> Town > Recreation & Open Space > Community Setting

SECTION
3

SECOND DRAFT
04/02/03

COMMUNITY SETTING

The Town of Charlemont contains rural landscapes that have been established, developed, and affected by its human inhabitants over the past several hundred years. Planning for open space and recreation in Charlemont must account for the complex relationships between people and the open spaces and natural resources upon which they depend. Continued growth without consideration of the natural systems that need to be protected will reduce the quality of life for current and future generations.

The information provided in this section, Community Setting, uses a variety of sources, two of which are the 1998 Charlemont Master Plan Background Document and the 2001 Charlemont Master Plan. Both of these documents helped to inform the inventories and analysis of the human and land use components of Charlemont's landscapes.

This section provides an inventory and assessment of land use and landscapes in Charlemont, moving from the present, to the past, and to the future based on current development trends. Regional Context gives a snapshot of Charlemont today, and identifies the ways in which the location of the Town within the region has affected its growth and the quality of open space and recreational resources. History of the Community looks back at how early residents settled and developed the landscape. Population Characteristics explores who the people of Charlemont are today and how population and economic trends may affect the Town in the future. Finally, Growth and Development Patterns describes how the Town has developed over time and the potential impacts of current land use regulations on open space and municipal services.

A. REGIONAL CONTEXT

The Town of Charlemont is a highland town located at the foot of the Berkshire Hills in western Franklin County. Charlemont is bordered by the towns of Rowe and Heath on the north, Colrain and Shelburne on the east, Buckland and Hawley on the south, and Savoy and Florida on the west. State Route 2, also known as the Mohawk Trail, is the principal highway running in an east-west direction through Charlemont, linking the Town to Greenfield and Interstate 91 to the east, and North Adams and New York to the west. The principal highway running north-south is State Route 8A connecting Charlemont with Heath and Vermont to the north, and Hawley to the south.

A.1 Natural Resources Context

In order to plan for the protection of open space and natural resources in the Town of Charlemont, residents may want to consider the role these natural resources play across the region. There are several ways residents can view their Town's landscapes. Two of these are important in both Charlemont and in surrounding communities: abundant and contiguous forestland and watersheds. The presence and relatedness of these significant resources presents both opportunities and challenges to open space and recreation planning.

A.1.1 Large Blocks of Contiguous Forestland

Forests constitute one of the most important natural resources in the Town of Charlemont and the region. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts owns 1,902 acres (MassGIS) of forestland as part of the Mohawk Trail State Forest in the western half of Charlemont. The Department of Environmental Management oversees this forestland and approximately 6,500 acres in the neighboring Towns of Savoy, Florida and Hawley. Other protected open space and natural resources in the region include Savoy Mountain State Forest in Savoy, Kenneth Dubuque State Forest in Hawley, and Catamount State Forest in Colrain.

Large blocks of contiguous forestland such as these are important regional resources for several reasons. First they represent an area with a low degree of fragmentation. Wildlife species that require a certain amount of deep forest cover separate from people's daily activities tend to migrate out of fragmenting landscapes. New frontage lots and subdivisions can often result in a widening of human activity, an increase in the populations of plants and animals that thrive alongside humans (i.e. raccoons and squirrels) and a reduction in the species that have larger home ranges and unique habitat needs. When these large blocks of forest are protected from development they help to protect and provide clean water, air, and healthy wildlife populations. In addition, as development fragments forests, it also reduces the viability of some types of forest management and harvesting regimes. As woodlands, valued for their hardwood and softwood timber are broken up through subdivision and development, the resulting ownerships (acres/lot) may not be large enough to support commercial harvesting operations.

Contiguous forest constitutes the backbone of any greenway or wildlife habitat planning effort in the region simply because it is the dominant vegetative community. The forestlands in Charlemont are part of significant regional greenbelts that have been recognized by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program as providing habitat to viable populations of rare and endangered plant and animal species as well as buffering these unique habitats from human impacts like roads and development. Contiguous forest in Charlemont is part of the bridge, the connection of undeveloped lands across the regional landscape. The importance of the Town's forested land will be addressed in greater depth in Section 4.

A.1.2. Watersheds

Watersheds are the areas of land that drain to a single point along a stream or river. Sub-watersheds contain first and second order stream tributaries. A first-order stream flows from a single source; a second order stream starts at the point where two first-order streams meet. These small streams are the most extensive component of any watershed. They are also the most sensitive to land use, both the negative impacts of runoff and the positive effects of forest cover. Two of the most important reasons to protect forests within the watersheds are preserving the long-term integrity of wildlife habitat and maintaining the quality of surface and ground waters.

The Town of Charlemont is located in the south-central portion of the Deerfield River Watershed, which encompasses all or part of twenty (20) western Massachusetts communities and sixteen (16) towns in Vermont. From Stratton Mountain in Vermont to the confluence with the Connecticut River in Greenfield, Massachusetts, the Deerfield River drains a regional landscape that is 665 square miles in size, 347 of which are in Massachusetts (DRWA; 2002). Its total river length is 70.2 miles, forty-four (44) of which are in Massachusetts. The Deerfield River, one of the coldest and cleanest rivers in Massachusetts, has a steep gradient, dropping 46.8 feet per mile from its headwaters to the USGS gauge near the Town of West Deerfield, a distance of 69.5 river miles. This feature has made the Deerfield River a magnet for hydroelectric power generation, with ten (10) hydroelectric developments constructed on the river since 1911. Given its gradient and excellent water quality, the Deerfield River has seen a long history of use by fishermen and whitewater enthusiasts. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts actively stocks the river to augment native populations in addition to stocking juvenile salmon, as part of the Connecticut River restoration project.

The Deerfield River is a major tributary of the Connecticut River. The Connecticut River Watershed is the largest river ecosystem in New England. The River enters Massachusetts through the Town of Northfield and drains all or part of forty-five (45) municipalities before entering the State of Connecticut where it eventually empties into Long Island Sound at Old Saybrook.

While the Deerfield River Watershed is a viable management unit for state agencies like the Department of Environmental Protection, the subwatershed may be a more appropriate unit for the Town to use in its planning. The subwatershed is the unit of choice for tracking potential impacts from development on the biodiversity and water quality of first and second order streams within the stream network. Subwatersheds also typically play an important role in the recharge of Charlemont's sole high yield aquifer. The Town's subwatersheds are covered in detail in Section 4-Environmetal Inventory and Analysis.

The degree of forest continuity, pattern of residential development, and the purity of the water in the Deerfield River Watershed are beyond the control of any one community. The Town of Charlemont could promote the conservation of all its significant open space and natural resources, but if surrounding towns fail to protect land, plan growth, or continue to monitor and participate in the cleanup of brooks and rivers, their level of impact on the resources that disregard political boundaries (water, wildlife populations, scenic views, trails, etc.) will be insignificant. Charlemont needs to take an active role in the conservation of regionally important natural resources, whether they occur in Town or not.

A.2 Socio-Economic Context

The Town of Charlemont's economy shifted from agriculture and industry to primarily a tourist/ recreation based economy since the early part of the 20th century. The opening of the Mohawk Trail as an auto route in 1914 through the Deerfield River corridor and along the southern part of Charlemont, allowed tourists from Boston to New York access to Charlemont's natural resources for recreational purposes. Although World War II and construction of the Interstate 90 slowed tourist-related activities in the region in the mid-20th Century, tourism and recreation continue to be key to the local economy with approximately 71 percent of the jobs in Town in the related Service and Trade industries.

Charlemont's population grew significantly in the past thirty years, and it is projected the Town will continue to gain residents through 2010. Although the tourist and recreation industry grew during the past decade, the unemployment rate in Charlemont was generally higher than that of the State for the same time period. In 2000, the per capita income was lower than that of both County and State. Additionally, 10.4 percent of individuals, for whom the percent was estimated, live below the poverty level as compared to 9.4 percent for Franklin County.

Like many of the communities in the western and eastern edges of Franklin County, there has not been the same level of pressure to develop the open spaces of Charlemont for residential development in comparison to communities along the Interstate 91 corridor. Thus the community has an opportunity to protect natural, open space, and recreation resources in advance of the next surge in development. Currently, due to the local economy and lower property values relative to other areas in the region, development rights may be purchased at much lower rates than would be possible if the Town or local land trusts were to wait for the need for land protection to become more apparent.

B. HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY

Given the excellent fishing opportunities of the Deerfield and Cold Rivers as well as the hunting resources of the surrounding woodlands, it is believed the Town of Charlemont was the likely site of Native American settlement. It is probable the Native Americans used the Deerfield River floodplain at the confluence of the Cold River as a site for seasonal hunting and fishing camps. Other hunting and fishing sites may have been the areas between Zoar and Charlemont villages, near the confluence of the Deerfield River and Hartwell Brook, and the village of East Charlemont. Given their proximity to Charlemont, the Pocumtucks of Deerfield were most likely to have used these sites to a great degree. The Mohawk Trail, which cuts through Charlemont, was a regional corridor for Native Americans who traveled between the Hudson River Valley and the Connecticut River Valley.

Colonial settlement began in Charlemont in 1740 with Moses Rice constructing the first home at the foot of Warfield Mountain. Shortly thereafter, Othniel Taylor built a home in East Charlemont. The attack of Fort Massachusetts by French and Indian forces necessitated the abandonment of these homes in 1746. Resettlement of the area did not occur until 1749, and no major expansion of settlement occurred until the early 1760s. Although agriculture was the primary economic activity of the early settlers, Moses Rice built the first gristmill soon after settling in Charlemont. Given the abundant water resources of the Town, other mill operations including sawmills and gristmills, soon followed.

During the Federal Period (1775-1830), Charlemont's population grew significantly. There were two commercial village centers, the primary one being at Charlemont Center with the second being in East Charlemont. East Charlemont was also the center of industrial activity. A smaller mill center was also located in the village of Zoar in the western section of Town. Agriculture, in the form of dairy and sheep farms, was also important.

Charlemont in the Early Industrial Period (1830-1870) did not have access to the economic benefits of the Troy and Greenfield Railroad until 1868, which was thought to be one of the main reasons the town did not see the growth of industry as expected. This rail line later connected Charlemont to North Adams via the Hoosac Tunnel. In spite of this development, agriculture continued as the Town's economic base.

By 1875, at the start of the Late Industrial Period (1870-1915), Charlemont's industrial base was limited to several sawmills, two (2) scythe snathes shops and a chair making operation. With the opening and success of the nearby Davis iron pyrite and talc mine in Rowe in the 1880s, a prospecting craze developed in the area. Mining operations were also opened in Charlemont during this period and included the Massachusetts Talc Company in the village of Zoar. The merchants of Charlemont Center benefited greatly from this prospecting craze. Two shops opened in the early 1890's, which were important to the Town's economy for a number of years. In 1891, W.M. Pratt established a rake handle factory and the following year, H.H. Frary opened a carriage shop, which also produced wooden spools for the silk mills in Northampton. In 1912, the Massachusetts Highway Commission approved the upgrade of the Mohawk Trail through the Deerfield corridor to accommodate automobiles. When construction was completed in 1914 the auto route, which extended along the Deerfield River in Charlemont to the base of Hoosac Mountain in North Adams, opened the steepest section of the Mohawk Trail to automobiles. This road also formed the connecting link of state highway from Boston to New York. Agriculture remained a primary economic activity in Charlemont through the mid- 20th century.

In modern times Charlemont's economy shifted from agriculture and industry to a tourist/recreation based economy based upon its natural resources. The second home movement, generated in part by the recreation and tourism industries, will continue to impact Charlemont. Today, recreation related businesses such as Berkshire East Ski Resort, Crabapple Whitewater Zoar Outdoor contribute greatly to the local economy. Going hand in hand with the recreation industry is the lodging and restaurant industry, which is also important to Charlemont's economy.

B.1 Historic Structures in Charlemont

Charlemont's Town Center was designated as a National Historic District in 1985. The Town's two other villages, Zoar and East Charlemont do not have their own historic districts but are home to many historical structures. The Charlemont Master Plan Background Document contains many records of historical structures and sites and these are included in the Appendix.

C. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS

In this section, Charlemont's needs for open space and recreational resources are assessed based upon an analysis of demographic and employment statistics. The demographic information includes changes in total population, changes in the relative importance of different age groups in town, and potential changes in development patterns due to shifts in the local economy.

C.1 Demographic Information

C.1.1 Population and Population Change

Demographics can be useful for forecasting the potential need for open space and recreational resources that will be required by residents. During the ten (10) year period 1970-1980, the Town of Charlemont saw an increase in population from 897 in 1970 to 1149 in 1980, an increase of 252 residents or 28.1% percent. The next two decades, 1980-2000 again saw a large increase in population of 209 residents or 18.2 percent. According to the U.S. Census, Charlemont had 1,358 residents in the year 2000. Thus, over the previous thirty (30) years, 1970-2000, the Town of Charlemont saw a total increase of 51.4 percent in the number of its residents. While both Franklin County and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts both saw increases in population over the same period, the growth was not as significant, at 20.8 percent and 11.6 percent respectively.

According to the Massachusetts Institute of Social and Economic Research (MISER), the Town's population will experience an increase during the ten (10) year period 2000-2010. MISER projects the Town of Charlemont will increase by 122 residents or 9 percent of its population (See Table 3-1). This will be in contrast to Franklin County and Massachusetts, which are expected to have a population increase of 7.8 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively. It should be noted that in forecasting future populations MISER develops low, middle and high projections each with slightly different assumptions. The high projection was used here as it more accurately reflects what is happening in Charlemont. Also, MISER's current projections, released in 1999, relied heavily on data from the 1990 U.S. Census and intermediary population estimates produced from 1990 to 1999 prior to the 2000 U.S. Census. As a result, these new MISER forecasts, which will likely extend out to 2025, could potentially show different trends and patterns than those suggested by MISER's projections from 1999.

Table 3-1: Population Growth, Estimates and Projections 1970-2010

Sources: Growth and Estimated Growth from U.S. Census Bureau: Census of Population & Housing, Projection data from the Massachusetts Institute of Social and Economic Research (M.I.S.E.R.), July, 1999; The Greater Franklin County Region Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2000 and 2002. *Miser develops high, middle and low projections, each with slightly different projections. The high-level projections are used for Charlemont, while MISER's middle projections are used for Franklin County and the State.

If we assume the Town of Charlemont will experience a 9 percent increase in population by the year 2010, how will this translate into demand for open space and recreational resources? Will these additional residents be young, middle-aged, or elderly? According to the U.S. Census 2000 General Demographic Characteristics, the majority (approximately 62 percent) of Charlemont's residents are in the 0-19 (school age) and 20-44 year (early working years) age cohorts. These are the age cohorts or groups that also showed minimal change during the ten (10) year period 1990-2000 (-0.5 percent and 1.3 percent respectively) (See Table 3-2). Interestingly, Charlemont is not losing its young people quite as fast as are other towns in the Commonwealth. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Charlemont's 20-34 year olds diminished by 2.8 percent, while in the county the number of residents in this age group declined by 24 percent and in the state by nearly 18 percent. What is stemming the out-migration of existing young residents or attracting younger adult residents to Charlemont? Affordable housing, flexible employment in the recreation industries, and diverse recreational opportunities may be a few of the causes.

Another population trend occurring in the county and the state is the growth of the elder segment of the population. Both the 45-64 year age group and the 65+ year group are both growing in the county and the state. In Charlemont, the 45-64 year age cohort grew by 34.7 percent and the 65+ age cohort grew by 9 percent between 1990 and 2000 (See Table 3-2). In ten years time, what is the likelihood of the population getting even older? The 55-64 year age group grew by 32 percent between 1990-2000, which is twice the growth rate for that age group in the county (16%) and significantly greater than the state (6%). Given these figures, it appears the elderly may be among the largest cohorts in Charlemont in the years to come. Based on this analysis, the Town of Charlemont needs to be concerned about providing for an aging population in its open space and recreation programming.

Table 3-2: Number of People by Age Cohort Between 1990 and 2000 in Massachusetts, Franklin County, and in Charlemont

Source: U.S. Census, 1990 and 2000.

Seniors require different recreational facilities and services including accessible walking paths, arts, and leisure programs. Both the Master Plan and the Master Plan Background Document contain objectives and options that support the development of parks, pedestrian facilities, and elder housing within the Center. A modestly sized senior housing facility, designed to fit architecturally within Charlemont Center, and managed by the Franklin Regional Housing and Redevelopment Authority could help to support local commercial businesses.

The Master Plan documents also point to the need for recreational facilities and programs for youth of all ages including access to open space. Many of the objectives and options described in the Master Plan documents could also result in added areas for recreation. However, unless the Town plans on hiring a recreation coordinator, the development of youth programming may be dependent on the leadership and will of parents. A well led Recreation Committee, however could galvanize the varied interests in providing safe places, programs and access to activities and open spaces for the benefit of all residents.

Charlemont currently has a diversity of recreational spaces and opportunities that with additional effort could be available for more residents. For example, Berkshire East Ski Area provides skiing programs for local school children. Sites such as the Mohawk Trail State Forest (6,457 acres), the Mohawk Park Restaurant and Hotel (400 acres), Zoar Picnic Area (187 acres), Pike Camping Area (50 acres), Charlemont Fairgrounds (20 acres), Zoar Outdoor, and Crab Apple Whitewater, could be contact or in the case of the fairgrounds, simply assessed, to increase limited access to residents at reduced rates. The Master Plan Background Document included a table of Recreational Sites and Activities. This table has been reproduced and placed in the Appendix of the Open Space Plan.

In addition, according to the Master Plan Background Document, there are a number of recreational activities that are open to the general public. Individuals, volunteers, and businesses sponsor these activities, which shows that there may be room for additional recreational opportunities for residents of all ages with a little leadership. Existing organized recreational activities include:

• Mohawk Trail Concert Series-Classical music in the summer and fall at the Federated Church
• Yankee Doodle Days-Crafts Fair at the Charlemont Fairgrounds last weekend in July
• Charlemont Reggae Fest-Music Concert at the Charlemont Fairgrounds in September
• Native American Pow-wows-A Native American Cultural Event at the Rte. 2 Village May through October 7
• Zen-do-A year-round recreational activity off Warner Hill Road

Identifying the best location for new open space and recreation resources should consider where people live and the special needs of its citizens. As will be seen in the fourth part of Section 3, Growth and Development Patterns, future growth depends in large part on zoning, soil and groundwater related constraints, and on which lands are permanently protected from development. Town Officials could identify key parcels in Town that might be future parks and walking trails close to neighborhoods and areas that could be developed for compact residential uses. Officials could be looking for opportunities to conserve land in Charlemont in a way that protects valuable scenic and natural resources and provides public access to trail networks and future parks and conservation lands.

Whatever the generational make up of the future community, recreation and open space needs may change over time. What would Charlemont's response be to these potential increasing and changing needs? How can these services and facilities be created in an efficient and economical manner? The answers to these questions may depend in part on the current and potential economic and financial well being of Charlemont and its residents.

C.1.2 Economic Wealth of Residents and the Community

Measures of the income levels of Charlemont residents as compared to the County and State are helpful in assessing the ability of the citizenry to pay for recreation resources and programs and access to open space through property taxes or directly through the use of fees.

Table 3-3: Median Household Income, Per Capita Income, and Percentage Below Poverty Level in 1999 for Charlemont compared to Franklin County and the State

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. *Percentage of individuals living below poverty level for which the poverty status has been determined.

Table 3-3 describes the earning power in Charlemont as compared to the County and the State. According to Census 2000 figures, Charlemont households earn incomes that are 14.2 percent above the median for the County, but 7.8 percent below the median for the State. The per capita income for the Town (total income for all residents divided by the total number of men, women, and children) is lower than both the County and the State. One reason why the Town's per capita income is less than that of the county, is because there are more people per occupied housing unit in town (2.59) than in the county (2.42). One way to interpret this difference is that there are more people supported by the income generated by each household in Charlemont than in the County. The state's ratio of people per occupied housing unit is 2.59, so that the difference between the town and the state's per capita income may be simply due to the fact that on average households earn less in Charlemont than the state average. The percentage of people living below poverty level in Charlemont is slightly higher than both the County and the State at 10.4 percent. Residents may be willing to consider spending limited tax dollars on targeted recreational programming and facilities.

Although Charlemont's resources today are clearly both its people and its natural landscapes, the status of the Town's finances could be affected by an interdependent relationship that exists between the two. Costly community services provided to residents and businesses are paid for with the tax revenues generated by different kinds of property, both developed and undeveloped. As is shown in the Master Plan Background Document, while commercial and industrial property taxes accounted for less than $200,000 in 1998, taxes paid by residential property owners exceeded 1.1 million dollars. Though residential property owners pay the lion share of the costs of running the town, housing is often considered a fiscal loss because the school costs of one household are rarely made up by the revenues generated by that same property. One reason that towns encourage economic development is to have some other type of property to share the tax burden carried by residential property owners and caused by associated education and public works costs. Protected open space on the other hand costs very little, provides a meager amount of tax revenues, but reduces the amount of housing that can occur. This relationship is explored in more detail in subsection D. Growth and Development Patterns.

C.2 Employers and Employment Statistics

C.2.1 Labor Force: Charlemont residents that are able to work

In the year 2001, the Town of Charlemont had a labor force of 655 with 631 residents employed and 24 unemployed (Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training). This is equal to a 3.7 percent unemployment rate for the Town. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' unemployment rate was the same at 3.7 percent while Franklin County's unemployment rate was slightly lower at 3.2 percent. Table 3-5 shows that the number of residents in the labor force and employed in Charlemont reached a peak in 1999 and that the Town's unemployment rate decreased by 51 percent between 1994 and 2001.

Table 3-4 also shows the unemployment rates for Franklin County and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the same time period. Charlemont residents have been evermore successful at gaining employment over the last decade, though the unemployment rate for the Town exceeded the averages for the county and state most of the time. Overall, the Town receives more benefits when residents are employed than not. When residents are employed, earning a decent wage, they are more apt to own homes, pay property taxes, and volunteer their time, skills and interest in the community. On the other hand, if the unemployment rate in town is very low, an expanding local business might need to consider the regional labor pool to fill new positions.

Table 3-4: Labor Force and Unemployment Rate in Charlemont, Franklin County and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1994-2001

Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Employment and Training (Local Area Unemployment Statistics), 2002.

C.2.2 Employment in Charlemont: People who work in Town, whether they are residents or not.

Table 3-5 depicts sector employment in the County and State as a percentage of total employment. The Table demonstrates that the manufacturing, trade and service sectors on both the State and the County levels produced the highest percentage of total employment in 1998, together combining for over 80 percent in the state and 85 percent in the county. It can be said that the county has a strong manufacturing sector, since it has a higher percentage, or share, of total employment in this sector than the state average. In other words, Franklin County employs more people in manufacturing jobs than the average in other counties in Massachusetts. Though it has declined some since the beginning of the decade and a lot since the middle of the 20th Century, the sector still employed a quarter of the people in the county (25.75%) in 1998. Whereas, the state, which has lost many manufacturing jobs since 1990, employed only 14 percent of its total workers in industries in the manufacturing sector (See Table 3-5). Using the same comparative analysis, other competitive sectors in the county are Agriculture, and Transportation, Communication (Information), and Public Utilities (T.C.P.U). Since these sectors are employing more people in the county than in the state, it is likely that they are producing more goods and services than their counterparts in other areas of the state. Therefore, it can also be said that these sectors are most likely exporting their goods and bringing money into the region.

Another important technique for determining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the county employment sectors as compared to the state is to analyze the shifts in employment over time. This method also shows that manufacturing is relatively strong in Franklin County. For example, during the period from 1990 to 1998, the county's manufacturing sector lost 4 percent of its jobs, while the sector in the state as a whole lost 28 percent. Though also declining on both levels, Agriculture and Trade declined more slowly in the county than in the state as a whole during those same eight years. Weaker sectors in the county, construction and F.I.R.E (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate) declined at a greater rate in Franklin County than in the state. Analysis of the seven (7) sectors found only the T.C.P.U (Transportation, Communication and Public Utilities) and services sectors demonstrating growth between 1990 and 1998 in both Franklin County and in the state. Services grew at a slightly greater pace in the state while T.C.P.U. grew slightly faster on the county level.

Table 3-5: Employment by Industry Sector for Franklin County and State of Massachusetts as a Percentage of Total Employment, 1990 and 1998

Source: County Business Patterns 1990 and 1998, Bureau of the Census. T.C.P.U.: Transportation, Communication, and Public Utilities; Trade: Wholesale and Retail Trade; F.I.R.E.: Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Note: County Business Patterns data are not available for Years beyond 1998 and do not include the Government sector.

Unfortunately, local employment information provided by the Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training is incomplete. Local employment figures for both the Agricultural and Construction industry sectors will be included in subsequent drafts of this section. Therefore, the following economic base analysis is presented for the purposes of a general comparison between local and regional trends.

Charlemont's economy was once dominated by agriculture and to a lesser extent, commerce and manufacturing, both of which relied on the Town's natural resources. Today, the economy continues to be dependent upon these natural resources, but the dominant sector is clearly the service sector comprised of recreation and tourism-based businesses. Combined, the service and trade sectors (wholesale and retail trade, which includes inns, restaurants, and stores) now account for the majority of employment in Town, in Franklin County, and in Massachusetts in 1998.

Generally, Charlemont appears more in-line with state business trends than that of the county. Charlemont's growth sector is services, which includes professional, recreational, health, legal, managerial, and personal care businesses. Trade, both retail and wholesale, is declining in both the state and the town at a greater rate than the county. Businesses in two other sectors, manufacturing and Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities are present in Charlemont according to the Master Plan Background Document.

One interesting trend is the relatively consistent growth in employment over the decade 1990-2000. Charlemont's steady growth in jobs appears void of the dramatic employment gains and losses typically found in communities with a heavy manufacturing base. Steady growth in employment is an economic development goal sought after by many communities. This may be a business characteristic for Charlemont to capitalize on.

Table 3-6: Place of Work for Workers 16 Years and Over in 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

Table 3-7: Place of Work for Workers 16 Years and Over in 1990

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990.

Another interesting economic trend that could impact land use is shown in U.S. Census information. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Charlemont residents were more likely to work farther from home than in 1990 (See Tables 3-6 and 3-7). When compared to the county and the state, the percentage of Charlemont residents that worked in town is far less than would be expected. The percentage of residents that worked outside of town but in Franklin County is almost double the county average and the percentage that worked out of the county but in the state is about half. However, those residents that are commuting to other counties in the state, nearly tripled over the last decade, according to the U.S. Census. This could either mean that more of Charlemont residents are working in Berkshire County, which does not imply further commuting time, or that they are working in Hampshire County, which would mean longer commutes. What are the implications of commuting time changes to open space planning? If people are more willing to commute longer distances to go to work, are able to tele-commute, or have their own home business, they are less likely to choose their place of residence based on its proximity to a regional employment center. Places that offer a high quality of life with plenty of forests, farms and scenic views like Charlemont may become more in demand by these types of workers, which could result in added development pressures.

C.2.3 Employers in Charlemont

Based on two sets of dated information, Charlemont has several major employers, most of which are in recreational-based and educational services, trade or in government. The 1998 Master Plan Background Document identified five major employers as having at least 6 employees including Berkshire East Ski Resort, Charlemont Inn, Zoar Outdoor, and A.L. Avery and Son. In 1997, the Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training identified only four employers that had at least 10 employees: Mohawk Park Corporation, Bittersweet Herb Farm, The Academy at Charlemont, and the Berkshire East Ski Resort.

In January 2003, with the assistance of Charlemont Town officials, FRCOG staff identified major employers with at least ten employees and determined the types of employment offered at each business (See Table 3-8). Government, and educational services businesses provide the most full-time employment, which is more likely to include benefits and additional training opportunities while retail trade and service sector businesses provide mostly part time or seasonal employment.

Table 3-10: Selected Employers in Charlemont with Greater than Ten Employees (2003).

Source: Telephone contact with each business in January 2003. 

Both Master Plan documents suggest the opportunity exists to encourage existing recreational-based tourism businesses as well as expand locally owned small businesses in the service fields.  Whenever Town resources are applied to economic development, no matter the sector targeted for support, it is important to consider the types of jobs to be created.  Full time jobs typically pay more and provide benefits.  Part time and seasonal jobs provide flexible employment and less pay.  Both types of jobs may be in demand but clearly full time jobs create a more stable economy.

D. GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

The Town of Charlemont has a population density of 48 people per square mile (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development).

D.1 Patterns and Trends

The Town of Charlemont developed from a sparsely populated agricultural community to one with several early commercial and industrial centers dependent both on the waterpower of rivers and wood and mineral deposits from local forests. These commercial and industrial activities helped to establish the villages of Charlemont Center, Zoar and East Charlemont. The Troy and Greenfield Railroad and Rte. 2 both provided access for residents and visitors to move in and out of the region. Despite the development of manufacturing and transportation facilities, agricultural remained the basis of the economy well into the 20th Century.

By the early 20th Century, Charlemont had become a rural recreational center as use of the Rte. 2 Mohawk Trail by tourists peaked. Berkshire East Ski Area began in the 1950s while Zoar Outdoor started in 1989. According to the 1998 Master Plan Background Document, these two businesses combined with another recreational-based business, Crab Apple Whitewater (established in 1990), grossed between 17.5 and 35 million dollars in 1997. Charlemont has primarily a tourist-based economy. One example that shows the importance of tourism in Charlemont is reflected in its 1999 zoning by-laws. Criteria for granting a special permit by the Planning Board includes the impact the activity, site plan, and building design may have on existing and future tourism.

According to a comparison of the 1971 and the 1999 MassGIS land use data layers for Charlemont, the past thirty years saw changes in land use at the following locations:

• Tower Road: Conversion of open land to pasture and cropland.
• Western Charlemont: Pasture and open land converted to forest, expansion of mobile home park, and residential development of ½ acre in size or more on frontage lots (referred in the following bullets as approval-not-required (ANR) large lot development).
• Rowe Rd.: Expansion of mining areas.
• Schaefer Way: Large lot ANR.
• At base of Legate Hill Rd. and Rte. 2: Conversion of cropland to large lot residential uses.
  Legate Hill from Rte. 2 to town's border with Rowe: Conversion of forest to ANR development.
• Potter Rd.: Conversion of forest and pasture to large lot residential uses.
• Warner Hill Rd.: A fair amount of crop and pasture converted to ANR development and some pasture returned to forest.
• In Charlemont Center, south of Hawlemont School: Conversion of urban open land and spectator recreation land to participatory recreation land.
• North of Charlemont Center, off Warfield Rd.: Conversion of cropland to pasture and ANR uses and, of forest to pasture.
• Off North Heath Road: Land converted from spectator to participatory recreation uses, reduction in mining uses, conversion of forest and cropland to ANRs, some crop to forest changes, and the development of large lot residential uses within forestland back off the road.
• Near the Academy: Expansion of ANR developments off Burrington Rd.
• Mountain Road: Conversion of forest and cropland to ANR development and from cropland to pasture.
• Traveling east along Rte. 2: Conversion of pasture to cropland, forest to large lot ANR uses, and forest to participatory recreation.
• Off Avery Brook: Very little change, except for the development of two ANR house lots within forest.
• West Oxbow Rd.: Near Rte. 2, the conversion of cropland to participatory recreation land and from forest to ANR uses.
• East Oxbow Rd.: Most significant conversion of forest to large lot residential development on Hawks Hill and Deer Run Lane.
• Heath Stage Terrace and River View Rd.: Conversions of cropland to ¼ to ½ acre residential uses, open land to commercial uses, and forest to large lot ANR uses.
• North River Rd.: Conversion of spectator recreation uses to open land and of forest to ANR development.

Between 1971 and 1997 the predominant land use change in the Town of Charlemont has been the conversion of forest to residential development on ANR frontage lots. Another important change is the increase in participatory recreational uses. The locations of the ANR lots are spread throughout town with an atypical concentration in East Charlemont off Hawk Hill and Deer Run Lane. Between 1985 and 1999, the loss of forest was equal to 166 acres while the gain in large lot residential development was 190 acres. According to the U.S. Census, there was a gain of only 27 housing units between 1990 and 2000, which implies that much residential development happened in the late 1980s.

During the next ten-year period, the Massachusetts Institute of Social and Economic Research's high population estimates forecast a 9 percent increase in Charlemont's population, which is approximately 122 more people. Unless Charlemont encourages development in and around its village centers through zoning revisions, the long-term development trend will likely continue to be large lot residential development on frontage or ANR lots throughout town.

D.2 Infrastructure

Infrastructure plays a vital role in current and future development patterns.

D.2.1 Transportation Systems

There are two (2) principle highways in the Town of Charlemont, State Route 2 and State-numbered 8A. State Route 2, also known as the Mohawk Trail, is the primary east-west highway in Northern Massachusetts. It passes through Charlemont Center and the southern section of the Town. Route 2 connects Charlemont to Greenfield and Interstate Route 91 to the east, and with North Adams and New York to the west. State numbered Route 8A, is a Town-owned route with state designations, which travels in a north-south direction and connects the Town of Charlemont to Heath and Vermont to the north and Hawley to the south. It too passes through Charlemont Center.

Charlemont is serviced by the Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA), which provides fixed route service between Charlemont and Greenfield when Charlemont Academy and Greenfield Community College are in session. The FRTA also provides on-demand service for people with disabilities and the elderly.

The Springfield Terminal Railway (the former Boston and Maine Corp.) passes through the Town of Charlemont along Route 2. It does not, however, service commercial or industrial interests in Town.

According to the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development website, the nearest airport servicing the Town of Charlemont is located in North Adams The Harriman and West Airport is a general aviation facility capable of accommodating small aircraft.

D.2.2 Water Supply Systems

The Town of Charlemont does not have a municipal water supply. All residences and businesses are served by private wells.

D.2.3 Wastewater Treatment and Sewage Systems

The Town of Charlemont has a wastewater treatment facility that serves 360 people in Charlemont Center. It is a recirculating sand filter facility with a design capacity of 500,000 gallons per day. As of April 2003, it was operating at 65 percent of capacity. The wastewater treatment facility composts its sludge and discharges its effluent to the Deerfield River (FRCOG, 1998).

Typically, a public sewer system can impact development in a number of ways. Sewer infrastructure could be expanded to ensure that new industrial development occurs away from sensitive natural resources and that new dense residential development is built ideally within a Town-mandated boundary. Expanding sewer to areas with physical and hydrogeologic constraints may open up other areas to future development. Expanding sewer lines could result in increases in costs associated with infiltration of groundwater and inflow of storm water, which can eat up extra capacity. In addition, new demand for public sewer service may require further expansion of the wastewater treatment facility capacity, which can be very expensive. In short, public sewer systems can be a valuable tool for controlling and, in a sense, rewarding dense residential development that remains close to existing infrastructure. On the other hand, expanding sewer without proper planning can create a drain on the Town budget due to the costs of future community services resulting from expanding sparse yet sewered residential development in rural outlying areas.

The Charlemont Sewer District is not designed to accommodate uses that would require an extension of its collection system or its storage and filtration capacity. The ordinance authorizing designation of the District does not allow for its boundaries to expand and there is not enough land surrounding the wastewater treatment facility to allow for an expansion of the holding tanks or sand filters. At 65 percent of capacity, future expansion could occur but only to a very limited degree. One example of a limited expansion of use would be if an existing vacant (dry) building within the district were to be connected to the sewer system. As long as the additional demand for capacity did not exceed the system's design capacity, the use might be connected to sewer. The closer the district gets to 100 percent of design capacity, the more cautious the operators must be. Any unusually high flows exceeding the design capacity could result in the discharge of untreated effluent to the Deerfield River, an unacceptable situation for all parties.

D.3 Long-term Development Patterns

Long-term development patterns in Charlemont will be affected by both existing and future land use controls, including zoning; by the permanent protection of more land; and, by potential changes in transportation and sewerage infrastructure.

D.3.1 Land Use Controls

Residential development of frontage lots on existing roads will likely be the dominant short-term development pattern given current zoning. Charlemont's zoning includes a single Residential/Agricultural district. The zoning bylaws also include several measures that may influence long-term development patterns: Minimum lot area with conditions; Special Permit Criteria; Erosion Control; and Cluster Development.

Table 3-11: Selected Features of the Residential Agricultural District

Source: Town of Charlemont Zoning By-Laws; October 19, 1999.

Minimum Lot Area with Conditions 

The basic minimum lot size is 45,000 sq. ft. if certain conditions are present (See Table 3-9). The ground that will be disrupted due to construction should have an average slope of 15 percent or less. Depth to bedrock, hardpan or the high water table should be at least six feet. Finally the soils should percolate at rates of ten minutes per inch or less. If any one of these conditions is not present, the basic minimum lot size of 66,000 sq. ft. is applied. The general purpose behind such measures is likely to ensure that on-site septic systems do not contaminate groundwater and private wells.

Increases to the basic minimum lot size, whether the lot has constraints or not, are also applied to residential development of two and three-family units, to mobile home parks, campgrounds, and motels. Non-residential uses enjoy the basic minimum lot size as long as the capacity of their on-site septic systems is less than 2,000 gallons per day. If not, the commercial, industrial, or institutional use must be built on lots at least 90,000 sq. ft. in size were none of the site constraints present.

The single minimum frontage (150 ft.) and the basic minimum lot size ensure that new lots will be in one consistent pattern all over Town, despite traditional changes in density between rural outlying areas and the villages. Villages tend to have a variety of structures on lots smaller than an acre in size, while working farms and forests typically produce a sparsely developed rural landscape. In the future, there may be a desire for smaller frontage requirements (e.g. 75 or 100 ft.) in village areas and larger frontages (200-300 ft.) in the rural areas. Another interesting measure in the zoning rests in the requirement that two-and three-family homes, even where connected to sewer, would still be required to be on 60,000 sq. ft. and 75,000 sq. ft. lots with frontages of 150 ft. Typically, communities interested in promoting development patterns that result both in economic vitality and the preservation of open space seek a variety of development densities, including dense mixed use traditional village centers where residents can support nearby commercial businesses.

Special Permit Criteria 

The Special Permit Criteria listed in the Zoning By-Laws identify factors that would be considered in the Planning Board's decision to grant a use that is not allowed by right in Charlemont. These uses are varied from three-family homes, mobile home parks, structure heights greater than 32 ft., to accessory scientific research or development. The Special Permit Criteria provide the Planning Board the basis for protecting undeveloped lands with special or unique cultural, ecological, or recreational values as well as the Town's rural character and environmental quality overall. The Special Permit Criteria include impacts on: 

• Development of tourist activities; 
• Capacity of the Town to meet service needs;
• School facilities;
• Abutting lands in regards to sound, light, odor, noise, etc.; 
• The natural landscape including habitats, trees and plants; and whether the project causes erosion, siltation and increased stormwater runoff; 
• Safety;
• Neighborhood and community character; and,
• Employment and fiscal integrity.

Erosion Control 

This measure authorizes the Building Inspector to require any development to ensure that soil erosion and excessive stormwater runoff will be minimized. In addition, the measure requires a special permit for any grading or construction on land with slopes over 25 percent. This does not restrict all development along ridgelines, but does provide the Town with an opportunity to focus development in more appropriate upland areas.

Cluster Development 

The Cluster Development measure requires a special permit to be granted by the Planning Board for the development of parcels at least 5.2 acres for lots with no constraints or 7.6 acres for lots with constraints. The measure allows for a 20 percent increase in density beyond the basic minimum lot size, as long as the amount of open space created by the development is at least 30 percent of the total parcel size. For a 5.2-acre parcel, a developer would need to set aside 1.6 acres. No minimum lot size applies, but the 20 percent increase in density would result in only four 36,000 sq. ft. lots. A 5.2-acre roadside parcel with the necessary frontage could fit five 45,000 sq. ft. lots, while a traditional subdivision of the same size would likely provide the same number of lots as the cluster, but at the minimum lot size. In addition, there is no mention of the protection status of the open space or of a minimum upland percentage requirement. Charlemont may want to consider revising the cluster development measure to ensure that it provides more incentives for its use, and at the same time, ensures upland is protected, not wetlands, which are already protected from development.

Charlemont's zoning by-laws will create a pattern of development very different from its historical patterns. It encourages scattered residential development on all roadways including Rte. 2. Charlemont's zoning does not reflect the desire of the town to protect open space, farmland, forests, or to concentrate development near existing infrastructure. Remaining pastures and woodlands will continue to be encroached upon by larger lot residential development. Charlemont may want to consider implementing a sustained land protection effort and revisions to the zoning by-laws so that the pattern of future development retains the Town's rural character. Unless this occurs, Charlemont will likely experience sprawl of predominantly single-family residential development on lots of 1 -1 ½ acres in size over much of the developable acreage. The potential results of this type of development pattern are reflected in the following build-out analysis.

D.3.2 Build-out Analysis

To illustrate the long-term effects of current zoning, results of a build-out study are included here. This aforementioned study is part of a State-wide effort funded by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The methodology and results of the build-out study and associated GIS mapping is explained below.

The purpose of the build-out analysis is to determine potentially developable land areas for residential, commercial, and industrial development. The process starts with identifying development that already exists based on 1997 Mac Connell Land Use data and new subdivisions built since that time. Already developed areas are subtracted from the Town's total acreage and the remaining area is classified as undeveloped. Undeveloped areas are then screened for environmental constraints such as steep slopes in excess of twenty-five percent (25%), wetland areas, Rivers Protection Act buffer areas, and Zone I Recharge areas to public water supplies. In addition, protected open space is removed from consideration, but only those areas that are permanently protected, such as farmland in the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program. Interestingly, some areas which you would expect to be screened, such as those held by water districts to protect public water supplies, may not be if a conservation restriction or some other legal mechanism is not placed on the deed to permanently protect the land as open space. Slopes between fifteen and twenty-five percent (15-25%) are considered a partial constraint, since certain types of land use typically do not occur on relatively steep slopes. For purposes of this build-out analysis, it was assumed that commercial and industrial development, and residential districts with small lot sizes would not occur on slopes of fifteen and twenty-five percent (15-25%). However, it was assumed that large lot residential zoning could occur on slopes of fifteen and twenty-five percent (15-25%) given greater flexibility to grade and site structures. The areas that remain after the screening process are considered potentially developable.

The zoning district is then overlaid on to the potentially developable areas and a "build factor" is calculated. The build factor is calculated based upon the requirements of each zoning district in terms of minimum lot size, frontage, setbacks, parking required and maximum lot coverage permitted. Once calculated, the build factor is used to convert potentially developable acreage into either residential house lots, or commercial or industrial square footage depending on the zoning district. Once house lots are calculated this can be translated into estimated population growth, miles of new roads, and additional water consumption and solid waste generation. Commercial and industrial square footage is calculated and its associated demand for water is estimated.

Table 3-13: Summary Build-out Statistics of New Development and Associated Impacts

Notes:
1. All wetlands removed from potentially developable land;
No development on slopes in excess of 25%;
No development in Zone I Water Supply Protection Areas;
No development in permanently protected open space; and,
No development within 150-foot buffer of transmission lines.
2. Estimate from the Department of Housing & Community Development's
Growth Impact Handbook
3. Statewide Average
4. 1990 Census; Population/Housing Units
5. MISER; 1997 School Children/Population

The results of the build-out analysis are often quite startling. Table 3-10 describes the results of the build-out in numerical terms. While it might take many decades to reach "build-out," it is quite clear that current zoning will not protect the community's rural character or natural resource base. Open Space and Master Planning can help to identify key resources to protect and the areas most suitable for development. Once completed, Open Space and Master Plans should be translated into zoning revisions and land protection programs in order to realize the balance desired by a community between natural resource protection and development.

Although Charlemont has zoning that contains measures that seek to protect natural landscapes, sprawl of roadside frontage lots is the current development pattern occurring today. This development pattern will diminish the differences between the village and rural areas of town. Charlemont's zoning encourages the development of homes on large lots. Even with slope and soil constraints, the build-out analysis estimates there is room for 6,270 new dwelling units in town. This could result in over 17,000 more people and 3,200 more school-aged children.

The analysis assumes that after all frontage lots are developed, backland will be developed as subdivisions. New subdivisions could result in the creation of more than 108 new miles of roads that would need to be maintained. Fire and police services would have to expand to protect the increased population. Before the last acre was developed, Charlemont would need community water supplies to satisfy an estimated additional daily water demand of 1.4 million gallons.

It is clear that this degree of population growth and development would result in ecological as well as economic impacts. The impacts could include a reduction in available clean drinking water, decreases in the quantity and quality of wildlife and fisheries habitat, a reduction in the water quality of streams, lower air quality, less biodiversity, increases in erosion and loss of open spaces. Full development would also result in the loss of agricultural businesses and rural character as well as a reduction in the viability of the town's recreation and tourism-based economy.

The economic impacts of this level of population growth and development would be felt well before maximum build-out was reached. The challenge for Charlemont and other communities is to find a model for growth that protects vital natural resource systems and maintains a stable property tax rate. In designing the model, it is important to understand the fiscal impact of different land uses, which can be calculated based on the relationship of property tax revenues generated to municipal services used.

Although protected open space typically has a low assessed value and thus generates low gross tax revenues, municipal expenditures required to support this use are typically much lower than the tax revenue generated. In 1991, the American Farmland Trust (AFT) conducted a Cost of Community Services (COCS) analysis for several towns in Franklin County. A COCS analysis is a process by which the fiscal impacts of different land uses within a town are compared to determine whether a use has a positive or negative net fiscal impact. The results of the 1991 AFT study showed that protection of open space is an effective strategy for promoting a stable tax base. It found that for every dollar generated by open space, the municipal services required by that land cost on average only 29 cents, resulting in a positive fiscal impact to the town. In 1995, the Southern New England Forest Consortium (SNEFC) commissioned a study of eleven southern New England towns that confirmed the findings of the earlier AFT study. These findings were confirmed by another 47 COCS analyses across the country conducted in the 1990s. Figure 3-1 demonstrates the summary of the 58 COCS studies. For every dollar of property tax revenues received from residential property, the amount of money expended by the town to support homeowners is over a dollar, while farm/forest and commercial/industrial property provide a positive fiscal impact.

Source: American Farmland Trust; 1999.

The second component of a balanced land use plan concerns the development of other tax- generating land uses. Both the AFT and the SNEFC studies showed that for every dollar of taxes generated by commercial and industrial uses, the cost to towns for these uses resulted in a positive net gain. Patterns of commercial and industrial uses vary considerably between towns, and positive fiscal impact is only one of several important factors that need to be considered when encouraging this type of development. It is just as critical for communities to consider the impact of commercial and industrial development on quality of life. Viewed in this light, the best types of commercial and industrial development for Charlemont to encourage might have one or more of the following characteristics: Being a business in the recreation and tourism-based services sector; locally owned and operated; use of a large amount of taxable personal property; a "green industry" that does not use or generate hazardous materials; businesses that add value to the region's agricultural and forestry products; and, businesses that employ local residents. It is also important to consider that successful commercial and industrial development often generates increased demand for housing, traffic congestion and pollution. Therefore, the type, size and location of industrial and commercial development require thorough research and planning.

By pursuing strategies that combine active land protection, zoning measures that direct development while protecting natural and historical resources, and sustainable economic development, Charlemont can continue to grow and stabilize its property tax rate while maintaining its historic villages and rural character.

This information was provided by Bill Labich, FRCOG Planning Department