A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
I ndex Prepared for Background 1 Community Analysis 2 Recreation and Trails 3 Geology and Soils 4 Hydrology 5 Ecology 6 Zoning 7 Summary Analysis 8 Water Supply and Treatment 9 Preliminary Design Alternatives 10 Design Alternative: Shady Grove 11 Shady Grove Details 1 12
Shady Grove Details 2 13 Design Alternative: Photosynthesis 14 Photosynthesis Details 1 15 Photosynthesis Details 2 16 Construction Details 17 Ownership and Phasing 18 Funding Options 19 Cost Estimates 20 Plant Palette 21 Plant Palette: Bioswales 22 Plant Palette: Trees and Shade 23 Sources and Citations 24
The Chesterfield Committee on Senior Housings Chesterfield, Massachusetts Designers: Grant Kokernak & Oliver Osnoss Spring 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Sm
Main R
oad
Town Center The current project site is outlined in black. The larger area outlined in gray is the full property of the willing seller which was studied by the Conway School in 2013. Suitable percolation was found on the 43-acre parcel selected by the Senior Housing Committee.
The Project Site
The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee (SHC) has worked for the past two decades to find a place for a senior housing facility. The SHC has faced significant challenges in finding a place in town due to a number of constraints on development. According to members of the SHC, the presence of rock ledge through much of the downtown precludes senior housing development here. After the examination of many sites, a property adjacent to the town center became available. The property, between the New Hingham Regional Elementary School and the town center, is currently owned by someone who is amenable to selling a piece of his land to the town for the purposes of building a senior housing community.
The land was historically used for ox and cow pasture and has characteristic low stone walls. The forest on the site has since recovered with evenly mixed stands of deciduous trees interspersed with patches of pine, hemlock, and delineated swamps at the western boundary of the property. The site has road access to Smith Road, which is currently unpaved, but the town may widen and resurface it. The Conway School’s Involvement In 2013, the SHC contacted the Conway School to do a feasibility study on the full property to determine if siting senior housing would be possible. The 2013 Conway team made a recommendation that the northern portion of the property, with frontage along Smith Road, would be suitable for building senior housing. The SHC subsequently engaged an engineer to conduct percolation tests for a septic system, and tests indicated that there is suitable percolation in the areas indicated on the map. Armed with that information, the SHC is preparing for the surveying and purchasing of a portion of the land, outlined in black in the map above. The Senior Housing Committee is seeking further exploration of development options for senior housing by the Conway School.
Project Goals 1. Evaluate potential housing locations • Assess the site to determine the most appropriate location, if site conditions permit, for 10 modular homes, (each a single-story duplex), one stand-alone dwelling unit, and one common building. 2. Design a housing complex landscape • Determine orientation of buildings. • Create landscape designs. 3. Create preliminary development plan • Outline elements necessary to the development. 4. Assess trail feasibility • Investigate connecting the housing complex with the school and town center. 5. Research funding options
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Road
d
oa
R ith
Suitable Percolation
Site History
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Roads
Prepared By:
Buildings
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Stone walls
B ackground
New Hingham Elementary school
Wetlands
North
Chesterfield is a rural hilltown in western Massachusetts. The town’s character is largely set by the presence of agricultural fields and a few Federal Period buildings along Main Road. The church, library, and community center mark the center of town at the intersection of Main and North Roads. Residents of Chesterfield have expressed their fondness for the rural and farming culture of the town. The increasing age of the population has led to the creation of the Senior Housing Committee (SHC). The SHC’s aim is to assist the senior population of the town to age in place.
2013 feasibility study area
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
The Town of Chesterfield
Project area prepared for purchase
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Background
1/24
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Community’s Desired features for Senior Housing
Prepared By:
Over 65 Age Projections for Chesterfield
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
The Conway team spoke at two meetings, hosted by the senior community of Chesterfield. In the first meeting, town members filled out questionnaires and ranked their desires and requests for the project. In the second, they responded to the proposed design ideas for their housing community. Many people in the town identify strongly with their town’s heritage of farming and pasturing livestock and a request was made by the SHC and members of the senior community that plans for the senior congregate housing have some provision for either private or community gardens. Based on community feedback and survey results, some seniors in town want to actively engage with the rest of the community while others do not. Some seniors wish to pass on their knowledge and their town’s culture to the elementary school students. Having the option to engage with the students should be maintained in the planning of the development. When asked what features would be desired in a senior housing complex, Chesterfield seniors rated having ample natural light, a sunny yard, outdoor community space or community garden, alternative energy and energy efficiency, and handicapped accessibility as the most critical physical features. Seniors were less concerned that the site be close to the town center or the elementary school.
C ommunity A nalysis
According to the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Chesterfield has fairly affordable housing compared to neighboring towns. However, many seniors in Chesterfield remain in the work force at higher rates than in surrounding towns. For instance, 27.9% of Chesterfield’s seniors remain working over the age of 62, compared to 19.6% in Worthington, and 16.0% in Cummington. The median household income for Chesterfield is $60,000, lower than many towns in the county (PVPC). The poverty rate in Chesterfield as measured by federal standards was low in 2009, with 3.6% of people under 65, and 2.5% of people over 65 below the poverty line. However, as individuals retire from the work force, they may find themselves at greater risk of poverty. Also, as people age they may lose friends and family integral to their wellbeing and, as a result, they may require more outside assistance. Almost a quarter of Chesterfield’s citizens live alone and the overwhelming majority of Chesterfield residents over 65 are dependent on their own car for transportation (Conway Survey and PVPC).
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Community Desires and Requests
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Demographics
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Community Analysis
2/24
a il
town commons
town offices
Town center
The Project Site and Open Space
Trails
Easements and Rights-of-Way
Much of Chesterfield is permanently protected open space. There are gaps in the distribution of protected open space near the town center and the project site rests roughly in the middle of this area. Subdivision development, such as senior housing, is required by Chesterfield zoning regulations to contribute 50% of the parcel to protected open-space and recreation in the town.
The SHC and members of the senior community have requested that the potential for a trail to connect the housing development to the lower school and the town center be explored. While the trail, potentially a mile long, may not be accessible for the walking comfort of all seniors, some would find this a comfortable distance. Furthermore, a trail would allow people from town to reach the senior community without driving.
There is no restriction on putting public trails on land that will be part of the senior development. Trail easements could be written into the deed as the development is created. Obtaining rights-of-way or trail easements across the adjacent land would make the construction of a trail that connected the community to the town more feasible. The trail will have to cross multiple properties to get to town-owned land at the town center. A review of the deeds of the five abutting properties revealed no public trail easements. Thus putting the trail through those properties would require the permission of the owners and the creation of an easement. Alternatively, the trail could be put through the town common, which is town-owned land and then connect to the town offices’ lot, avoiding the need for additional permitting. One obstacle for this construction would be the wetland buffer (which is avoided in this scenario). However, if the trail were to be built through the buffer, a notice of intent would need to be filed with the DEP, possibly leading to additional permitting or special trail construction techniques.
Implications for Development The project area is not currently protected, but if half of that land were contributed to regional open space it would add 21.5 acres of conserved lands to the town. This would help maintain the rural feel and create recreational activities for the senior community, and for the town as a whole.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
ial
Tr
Prepared By:
Po t e n t
Proposed Senior Housing Site
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Elementary School
R ecreation A nd T rails
While there are no trails defined as accessible by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the walkability of trails is influenced by materials and slopes. The slopes over the length of the possible trail are between 0 and 5%, which is easy walking for most individuals. However, the slopes of the trail would actually be even lower than that because the trail runs with the contour lines. The overall change in elevation could be as little as 20 feet over the entire trail (0.9 miles). If the surface material were crushed granite or trap rock gravel, many people would find it accessible.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Slopes and Trails
Chesterfield has a rich variety of outdoor recreation and conservation lands. Trails are one way that people can enjoy these areas, learn to appreciate them, and advocate for their maintenance and conservation. Trails may create a feeling of closeness and community if they are safe and accessible to all.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
New Hingham Elementary School
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Recreation and Trails
3/24
Soils
Ground water on site is very high, with the seasonally high water table only 12-24” below the surface across the site.
The soils on the site are either moderately well-drained fine sandy loam or very poorly drained muck-like silt soils according to the web soil survey. The moderately well-drained soils identified as the lighter strip in the center are more appropriate for siting development than the darker, very poorly-drained soils.
Compacted Silt Hard Pan A layer of compacted silt creates a hard pan, impervious to water. This contributes to the high water table across the whole site. This hardpan layer could vary from inches thick to many feet, compacted over thousands of years under the weight of the two-mile-deep Laurentide ice sheet.
Implications for Development The largest environmental constraint to development on site is the high water table due to the silt hard-pan layer. Even in areas where soil drains moderately well, the high water table will restrict water from moving vertically into the ground. Coarser-grained soils such as the sandy loam on site are preferable for siting a foundation because they will not settle as much as finer-grained soils and do not hold as much water. This makes the soil easier to excavate because it is both lighter and resists compaction in wet or dry conditions. Organic soils such as peat and muck are unsuitable for foundations because they are susceptible to compaction and settling. The poorly-drained mucklike silt soils on site are not suitable for building and would make poor drainage issues worse if a house were to be sited on these silt soils. All buildings on site will need to be able to withstand a seasonally high water table of 12-24”. This limits building foundations to slab on grade or an elevated construction such as pier and beam or pile foundations.
Glacial Till The glacial till above the bedrock consists of rock debris deposited by the scouring of the Laurentide ice sheet.
Bedrock The bedrock on site is a fine-grained metamorphic rock. Depending upon the depth and rock type, the bedrock may influence the soil above as minerals are worn away through environmental processes over millions of years. The depth and type of bedrock does not directly impact development but may affect how wells are dug on the site.
Section of soil and geology profile (not to scale). Underground depth of each layer is unknown and likely to change across the site.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Ground Water
Prepared By:
Slightly acidic, ranging from well-drained fine sandy loam to poorly drained muck-like silt.
G eology and S oils
Soil
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Spaghnum peat moss growing out of the muck-like silt soils in the central-western portion of the site.
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Quartz boulders, forming part of the glacial till, are seen heaving above the surface of the soil.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
The geology and soils of the site significantly impact the hydrology of the land, dictating how water drains. Based on observations of the site and surrounding area, as well as mapped geology and soil layers, the geology and soil profile of the site contains metamorphic bedrock, glacial till, and a silt hard-pan layer below a slightly acidic soil which shows characteristics of both moderately well-drained and very poorly drained soils. The silt hard pan creates a very high water table, and the poorly drained soils in some areas further impact the site’s suitability for development.
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Geology and Soils
4/24
Delineated Wetland
low point
Observed swamp
Highest Ridge line
Ct River
Delineated Wetland low point 0 Mi 0 Mi
10 Mi
.25 Mi
.5 Mi
20 Mi Observed vegetated wetlands with standing trees were present in the center of the site in spring.
Seasonal Water Table Based on surface water and soil observations as well as regional patterns, the water table is likely highest in early spring, due largely to post-winter snow melt and spring rains. While a formal delineation is required to be sure that these areas qualify as wetlands, these areas likely have a 100’ regulatory buffer around them. Implications for Development
N W 100’ Buffer
Observed Swamp
100’ Buffer
Surface water takes the path of least resistance, following gravity, from high areas to low as indicated by the direction of arrows on the map. Because of a layer of packed silt below the soil which prevents water from moving too deep vertically, ground water will flow through the soils in the same direction as surface water. Water is also affected by three distinct drainage sub-basins which the project site overlays. These sub-basins are defined at their edges by ridge lines, shown as dashed lines.
100’ Buffer
The project site is within the Westfield River watershed. The position of the site near the headwaters means that the site is at low risk of flooding from river inundation. Also, the project site is elevated about 20 feet from the low points of the wetlands (see section A-A’). The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s Climate Action and Clean Energy Plan does not list this area as being at risk of flooding. All of the water from the Westfield River watershed eventually empties into the Connecticut River. This means that activities on the project site will have an impact, however small, on the water quality of southern Massachusetts, Connecticut, and even the Atlantic Ocean. Designs for senior housing in Chesterfield should minimize impacts on water quality and thereby protect the natural resources of the town and beyond.
Wooded Swamp
Water Flow on Site
100’ Buffer
Site Hydrology in Context
Section A-A’: Compacted silt layer keeps the ground water very high, which in turn allows wetlands to form on the site in small local depressions in the land.
E
An observed wetland in the northern portion of the property depends on water recharge from surface and ground water. Any impact or changes to the surface or ground water flow in the critical area above this wetland may negatively impact its health. All wetlands in Massachusetts have a 100’ buffer from their edges, within which development is regulated under CMR 310.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Wetlands
Project Site
Prepared By:
Project Area
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Water Flow
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Ridge Lines
H ydrology
Drainage
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Hydrology
5/24
Wildlife The site appears to be rich with wildlife including signs of pileated woodpecker and moose, and reports of bear by the neighbor. The wetlands likely attract many animals as they provide habitat, food and water for numerous species. The open understory may attract larger animals like bear and moose and may be a result of browsing by deer, whose tracks were clearly observed by the Conway team in the wet ground. The Conway team has not identified any invasive species on the property. However, many invasive species are particularly adept at exploiting disturbed sites, and can become problematic in such areas. If development occurs without appropriate management, it will likely create conditions where non-native invasives will become established. Non-natives pose a threat by out-competing native species. Native species generally provide greater ecological value to other native plants and animals which they are adapted to. Some specialist species such as the monarch butterfly depend on a particular native plant. Many of these specialist species are in decline due to habitat loss from invasive species and human impacts. The landscape plan should include species native to the area and site, whenever possible. Promoting and supporting the natural ecology of the site, including water quality, will help keep rare wildlife on the site and provide opportunities for seeing wildlife for residents, guests, and others walking along the intended nature trails.
A black, white, and yellow birch grow out of the remains of a hemlock stump.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
A red eft, the terrestrial juvenile stage of the Eastern newt, wanders the site. After two or three years, it will transform into a yellow and green adult newt and return back to the water. The Eastern newt requires forests adjacent to wetlands in order to carry out its life-cycle.
Prepared By:
Pileated woodpecker foraging holes in a standing, decaying white pine.
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
The forest types on the site are hemlock, northern hardwoods, and a small area of white pine. With the exception of light timber harvests, there are no signs of recent land management within the area. Today the white pine, hemlock, and northern hardwood forest species are evenly distributed across the 43-acre site. The majority of trees on the site are between 90 and 120 years old, based on their size. The tree species identified on site include white pine, hemlock, black cherry, paper birch, black birch, and yellow birch.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Forest
E cology
The site is completely forested with a mixture of hardwoods and softwoods covering what was likely pasture 120 years ago. The understory is mostly open and attracts a variety of animals. This may be in part because of the wetlands on site and the proximity to nearby and off-site wetlands, vernal pools, and small streams.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Ecology
6/24
Cluster Development has a 50’ front and 20’ side and rear yard setbacks; the smallest development footprint of the three types.
A photo of Main road in Chesterfield from the turn of the century shows how close to the road houses used to be and how much transportation has changed. (Cleveland, 1966)
Intended for senior developments with some shared facilities and services.
Creative
Creative Development has 50’ side and rear setbacks with front setbacks at varying based on front driveway types. Creative Development aims to offer alternative solutions to conventional development, but the limiting requirements severely restrict the creative development which it attempts to promote.
The setbacks and bylaws attached to each of these zoning types on the project site will drastically increase the footprint of the development, creating a senior housing community resembling that of a strip residential development that is not in line with the rural character of the town. All development plans falling under these zoning types will require special permitting and must be reviewed and approved by the town planning board. Designs might better serve the town and all of its residents if they uphold rural character and open space, over strict adherence to any one zoning code. For instance, denser developments are safer and more comfortable for seniors because residents are walkable and because they are surrounded by a community of peers. Such a development may be preferable, but would require a special permit or variance.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Elderly and Handicapped Congregate Housing
Prepared By:
Cluster
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Chesterfield has adopted three different types of zoning bylaws as alternatives to standard regulations. All three require a special permit and variances to the bylaws may be granted by approval of the town planning board. Under the right circumstances these alternative zoning options may allow for development in line with the character of the town. In some cases, these zoning restrictions may hamper attempts to maintain that rural character.
Z oning
Zoning Types
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Norman Rockwell’s painting Home for Christmas, 1967 depicts the town of Stockbridge, MA in December. It depicts a closely packed downtown and the community that resides there. While many residents might enjoy the feel, this iconic, rural town would likely not be allowed under zoning codes.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Stone walls, barns, farmhouses, agricultural fields, and woodlots are pastoral symbols of New England that reflect the history of agriculture in New England. In many areas, this agricultural history has been lost to more suburban development, favoring cars, strip malls, and sprawling residential development. Before the advent of cars and residential zoning laws, traditional downtowns bustled in a very different way than today. Homes and businesses were often within walking distance of one another, and in some more populated areas, buildings were densely built in town centers. Here in western Massachusetts, historic town centers often maintain their small town appeal with houses and businesses clustered together, creating a walkable small town feel. Most New England towns, including Chesterfield, want to preserve their traditional rural character, largely through zoning and town bylaws. One- or two-acre lot requirements and large setbacks were meant to preserve a rural landscape with more space between homes. However, zoning codes may unintentionally contribute to suburban sprawl. This pushes development further into areas of towns that might otherwise be protected as agriculture, open space, or conservation lands.
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Zoning
7/24
Development is regulated by the DEP within wetlands and associated buffers. Developing these areas would require permitting and the replacement of wetland ecosystems elsewhere paid for by the developer. This would be costly both financially and ecologically, and should be avoided if possible. It is also inadvisable to build downslope of wetlands due to the possibility of increased ground water flow and because those areas may be wildlife migration corridors and serve other important ecological functions. Furthermore, much of that area on the site is in a poorly drained soil drainage class which is unsuitable for construction. Finally, it is better to avoid areas that are within the neighbors’ view to create as much privacy as possible for both the neighbors and the senior residents of the development.
Wetland and buffers
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Suitable area for development
75’
150’ front-yard setback
Suitable Area
delineated wetland observed wetland
100’ setback from leach fields
Identifying Ecological Design Opportunities In an ecological design, the human environment works with the landscape, not against it. Often human ingenuity allows us to work through problems with heavy engineering or technology, but these come at a cost both financially and ecologically. By avoiding areas which are difficult to build in due to constraints, and focusing on working with natural hydrology, ecology, and geology, the landscape can be acknowledged in the design and unnecessary engineering or problem solving can be avoided. The green area represents a space where this can be done effectively.
delineated wetland 0’
100’
200’
S ummary A nalysis
Approximately five acres stand out as suitable for development. This area, shown in green, is suitable for a senior housing development because: • It avoids wetlands and their buffers. • The soil drainage in this area is suitable for building homes and roads. • It is out of the view of the neighbors. • It respects all front and side yard setbacks under the zoning by-laws.
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Very poorly drained soils
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Unsuitable Areas
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Zoning setbacks
Prepared By:
Views of neighbors
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Summary Analysis
8/24
Legal Constraints
Pump
Septic Tank
4’ minimum depth between leach lines and ground water
Mounded Leach Field Traditional Septic
FAST Systems
Air from compresor Sewage
The Department of Environmental Protection’s Regulations The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has two designations for water supply and treatment facilities: public and private. If a water supply is public or private is determined by the number of people living in a facility for more than 60 days of the year. Wells • A public water supply is defined by 25 people spending the work day in a single-owner property for more than 60 days per year. • A private water supply is defined by 24 people or less per year in a single-owner property. Septic • A public waste treatment facility emits 2,000 gallons or more per day. • A private waste treatment system emits less than 2,000 gallons per day The DEP estimates that senior housing facilities put out 110 gallons of waste-water per bedroom per day.
Dispersal Field
Air compressor
Septic Chamber
Aerated Settling Chamber Chamber
FAST system
Composting Toilets Traditional no-flush composting toilet
Gravity microflush toilet
Vent Pipe
Implications for Development If more than 24 people inhabit the senior housing facility under one ownership, it is designated a public water supply. Under the DEP regulations, a senior housing facility may have up to 18 bedrooms under a single ownership before being designated as a public waste treatment facility. This equates to 1,980 gallons of waste-water per day (below maximum of 2,000).
Fixed Activated Sludge Treatment (FAST) systems work similarly to traditional septic systems but the biological processing of waste happens in buried, aerated containers near the home. Waste is 95% or more processed by the aerobic waste treatment than traditional anaerobic treatment. Because the water that is released is already thoroughly cleaned, it requires a much smaller dispersion field, does not require mounding, and can actually be used to water gardens, fields, or lawns. Because of the reduced size of the dispersion field, these systems are often cheaper than conventional systems. These systems are often used near wetlands or in areas with high water tables because of their cleanliness and compact size requirements.
Composter
Composting Toilet
Vacuum foamflush toilet
Composting toilets compost solid and liquid waste within a contained aerobic environment, replacing the need for a traditional septic tank. The waste is composted directly below the toilet or can be pumped to the composter with a vacuum flush system. Vacuum-flush systems allow for toilets to be installed on the same floor as the composter, as may be required with slab on grade construction. Composters require occasional turning of the material inside with the use of either a hand cranked wheel or automated electrical churners. Occasionally, the composted waste needs to be removed and the material taken to a waste treatment facility or it may be buried as compost. These systems reduce wastewater volume, which means the required leach field can be reduced by 40 percent, or entirely, if permitted. However, they do require basements if they don’t have expensive vacuum systems and are not well suited to areas where slab-on-grade construction is necessary, such as areas with high water tables.
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
After selecting the project site in 2013, the SHC engaged an engineer to examine the site for septic suitability. The engineer found a site suitable for both private and public water treatment. The engineer’s recommendation was to avoid the expensive permitting (up to $100,000) for the public supply and instead, designed a septic system to supply 11, 1-2 bedroom buildings, with a leach field of about 6,000 square feet. The leach fields would have a 100’ buffer in which wells could not be dug.
Diagram created by 2013 Conway Team
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
The Septic Plan
Mounded Leach Field
Septic systems work by filtering wastewater through fine sands which support bacterial mats. These mats break down the wastes and toxins and allow the water to be purified. For this to work effectively, water must move through the sediments to a certain depth. That depth is dependent on the speed at which the water moves through the sediments but has to be above the water table. Because of the high water table on site, a traditional septic system and leach field would need to be mounded with excavation and filling.
W ater S upply and T reatment
Chesterfield has no municipal water or sewer system so all water will need to be sourced and treated on site. When considering how to provide these necessities there are legal, physical, and technological constraints to consider.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Septic Systems
Prepared By:
Technological Considerations
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Water Supply and Treatment
9/24
Pros:
NTS
• Covered carports protect vehicles from the elements and eliminate the need to clear snow from cars in the winter. • Public bus turn-around. • Covered walkways from homes to the bus-stop protect pedestrians. Cons: • Very rectilinear design is less inviting than other alternatives. • Shaded spaces between buildings have less sunshine than other alternatives. • Less open space than other alternatives because of the covered walkways and carports
Pros:
NTS
• A central walking trail connects the town and senior community. • Homes arrayed to separate private spaces in the center and public spaces by parking lots. • Compact design with 2.8 acres of clearing. • Central community building for senior events. Cons: • Less tree clearing means not all homes will have solar access. • Road separates people from nature.
Photosynthesis This design prioritizes personal space and energy generation, with solar carports and a large central open space accessible by paths.
Pros:
NTS
• Solar panels on roofs and solar carport. • Homes are 20’ from parking on average. • Paths between homes create community feel. • Residents have views into the woodland landscape. Cons: • Takes up more space (3.7 acres) and requires more clearing and thus more site-level impact. • Awkward placement of some buildings in the center. • Lots of expensive features such as solar carports.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
This design clusters development for a community feel and preserves rural character with houses set close together and central open space.
Prepared By:
Country Pockets
P reliminary design A lternatives
This design creates safety and ease of use for the senior community, with covered walkways to garages that protect residents from the elements and a bus turnaround.
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Walk in the Park
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
These designs were shown to the SHC during formal presentations in May, 2016. Walk in the Park was eliminated from the final designs based on SHC feedback. Country Pockets and Photosynthesis were revised to incorporate SHC and other feedback for the final designs.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Preliminary Design Alternatives
10/24
observed wetland and buffer
wetland and buffer
Reinforced turf for emergency vehicle access Path to town center
Features • 3.7 acres of clearing for construction and development • 22 single-bedroom apartments • 10 duplexes • 1 stand-alone dwelling unit • 1 community building • 40 standard parking spaces across 5 parking areas • 1,200 foot long cul-de-sac (requires permitting) • 450-foot reinforced turf turnaround for emergency vehicles
wetland and buffer
100’
200’
D esign
0’
A A’
A’ A Parking
Community building
Garden Community shed garden
Shady grove
Meadow
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Neighbors
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Shaded grove
A lternative : S hady G rove
Community garden
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Community building
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Secluded pocket yards are created between buildings and shade trees. Private space is enhanced around the homes by staggering buildings. The shared parking areas are connected by three-footwide paths allowing for easy walking between homes. The homes are situated less than 100 feet from the clustered parking areas, with five-foot-wide paths connecting them to the homes, giving enough space for residents to walk side by side. Two community buildings are located where the driveway splits and wraps around the property. Reinforced turf connects the ends of this horseshoe drive, allowing emergency vehicles to loop around and access the site. All of the duplexes are oriented between true south and twenty degrees east of true south for passive solar energy gain that favors morning light. Each unit has full natural light and is connected to the rest of the community by a central wheelchairaccessible path. That path is within walking distance (seventy feet) of all the houses, connecting the enclosed garden with the community building, the town center, and the elementary school. Most houses look out towards the tree line to the south. The design places structures and roads outside of wetland buffers.
Prepared By:
Design Alternative: Shady Grove
Elementary School
NTS
11/24
A lawn or outdoor area is provided for each building with vegetation helping to define the personal outdoor space of each dwelling unit. Groups of small trees emerge from shrubs and garden beds, adding to privacy and helping block headlights from the parking lot.
Small new trees (10-20’ tall)
All of the buildings are sited to allow for adequate passive solar gain, with at least 4 hours of midday sun throughout the year. This creates sunny spaces and presents an opportunity to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roofs. Small- (10-20’ tall) and medium-sized trees (10-20’ tall) are placed to provide shade for people and paths without shading the roof-mounted PV panels.
A’ A
A
Forest Edge
NTS
Parking
Duplex
Central Path through Shady Grove
Duplex
Parking
A’ Forest Edge
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
PV
Grove
Prepared By:
Medium new trees (20-30’ tall)
S hady G rove D etails 1
Large existing trees (>60’ tall)
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Solar Access
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Private Space
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Private, small backyards are created by strategic placement of buildings, trees, shrubs, and gardens. Vegetation is sized and placed to allow for solar access throughout the year and to provide shade in the summer.
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Shady Grove Details 1
12/24
S hady G rove D etails 2
A
A’
A’ A
Parking
Community building
Garden Community shed garden
Shaded grove
Meadow
NTS
13/24
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
The fenced-in garden helps keep out deer and groundhogs, and creates privacy from and between the surrounding buildings. A small shed holds gardening tools, and nearby a small seating area is shaded by two dwarf fruit trees. The raised garden beds are accessible to people in wheelchairs, seniors, and small children and can be filled with good soil.
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Community Garden
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
The central cluster of existing trees are protected throughout construction of the development, and now provide a wooded grove of shade trees that shelters the path. The mature trees transpire throughout the growing season, absorbing water, creating oxygen and helping reduce the high water table. The understory of the grove is left open, in its natural state with leaf litter and small herbaceous plants such as false Solomon’s seal. Integrating the existing vegetation into the landscape provides habitat, attracting birds, amphibians and other wildlife.
Prepared By:
Shaded Grove
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Shady Grove Details 2
Elementary School
Community building by the entrance is an arrival point for nonresident guests.
Neighbors
Trailhead with benches overlooking a vegetated infiltration basin
Numbers • 3.7 acres for the full clearing, drive, and fields • 22 single-bedroom apartments • 10 duplexes with solar arrays • 1 stand-alone dwelling unit • 1 community building located near road • 2 covered parking areas (1 with PV array) • 55 standard parking spots across 5 parking lots • 21 wheelchair-accessible spots • 1,200 foot long cul-de-sac (requires permitting) • 4 public garden beds
Boardwalk trail into the wetlands and then to town. A boardwalk is allowable under DEP though it would require special permit.
Covered carports make winter easier by eliminating the need to clear snow off of cars.
0’ 50’ 100’
200’
A
0’
40’
Road
Carport
Covered Path
Path
Shade Trees
Pollinator Fields
Path
Covered Path
A’
Solar Carport
Section A-A’
Road
A
A’
20’
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Public garden and community building parking (16 spaces, 2 universally accessible)
Spring, 2016
D esign A lternative : P hotosynthesis
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Public garden beds
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Wildflower fields
Prepared By:
Walking paths through the fields and between homes.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
A Design for Energy, Ecological Function, and People Like Country Pockets, this design has 22 dwelling units, a community building, and a trailhead for a planned trail and it sits outside of all wetland buffers. Here the community building and public gardens are located so that these are the first features visitors and residents see when they enter the complex, making a welcoming space for guests, who do not need to enter the private space of the senior residents to access the gardens. Fields increase the amount of habitat for valuable beneficial insects and birds. Bioswales provide a place for snow from the road as well as filter runoff, and strategically placed vegetation captures clean water from roofs. Seniors can choose to walk along paths through fields or to a vegetated retention basin for a peaceful place to sit, but have short, 20- to 50-foot walks to covered carports. The northern carport generates energy with its southern exposure while the southern carport is roofed with transparent material to allow light to reach the flower beds north of it.
Solar carport placed so that new clearing for the development gives it year-long solar access.
Sidewalk allows pedestrians into the development and trail system by foot.
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Design Alternative: Photosynthesis
14/24
Small flowering trees and other vegetation along the paths create privacy between buildings. The community building has 16 parking spaces and two universally accessible spaces.
A’ 0’
A patio with a shade tree planted in the center cools a space perfect for group gatherings in summer. Construction Detail: TreePit, Sheet 18
Native grasses can be mowed so the common space inside of paths can be used for large gatherings.
Clean water from upslope and runoff from the road infiltrate to ground water in vegetated swales.
50’
Vegetated detention basins capture and treat runoff by infiltration through soil and toxin uptake by plants before it reaches the ground water.
Clean water from roofs and solar panels is used to water plants and home gardens.
A
A’
Aaron Volkening, 2010
Vegetated swale in WI shows that rain water treatment can be beautiful as well as functional.
Water infiltrating through swales is purified by plants and soil.
Drips from cars in the carport are captured by drains and directed to detention basin.
100’
Ground water enters retention basin for further purification before slow release to wetlands.
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
A
Prepared By:
Gutters on carports over walking paths protect pedestrians from the elements and direct water to plantings.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
The design is an integrated system of energy generation, human comfort, and water treatment. Water from roofs and carports is used to water plants that block views between residents’ private spaces. Water containing chemicals from road and parking runoff is treated in bioswales before it enters the sensitive wetland areas downslope.
P hotosynthesis D etails 1
An integrated design for water quality
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Solar carport generates energy while eliminating the need to clear snow off cars in the winter.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Photosynthesis Details 1
15/24
Mixed-height vegetation provide flowers throughout the growing season and help block the views to cars in the parking lot.
Buildings are oriented to south, with dwelling units facing east and west, which allows all residents to have some sunny indoor and outdoor spaces. The orientation has the added benefit of enabling solar energy gain if PV panels are installed on the roofs.
0’
50’
100’
A
0’
20’
40’
A
Road
Carport
Covered Path
Path
Shade Trees
Path
Covered Path
Solar Carport
Road
A’
Pollinator Fields
A’
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Benches next to the infiltration retention pond give seniors a place to rest or take in the landscape. This pond helps collect the water from the development and treat it before it filters slowly to the wetlands downslope.
P hotosynthesis D etails 2
A covered carport with a transparent-polycarbonate roof is inexpensive and allows light penetration while protecting a walkway and cars from the elements.
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Walkable outdoor paths around meadows and infiltration basins create green public spaces. While the walking paths are open, a transparent covered carport protects the vehicles from the elements and covers pedestrians as they go from cars to homes. The runoff from the carport is captured to water plants, which screen unwanted views between homes.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Construction Detail: Bioswale (sheet 18) *List in Plant Palette, Bioswales (sheet 23)
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Vegetated bioswale is a constructed wetland that captures and filters rain water as well as snow. Selected plants* can tolerate and thrive in periodic wet conditions and heavy packed snow.
Prepared By:
A wildflower meadow provides food for beneficial insects. These organisms may benefit nearby agriculture as they pollinate plants and eat pests while they forage.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Photosynthesis Details 2
16/24
Mulch during establishment, then let leaf litter remain as natural mulch
Traprock gravel or finecrushed granite
Prepared aggregate
3”
4”
Fully vegetate swale per plant palette
4” 1’ 6”
3’
6” Scarified subgrade
10’
1’ x 1’ of aggregate mix* Churn/mix interface of soil and subgrade
9’
*Wrap aggregate in burlap during construction if necessary.
8” of topsoil
7.5’
9’
2’
1’ 2’
2’
Aggregate, soil and compost mixture
Spring, 2016
3’
C onstruction D etails
4” of topsoil
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
6” of topsoil on the slope
Metal, twine, and plastic removed. Cut burlap longitudinally.
Prepared By:
Stone cap with flushing mounted to aggregate per manufacturers rec.
Root crown and flare above soil line
Tree and shrub roots planted bare-root over lightly compacted soil. Root should be parallel with soil surface.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Tree-pit Construction
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Bioswale Construction
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Construction Details
Aggregate Soil Mixes Aggregate mixed soil contains a mixture of inorganic (rock, clay and sand) particles and organic matter such as compost or bark chips. The non-compressible inorganic particles reduce risk of soil compaction by creating pockets between them. This allows more air into the soil and improves drainage over long periods of time compared to plain top-soil. In addition, aggregate mixed soils do not become impervious to water if they dry out, and readily absorb water even after dry periods, which reduces stress on plants.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
17/24
0’
Phasing for the Photosynthesis design alternative
200’
0’
200’
Phasing for the Shady Grove design alternative
Phasing the Designs Phasing for the Photosynthesis and Shady Grove alternatives involves dividing the 43-acre parcel in two with a leach field for each parcel. The first-phase parcel for each alternative has 10 dwelling units and one common building on an eastern leach field under one ownership. This could be occupied by up to 24 people, with up to 18 bedrooms across the 5 duplexes and community building. This would be maximum occupancy for the DEP’s private water supply regulations. This division of the lots also allows the road used for the first phase to be used for the later development. The second-phase parcel has 10 dwelling units in 5 duplexes, with an eleventh dwelling unit as a standalone. These buildings could also support 18 bedrooms total and up to 24 people on a western leach field. The total number of people housed by both phases could be 48 (including some staff) and the total number of bedrooms allowed across all of the buildings would be 36. An engineer will need to determine the appropriate size of the leach field for this capacity. Phasing for both alternatives should keep the parcels with some land in the valuable wetland and woodland habitat to the west, not to build on, but to protect. The 50% of the development required by Chesterfield zoning for open space or conservation could be used to protect these vulnerable wetland areas.
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Phase 2
Precedent: Westhampton Woods The town of Westhampton, Massachusetts, lacked the financial ability to develop or own a senior housing complex of 15 dwelling units. The town turned to the Hilltown Community Development Corporation for help. The CDC purchased the 8.7 acres and formed two separate nonprofit subsidiary corporations called Westhampton Senior Housing (WSH), Inc. and Affordable Senior Housing of Westhampton (ASHW), Inc. In 2005 WSH built the first 8 dwelling units and accompanying wells and septic system and made them available for occupancy by renters under WSH ownership. Over the next few years, ASHW built the rest of the 7 dwelling units and accompanying wells and septic system and the entire project was completed in 2013. Splitting up the ownership into separate but connected developments eased financial strains on the project and also provided some protection from liability for the entire project (Lischetti, 2015). Furthermore developing the housing under two ownerships also made it possible to meet the DEP’s private rather than public water and waste treatment requirements.
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Phase 1
O wnership and P hasing
Phase 2
Prepared By:
Phase 1
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Proposed Parcel Line
Proposed Parcel Line
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
If all of the 22 dwelling units of either design were under one ownership, the DEP would require that the development be permitted and built as a public water supply and public waste treatment facility. That scenario is cost prohibitive for many owners. Chesterfield could have the development split into two ownerships, keeping the number of buildings and the amount of water to be used and treated under the amounts required by the DEP (Sheet 9). The chair of the Chesterfield Board of Health confirmed that the key to this would be that each ownership would require its own lot or parcel, septic system, and well.
Leach Field
Leach Field
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Ownership and Phasing
Phase I of the Westhampton Woods. www.hilltowncdc.org
18/24
Source
Definition of Income Class
AMI 1 Person Household
AMI Family of 2
AMI Family of 4
CPA
100% of AMI (Moderate)
$47,740
$52,560
$68,200
CPA
80% of AMI (Low)
$38,192
$42,048
$54,560
Federal Government
110% of AMI (Moderate)
$52,514
$57,816
$75,020
Federal Government
80% of AMI (Low)
$38,192
$42,048
$54,560
Table 1: Definitions of income by funding body for Chesterfield in 2016. Definitions for income class are shown as percentages with corresponding, real monetary values for Chesterfield in 2016 based on the Community Preservation Coalitions’ analysis of the 2010 census.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has undergone major budget cuts, but Section 202, while reduced, is still available. Section 202 is the program for supportive elderly housing and provides funding for moderate- and low-income seniors housing (based on federal standards; see table 1). While most of the funding for constructing new housing is cut, this program can contribute longterm funding for services within a senior housing development (such as transportation).
MassHousing (AHTF) MassHousing’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund sells bonds and passes along the proceeds to home owners, renters or builders of affordable, mixed-income, and green housing. The financing available from AHTF can be gained at many stages during the construction of housing. If AHTF is used, and if Chesterfield is interested in providing mixedincome housing (a combination of low-, medium-, and high-income seniors) this option could augment CPA funding for the low- and moderate-income housing portions of the development. While this funding source is similar to HUD in that it provides housing financing for federal standards of seniors meeting low- and moderate-income, it can also provide funding for alternative energy generation.
Town of Goshen Senior Housing The town of Goshen is similar to Chesterfield in location and demographics (although Goshen’s poverty rates are slightly higher) (PVPC). Goshen has completed the first steps of a multi-year program for creating affordable-for-seniors housing within the town. The project planning for Goshen, including a feasibility study and market study, were funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. This funding source in this context only allows for funding of planning and land acquisition (not construction or site preparation) and requires that not less than 70% of the funds must be used, in some capacity (determined by the CDBG), for low- and moderate-income persons (80% to 110% of the area median income (AMI)). Goshen voted to pass the Community Preservation Act in 2007. This funding source has monies set aside for affordable housing development. That is expected to contribute $150,000 for the construction but using the funding for this purpose will require a town meeting vote in Goshen. Goshen could likely get additional CPA money from this source by using more of the free and not allocated funds for this project. A report for the Goshen’s senior housing committee (Baker, 2011) noted that while the Housing and Urban Development Section 202 budget has largely been lost due to recent budget cuts, there are a number of private funding options which could help cover gaps in funding.
F unding O ptions
CPA money can be bonded, so that funding for a project can be used prior to being raised, effectively borrowing money from the town’s future CPA fund. The CPA is also a leveraging tool for convincing outside investors and obtaining other grants and funding. In this way the financial burden on the community can be lessened.
HUD Section 202
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
The portion of the CPA fund that a community is responsible for raising is collected through a town-level tax surcharge on property. This surcharge can not exceed 3%. Towns can decide what percentage surcharge is sustainable and, as an additional consideration, can lower or raise the amount (never exceeding 3%) at any time with a town vote. State trust fund money comes from a portion of the statewide property taxes. This money is distributed to towns in amounts up to 100% of that raised by the town if the statewide fund can support that amount in that year.
• Support housing options and residents of that housing • Restore damage, or contribute new capital investments (such as solar panels)
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Where does the funding come from?
• Acquire lands for housing and open space • Create affordable housing (construction costs and planning costs) • Preserve housing or open space
If Chesterfield adopts the CPA, 10% of the funds from CPA would be required for some type of affordable housing. All of the funding sources described here have similar stipulations. This means, depending on the funding source, a certain number of homes would need to be used only for moderate- or low-income senior housing, but this does not necessarily preclude aboveaverage-income seniors from living in the units of a development that were not built with CPA affordable housing funds or funding from other affordable housing sources. If Chesterfield adopts a housing trust, a grant agreement would establish which uses are acceptable for the funds. In this document the people of Chesterfield can designate how applicants for housing will be evaluated and who will have the opportunity to live there.
Spring, 2016
CPA money has to be carefully allocated, with at least 10% of funds going to open space, historic preservation, housing, and recreation respectively (40% of total funds). Because of the requirement of Chesterfield’s zoning regulation that 50% of land in a subdivision must be open space, it may be possible to use CPA funds for open space on this project in addition to the housing funds. In the context of Chesterfield’s senior housing, CPA funds may be used to:
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
The CPA is a smart-growth tool designed to help sustain open space and historical character as well as create affordable housing and recreation facilities. It enables communities to create a community preservation fund for various uses as long as open-space, historic preservation, affordable housing, and recreation are included. The CPA augments locally raised monies through a statewide trust fund which distributes funds each year to communities which have adopted the CPA. Communities must make decisions together about whether or not to adopt this funding source through a ballot referendum.
Who could live in Chesterfield’s senior housing?
Prepared By:
What can funding be used for?
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Community Preservation Act (CPA)
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Funding Options
19/24
The cost estimates given for housing are based on a comparable project done in Goshen, MA. Those costs are based on stick housing. The SHC has expressed its desire to use modular housing because of its relatively low cost. Including shipping, delivery, installation, and labor, modular housing can range anywhere from $75 to $100 per square foot of building. With 10 duplexes at 1,600 sq. ft. each and two other buildings at roughly the same size, this would mean that the total development cost for modular housing would be $1,500,000 to $1,920,000, compared to the $3,000,000 it would cost to do the same project with stick-frame construction.
Additional Costs
Due to the constraints on site there are unanswered questions regarding what type of housing can be built and the site’s conditions may preclude modular housing. This is because modular housing generally requires a basement or crawlspace in which to connect utilities and the modular components of the home, but such a crawl space or basement is not generally possible in areas with a high water table. Basements or crawl spaces in areas with high water tables can be prone to flooding and other problems, which is why slab on grade construction in areas like this project site is usually recommended. Whether or not there is a way to custom design a modular home to be adapted for a slab construction is a question that will need to be answered before the type of housing can be chosen for Chesterfield’s senior housing.
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Prepared By:
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Modular Housing VS. Stick Construction Costs and Development
E stimates
Site Preparation Costs
Housing costs for 16,000 Sq. ft. duplex adapted from “Senior Housing Rough Estimate Report-Goshen” (Austin Design, 2012).
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Key totals (including both phases): • Housing = $1,500,000 to $3,000,000 • Site work = $856,743.00 • Construction = $307,740 • Grand total for development = Between $2.5 and 4 million.
C ost
Both alternatives, regardless of housing type, will require significant site work such as the clearing of the land for construction and grading to a 2-5% slope. The cost of access roads will also be approximately the same due to their similar square footage specifications. Since both alternatives share the same number of buildings, these costs will also be the same.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Housing Costs
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Cost Estimates
20/24
When an organism is ill-suited to its environment, it is unlikely to thrive. Plants which are chosen without consideration of their environmental preferences are unlikely to thrive and therefore unlikely to function either as aesthetic displays or as parts of an ecosystem. By choosing plants adapted to conditions such as soil moisture or light levels their ability to perform is supported. The existing site conditions for the development area is moderately draining, slightly acidic soils. All of the plants in this list are suitable for these conditions. Native Species
Wolfgangw, 2005 Bee balm is a vigorous, ever-blooming plant from the mint family (Lamiaceae) which is a favorite of bees.
Spring, 2016
P lant P alette
Native plants are excellent choices for planting because they tend to be better adapted in general for New England conditions. However, in the face of climate change some of these species may be unable to adapt to the new conditions. Because of this for the purpose of this document “native” means native to the Northeast, as many plants from the southern portion of this region are becoming better suited for a changing New England climate.
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Choosing Appropriate Plants
Prepared By:
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Plants can perform valuable functions for the human community of the senior housing development and surrounding natural community. Generally people enjoy flowers, attractive foliage, rich fall color, scent, and the forms of plants. Additionally plants can create privacy and block undesirable views. Finally plants can be edible or medicinal. Each species of plant also has its own special place, its niche, in the ecology of a site. This niche can be where its roots penetrate, what kind of moisture it requires or which wildlife it attracts. Some wildlife, such as beneficial insects (pollinators such as bees, or predators such as praying mantis or lady beetles which eat pests) can have wide-ranging effects on the environment such as reducing pest populations of nearby fields or pollinating orchards. Finally plants are excellent ways to absorb and purify water.
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Plants for Sun
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
What Can the Plants Do?
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Plant Palette
Rob Duval, 2012 Tickseed is a wispy plant which combines foliage texture and bright summer color.
Swamp candles are an adaptable, colony forming, but non-invading, native loosestrife.
21/24
3 2 0
1
Karelj, 2009 Dwarf cattail
Bald cypress (left two images) is a deciduous conifer which is equally at home in fields or in standing water for months at a time. It tolerates heavy soil compaction as well as very poor drainage. While it grows with a flat top crown in its southern range, in northern climates it takes on a pyrimidal shape like other conifers. In summer its soft-hemlock-like needles are grass green (far left) while in fall it takes on a coppery color before dropping its needles.
Bioswales should be fully planted or allowed to fill in with vegetation, but not mowed or pruned. The swale zone column in the table indicates where within the swale plants will thrive and function either as pollinator support or as water filtration based on a combination of their wide adaptability to water levels, light levels, soil compaction and snow weight.
Vilma Verberburg, 2012
Crusier, 2012
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Prepared By:
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
epibase, 2007 Carolina all-spice in bloom
P lant P alette : B ioswales
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Plants for the bioswales must tolerate unusual stresses such as snow loading, soil compaction, and periodic inundation. Environments which are similar to these conditions are intermittent wetland areas, floodplains, and alpine bogs and species found in these landscapes are adapted for those conditions. Many of these plants were chosen for their aesthetic value in addition to their suitability for long term survival in bioswales. The plants in this list are not the only species which are suitable for those conditions, but provide a template of cultural requirements, bloom colors, and seasonality to build on over time. While many of these species are native to the Northeast, not all are native to Massachusetts, and some are benign or helpful non-native species.
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Plant Palette: Bioswales
22/24
Wood anemone is a native, spring blooming shade flower for a moist spot in the garden.
Trees and Shrubs
GC = Ground Cover S = Shrub
P lant P alette : T rees and S hade
CV = Climbing vine T = Tree
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Hzel, 2009 Cranesbill forms mats of sometimes variegated foliage toped by flowers in spring and summer.
Spring, 2016
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Superior National Forest, 2009
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Perennial shade plants suitable for New England tend to be spring flowering species with many blooming just as the trees begin to leaf out. While their flowers may be short-lived, perennial shade plants selected for the Chesterfield senior housing complex have a habit of forming large attractive leaves after flowering. Species that do this include the violets, ginger, anemone, and false Solomon’s seal. Likewise, many flowering trees and shrubs have spring blooming times and can be very attractive when planted with summer blooming perennials. Many trees, such as tupelo and American sweetgum, have vividly colorful fall foliage displays to round off the ornamental color palette. Mixing summer and spring blooming plants can provide a more constant supply of food (nectar and pollen) for beneficial insects and birds, which assists the local ecosystem as well as local agriculture.
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Spring Flowers, Summer Foliage
Prepared By:
Shade Perennials
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Trees and Shade Plants
Dcrjsr, 2009 Unlike its cousins from China and Japan, American wisteria is non-invasive. Its climbing is gentle enough to train on trellises or structures without damaging the structure.
Raasbak Shadbush, or saskatoon, spring blooming plant with vibrant fall foliage.
LeLoupGris, 2011 Dwarf Russian almond
23/24
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. “State of the People of the Pioneer Valley.” Springfield, MA. Web. 2013.
Maps All maps were made using Esri ArcMap 10.3 Map data layer is from MassGIS as follows: • • • • •
Rivers, wetlands* and ponds: MassDEP Hydrography 1:25,000, 2010 and MassDEP Wetlands 1:12,000, 2009. Roads, MassDot Roads, 2014 Openspace, Protected and Recreational Openspace, 2015 Soil, NRCS SSURGO-certified soils, 2012 Buildings, MassGIS building structures, Chesterfield
* The observed wetland was created by the Conway team with visual inspection and GPS marking of the limits of the wetland on the site in April, 2016.
The Chesterfield Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. “Chesterfield Hazard Mitigation Plan.” West Springfield, MA. Web. 2008. Community Preservation Coalition. “CPA low and moderate income worksheet for 2016.” Exemptions to the CPA surcharge. web. 2016. Housing Design for Graphics is adapted from Austin Design Inc.’s duplex design for Goshen’s Senior Housing project and other information can be found at: Goshen Senior Housing. www.goshen-ma.us, Committees, Elder Housing Study Committee www.hilltownCDC.org
On the community preservation act: www.communitypreservation.org
Spring, 2016
Grant Kokernak and Oliver Osnoss
Austin Design “Senior Housing Residence-Rough Estimate Report.” Inc. Web. 2012.
Prepared By:
Images of plants and site features were taken by members of the Conway School team unless otherwise stated. For images of plants in the plant palette, all those with credit were taken from Wikimedia Commons and are under a creative commons license.
On the HUD section 202 Program: visit www.HUD.gov, programs, multifamily housing programs, Section 202
Prepared for The Chesterfield Senior Housing Committee
Baker, Laura. Goshen Senior Housing Market Study and Preliminary Housing Development Site Identification Report. Haydenville, MA, 01039. Web. 2012.
A Landscape Plan for Chesterfield Senior Housing
Images of the Chesterfield community were generously given to the Conway Team by members of the Senior Housing Committee, unless otherwise attributed.
For Additional Information:
S ources and C itations
References
Not for construction. Part of a student project and not based on a legal survey.
Images
332 S. Deerfield Road | PO Box 179 | Conway, MA 01341 413-369-4044 www.csld.edu
Resources
24/24