Conservation subdivisions (CSD) are discussed widely at the suburban/exurban edge. They are seen as ideal ways in which to create community for a small group of homeowners and preserve land and open space. But, why don�t we see more of these kinds of developments? Is it merely because developers are sticking with the business as usual approach to subdivision development or is it something else?

In this article, I examine the regulatory framework for the development of CSDs. With the touted benefits of CSDs, one would think that they should be springing up all over the place. However, in Wisconsin, there is no proliferation of CSDs. On the contrary, from an observational perspective, the number of conventional subdivisions far outweighs the number of CSDs being built. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to get a handle on the number of these developments versus other types of developments. Neither local governments nor other agencies collect this type of data.

Rather than trying to collect data from local governments on the number of CSDs, I looked at a table prepared by Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission comparing CSD requirements in local zoning and subdivision regulations. The table includes the following categories of data for 2005: name and type of local government, type of ordinance, minimum open space required, density bonus possible, stewardship or maintenance plan required, and factors considered when determining the number of homes allowed. The table is available online.

Regulatory Approach

Within a 7-county area in southeast Wisconsin, there are at least twelve different ways to get approval for a CSD. Thus, a developer could go to one local government and be told that a conditional use permit under the zoning ordinance would be necessary, which would involve a meeting with a local board or commission at the least. In a community only a few miles away the same developer would be told that a conservation subdivision is allowed only within a particular overlay district.

As shown in Table 1, the most common regulatory approach to CSDs is through a conditional use permit (12 of 40 municipalities used this approach). Another 6 municipalities used planned unit developments (PUDs). Thus, 45% of the municipalities used some form of conditional use permit (CUP) to regulate CSDs. CUPs imply more time, effort and costs for the developer to create CSDs.

In 11 of the municipalities (about one-quarter) CSDs are permitted or required. However, only one community specified that CSDs were a permitted use in residential districts and conventional subdivisions were a conditional use. In all other communities, developers were required to go through a more rigorous process to approve a CSD than a conventional subdivision. Compared to conditional uses, permitted uses should reduce the time, effort and costs associated with subdivision approval.

Density Bonus

Open Space Requirement

Conclusion

Randall Arendt recommends that "at a minimum, conservation subdivisions should be approvable �by right� or �as of right� and should not be required to meet the standards of special exceptions or special permits. In fact, if conventional subdivisions are not classified as conditional uses, conservation subdivisions should not be either. The �playing field� should at least be level, if open space development design is going to be given an even chance of being proposed" (Arendt, 1996, p. 114).

This analysis shows that at least for southeast Wisconsin, conservation subdivisions are not given an "even chance" of being proposed. Time is money to developers; there is no reason for them to propose a conservation subdivision if the process for approval is more costly and cuts too far into profits than developing conventional subdivisions.

If local governments are serious about preserving open space through this development technique, they should reexamine their rules regarding conservation subdivisions and change them to create a level playing field. Some local governments may want to consider the Town of Caledonia�s rules that require conservation subdivisions on all land divisions of a parent parcel of three acres or larger creating five or more lots. Another example is the City of New Berlin that allows conservation subdivisions by right in certain residential zoning districts and only allows conventional subdivisions by conditional use in those same districts.

References

Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. May 2005. Summary of Ordinance Requirements for Conservation Subdivisions in Southeastern Wisconsin.