Land Use Department

2.0 LAND USE

2.1 Current Land Uses

The total area of Bethel is 17 square miles. The town's nucleus lies in the western shoulder and is formed by the downtown and its immediately surrounding neighborhoods. This nucleus has the town's densest mix of land uses, with the smallest lots generally found in Bethel and a greater variety of single and multi-family houses, businesses, churches, and governmental offices. (See Figure 5: Current Land Uses.) The prevailing land use found in the rest of Bethel is single family residential on larger lots than in the downtown. This general land use pattern is punctuated in several places: the retail and office strip along Route 6, Francis J. Clarke Industrial Park off Route 53 (Grassy Plain Street), Berkshire Industrial Park (which includes Duracell's headquarters) in the northwest wedge above I-84, the centrally located educational campus, and the many swaths of parks, open space, and preserved water company lands.

Compared to the other municipalities in the Housatonic Valley region, Bethel's density of 1,032 persons per square mile lies between Danbury's density (1,374) and Brookfield's (713). This relatively high density is one of the prime reasons why Bethel has such an attractive small town sense to its development. The town nucleus is an obvious example of small town design, with its uniform and compact small lots, tidy houses and yards, stores and services, sidewalks, and tree-lined streets connected in a grid. What is unusual about Bethel is the continuation of this small town sense out into the larger scaled land use pattern. In the parts of town zoned for one-half up to one-acre minimum lot sizes, the urban sense of a small town, as opposed to suburban sprawl, is created through small-lot zoning, the uniformity of lot sizes within subdivisions, the intersecting road network (an avoidance of permanent dead ends), and the mix of different eras of architecture, similar to the mix of generations within a family. In addition to the effect created by controlled land development, Bethel has unique building design elements found in its older homes that create a common vocabulary distinguishing the town. These include wrap-around front and side porches, with a door at the end of the side porch, and unusual facade and roof shingle designs.

In Table 1, a comparison is made in land use acreages from 1950 to 1996. The categories are somewhat different among the four counts as the table compiles land use data from three sources in order to show historic change. However, the overall pattern in land use change is apparent: Bethel's residential land use has increased as farms and vacant land have been developed.

Bethel's evolution away from its historic nature as a rural town with densely settled pockets is apparent in the rate of growth in residential land use. The conversion of agricultural land has happened at a faster pace than any other land use, an indication of suburbanization. Census data on housing units show that between 1960 and 1990, over 3,707 housing units were built, an increase of nearly 138 percent. While this rate was faster than the region overall (124%), Bethel's rate of housing development lies right in the middle of the various rates for the Housatonic Valley towns, which range from Bridgewater's 87% over the three decades to Brookfield's enormous 295 percent. In 1950, nearly all of Bethel (92.2%) was either uncommitted or farmed, with the largest non-farming use being residential at a tiny 4.4 percent. Thirty years later this balance had just about tipped: vacant and farmed land had been consumed down to 57% of the town area and housing use had grown seven times to nearly 30%. Public parks, open space, businesses, industry, and institutional uses had all expanded at least several fold to support the burgeoning population.

Figure 5: Current Land Uses fold out

Figure 6a: Examples of Bethel Land Uses

Figure 6b: Examples of Bethel Land Uses

2.2 Development Potential

Bethel's development potential is shown in Table 2. The table is based on vacant land shown on the current land use map (Figure 5). Vacant land was identified by zone and then land was deducted that had significant environmental constraints (steep slopes of 20% and greater, floodplains, and wetlands). The remaining vacant land with no environmental constraints totals 2,235 acres. This is shown on Figure 7. Environmental Constraints are shown on Figure 8. To arrive at the maximum build-out, as-of-right, 15% of the acreage was deducted for roads, utilities, and design inefficiency from each zone's vacant developable acreage. The remaining acreage was then used as a basis for calculating the maximum number of houses (d.u. = dwelling unit) and of non-residential square footage (s.f.), based on the zoning ordinance. (See Figure 9: Zoning Map.) The RM-O Zone is almost built-out, with only 3/4 of an acre left. The C zone is built-out. Bethel's evolution away from its historic nature as a rural town with densely settled pockets is apparent in the rate of growth in residential land use. The conversion of agricultural land has happened at a faster pace than any other land use, an indication of suburbanization. Census data on housing units show that between 1960 and 1990, over 3,707 housing units were built, an increase of nearly 138 percent. While this rate was faster than the region overall (124%), Bethel's rate of housing development lies right in the middle of the various rates for the Housatonic Valley towns, which range from Bridgewater's 87% over the three decades to Brookfield's enormous 295 percent. In 1950, nearly all of Bethel (92.2%) was either uncommitted or farmed, with the largest non-farming use being residential at a tiny 4.4 percent. Thirty years later this balance had just about tipped: vacant and farmed land had been consumed down to 57% of the town area and housing use had grown seven times to nearly 30%. Public parks, open space, businesses, industry, and institutional uses had all expanded at least several fold to support the burgeoning population.

The totals are:

• 1,440 d.u. as-of-right
• 3,526,000 commercial and industrial s.f. as-of-right

It should be noted that these totals are hypothetical. They serve best as signposts that can guide planning and land use decisions by town government, not as definitive predictions. Bethel's development potential and population size as represented by these hypothetical totals can change if any one of three factors changes: 1) zoning, 2) household size, and 3) land suitability for development.

If Bethel increases or decreases the allowed density in a zone, the number of houses, apartments and/or commercial square footage would necessarily change. If household size continues to decrease, the population count suggested by the number of dwelling units would be affected: while the number of homes and apartments will continue to grow, the population would increase at a lower rate.

Land suitability for development changes as a result of pressure to develop. Steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplains generally are immutable. However, a town's willingness to see such land used for development can change, opening up more acreage and thus pushing the development potential higher. Conversely, additional constraints -- such as aquifer protection regulation -- can be imposed, limiting development. In sum, the development potential totals given here are theoretical, based on as of-the-moment conditions in Bethel and are subject to change.

Figure 7: Development Potential

Figure 8: Environmental Constraints

Figure 9: Zoning

2.3 Using Land Development to Achieve Better Community Design

Throughout the planning process, Bethel citizens and officials expressed concern about how to accommodate business and residential growth while preserving the small-town-in-a-natural-setting that draws people to Bethel. The community's land use objectives are three-fold:

• Preserve the New England small town look of Bethel.
• Preserve the existing landscape, meshing new development with existing development using landscaping techniques.
• Set aside some of the remaining undeveloped land for open space use, including a greenbelt connecting parks and open space.

This aspect of the vision of Bethel's future can be accomplished as a result of myriad but complementary private and public decisions over the next ten years. As builders, business owners, and families decide how their land will be used, what new buildings and additions will look like, how the road network is laid out, and how the natural landscape is shaped, the town will mature. Bethel at maturity can be defined by a thriving, yet historic downtown surrounded largely by houses built in styles that respect local architectural history and situated in neighborhoods whose compact design recalls the rural towns of New England. Green areas will be the remaining farms and nurseries, parks and recreation fields, protected wetlands, hillsides, and streams, and preserved open space for either wildlife habitat or human enjoyment. Where possible, easements on private land will provide the links in a greenbelt that wanders through Bethel, touching various parks and open spaces.

The following are recommendations which will help to create this desired future. There are four major recommendation categories: 1) zoning, 2) subdivision and site plan regulations, 3) control over hilltop development, and 4) conservation design and open space.

(1) Zoning

For the most part, Bethel's zoning appears to be serving the town well. Zones are located in the right places and there is no need for creating wholly new zones or rezoning large sections. There are five focused recommendations for zoning changes which would further high quality community design.

End CI zoning along Greenwood Avenue: Downtown Bethel is largely zoned C and RM-O. However, there is a small piece from Griswold Street to Beach Street which is zoned CI. The established and preferred land use pattern in the central business district is a mix of professional offices, small shopping centers, stand-alone stores and services, and residences. The presence of industrial uses is inappropriate and is not the highest and best use for the town's commercial heart. Route 6 is zoned CI, and should remain the only CI district given the highway's parcel sizes, traffic volume, and established land use patterns. The Greenwood Avenue CI zone should be rezoned to C, with all existing uses grandfathered as long as the current use persists in the current building. This recommendation was also made in the 1984 Plan of Development.

Allow Upper Story Residential Use By-Right in C Zones: At present, apartments are allowed in commercial structures in C zones by special permit. If the same special permit conditions were kept [Section 118-31.B(1)] but residential use allowed by-right (except over public garages, restaurants, fast food establishments and automotive uses, where the special permit would remain), the C zone in downtown would, over time, acquire a 24-hour character. This would help to strengthen local retail and services and put "eyes on the street" during off-hours. As these would most likely be rental units, this change would begin to bring more apartments into the local rental market, now experiencing very low vacancy rates. As there is no other C zone in Bethel, this change would affect only the downtown, an appropriate place for mixed use buildings and rental units.

Preserve Established Setback or Build-to Lines in Downtown: The urban design of Greenwood Avenue would be enhanced if new buildings or additions to buildings had to follow an established set-back or build-to line. For example, new structures and additions in the downtown core would have to build up to the sidewalk. Along the western section of Greenwood Avenue where historic homes have been converted into commercial and professional use, anything new or projecting out from the front of a structure could not exceed the established build-to line.

Rezone a Portion of Durant Avenue: The town should consider rezoning a small portion of Durant Avenue. Durant Avenue on its west side is zoned for industrial uses; the east side is zoned RR-10. Beginning at School Street (where Durant Avenue begins) and moving north, there is a mix of uses: a large vacant parcel directly across from School Street, Eaton Corp., a beverage distributor, the new train station and parking lot, Bishop Curtis senior citizen housing, multi-family housing, a vacant lot, and Bethel Storage at the intersection with Wooster Street. The RR-10 side of Durant Avenue is occupied with multi-family uses, while the I side is a mix of industrial, transportation, and commercial uses, with two large vacant parcels. In order to avoid making existing businesses non-conforming , the rezoning should at present be restricted to the vacant parcel opposite School Street, although the larger goal is to have the mixed commercial/residential character of the downtown move up towards the train station. This parcel at School Street can readily be incorporated into the downtown fabric. South of it is the post office and several stores, and across the street is the Teen Center (old town hall), the Municipal Center, and one of Eaton Corp.'s administrative buildings. The streetscape program will traverse the lot's frontage, linking Greenwood Avenue with the train station. The parcel can, and should be, reoriented towards the mixed commercial/residential/public nature of the downtown and away from the industrial character further north. The new zoning could be either RM-O or C. The parcel directly abuts both these zones, so either could be extended with strong rationale. While there are pros and cons for each zoning designation, RM-O is preferred. The advantage of this is that it allows downtown-type commercial and professional uses, and residential uses as-of-right. Apartments in the downtown would ease the rental market shortage, add the security of 24-hour occupancy, bring night life and more shoppers, and yield more commuters who could walk to the station.

Wooster Street: There was some concern expressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission about the I zoned section of Wooster Street. The area has a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses with a substantial amount of vacant and buildable land. The perceived problems with Wooster Street appear to stem from 1) the unsightly condition of some of the properties, which may be an enforcement issue, 2) the presence of truck traffic through residential neighborhoods given that this zone is relatively isolated and not directly accessible from a major road, and 3) the jarring presence of the few residences in an area where one expects to see solely industrial buildings and activities. Presumably this area was designated for industrial use because of rail freight service. Wooster Street was zoned for industrial use on both sides of the street so there would be no conflicting uses. Given the decline in freight service and the lack of good truck access, the I zone would now be an artifact but for the presence of a number of active industrial uses. The residential uses are non-conforming and their lot size is likely too small for them to be converted to industrial use unless they are assembled with larger, adjoining properties. One might expect that over time these residences will be absorbed into industrial use, yielding a more uniform land use pattern. The plan recommends that the developed part of this I zone remain intact as it serves a current market function. However, the Future Land Use Plan shows the vacant land in this general area rezoned to R-80 or large-lot residential use. This removes the hint that such an area could be used intensively and reduces the I zone to its actual size. This area has steep slopes and is over or near the aquifer recharge area and so must have uses meeting high performance standards. The houses in the abutting RR-10 zone on Wooster Street should, at all times, be well-buffered with landscaping and generous setbacks from neighboring industrial activities.

(2) Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations

Site Plan Approval

The text regarding site plan approval for non-residential applications (Section 118-34) is comprised of a list of items to be submitted for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The text does not describe the process and does not describe the factors which the Planning and Zoning Commission will take into consideration to make its decision. A clearer and more comprehensive text is desirable, so that all parties to land use decisions - property owner, developer, Planning and Zoning Commission and other municipal and state agencies, and the public- know the route that will be taken to the ultimate decision and where along that journey the application stands. Most of the items needed by a planning board or agency are present in the Bethel code. What is primarily needed is a reorganization of these items into a logical process where information builds upon itself and arrives at the Planning and Zoning Commission when needed, and language which explains how the approval decision will be made.

A revised site plan code would include the following items:

1. Uses and actions subject to site plan approval.
2. General criteria and standards of review: these might include consistency with an adopted plan of development, ecological considerations, landscape, relation of proposed structures to the environment, scenic, historic, archaeological, and landmark sites, surface water drainage, driveway connections to public streets, traffic effects (using a threshold to trigger a formal traffic impact study), pedestrian safety, on-site parking and circulation, utility services, disposal of wastes, noise, signs, and other special features such as outside storage areas, truck loading areas, accessory buildings, and screen plantings. For each of these topics, the town's objective would be spelled out.
3. Application procedure: this can remain largely as is, with the incorporation of a presubmission stage and a clear division of the process into three stages - sketch plan, preliminary plan, and final plan - with the requirements for each spelled out. The applicant would require approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission before moving on to the next stage.
4. Fees.
5. Notice to adjacent property owners and public hearing notice.
6. Planning and Zoning Commission action.
7. Waiver of requirements.
8. Performance bond.
9. Expiration of site plan approval.

The basic standard requirements for a three-phase application process are:

Submission:

1. Sketch Plan (pre-application conference): The applicant submits legal data and a general project site description using both text and maps. Using Bethel's existing site plan check list (also Section 118-34.B,) this would cover items 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 18 and 19. These items provide information on existing site conditions, ownership, and adjacent properties and their owners. The applicant meets with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the proposed site development plan. The applicant is apprised of the procedure, and the Planning and Zoning Commission can begin making its recommendations at a stage early enough in the process that the applicant should readily be able to make changes in the plan. Nothing said at this stage is binding (by either the applicant or Planning and Zoning Commission). Applicant can ask that the sketch and preliminary plan be waived and that the application go directly to final plan review.
2. Preliminary Plan: In this next phase, the applicant provides all necessary information about site development. Using Bethel's existing code, these are items 5 through 11, 14 through 17, and 20 (the latter found on the checklist and not in the code). This list should be beefed up with the plan (drawing) requirements (1=400 or 1=200 scale, north arrow, name and address of record owner and project engineer, land planner or surveyor preparing the site development plan) and the contents of the set of preliminary plans (site plans, elevations and sections of proposed structures and roads, proposed locations and use of all buildings and structures, location of drives and roads, pedestrian walkways, and fire lanes).
3. Final Plan: The applicant completes this last phase through completing any unfinished business from the sketch and preliminary plan phases, and submits a set of final grading and landscaping plans, done at 1=40 scale.

Subdivision Approval

The language in 118-29 (Site Plan Requirements) should clearly refer the reader to the separate Subdivision of Land, Chapter 95 of the Bethel Code. At present, it simply states that a subdivision map needs to be on file in the Town Clerk's office. Chapter 95 itself is as complete an explanation of the process as Section 118-34 is not for the site plan process. Recommendations here focus on the conservation subdivision provision and are discussed in that section.

(3) Control Over Hilltop Development

Parts of Bethel, especially southwest and northwest of Plumtrees Road, are hilly, with slopes over 20% in grade. Some hilltops, or ridgelines, have detached single family houses on them, while others have been developed with condominiums whose size and height are particularly apparent during the leafless winter months. As the Danbury job market continues to strengthen, more and more families discover that Bethel is a convenient and attractive place to purchase a home. There has likewise been the discovery of the beautiful views from atop Bethel's hills and the pressure to build there. For Bethel residents at large there are two reasons to restrict ridgeline development. The first is visual, as the presence of such structures is visible for miles and so harms the natural beauty of the local landscape. The second is environmental, as the potential for serious disturbance can be great when steep hills are intensively developed: slope erosion, contamination of water resources by surface runoff, and the disruption of wildlife habitats and corridors can result.

In overlaying the land use map and the steep slope map, it appears that a number of hilly properties in both residential and non-residential zones are vacant (There are two major hilly areas located on preserved land and therefore not subject to development). The most significant of these properties is the rocky ridge that rises behind (west of) the Clarke Industrial Park between Trowbridge Drive and the Danbury line. Normally, such steeply sloped land would not be considered developable. But builders in Bethel have shown themselves to be resourceful, so it would appear that the town should take some measures to guide or restrict development in these areas. Bethel is permitted under state statute to regulate development based on a list of factors, one of these is, obviously, district zoning, but another is erosion and sediment control, specifically relevant to controlling ridgeline development.

The spectrum of options runs from setting up a local land trust to buy these properties for preservation in perpetuity to doing nothing. We have chosen from this spectrum a land use management approach that relies on zoning; this is an action that can be taken directly by town government. Bethel can use one of two zoning techniques, described below. However, the first step is undertaken in this Plan of Development process: the Future Land Use Plan shows all ridges as preserved land. This will enable the Planning and Zoning Commission to show potential developers what the expectation is for the site.

Ridge Overlay District: With this technique, the existing zoning is not changed. The steep slopes are mapped and an overlay district is delineated on top of the base zoning to encompass ridgetop, ridgeline, and slopes. (This same technique can be used for floodplains, wetlands, streams, aquifers, and other important natural resources where the resource itself or life and property need to be protected, and for community resources such as scenic views and historic properties.) An overlay district can be readily adopted by appending it to the existing zoning ordinance, so no substantial modification of existing local laws is necessary. According to a HVCEO study, seven of the region's ten municipalities use floating or overlay zones. These either go into effect upon special application or supplement base zoning in fixed locations. For example, in Brookfield, Newtown, and Ridgefield, there are aquifer overlay zones to control new development over these sensitive resources.

The text of the ridge overlay district would discuss the siting of structures, tree cutting, landscape buffers, lighting, view corridors, open space, road and lot requirements. The uses allowed under the base zoning would remain in effect. For example, the ridge overlay district text would specify that houses and other structures are not allowed on the ridgetop but have to be sited lower on the hillside and close to existing roads. Conservation of subdivided lots would be encouraged. The Planning and Zoning Commission should consider offering a density bonus to encourage clustering. The text would also specify the use of natural (gray or earth tone) colors and /or natural materials in roofing and siding to minimize the visual impact. Utilities would have to be placed underground. Conservation easements, access to hiking trails, and recreation open space could be required. Supplemental regulations would control telecommunication towers, billboards and other signs.

Ridge Zoning: Areas of steep slopes would be mapped and a new zoning district would be created around them using the ridgeline, slopes, and soil types to delineate the boundaries of the district. New zoning text would specify appropriate by-right and special exception uses and subdivision and site plan standards.

The preference is for overlay districts as opposed to changing the actual zoning. This is an easier tool to use, and one that can be used to protect other resources in Bethel as town government identifies these critical areas and becomes accustomed to administering overlay districts.

(4) Conservation Subdivision Design and Open Space

The purposes of conservation or conservation subdivisions are manifold. For Bethel's concern about community design, conservation subdivisions accommodate development while also creating a pool of preserved open space. This open space in turn preserves the fast-disappearing rural nature of the town in its earlier years of farming and hat-making. The compact character of these subdivisions, especially when designed well within a traditional New England framework, also recalls an earlier day of dense settlements surrounded by farmed and fallow land.

Encourage Conservation Development through Density Bonus: Given that Bethel cannot mandate that a land developer use a conservation subdivision design, the town can create an incentive for developers to make more use of this technique in order for the town to get what it wants. The typical incentive is to allow increased density over what the base zoning would allow a standard subdivision. Once the level of incentive is decided upon, modifying the existing conservation subdivision language (Section 95-17 of the subdivision code) could be readily accomplished. In order to qualify for the bonus, a developer would have to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision plan meets community objectives. (The plan's presumption here is that Bethel wants something more than just another parcel of open space in return for allowing such a design.) These objectives are:

• Setting aside 25% of the overall parcel for open space (active or passive).
• Linking up open space parcels or recreation areas with one another, specifically to create a greenbelt within the town.
• Meeting other community objectives as these are defined over time. For example, the community may wish to award a density bonus to a builder who preserves a historic landscape or property such as a farm house.

Bethel should provide a 10% increase in density to attract conservation subdivisions which serve larger community purposes. This would mean that for every ten lots that could be created using a conventional subdivision plat, one extra lot would be allowed. It is low enough to be a nearly invisible increase in density, but also sufficiently large to attract developers of sizable parcels. Conservation subdivisions would be allowed on R-80 parcels not served by sewer and in all other R zones if the developer can make a connection to existing sewer service.

Amend the Conservation Subdivision Text: In the view of a HVCEO study, Bethel's conservation subdivision regulations have resulted in successful projects where the units have obtained equal or higher purchase prices compared to neighboring conventional (cookie-cutter) projects. There are however some weaknesses in the code.

• Creating Useful Open Space: At present, the open space created need be no more than the land left over after the housing sites and roads are platted. There is no minimum required percent of the land to be deeded as open space. The developer is forfeiting only that land on which he/she could not develop anyway. While these wetlands, steep slopes, and perimeter lands are probably helpful to wildlife, they can be useless for human recreation and active enjoyment. In particular, when perimeter lands are deeded as open space, linkages to other open space become difficult and there is no central, coherent tract of open land available to the community. In effect, the open space becomes an extension of the rear yards of the individual homeowners. In order to encourage the creation of useful open space and linkages, developers should, at minimum, be required to deed a specified percentage of otherwise-buildable land as open space (for example, 15%). This should be as carefully sited as the home sites and roads and not rely on using left-over land. In addition, the developer could be provided a density bonus for creating a greenbelt linkage.
• Determining the Allowed Lot Count: The second recommendation regarding the conservation subdivision text involves the determination of the allowed number of lots. The mathematical calculations required in the conservation subdivision text are cumbersome. This section should be simplified. In Section 95-17.D(1) on density, the maximum number of units is determined by subtracting a percentage of Classes 1 through 3 acreage from the total and then multiplying this remaining acreage count against the minimum lot size of the zone. Classes 1 through 3 are detailed in the 1984 Plan of Development Land Suitability Map. As this current plan is not updating the land suitability map, applicants are being directed to rely on information that may no longer be accurate. Other towns in the region have simpler methods that directly address the issue of open space and comparable density between conventional and conservation plats. Bethel might consider requiring a developer to prepare a conventional subdivision plat after deducting all wetlands, watercourses, surface waters, steep slopes, and public utility easements. Then, the specified percentage of land should be set aside for open space, as the code would stipulate that (for example) 15% of the buildable land be deeded for open space. A conventional subdivision would then be platted on the remaining land, yielding the allowed number of units. If the developer wants the density bonus, this number would be the basis for the 10 percent increase.