Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines housing plan for Montcon golf parcel, warns current cluster rules would require many variances
Summary
A Pathways Consulting planner told the Enfield Planning Board a conceptual plan for the Montcon/Montcal golf parcel could meet 'as-of-right' density but that the town's cluster-subdivision language forces a grid-like layout and would likely require variances or a new PRD/PUD ordinance to achieve a land‑sparing cluster design.
Jeff Goodrich of Pathways Consulting presented a conceptual redevelopment plan for the Montcon (Montcal) golf course parcel at the Planning Board's July 8 work session, saying the site totals roughly 370 acres and that existing zoning across the parcel (R5, CI, Conservation) produces an "as-of-right" density estimate of about 104–110 dwelling units. Goodrich said the town's written cluster-subdivision rules (cited in the presentation as section 5405 of the zoning ordinance) reduce lot dimensions by 55% but nevertheless preserve the conventional grid pattern and setbacks, which makes truly compact cluster development difficult.
"The prescriptive conventional subdivision approach is pretty land consumptive," Goodrich said, arguing that the ordinance as written produces many small, standard lots rather than a true planned-residential development. He presented examples of recently built cluster projects to show how a PRD or PUD approach can preserve open space external to building areas and place dwelling units closer together with fewer internal setbacks.
Board members and attendees pressed Goodrich on how the golf course and clubhouse are treated under the conservation district rules, whether wetlands and buffers would limit developable acreage, and how infrastructure costs would be phased and paid. Goodrich said much of the proposed higher-density housing falls in the Commercial‑Industrial (CI) zone on the plan, and that the owner likely would need to retain control of a large parcel during initial phases to finance roads and utilities, whether through condominium filings or a homeowners association.
Several members noted that the town currently has no PRD/PUD provisions and that adopting such language would require a warrant article and voter approval. Goodrich and staff urged dialogue with the Conservation Commission and Select Board to align any ordinance drafting with the master plan's open-space and water-quality goals.
A local commenter identified as Jay added that siting higher density close to existing maintenance roads and utilities could reduce per-unit infrastructure costs compared with scattering single-family lots across the property. Goodrich said wetland buffers may be the primary variance drivers but that the most likely obstacles are the ordinance's requirement for individual lots and a restriction of one principal structure per lot in certain districts.
The presentation closed with Goodrich asking the board to consider whether the current zoning accomplishes the master‑plan goals; the board agreed to continue discussion and to explore outreach options and possible warrant-article language.
