The Case of Guilford and Its New Standards and Guidelines for Route 1 East
Session: Smart Growth Skirmishes
April 15, 2:30 PM
Terry S. Szold
Principal,Community Planning Solutions
ABSTRACT: This paper details the case of Guilford, Connecticut, a suburban community that prepared new design guidelines and zoning regulations to help stem the tide of generic, suburban sprawl on a corridor lying outside its historic town center. The opposition that arose to the new regulations is also briefly examined.
The Town of Guilford, Connecticut, a suburban town of approximately 21,000, is about 30 minutes north of New Haven. Over 90% of the Town’s housing stock is single family, and the community has a high per capita income and well-educated population. The Town has one of the largest collection of 18th century homes in the United States, many of which are located close to Guilford’s Town Green.
The Town recently embarked on a project to prepare design guidelines and zoning regulations to help shape the built form of Route 1 East, also known as the “Boston Post Road,” an arterial road containing most of the Town’s commercial land use, that runs parallel to Interstate 95. Guilford established a Committee to oversee the creation the guidelines and to select a consulting team to help bring the initiative to fruition. The Town’s primary objective in preparing design guidelines and new zoning regulations was to ensure that sprawl forms of development did not threaten the historic resources and built form.
In the summer of 1999, the firms of Icon Architecture from Boston, and Community Planning Solutions, of Andover, Massachusetts, were selected to assist the Town. Icon assumed the lead role in preparing design guidelines for the Town, and Community Planning Solutions assisted the Town in the preparation of zoning amendments to help implement the planning goals that were established.
In December of 2000, the Guilford Planning and Zoning Commission adopted four major amendments to the Town’s zoning code to help positively guide future development in accordance with the design and planning principles set forth below. The new zoning amendments also included reference to the design guidelines that were prepared for the roadway and new zones.In January of 2001, a group of citizens filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to adopt the Village Zoning and other amendments that evolved from the plan, seeking to annul the regulations in entirety. Based upon procedural reasons, the Superior Court of New Haven ruled that the plaintiffs did not properly file their complaint. The regulations are now in effect, and it will be interesting to evaluate how effective they are in improving development outcomes along Route 1 East. There is initial evidence that the new regulations prevented a large box “superstore” from being sited on the corridor. Redevelopment and aesthetic enhancement of a supermarket site, in accordance with the new guidelines is also in the planning stages.
The New Zoning Amendments
Four major Zoning Amendments were adopted by Guilford:
Post Road Village Zone District (PV): This district established new use regulations and dimensional standards and incentives to foster village development and development more compatible with the Town’s adjoining Historic District and its built form. Detailed Special Permit criteria were also established for utilization of bonus provisions.
Transitional and Service Zone District (TS): This district established new dimensional standards, aesthetic considerations, and incentives to foster development more compatible with the Town’s traditional built form, but with greater recognition of the automotive orientation of the district and fewer use and dimensional restrictions than the PV Zone.
Shopping Center Zone (SC): This district was essentially wrapped around a major shopping center area as an attempt to foster high-quality design in a commercial area that had become dated. New dimensional standards, aesthetic considerations, and incentives are included.
Design Review Committee and Design Review Process: This amendment established a Design Review Committee and Procedure, along with reference to the new design guidelines to be used in the development review process in the districts noted above.
Can Guilford’s New Zoning Amendments and Design Guidelines be Categorized as a “Smart Growth” Strategy?
While the Zoning Amendments and Design Guidelines were not adopted in the name of “smart growth,” they can be appropriately categorized as “smart growth” regulations because they attempt to foster the following development outcomes:
- Subordination of parking areas in relation to buildings
- Discouragement of automotive-oriented uses
- Discouragement of large, box retail development
- Promotion of mixed use development
- Use of design and dimensional standards to shape more compact, pedestrian-friendly development
Design Principles that Guided the New Zoning Districts
Guilford’s planning process established design principles to encourage a consistent standard and approach to the aesthetic and physical quality of the Boston Post Road. These principles provide a basis for specific recommendations as well as the basis for design review.
General Principles across the Districts
The general principles that apply throughout the study area to support community objectives and town’s goals:
- Protect and enhance existing historic structures
- Protect and enhance existing landscape features of significance and scenic quality along the Post Road and visible from the Post Road
- Protect the natural features and geography of the land
- Protect significant landmarks and historic sites within view of the Boston Post Road
- Respect the need for a balance of economic growth and preservation of the Town’s quality of life and values
- Encourage the historic mixed-use and multi-modal character of the Boston Post Road development.
Design Principles of Specific Zones and Districts:
The “Post Road Village” Zone
The Village Zone is in close proximity to the town’s historic center. Pedestrian activity and amenities are prevalent along this stretch of the study area. Opportunity to enhance and reinforce village character and pedestrian streetscape quality underlie the following principles:
- Establish a sense of entry to Guilford
- Maintain historic properties and traditional building form
- Work with property and business owners to improve standards of signage, aesthetics and pedestrian quality
- Encourage consistent high grade paving, landscaping and signage on private parcels
- Encourage pedestrian use through events, activities, and appropriate uses.
- Establish comfortable pedestrian streetscape in right-of-ways
- Provide street lighting in traditional and pedestrian scale
- Establish pedestrian and bicycle links to the residential areas and Town center.
The “Transitional and Service” Zone
These sections of the Road are currently represented by collections of incompatible building styles, frontages, and scales. The streetscape is somewhat haphazard with in-continuous sidewalks, missing curbs and varying building setbacks. It is an area subject to development pressure, empty lots, and service and vehicle oriented uses, due to its proximity to Interstate 95. However, there is also great opportunity for development, infill, and redevelopment of these sections of the Boston Post Road into an attractive, coherent environment. The basic Design Principles for this zone are the following:
- Encourage site design to reinforce the street edge
- Enforce shared or joint parking behind buildings
- Enforce high quality and sufficient landscaping as part of the site design
- Reduce curb cuts
- Encourage pedestrian activity
- Encourage mixed use development
- Provide continuous accessible sidewalks
- Provide links to neighborhood and the Village Green.
The “Mixed Use/Conservation” Zone (Zoning Standards for this area have not yet been adopted)
This section of the Road has a rural character that contributes to the historic character of the Boston Post Road. The design principles reflect the need to retain the scenic and historic quality that is present:
- Respect and protect historic features, natural or man-made
- Screen new development from view with indigenous planting
- Protect the existing scenic quality and its frontage along the Road.
Comparing the Three Primary Zoning Districts by Use
Post Road Village Zone District (PV):
Permitted Uses: An array of business and retail uses, professional offices, restaurants (excluding drive thru services), multifamily housing, educational, recreation, cultural, and institutional uses. Lodging and other uses by Special Permit.
Transitional and Service Zone (TS):
Permitted Uses: An array of business and retail uses, professional offices, restaurants (excluding drive thru services), lodging, entertainment, multifamily housing, educational, institutional, and recreational facilities, motor vehicle and other uses by Special Permit.
Shopping Center Zone District (SC):
Permitted Uses: An array of business and retail uses, professional offices, restaurants (excluding drive thru services), and educational and recreational facilities.
| PV Zone | TS Zone | SC Zone | |
| Lot Area: | 10,000 sq. ft. | 20,000 sq. ft. | 200,000 sq. ft. |
| Lot Shape: | 80 ft. | 100 ft. | 300 ft. |
| Lot Frontage: | 80 ft. | 100 ft. | 300 ft. |
| --- | |||
| Lot Coverage: | 25% (up to 35% with SP) | 25% (up to 35% with SP) | 25% (up to 35% with SP) |
| --- | |||
| Height: | 35 ft. | 40 ft. | 40 ft. |
| --- | |||
| Maximum Impervious Surface: | 75% | 70% | 70% |
| --- | |||
| Setback from Streetline: | 20 ft. min./30 ft. max. | 30 ft. min./50 ft. max. | 30 ft. min./50 ft. max. |
| --- | |||
| Rearyard Setback: | 10 ft. | 12 ft. | 20 ft. |
| --- | |||
| Sideyard Setback: | 10 ft. | 12 ft. | 15 ft |
| --- | |||
| Setback from Residential District: | 20 ft. | 30 ft. | 30 ft. |
| --- | |||
| Total Floor Area: | 50% (up to 65% with SP) | 50% (up to 65% with SP) | 50% (up to 65% with SP) |
| --- | |||
| Maximum Building Size: | 20,000 sq. ft./ up to 25,000 max. with SP | 30,000 sq. ft./ up to 50,000 max. with SP | 150,000 sq. ft/ up to 200,000 max. with SP |
| --- | |||
| Maximum Size of Free-Standing Retail Building or Retail Store in Multi-tenant Building: | 15,000 sq. ft. | 25,000 sq. ft. | 60,000 sq. ft. |
| --- | |||
| Site Plan & Design Review: | Yes | Yes | Yes |
The Scope of the Zoning Change
The new zoning regulations that were adopted changed the Commercial zoning rules in the following manner:
- Automotive oriented and drive-thru uses were prohibited or more significantly regulated.
- Multifamily residential development was made more permissible.
- Building setbacks on street frontage areas were reduced to limit parking in front of buildings.
- Lot coverage was increased to allow more dense development of lots, particularly in the Post Road Village Zone.
- Higher Floor Area was permitted on lots, but total development thresholds and maximum building size was established to prevent “big box” stores.
- Parking ratios for office and retail uses were reduced to prevent surplus parking.
- Reference to Design Guidelines and design principles were established.
- Modest density bonus provisions linked to design performance were established.
- A modest incentive provision for non-conforming buildings was established, to encourage improved design.
Why Opposition to the New Regulations? What Can We Learn?
There was general support for the “design guidelines” that would help improve the aesthetics of development, but less support for the incentives that were provided to foster village form.
Fears and reservations included the following:
- Fears about increased density and change to community character
- Concern about the Planning and Zoning Commission having too much authority
- Concern about property being singled out for preferential treatment
- Distrust of the rationale used to adopt the regulations.
While there are many lessons to be learned in any dynamic planning process, concerns about density and growth are among the most important to address in any anti-sprawl or smart growth regulatory initiative. While most of the regulations recommended were adopted in the Guilford case, the consulting team and Committee may have been more persuasive with opponents if the following strategies were used:
- Emphasize development thresholds
- Make clear that good urban design doesn’t mean “high density” urban form
- Differentiate between village scale and urban scale
- Present models that reflect maximum build-out potential
- Include more “activists” in the committee process.
Community Planning Solutions
8 Wethersfield Drive
Andover, Massachusetts 01810
Telephone: (978) 470-3910
Fax: (978) 470-0190
Terry Szold is a professional planner with 20 years of experience serving communities with a diversity of growth management needs. She served as planning director for the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts from 1988-1994, and served in a variety of other municipal planning positions. In 1994, she formed “Community Planning Solutions,” a planning consulting firm with emphasis on assisting communities to better manage growth and change, along with the application of zoning and land use regulation designed to reduce sprawl, improve development outcomes, and protect and enhance community character. In addition to her consulting work, Ms. Szold is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Land Use Planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT, where she teaches courses in land use planning and regulation.
Ms. Szold received a Master’s Degree in Regional Planning from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She recently served as Vice President for Legislation and Policy and Northeast Area Regional Representative for the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association. Her work for a diverse array of clients has been highlighted at the American Planning Association National Conferences in Orlando, Seattle, and New York. She recently discussed “smart growth” regulatory strategies at the National League of Cities Annual Conference in Boston. She is a co-editor of a forthcoming collection on “smart growth” to be published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.