Back to Table of Contents

Open Space And Recreation

Introduction

One of the key quality-of-life factors in any municipality is the ability of residents to find opportunities to enjoy areas of open space and recreational facilities. Like most towns, Littleton has a number of such parcels that afford residents of all ages the opportunity to enjoy passive and active recreation.

The Town of Littleton has an adopted and approved Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP), dated March 1997. Since this plan is current, it will provide the basis for this Master Plan. Using information from the OSRP and other information from town officials, this chapter will identify Littleton’s open space and recreational resources, the ownership and parties responsible for managing these resources, and the status of implementation of the OSRP.

Proposals and recommendations are presented in the final subsection of this chapter, which will elaborate on the five-year action plan found in the OSRP.

The 1997 OSRP established goals and objectives for open space and recreational resources in Littleton. Two workshops were convened in early 1996 to obtain public input into these goals. The OSRP goals and objectives are elaborated on later in this chapter.

The Town has a stewardship responsibility towards the environment. Effective action on that responsibility serves further ends, importantly enhancement of the quality of life in Littleton.

The Town is completely dependent upon local sources of water, so it is critical that they be protected.

A reasonable expectation of residents is that a quality set of recreation opportunities will be available and accessible to them.

Littleton's character is an important dimension of what makes people choose the Town as a residence or location for their business, but it is threatened by its own success.

As part of the OSRP, the Town conducted an inventory of all areas important to the Town due to their current open space and recreational use. These parcels include land held by both public and private entities. It is important to note that many of these parcels are not protected in perpetuity as open space. A number of them are held by private landowners without long-term assurances that they will not be developed at some time in the future. This includes parcels that are designated as Chapter 61 land under the Forest Taxation law (managed as forest pursuant to an approved management plan), Chapter 61A land pursuant to the Farmland Taxation law (used to grow and sell agricultural products), and Chapter 61B land in accordance with the Recreational Land and Open Space Taxation law (private recreation land). Under these programs, landowners receive tax breaks in exchange for managing the land for the purposes stated. If the landowner decides to sell the land, they lose the tax benefits and the Town has the right of first refusal to purchase it. However, given the number of such parcels and the acreage involved, it is unlikely that any town can purchase all the land that may be deemed valuable. Therefore, it is important for Littleton to develop a process for prioritizing parcels the Town may consider purchasing in the future. At present the Open Space and Recreation Plan Committee has developed and is beginning to implement such a prioritization model. Currently they have evaluated ten parcels and are preparing to prioritize others once they can take an inventory and view the features contained on each parcel.

According to records at the Assessor’s office, there are 2,150.82 acres of land in Littleton that fall under those programs. According to the Open Space and Recreation Plan from 1997, the figure was 2,315.14 acres. Of this total, 11.6% was held for private recreation; 16.6% was managed as forest and wooded lands; and the remaining 71.8% was held as agricultural land. Thus, approximately 164.32 acres have been converted in the last 3 ½ years.

Agricultural land represents almost half of all open space in Littleton. Although much of this land is managed under Chapter 61A, some of Littleton's farmers have chosen not to participate in the state‑authorized program. Thus, there is some farmland in Littleton that has even less long-term protection than those under Chapter 61A because there is no automatic right of first refusal given to the Town.

Eleven sites, totaling 383 acres, were identified as important forestlands in the Town. The largest among these are the Oak Hill parcel of 220 acres, Long Lake Park (partially wooded) is approximately 170 acres, the Sarah Doublet Forest, which is 98 acres, and the Town Forest occupies 86 acres in the west central area of Littleton. Most of the inventoried wooded parcels lie in the western half of Town. The rest of the forested land falls under the Chapter 61 program.

Such a large percentage of the total land area of Littleton in Chapter Land status raises two important considerations. First, it represents significant opportunities to preserve additional land that may be important to the overall town character or the creation/expansion of an open space network. Second, it also means that the build-out of the town has substantial growth potential (see Chapter II on land use, which includes the build-out analysis).

As set forth in the inventory and updated in this plan to include recent Town purchases, the open space and recreational parcels fall into several categories. Protected lands (those parcels that have been preserved in perpetuity through some legal means) total approximately 975 acres. These lands are either under control of the Town of Littleton, the Town of Concord for water supply, or the Littleton Conservation Trust. The recreation potential on these parcels is generally for passive use such as hiking and cross-country skiing.

Park and recreation land comprises 14.20 acres and land listed as multi-purpose open space contributes in excess of another 400 acres. Some of this land is owned by the Littleton School Department, providing needed fields for active sporting activities. The condition of these fields and parks, according to the inventory, varies greatly. Multi‑purpose parcels also may include passive recreation sites such as the Town Common, sites for active recreational activities–school playgrounds and playing fields, and other Town-owned lands. Multi‑purpose sites serve a variety of purposes, and may include land already categorized above.

The remainder of the protected land (approximately 560 acres) falls into the agricultural or forestland categories.

No open space or recreation land is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts other than some land along Route 2 where the proposed Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority station may be located.

The inventory will not be duplicated in this Master Plan, but it can be found in Section 5 of the OSRP. It lists the owner, manager, acreage, a brief description, the funds used for acquisition, condition, recreation potential, public access, and degree of protection for each parcel. Additionally, the recently published “Guide to Conservation Areas”, published by Art Lazarus, lists the large land holdings of both the Conservation Commission and the Littleton Conservation Trust.

A review of stated community goals versus what has been accomplished towards meeting them over the past ten years highlights open space and recreation needs.

The Town has a number of needs that apply broadly across the Town's open space and recreation concerns, much of which is based upon fiscal needs. Like many other towns, Littleton's municipal financial affairs are strained. The Littleton tax rate is higher than those of many neighboring communities, and the Town is facing major expenditures for school facilities, such as the new high school. The willingness of the Town Meeting to appropriate funds for open space and recreation has consistently been a key constraint, although in 1999 Town Meeting appropriated funds for the acquisition of a major open space parcel, the Morrison property, which is approximately 123 acres in size. If one looks back to 1997, the Town appropriated $750,000 for the purchase of Long Lake Park (formerly referred to as the Frost/Whitcomb property). Later the Town was awarded a Self Help Grant reimbursing the Town $335,000.

Since the Town has an up-to-date OSRP that has been accepted by the Division of Conservation Services (DCS), it is eligible to receive matching grants for open space acquisition and other needs identified in the plan. However, in order to remain eligible, the Town must update its plan again in 2002.

The Town also has limited capacity to address administrative needs in open space and recreation. The Conservation Commission is heavily burdened with its state‑mandated regulatory functions, thereby limiting its ability to pro-actively address open space issues. An Open Space and Recreation Plan Implementation Committee was established as part of the OSRP and is charged with overseeing implementation of the plan. The Historical Commission has a statutorily limited mandate, and repeated efforts to create an Historic District have failed. The Highway and Light and Water departments are exceptionally effective in their sensitivity to open space and recreation concerns, but have major infrastructure responsibilities.

Outside of Town government, the Littleton Conservation Trust contributes to protection efforts. Additionally, there are several lake and pond associations, as well as an overall Clean Lakes Committee.

The needs for protection and enhancement of the natural environment are wide and readily identified. In previous planning efforts, more than a dozen sites were given high priority for acquisition to provide protection in perpetuity. While some protection efforts have been made, some of those same sites are still considered to be at risk.

A number of these sites were distributed roughly north to south, from Groton to Acton. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine those sites, together with existing Conservation Commission sites, recreation areas and other Town parcels, forming a nearly continuous strip or greenbelt across the Town. Likewise it is possible to imagine an east to west greenbelt from Lake Nagog to Harvard and Boxborough. In order to achieve this vision, it is important to identify and prioritize key parcels for acquisition. They include the following:

Portions of this large site were formerly used as a downhill and cross-country ski touring center in winter months. Public acquisition of the site would provide excellent opportunities for hiking and horseback riding, in addition to skiing. Further, a lengthy segment of Beaver Brook flows diagonally across the eastern half of the property. Thus, acquisition of the site, in addition to providing recreational opportunities, would serve to preserve Beaver Brook wetlands, which are important for flood control, habitat protection, and water resource integrity. Recently, a portion of the property has been purchased by the Town to provide land for expanding the abutting Town cemetery. The rest of the property remains private and undeveloped, with portions enrolled under various current use taxation programs, but with no permanent protection in place.

The Water Department and the Town alike are interested in this area for water conservation and wildlife protection. Rare and endangered species have been observed in this area.

This is a piece of privately held land in the center of Town directly behind Fay Park and the Police Station. It is a beautifully forested piece of land with rolling hills, trails and significant frontage on Long Lake.

The Town's topography, surface landforms, and groundwater resources are largely the result of ancient glacial actions. This narrow gravel ridge remains as evidence of a glacial stream that flowed on or through the ice sheets that once covered the Town. It remains private and undeveloped.

To retain the rural character of Littleton, it is recommended that the Town try to conserve some of the larger farm parcels, primarily the farms along Route 2A/119 as well as some of the farms less centrally located. This would preserve the scenic vistas along those routes.

There is significant acreage at these two locations that allow for well-traveled wildlife corridors, as well as linkages to other open space that backs up to Newtown Road and Sarah Doublet Forest respectively.

Note that since the preparation of the OSRP, Grist Mill and Town Forest parcels have been dropped from the priority list of parcels to purchase. In the proposals and recommendations section of this element, there will be some discussion of the key factors to consider when establishing priorities for open space acquisition.

The Town is fortunate to possess a number of freshwater lakes and ponds, although public access is very limited. Gaining public access to the community's lakes and ponds was considered as a priority item in the OSRP. Fort Pond currently has one route for public access, which is a narrow pedestrian path located at the Sarah Doublet Forest. Access to Forge Pond is limited to a small state boat-launching site. Construction of Well #3 resulted in a large public land holding on Spectacle Pond, but no formal access route has been provided. There is public access to both Mill Pond, which is being improved and may soon be clean enough for public use, and to Long Lake that houses the Town Beach.

It is worth noting that in the most recent draft of the 2000–2005 State Comprehensive Outdoor and Recreation Plan (SCORP), the third strongest need for this region was for water-based activities in lakes or ponds. Although Littleton has the resources to help meet these regional as well as local needs, opportunities for increasing public access should be examined.

The importance of Long Lake as a local recreational resource has been established in previous town planning efforts. Unfortunately, poor water quality threatens the continued use of the lake for recreational purposes. Septic system failures on many of the small lots (former seasonal homes that are now year-round residences) located on the northeast shoreline are contributors of pollutant discharges. Another non-point source of contamination that is a major problem is storm water runoff from adjacent streets and residential properties. The Town needs to take action to develop a permanent solution to water quality problems in Long Lake.

Providing safe and adequate access to local recreation sites (as well as to other key locations, such as schools, commuter rail, etc.) is an important objective of the OSRP. Bike paths have been proposed in two areas of Town. The first links the Middle, High, and Shattuck St. School sites with the recreation area on King Street. A new bike path has been discussed for Great Road–Routes 2A/119. Development of a bike path along this heavily trafficked road would allow those living in the Town's southeastern areas safer access to activities in and around the Town Common. The creation of a bike path along Route 2A has been classified a medium priority within the subregion by MAPC. MAPC has also classified the construction of bicycle racks and lockers, at the Foster St. 495 commuter rail station and the proposed Littleton station, a high priority.

The term "bike path" actually encompasses three types of developments–bike routes, bike lanes, and bike paths; construction and maintenance requirements vary considerably among the three. State funding, administered through the Massachusetts Highway Department, is available for these projects. Local bikeways are eligible for state funding for between 25 and 75% of total project cost. Regional bikeways, which link two or more communities, could receive as much as 100% state funding. The Town needs to present these bikeway proposals to the MAPC for assistance with further planning efforts.

Footpaths and equestrian paths are also an important need, especially when viewed in a regional context. A useful network of pathways exists, but much of it is informal and subject to potential interruption by owners of key links.

The Park and Recreation Department currently offers a wide variety of recreation programs open to Littleton residents.

To continue meeting expanding local recreational demands, the Town's existing recreational facilities must be adequately maintained and proposals for new facilities implemented. The draft 2000 – 2005 SCORP ranked parks, playgrounds and tot lots as being the most significant need in the region based on facility usage estimates. The need for expansion and renovation of Long Lake Beach has already been discussed above. With over 500 youth playing organized soccer and another 300 in baseball, softball, and assorted athletic activities, there is a serious need for additional athletic fields. The specific needs, according to the Park and Recreation Department, are as follows:

One full‑sized soccer field (one has just recently been built); Two small soccer fields; One large baseball diamond; One basketball court; and A large, multi‑purpose facility to house a teen center, athletic facility, and other community‑based programs. Improved access provisions for the handicapped at certain facilities.

It is assumed that some of these needs (particularly the baseball diamond and the basketball court) may be met once the new high school has been built.

Land to accommodate all of these facilities is either publicly owned (the Light and Water Department site on Ayer Road), or under lease agreement (St. Anne's Church on Mill Road). Further acquisition will not be necessary if town meeting approves the use of town lands for these purposes.

As stated earlier, the critical bases for defining goals and objectives for open space and recreation during this planning effort was the March 1997 OSRP. This resulted from the discussion at two workshops held in preparing the OSRP . Further guidance came from MAPC's Metroplan 2000 , which was created to provide a vision for growth within the region. Metroplan 2000 promotes concentration of development as a means of protecting the environment and open space resources. Guidance was also obtained from SCORP. Those sources, synthesized with the results of the inventory described above, created the following as goals and objectives for open space and recreation.

Protection of environmentally sensitive land threatened by development.

Guidance for development activity to avoid negative impacts to environmental quality.

Protection of unique natural and geologic features

A Zoning Bylaw that reflects suitability/capability of land resources

Land acquisitions that enhance current conservation and recreational holdings, adequate maintenance and improvement of existing properties

Groundwater of good quantity and quality to meet existing and future demand

Acquisition of another well site to assure future adequacy of supply.

Maintenance of the present regulatory vigilance in protecting groundwater supply.

Permanent protection of Beaver Brook and Bennets Brook wetlands.

Try to re-introduce the implementation of a Wetlands Bylaw.

Quality recreational facilities and adequate recreational opportunities for all town residents.

Public access to the Town's public lakes and ponds

Clean surface waters for active and passive recreational use

Recreation programs for a variety of user groups (See Section D at pages 74 through 7‑7)

Improvements for existing public facilities such as increased handicapped accessibility.

Additional recreational facilities on Town‑owned property

Recreation opportunities in developing areas of Town

Preservation of community character.

Preservation and promotion of agricultural activities.

A comprehensive planning program which addresses recreation, open space, agricultural, and environmental concerns as well as traditional zoning issues.

Controlled residential, commercial, and industrial growth.

Local awareness of the Town’s natural, geologic, and historic resources.

At the community level, the Littleton goals and objectives mirror MAPC’s goals for the region. MAPC’s four major goals are set out in MetroGreen, the Land Resources Element of Metroplan 2000. The first of MAPC’s goals, to preserve and protect critical land resources and to the shape the growth of the region, are reflected in the Littleton Goals one and two. To help preserve a "sense of place" is similar to Littleton Goal four. MAPC's fourth goal, to fulfill recreational needs, is addressed in Goal three.

Open Space Preservation Public Forum

On April 8, 2000, a public forum was held that focused on open space preservation. As part of that forum, participants were asked to sit in groups that represented the location of their residences to one of the following neighborhoods, each of which has some major open space resources: Forge Pond/Spectacle Pond; Fort Pond; Snow Village/Grist Mill; Mill Pond, Depot, and Wynchwood Heights; and Littleton Common and Foster Street.

Participants were asked:

1. 1. What was most important, unique or enjoyable about their neighborhood;

2. 2. What improvements would enhance the quality of their neighborhood;

3. 3. What open space resources are used and how would additional open space improve the quality of life;

4. 4. What concerns exist that may affect the quality of life.

In June 1998, the Growth Management Goals and Objectives for the Community of Littleton were prepared following an extensive public outreach process. These goals and objectives reinforce many of the concepts set forth in the OSRP. Preservation of open space was the underlying theme, especially farm fields, orchards, and other agricultural land uses. Additionally, a high priority was placed on outdoor recreation. Greater public access to Littleton’s open space and recreational amenities, through a variety of means, is an important consideration.

The specific goals and objectives can be found in Chapter I of this Master Plan.

As evidenced from the goals and objectives, as well as input received during the public forums held as part of the master planning process, preservation of open space is a high priority for Littleton and its citizens. The Town has already moved forward to address this need by adopting its OSRP that sets forth a five-year action plan and an Open Space and Recreation Plan Implementation Committee. The Town also has taken steps to purchase several hundred acres of valued open space in recent years.

There are a number of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches that can be taken to further enhance a municipality’s efforts at preserving open space and creating recreational opportunities for its residents. These will be discussed here, with recommendations made for inclusion in the implementation element for the plan.

The purchase of open space parcels is the best option from a protection standpoint, but no municipality can afford to acquire every parcel that becomes available. Thus, it is important to consider several different approaches to open space preservation that does not rely on new land use regulation. Moreover, it is necessary to establish criteria for how land is to be evaluated when it becomes available for purchase. Note that the Master Plan recommends the Town adopt the Community Preservation Act as a means of funding open space as well as other purposes (see section 2–2)

Given the large acreage of land currently in Chapter 61, 61A or 61B, it is important to establish and to continually refine criteria that will assist the Town in prioritizing parcels that become available. This is an ongoing effort of the Open Space Plan Implementation Committee. When land is removed from these programs, the Town has only 120 days to exercise its right of first refusal to purchase the property. With the numerous legal complications that can arise, as well as the procedural requirements that must be met for a municipal purchase of land, 120 days does not provide much leeway for the Town to exercise this right.

The OSRP, as well as the Assessor’s records, provides an inventory of all parcels that are currently in one of these programs. A more detailed field survey of each parcel will yield additional information regarding how the land compares with the criteria listed below. The goal of this assessment is to provide the Town with the decision-making tools to ascertain how the parcels should be prioritized and whether a particular parcel should be purchased when such an opportunity arises.

The most significant factors to consider include protection of natural resources and scenic views, creating greenway networks and linkages of open spaces and trails, and maintaining the rural character of the Town. These factors have been repeatedly stressed in the goals and objectives and during the course of the public participation forums held as part of the master planning process. The specific criteria used to evaluate sites for purchase include the following:

Agricultural features such as open fields, the existence of prime agricultural soils, scenic views from and into the agricultural property, visible stone walls, whether some portion of the land is currently in active agricultural use, and the presence of structures used in the agricultural setting (such as barns, silos, etc.).

Location of the parcel in relationship to other protected land including other land owned by the Town, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or other not-for-profit organizations such as conservation organizations or land trusts. Will it contribute to needed civic space near village centers or adjacent recreational areas? Is it located in a currently under-served area?

Does the land create new or expanded connections to an existing trail network for alternative transportation, walking, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, or other recreational opportunities?

Can the land provide public access to water? Can the property provide recreational access to the waterfront?

Proximity to valuable environmental resources including existing and potential drinking water sources (is the parcel located within the Aquifer and Water Resource District?), wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, steep slopes, unique geological features, significant vegetative and wildlife habitat or wildlife corridors (including habitat for rare or endangered species).

Potential environmental problems with the site must be identified, particularly if there is a likelihood of a hazardous waste liability problem arising from previous uses at the site. Significant long-term legal and cost issues may place such a parcel in a lower priority classification. However, these problems are not insurmountable and if the costs for remediation are known, they can be managed and factored into the purchase price.

Finally, the cost of the parcel needs to be considered, especially when compared with others. If the land has a high potential for development with few environmental constraints, it may cost more than an equivalently sized parcel with severe limitations on future development.

There are additional options short of outright purchase of open space, but these frequently require more creativity and assistance from third parties. These options are recommended (Recommendations VI-2 – VI-4) as part of the toolbox used by the Town to preserve additional open space while minimizing the expense to the Town. Among these strategies are the following:

Conservation restrictions, approved by the Division of Conservation Services, limit the use of property to conservation or open space purposes only for an extended period of time (99 years or in perpetuity). Conservation easements allow the use of some portion of a landowners land for similar purposes, thereby protecting it from development. Most are permanent and legally bind future landowners, while term easements can be negotiated which expire after a certain period of time. Some tax benefit is conferred upon the landowner that sets aside a restriction or easement.

One example is the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program (APR) which is a specific conservation restriction designed to protect lands “predominantly in their agricultural farming or forest use”. New construction is generally prohibited, although some residential or farm-based structures may be constructed, preferably on the less agriculturally suited soils. The purpose is to provide some means of providing revenue that allows the agricultural use to continue. This program does not guarantee that land remains in farming, although there are tax implications if the land is released from the program. The goal is to prevent development activities that are inconsistent with agricultural uses. Funding for this program is usually limited and the designation of APR’s is competitive.

By encouraging some limited development on larger parcels with high open space value, the development is encouraged, preferably clustered so as to minimize aesthetic and environmental concerns, in order to help finance preservation of a larger area. Private land trusts and similar organizations can work with landowners to broker deals that allow for some development in conjunction with land purchase, conservation restrictions or easements so that there is some long-term guarantee of open space preservation at the site.

Purchase and lease back options, such as the one employed at the Morrison property, is another option. This allows present agricultural operations to continue while providing some source of revenue to support it.

Municipalities in Massachusetts and around the country have utilized a number of open space preservation regulatory approaches over the years. Littleton has had some experience with open space, or cluster, zoning, but has not adopted other strategies discussed below. The alternative regulatory tools and techniques are described conceptually, with some discussion as to the pros and cons of incorporating them into Littleton’s regulatory framework. With the exception of transfer of development rights, this plan recommends that these measures be adopted and implemented within the next two years in order to maximize the degree of open space that can be protected in a manner that does not impede development.

One option not discussed, but available to communities, is increasing lot sizes. By encouraging compact development as an alternative to commercial strip development, which is discussed in Chapter II of this plan, more open space can be preserved. Increasing lot sizes does not preserve open space -- the bigger lots merely increase the effects of sprawl.

Open space development is probably one of the most commonly applied techniques for conserving open space. It is frequently referred to as cluster zoning. Open space zoning generally involves the grouping of buildings into compacted areas, often on lots smaller than normally allowed in similar residentially zoned districts, in a manner that allows for preservation of contiguous open space. Article XIX of the Littleton Zoning Bylaw–Open Space Development has the same purpose.

The question is whether the provisions of the bylaw are used by developers often enough and, if not, how can it be amended to encourage a greater level of interest from the development community. The consensus heard during the master planning process was that more should be done to enhance the degree to which this type of development occurs and a desire to improve the quality of the projects themselves.

The Littleton bylaw requires a special permit from the Planning Board. All projects in excess of ten acres must file an open space development plan, although the Planning Board may waive that requirement to allow a conventional subdivision. Decision-making criteria are established that guide the Planning Board in determining whether the proposed project further the goals of open space preservation, environmental protection, and housing needs.

There are several recommendations that can be made to improve upon the existing bylaw.

The percentage of open space to be set aside should be established and should be more than what is merely unbuildable land. Many bylaws allow the open space to include wetlands and steep slopes, despite the fact that these represent constraints to development. This bylaw should establish a minimum percentage of the total land to be set aside as open space. Typically, a 30% minimum set aside is applied by many communities. In addition, maybe half of the required open space set aside should be useable or upland suitable for trails or other uses.

Typically, the developer is not permitted to build more units on the parcel than may be allowed pursuant to the zoning district. Some concern has been raised about the marketability of clustered units so developers shy away from proposing such projects. One approach to encourage the use of open space residential development is to establish density bonuses for projects that permanently preserve large amounts of open space or address other planning objectives of the city or town, such as the criteria established in Section 173-100. Density bonuses (5 – 10%) may entice developers to build cluster projects, especially since there is growing evidence that real estate and home sale values increase due to the proximity of protected open space.

A properly designed open space residential project can preserve more than just open space. Scenic vistas, sensitive environmental resources, wildlife habitat, and steep slopes can be protected and connection with existing trail networks can be encouraged. These considerations can be added to the design criteria listed for reviewing cluster projects.

Finally, state legislation has recently been enacted to allow cluster development by right. Current zoning law does not specifically speak to this issue and some communities are considering this option. By leveling the permitting playing field so that cluster projects do not need to go through a special permit process, but are review in a similar manner as conventional subdivisions, developers may be more inclined to propose clusters if they believe that it will not take longer to permit such a project. An additional positive factor is that overall construction costs are generally less in cluster developments.

It is recommended that the Town proceed with amending the bylaw to provide for cluster development by right. If a developer is to submit a proposal for a conventional subdivision, the bylaw could require a concurrent submission of a cluster alternative. If the Town is to be more permissive of cluster developments, it is important to include specific design criteria ensuring that cluster development projects are constructed in a manner that provides for the open space as described above, as well as other specific standards regarding roads, drainage, stormwater runoff, etc.

This technique allows municipality’s greater latitude in review and approval of development projects by granting modifications in lot layout without changing the overall density of the project. Density should be consistent with the underlying zoning. In some respects, it is a subset of open space zoning because both techniques offer an alternative lot layout without necessarily changing the underlying density. However, flexible development provisions generally do not ensure protection of large contiguous open space parcels.

Flexibility with building setbacks, lot frontages, and roadway width and configuration can create a more aesthetically pleasing development that takes advantage of prominent natural land features. The goal is to have the development fit better with the natural surroundings in a manner that also protects valued and sensitive environmental and historic resources.

This can help to maintain and protect the rural character of a community by providing an alternative to “cookie cutter” subdivisions where lot layout is not necessarily sensitive to its surroundings. Special care should be given to ensure that the bylaw includes substantive criteria to allow for an adequate comparison between the proposed flexible development with the conventional subdivision plan. Currently Littleton requires a developer present two plans – one for a conventional subdivision and one flexible development.

Thus, it is recommended that the Town consider an amendment to the zoning bylaw that provides for flexible development opportunities pursuant to the review and approval of the Planning Board.

Since prime farmland is also ideal for development, a number of municipalities have turned to agricultural preservation zoning to protect the remaining land from conversion to residential subdivisions or commercial and industrial land. In addition to a desire to maintain some of the agricultural way of life, this type of overlay zoning can help to protect historic and cultural resources, open space, and scenic vistas. It is recommended that Littleton adopt and implement an overlay district for agricultural preservation zoning. This is one of the more effective regulatory tools available to implement Recommendation II-3 (Preserve Existing Farmlands).

Several different approaches can be used in creating a bylaw to preserve agricultural land. Some towns require that all residential units be clustered on soils that are least suitable for agriculture or along existing public ways. Another approach is to restrict activities on farmland to agricultural activities and supporting uses, which may include limited residential development. Provisions should be made, as is the case with open space zoning, that develop criteria for the land to be conserved and to ensure that the preserved farmland be protected in perpetuity. If agricultural activities are to remain in the undeveloped portion of the parcel, a buffer may be necessary to segregate the uses.

Another issue to be cognizant of is that if new development is allowed to proceed, especially under a conventional scenario, infrastructure improvements may be required to accommodate the needs of the new land uses. The expansion of infrastructure into rural areas creates a risk of increasing sprawl conditions since additional development may take advantage of the infrastructure previously unavailable.

In order to promote and protect farming activities on agricultural lands, some municipalities have permitted accessory uses on farmland such as small restaurants, retail, and other uses ancillary to the agricultural activities. This allows farmers to supplement their farm income while diversifying their operations.

Scenic upland zoning can regulate alterations to topographic features, natural resources and scenic qualities of land by protecting views looking toward or from areas considered to have scenic qualities. Some towns also have regulated ridgelines, steep slopes and hillsides by establishing design standards for buildings that are visible from public areas. New construction should be sensitive to existing terrain and vegetation. This is done as an overlay district and/or by applying design standards. Although not many towns have adopted this type of bylaw, it is recommended that the Town consider its application here.

One key area of concern for Littleton, and elsewhere in Massachusetts, is the impact that Approval Not Required (ANR) development is having on the rural landscape. Essentially, lots that have adequate frontage on a public way can be subdivided as long as they continue to meet minimum frontage and lot size requirements for the zoning district. This exacerbates sprawl conditions by encouraging roadside development. Listed below are several different recommended approaches that can mitigate the aesthetic impacts of ANR development.

Backlands zoning–Similar to the dimensional flexibility provided through open space or flexible development zoning provisions, backlands (or “backlot”) zoning allows a developer to reduce the required frontage of a lot in exchange for building on land further from the road. Backlands provisions address concerns over “Approval Not Required” development, in which the entire frontage along existing public ways is developed lot by lot, in a piecemeal fashion. By allowing developers to forgo the frontage and develop further from the road, a pattern can be encouraged that is less visible from scenic roads, less likely to disturb existing historic stone walls or tree corridors, and less consumptive of remaining frontage.

Backlands provisions vary in terms of the lot sizes required (typically higher than minimums for the district), the number of lots that may share a common driveway, the areas that can exercise this provision, the procedure for review of plans, and the future treatment of the protected frontage to prevent further development. Conservation restrictions for land adjacent to roadways can further enhance aesthetic resources.

Design standards–If ANR development is to occur (recognizing that Planning Boards have very little discretion in approving applications), a Planning Board may suggest design guidelines such as preservation of important features including, stone walls, fences, significant trees, etc. Efforts should be made to encourage construction in a manner that accommodates the existing terrain and natural resources of the lot. Common driveways can be used to minimize curb cuts and further alterations to the landscape. Houses can be set back further from the road as well.

Scenic roadway bylaws–Scenic roadway by-laws (authorized by G.L. c.40 § 15C) can help to preserve the rural landscape by incorporating the concepts described above for lots that are developed along roadsides designated by the municipality as a scenic roadway. This allows Planning Boards to review proposals for the cutting or removal of trees or the alteration of stonewalls. However, this only applies to work relating to the road or within the limits of the road. Therefore, it does not directly apply to frontage development outside the roadway limit.