services without getting in their car to drive to the nearest strip mall or big box retailer.

Encourage new development proposals to include a mix of uses, such as convenience retail, local services and elderly housing within commercially zoned districts. Village Center status would be expanded by rezoning areas where such a district is desired. In addition, ensure a Village Center atmosphere by limiting the footprint of any single commercially developed structure to less than 20,000 square feet

(Recommendation for adopting a zoning by-law is included Chapter IV – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT).

Mixed use zoning districts represent a logical alternative to sprawl. By encouraging mixed uses in a village setting (including a mix of housing types), the dependence on an automobile for errands can be reduced. Additionally, this type of zoning encourages re-use of existing, and often abandoned or under-utilized, structures rather than new construction that exacerbates sprawl conditions.

Diversity and flexibility are important concepts in establishing a village zoning district. Changes in allowable land uses and dimensional requirements are usually necessary to ensure a variety of smaller commercial businesses and offices, with residential dwelling units perhaps allowed above non-residential space and maybe some allowance for multi-family units. Other important considerations include design standards, landscaping, building scale, and compatibility with existing buildings and surroundings. Signage is another important element in the creation of a village center.

Consider more than one type of residential zoning! .

Citizen Recommendations

Limit the size of residential development (square footage) on one acre or smaller lots. The size of the lot should determine a maximum square footage for the house size.

Protect existing neighborhoods by limiting the size of new homes. If a new house is being built in, around, or abutting other homes, neighborhoods, the square footage should not exceed 25% (50%) of the already existing homes.

We should have bylaws that state that all new homes MUST have a driveway or a shared driveway. A home should not be allowed to be built on any lot size without a driveway

Need "water run-off bylaws" to protect existing homes. Ex.: New home is built next to an existing home. The land used to be relatively flat. Now there is a huge steep hill (septic) separating the two new homes The older home has NO protection from water run-off and flooded basements. Use #49 and #51 Grist Mill Road as an example..

Create a bylaw relating to buildings or other structures casting shadows on neighboring properties which might prevent them from using solar hot water heaters or electricity from Photo-Voltaic installations

[1] Assumes each dwelling unit is sited on 40,000 S.F. lot with no deduction for wetlands and layout.

[2] Assumes commercial floor area ratio at 0.3 with a 15% deduction for wetlands and layout.

[3] Assumes industrial floor area ratio at 0.25 with a 15% deduction for wetlands and layout.