Home About the RPC Member Towns The Region Services and Programs Publications and Resources News and Events Current RFPs Links Job Openings Contact Us

Interstate Exits of the Region:

Study and Policies


Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission

March 10, 2004

Table of Contents

List of Maps

Section 1: Introduction and Background Information

Traditional land use patterns in Vermont changed forever with the arrival of the interstate highway system and the subsequent development that occurred at interchanges.  All too often, uncontrolled development at interchange areas has brought negative impacts to existing businesses in town centers and has compromised the scenic views we cherish in this state.  One of the goals established by the Southern Windsor County Regional Planning Commission (RPC) is “to preserve the historical settlement patterns and rural character of the region and to maintain the integrity of its villages.”  Development at interchanges cannot be prohibited entirely.  However, we can recognize the importance of interchange areas as community gateways and encourage sensibly planned development in these unique locations.

The RPC embarked on this study to address land use adjacent to the region’s interchanges and the impact of interchange development on villages and downtowns.  The interchange analysis is intended to serve several functions:  it provides a clear picture of the existing land use patterns and traffic volumes to serve as a benchmark and basis for discussion; it offers recommendations for local municipalities interested in addressing future development at each interchange in the region; and it guides future public investments and facilitates discussion for local and state officials and planners.

Section 1.1: Planning Tools and Techniques

The southern Windsor County region is served by Interstate 91 and three interchanges.  The interchanges are located in Springfield (Exit 7), Weathersfield (Exit 8), and in Hartland (Exit 9).  Although the Hartland interchange is not in the region, Exit 9 provides interstate access to the town of Windsor.  The Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD), in an attempt to determine the constraints for each of Vermont’s interstate interchanges, has identified these three exits as “Priority 1,” which are relatively undeveloped areas with high development potential.

There is regional and statewide concern over development at Vermont’s interchanges, and the land in close proximity to Exits 7, 8 and 9 is currently facing this pressure.  Commercial and industrial developers find interchange areas attractive as business locations because they are major junctions for traffic, people, and resources entering and exiting the region.  A number of tools are available for towns to consider when addressing their concerns about interchange development.

Zoning bylaws address the types of development that can be built around interchanges.  Interchange zoning districts may be established as overlay districts or design review districts and may use such zoning tools as conditional uses, transfer of development rights, and planned unit developments (PUDs).  Subdivision regulations may also support a town’s goals in guiding growth around interchanges.  Zoning districts should be linked to the public purposes established in the town plan. 

The town plan is a tool that provides a framework of broad public values and specific action steps.  Its value for shaping interchange development lies in defining clear community standards by which development can take place.  The town plan is also a place to identify and define important scenic viewsheds and other aesthetic criteria.  In the event of an Act 250 hearing, these standards and aesthetic criteria are used by the District Environmental Commission in reviewing new development proposals.

Access management is a crucial policy tool for limiting the affects of development on existing flows of motorized transportation.  As new development occurs near interstate interchanges, more travelers exit the highway to purchase products and services at those locations.  Increased traffic and congestion can increase the likelihood of pedestrian injuries and motor vehicle accidents.  Traffic can back up quickly around interchanges when there are multiple access points along the highway connecting to the interstate.  This can slow the movement of goods and services. 

According to the Access Management Guidebook (Northwest Regional Planning Commission, 1997), access management is the “control of driveways and street connections to public roadways in order to manage traffic flow and safety, preserve the carrying capacity of the road, and implement coordinated land use and transportation plans.”  Access management policies (outlined in town plans and implemented through zoning and subdivision regulations) can consolidate the number of curb cuts, driveways, and access points along a road corridor.  They can put restrictions on left-hand turns, require the construction of raised medians, and require developers to create shared parking lots or access points.  The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) adopted Access Management Program Guidelines in July 1999 and is responsible for granting access permits on State roads.

Other possible tools for shaping the future land use around interchanges are conservation easements and deed restrictions.  These can be used to determine the future uses of a piece of land.  A deed restriction or conservation easement is provided voluntarily by the owner of a property and sometimes in response to an offer of compensation by a town or nonprofit organization such as a land trust.

This study will show that all of the interchanges that serve our region are unique.  It is the goal of the RPC to provide goals, policies, and recommendations in this document that will help direct development to locations that are compatible with the historic development patterns of southern Windsor County.  The RPC would like to preserve the value and function of the region’s interchanges by encouraging prudent land use.

Section 1.2: Type of Development Common to Interchanges

Interchange development tends to be atypical of the traditional New England land use pattern of compact village centers surrounded by rural countryside.  The type of development that often occurs around interchanges has a few common characteristics, creating what is generally referred to as “sprawl”:

Section 1.3: State Policies on Interchanges

Vermont’s land use goals can be found in 24 V.S.A. §4302 and include those that support efforts to plan carefully at interchange areas: 

On September 13, 2001, former Governor Howard Dean signed an Executive Order to address planning, development, and conservation of lands at interstate interchanges.  (See Appendix A) The State of Vermont is currently working to address interchange sprawl through a collaborative planning effort at four targeted interstate interchanges:  Colchester, Richmond, Berlin, and Randolph.  The State’s intent is to uphold Vermont’s statutory land use goals and to help communities guide development that is carefully planned and designed to protect and enhance important natural, cultural, and scenic values.

In the early 1990s, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), with the assistance of several landscape design professionals, developed and adopted the Scenic Resource Evaluation Process.  The Process was developed to assist ANR in Act 250 proceedings under Criterion 8 (aesthetics) and followed an extensive public review process.  It analyzes the scenic quality of a project’s setting and surrounding landscape and then evaluates the visual impacts of the project on its scenic context.  In 1992, ANR completed a National Endowment for the Arts funded project to illustrate and publish the concepts included in the Process in the booklet:  Vermont’s Scenic Landscapes:  A Guide for Growth and Protection.  The booklet is available through the ANR Planning Division.

The State of Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) is working with consultants to develop a Design Guidelines Manual for the state’s 52 interstate interchanges.  The consultants have completed scenic inventory and land use assessments of several interchange areas.  (See Appendix B for Exits 7&8)  The Design Guidelines Manual is expected to be completed in early 2004.

Concurrent with the State-led interchange planning efforts is a program to promote downtowns and village centers.  The goal of the Vermont Downtown Program is to promote new business, more jobs, and community vitality in downtown village centers, while discouraging sprawl at the fringes of the town centers.  Administered by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, the program provides technical assistance and training to communities to help in downtown revitalization efforts.  A new “Village Center Designation” is now available and offers similar benefits for smaller communities.

Section 1.4: Balancing Transportation and Land Use

Policies and recommendations regarding interstate interchanges in the region should consider the primary function of a highway system interchange.  The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) defines an interchange as a system of interconnecting roadways in conjunction with one or more grade separations that provides for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways.  Additionally, the Access Management Program Guidelines adopted by VTrans in 1999 provide information on the design and spacing of access points along State highway and other State-maintained roads.  Interchange ramps are addressed specifically in the guidelines with the following recommendations:  “The minimum spacing requirement between any access and any entrance or exit ramp, providing access to any limited access highway, will be 500 feet in rural areas, and 250 feet in urban areas.  When this spacing requirement cannot be obtained due to property limitations, the Agency will consider the purchase of access rights so the maximum attainable distance will be provided between on and off ramps and the access points.”

Section 1.5: Analysis Techniques

Traffic data was collected using the Vermont Agency of Transportation April 1999  Automatic Traffic Recorder Station History Report (1984-1998) and 2002 (Route Log) AADTs for State Highways (published June 2003).  Commuting data was referenced from the 1995 Southern Windsor County Regional Transportation Plan.  Other regional plans were reviewed in an effort to determine the level of attention dedicated to interchanges.  The town plans, zoning and subdivision regulations of Springfield, Windsor, Weathersfield, and Hartland were examined to diagnose the level of attention given to interchange areas.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to determine existing land use conditions around the interchanges and to predict possible growth patterns.  The current land use data layer was created using digital orthophotographs (digitally corrected aerial photographs) and then adjusted using standard identification techniques.  Many of the layers of information presented on the maps have been created from various source materials and have been maintained by the Vermont Center for Geographic Information.

Section 1.6 : Overview

The purpose of this study is to protect the aesthetic and natural resources of the land around the region’s interchanges and to protect the economic and cultural viability of traditional village and town centers by carefully considering the kinds of growth that are appropriate near interchanges.  The study provides information that will serve as a basis for planning at the town level.  In addition, this information may be used to protect valuable land for conservation through easements with a land trust or other measures.  Finally, the information will be used to formulate regional goals and policies.

There are a number of well-established methods by which townspeople can direct growth and reduce the negative impact of development that does occur.  These methods, which were already briefly identified, contain common and mutually reinforcing elements, such as clustering development, requiring shared access points, limiting the number of curb cuts, and facilitating pedestrian movement between neighboring buildings.  Change is inevitable and occurring rapidly.  Interstate traffic in the region has increased dramatically since 1984, and land uses are changing as well.  Local communities must clearly identify standards that will help to control future growth.  This process, and some of the questions that citizens will need to consider, are described in later in this study.

Section 2: Traffic in the I-91 Corridor:  Springfield to Hartland

There are four Vermont Agency of Transportation Automatic Traffic Recorder Stations (ATR STA) within the study area.  The first (X026) is located in Rockingham between Exits 6 and 7; the second (Y075) is located in Weathersfield between Exits 7 and 8; the third (Y059) is located in Windsor between Exits 8 and 9; and the fourth (Y076) is located in Hartland between Exits 9 and 10.  Figure 1 chronicles the volume of traffic at the four sites since 1984. 

Figure 1 - Traffic Volume in the I-91 Corridor

Source:  2002 (Route Log) AADTs State Highways, Vermont Department of Transportation, Technical Services Division, Traffic Research Unit, June 2003

Section 3: Springfield and Exit 7

This section analyzes the conditions around the Springfield interchange in order to suggest how and why the Town of Springfield may guide the development that occurs there.  Traffic conditions, and future traffic projections based on current trends, suggest that the interchange area will be facing significant increases in traffic volumes.  Increased development in the area would exacerbate these conditions.  The study establishes a baseline of land-based environmental data for the interchange area, which can be used to assess the impacts of possible changes in land.  Relevant language in the town plan and the allowable uses in the interchange area under current zoning are identified.  Drawing from both the land use analysis, which also identifies buildable land, and an analysis of the current zoning for the interchange area, this study identifies the amount and type of development that could take place in the interchange area.  Ways of addressing the problems raised by these findings are provided in Sections 6 and 7.

Section 3.1: Traffic Conditions near Exit 7

Traffic counts from 2002 indicate that 13,700 vehicles a day travel between Exit 6 (Rockingham) and Exit 7 (Springfield), and 12,200 vehicles a day travel between Exit 7 and Exit 8 (Weathersfield).  Since 1984, the volume of traffic has increased 73.4 percent between Exits 6 and 7 and 60.5 percent between Exits 7 and 8. 

The current traffic flow in and around the Exit 7 interchange runs smoothly.  Traffic volume near the Howard Johnson Restaurant on VT Route 11 averages about 8,600 vehicles a day and 4,400 vehicles a day eastbound from the interstate.  Volume at the junction of US Route 5 and VT Route 11 is 1,100 vehicles a day.   ( See Map 1 - Average Annual Daily Traffic 2002)   There is an unmarked State park-and-ride facility on one side of the VTrans garage located across from the Howard Johnson Restaurant at the junction of VT Route 11 and US Route 5.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 76.9% of the region’s commuters drive alone to work with a mean travel time of about 21 minutes.  This compares to commuters throughout the United States, where 75.7% drive alone with a mean travel time of about 26 minutes.  In all of Vermont, 75.2% drive alone with a mean travel time of 22 minutes.

Development, such as the new Southern State Correctional Facility or the proposed industrial park, will certainly increase the number of drivers who use the I-91 Exit 7 interchange.  Access to the correctional facility is approximately 150 feet east of Paddock Road, on the north side of VT Route 11, and approximately 2,000 feet from the end of the southbound exit ramp of I-91.  Traffic generated by the correctional facility will increase the number of cars turning onto and off of VT Route 11.  There are currently no designated ‘turn’ lanes on VT Route 11.  Proposed development along the VT Route 11 corridor west of the I-91 Exit 7 interchange should be scrutinized for possible affects on traffic flow.  Trip generation will be monitored to see whether any changes will be necessary in the existing travel lanes. 

Section 3.2: Land Use around the Springfield Interchange

Currently, the commercial buildings adjacent to the interchange include two gas stations and a restaurant/hotel.  A land use study of a one-mile radius from Exit 7 (not including New Hampshire) was conducted to better understand the current development patterns around the interchange.  The identification of current land use patterns around Exit 7 is meant to serve as a benchmark to gauge the possible impacts that will accompany future development.  The study area consists of approximately 1,446 acres of land, including 26 acres of wetlands.  Approximately 1,144 acres, or 79 percent of the study area, are undeveloped.  Undeveloped land includes farms, forest, and transitional (shrub/brush and open non-agricultural).  (See Map 2 – Existing Land Use)  Map 2 shows the land that is currently in an “undeveloped” state.  Residential use totals approximately 33 acres.  Commercial use is found on 32 acres, recreational use takes up about 20 acres (including the Toonerville Trail), government/industrial use accounts for 79 acres, four acres are cultural/public assembly use, and right-of-way accounts for 108 acres.

Section 3.3: Correctional Facility and Proposed Industrial Area

The sand pits behind Howard Johnson’s Restaurant were previously used for sand extraction. (See Map 3 – Proposed Land Use)  That land is now the site for the new correctional facility and the proposed industrial park.  Natural features pose few limitations to development on the site.  The closest natural features are deer wintering areas (about 30 yards away from the proposed industrial park and 150 yards from the correctional facility), the Black River (about 380 yards from the proposed industrial park and 480 yards from the correctional facility), steep slopes (defined as over 25 percent - about 250 yards from either of the sites), and a rare plant or animal site (the exact area is not revealed for protection of the site but is located in the Hoyt’s Landing area).  The historic Eureka School House is about 480 yards from the proposed industrial park and 710 yards from the correctional facility.  The deer wintering area is the closest natural feature to the two developments.  A wildlife biologist has assessed the boundaries of the deer wintering area for accuracy.  A one-acre hazardous waste site is located on the parcel of the proposed industrial park.

The correctional facility employs approximately 140 people; 110 of those employees are new hires. (Employment figures made available by the Springfield Regional Development Corporation.)  The added workforce has increased the amount of traffic in and around Exit 7.  The proposed industrial park, which is still in the conceptual stage, will utilize the same water and sewer lines being developed for the correctional facility. 

Section 3.4: Natural Features near Exit 7

In this study, a natural feature is defined as deer wintering areas, surface water, town forest, 100-year floodplain, and National Wetland Inventory (NWI), three acres or larger, wetlands.  Natural features identified in this study cover 52.7 percent of the total study area (not including areas of steep slopes).  (See Map 4 - Natural Features Analysis). Map 4 depicts the locations of natural features within a mile of the interchange. 

Of the 52.7 percent containing natural features, deer wintering areas cover the largest amount of land, followed by surface water, town forest, floodplain (that is not underwater), and wetlands.  Figure 2 breaks the natural features down according to acreage (rounded).  There is some overlap of natural features, such as wetlands contained in deer wintering areas.  The percentage of land acreage of the natural features reported in this study is meant to serve as a benchmark to gauge future development.

Deer Wintering Areas 415 acres
Surface Water 226 acres
Town Forest 153 acres
100-year Floodplain (not in water) 76 acres
NWI Wetlands 35 acres

Figure 2 – Natural Features Acreage (within one-mile study area at Exit 7)

Section 3.5: Buildable Land

Land containing undeveloped land, forest, agriculture and brush was combined into a single mapped layer.  The natural features were then cut out from this layer to create a new layer called “Buildable Land,” which is represented on Map 5.  This shows an estimate of where land can be more easily developed because of fewer natural feature restrictions.  It does not, however, identify areas of steep slopes.  There are approximately 336 acres of buildable land.  (See Map 5 – Buildable Land Near Exit 7)

Section 3.6: Current Zoning along Exit 7

There are five zoning districts in the one-mile study area for Exit 7.  (See Map 6 – Current Zoning)  Of these five districts, “Land Reserve 25 Acre” covers the largest percentage of land acreage at approximately 54 percent of the study area.  Figure 3 shows the estimated acreage of each district within a mile of the interchange.

Land Reserve 25-Acre 657 acres
Residential/Agricultural 5-Acre 267 acres
General Business 140 acres
Industrial 123 acres
Residential/Agricultural 2-Acre 39 acres
Right-of-way 223 acres
Exit 7 District (overlay) 25 acres
River Protection District (overlay) 591 acres

 Figure 3 – Zoning Districts Acreage

Springfield changed zoning districts around Exit 7 to accommodate the new correctional facility and proposed industrial park.  The zoning changes take into account the natural features of the area.  The changes that Springfield has made to its town plan and zoning districts around Exit 7 will help ensure that development based on new sewer and water access for the new Industrial District will not have a negative impact on the amount and type of development that takes place in the most visible areas around the interchange.

Section 3.7: Springfield Zoning District Definitions

The following are taken directly from 1990 and 1997 Ordinances, and the newly adopted zoning amendments of November 6, 2000 and February 12, 2001.

Residential/Agricultural 2 Acre District Purpose:

“The Residential/Agricultural 2 Acre District has been established to allow low density residential development in areas which generally have good agricultural and forest soils. It shall be the policy of the Town to encourage development in these areas in the manner which will best protect the agricultural potential of the district. This may be accomplished through cluster development or development for residential purposes of that land which is marginal for agricultural use.”

Residential/Agricultural 5 Acre District Purpose:

“The Residential/Agricultural 5 Acre District has been established in outlying areas where public water and sewer service are not available and where topography is mixed and irregular.  The purpose of this district is to encourage economical agricultural activities, and allow for low density housing patterns.  It shall be the policy of the Town to encourage development in these areas in the manner which will best protect the agricultural and rural potential of the district.  This may be accomplished through cluster development for residential purposes of that land which is marginal for agricultural use.”

Land Reserve 10 Acres District Purpose:

“The Land Reserve - 10 Acres District is designed to maintain open space in the outlying areas at a smaller minimum acreage while encouraging the same uses that would be applicable to the LR-25 District.  These areas are more accessible than LR-25 but the topography may be mixed and irregular similar to the RA-5 District.  Generally new development would require onsite water and sewer.”

Land Reserve 25 Acre District Purpose:

“The Land Reserve 25 Acre District is intended to conserve open space for land reserve and associated uses.  These areas are generally not serviced by community facilities such as roads, utilities, and water and sewer.  Because of subsoil conditions, steep slopes, and general inaccessibility, development in these areas is possible only at great expense.  In keeping with the community’s desire to retain Springfield’s farm and forested landscape, these areas are slated for very low density development.  The applicant shall demonstrate that the location of any proposed development is suitable for the proposed purpose.”

General Business District Purpose:

“The General Business District includes areas geared toward accommodating the general commercial needs of the public.  Lying outside the central business areas and along major travel corridors, these areas are easily accessible by existing roads.”

Riverfront Protection Overlay District:

The Riverfront Protection Overlay District is intended to reduce erosion of riverbanks, reduce pollution of the river by filtering surface runoff and ensuring that on-site sewage treatment systems are adequately separated from the river, preserve the visual qualities of the river valley (both views of the river and views from the river) and protect wetlands and other natural features along the river.

Exit Seven District Purpose:

“The Exit Seven District includes a defined area located on the western side of Interstate 91 between the Interstate Highway and the Black River.  This area has businesses that are geared towards accommodating the traveling public and to maintaining the major highway systems.  It is the intent of the district not to compete with Central and General Business district[s] for small businesses.  It is also the intent of this district to restrict sprawl around the Interstate interchange by limiting the minimum size of parcels and the land required to support individual uses.”

Industrial District Purpose:

“The Industrial District allows for the establishment of manufacturing employment opportunities in the community.  These areas must take into consideration truck access and the availability of utilities.  Space for off-street parking and trucking, therefore, must be adequate enough for industrial use.  These areas must be protected from intrusion of residential or retail business uses which are not compatible with the industrial uses designated for this area.  Research and development or other high density employment activities should be concentrated in this area.”

Section 3.8: Exit 7 Development Potential

Map 7 is the result of combining buildable land with current zoning to predict the type of development that could take place under current zoning districts, with little or no restrictions due to natural features.  (See Map 7 – Development Potential)

Nearly all of the developable land along the main roads nearest the interchange has already been developed.  The latest changes in Springfield’s zoning have helped insure that the community will have a say on any further development of these already developed parcels.

Section 3.9: Springfield Town Plan

In response to the new construction of the Southern State Correctional Facility near the Exit 7 interchange, the Town of Springfield amended its town plan to specifically address issues related to growth in this area.  The town wanted to preserve the existing natural and scenic qualities of the area, while maintaining the efficient flow of traffic.  The plan suggests access management principles, creation of an Exit 7 Zoning District, and expanded site plan review as ways to preserve the function of the interchange area.  Specifically, the Springfield Town Plan suggests scrutinizing future development in terms of lighting, noise, aesthetics, signage, and parking.

The Springfield Town Plan recognizes the I-91 interchange as a gateway to the community and emphasizes that special attention should be devoted to ensure that suitable development is allowed.  The Plan points out the negative effects on Springfield’s downtown business core due to strip development.  Much of this development has occurred on VT Route106, north of the downtown.  The Plan recommends design standards to limit the strip development character of new commercial projects.  According to the Plan, design standards should require future commercial development to reduce setbacks, encourage parking behind buildings, and make adequate provisions for pedestrian and non-motorized traffic and appropriate visual buffers.

Springfield took a proactive planning approach to this area before the construction of the new correctional facility and proposed industrial park.  It recognized and defined strip commercial development.  It addressed the Interstate 91 interchange in its goals and objectives, clearly stating how this interchange should be developed in the best interest of the town.  Springfield should continue its proactive stance on land use planning.

Section 3.10: Recommendations for Springfield at Exit 7

Section 4: Weathersfield and Exit 8

The analysis used for Weathersfield and Exit 8 follows a similar pattern to that of Springfield and Exit 7, but yields very different conclusions.  Like the analysis for Exit 7, traffic conditions and future traffic projections based on current trends suggest that the interchange area will be facing rather significant increases in traffic volume.  Any further development along the principal roads of this area will complicate these conditions. The study establishes a baseline of land-based environmental data for the interchange area, adjusting its analysis to an area more representative of the geomorphological and social realities of the area.  The town plan and zoning bylaws were examined to the degree that they affect this area.  Information about the buildable land and the current zoning were combined to identify the amount and type of development that could take place in the interchange area in the future.  Methods of addressing the problems raised by the preceding analysis can be found in Sections 6 and 7.

Section 4.1: Traffic Conditions near Exit 8

Exit 8 in the town of Weathersfield intersects with VT Route 131 just west of Ascutney.   US Route 5 runs north/south through the village of Ascutney, about a half-mile east of Exit 8.  VT Route 131 turns into US Route 12 east of the intersection with US Route 5. 

Traffic counts from 2002 indicate that 13,400 vehicles a day travel between Exit 8 and Exit 9 (Hartland).  Since 1984, traffic has increased 61.4 percent between Exits 8 and 9. 

Exit 8 provides access to the village of Ascutney, serves as an exit to Windsor for northbound commuters, and also serves commuters destined for Cavendish, the resort village of Ludlow, and Claremont, New Hampshire. 

Traffic from the south destined for Windsor exits I-91 at the Weathersfield interchange and proceeds to Windsor via US Route 5.  Conversely, motorists originating in Windsor and destined for points south of Ascutney will likely take US Route 5 to Ascutney and continue southbound via I-91. 

VT Route 131, east of the I-91 interchange, carries 9,000 vehicles a day.  VT Route 131, west of the I-91 interchange carries 5,000 vehicles a day.  US Route 5, north of its intersection with VT Route 131, has a volume of 5,000 vehicles a day and a volume of 1,600 south of the intersection.  (See Map 8 – Average Annual Daily Traffic 2002)

Though the area is not currently congested, turning onto VT Route 131 west of the I-91 interchange can be difficult as queues build up on the exit ramps during peak periods.  Future commercial development along this corridor could further complicate this situation.  There is a State park-and-ride facility southwest of the I-91 interchange.

Section 4.2: Land Use around the Weathersfield Interchange

Unlike the Springfield interchange, the Weathersfield interchange is in close proximity to an established village center making land use patterns more complex.  The unincorporated village of Ascutney, with one-acre minimum lots, is located less than a mile from Exit 8.  The ability to develop on these smaller lots creates a more densely settled land use pattern near the interchange.  Regional and local land use goals state that future development should be concentrated in “growth centers” such as villages and designated downtown areas.  Weathersfield has identified the village of Ascutney as a growth center.  Since this growth center is within a mile of the interchange, policies created for Exit 8 should acknowledge that there are both rural and more settled components to the landscape and carefully address this issue.  The higher density of development found in a village setting is reflected in the acreage of the land use types in Figure 4.  

Undeveloped 970 acres
Agricultural 322 acres
Residential 115 acres
Outdoor Recreation 88 acres
Commercial 51 acres
Industrial 7 acres

 Figure 4 – Land Use Acreage in Ascutney Growth Corridor

Section 4.3: Land Use in the Ascutney Corridor

The land use analysis for Exit 8 looked at the current land use percentages in the corridor between the Connecticut River and Interstate 91.  There are two major geographical features limiting the spread of development in the village of Ascutney.  The Connecticut River is a natural boundary limiting development eastward, and Interstate 91 is a man-made boundary limiting development westward.  In addition, the topography to the west of I-91 is not conducive to development.  Because of the high traffic volumes between Exit 8 and the town of Windsor, the majority of future commercial growth that Ascutney is likely to experience is limited to the Ascutney corridor, particularly along US Route 5, and the area along VT Route 131 near the interchange.  In addition, this land is fairly flat and the soils are appropriate for septic systems and foundations.  There are also a number of historic structures located in this area.  Map 9 depicts the land use categories in the growth area defined above.  Land use acreages were tallied in order to keep track of changes in the growth corridor.  (See Map 9 – Existing Land Use in the Ascutney Corridor)

Section 4.4: Natural Features near Exit 8

The area around Exit 8 has less natural resource acreage compared to the Springfield interchange area.  (See Map 10 – Town of Weathersfield, Exit 8 - Natural Features)  The natural features found within one mile of the interchange include the Connecticut River, steep slopes, 100-year floodplain, conserved lands, various brooks, two identified wetlands, a rare and endangered site, and a wellhead protection area.    Figure 5 below shows the estimated acreage of these significant natural features. 

Wellhead Source Protection Areas 27 acres
Conserved Land 9 acres
NWI Wetlands 12 acres
100-year Floodplain (not in water) 31 acres

Figure 5 – Natural Features Acreage (within the one-mile study area at Exit 8)

Section 4.5: Buildable Land in the Ascutney Corridor

Like the Springfield buildable land analysis, land that contained undeveloped land, forest, agriculture and brush was combined into a single mapped layer. The natural features were then cut out from this layer to create a new layer called “Buildable Land,” which is represented on Map 11.   (See Map 11 – Buildable Land in the Ascutney Corridor)  The total acreage for buildable land is approximately 474 acres.

Section 4.6: Weathersfield Zoning in the Ascutney Corridor

There are currently four Weathersfield Zoning Districts in the identified growth area:  Village, Highway Commercial, Rural Residential, and Industrial.  (See Map 12 – Current Zoning in the Ascutney Corridor)  The descriptions of the districts in the growth corridor are as follows:

Village (V) District Purpose:

“Established dense residential centers for sociability, convenient shopping and other public and private community services compatible with a rural village setting; intensive land use with some multi-family housing; efficient location for a limited number of compatible commercial activities.  The Village District can absorb growth without greatly increasing demand for roads and school bus services.  Central water and possible sewer services may need to be provided to accommodate growth.”

Rural Residential (RR1) District Purpose:

“Residential growth areas surrounding villages and hamlets; somewhat convenient to their amenities; intended to always retain some large lots to add variety and scenery. Growth in the Rural Residential District will increase demand for roads and school bus service slowly and at a small rate per family.”

Highway Commercial (HC) Purpose:

“Areas adjacent to highways or highway intersections with sufficient traffic to support the efficient provision of goods and services to the public.  Serves local residents and transients, provides some local employment and helps to broaden the Town tax base. Access drives and curb cuts must be carefully planned to avoid traffic nuisances and dangers.”

Industrial (IND) Purpose:

“Areas suitable in terrain and proximity to transportation facilities to be desirable by industry and those commercial activities that do not depend on highway traffic for customers.  Provides employment for local residents and broadens the Town tax base. Currently located in areas partially so developed and considered to be appropriate for such use.”

Section 4.7: Development Potential in the Ascutney Corridor

The Buildable Land map has been combined with the zoning layer to predict the type of development that could take place under current zoning districts, with little or no restrictions due to natural features.  ( See Map 13 – Development Potential in the Ascutney Corridor)  Within the study area, the zoning district that has the most undeveloped land without natural features is the area identified as “Village.” 

Section 4.8: Weathersfield Town Plan

The Weathersfield Town Plan does not currently have a section on commercial strip-development.  The present zoning of “Highway Commercial” around VT Route 131 and US Route 5 could promote commercial strip-development in these areas.  Future revisions to the town plan should directly address the interchange area and the Ascutney Corridor.   Regulatory measures such as design review or requiring parking in the rear of buildings are suggested.  Considerations for pedestrian access and limitations on the number and location of access points are also strongly advised.

The four lane section of VT Route 131 is, from a pedestrian’s perspective, an extension of the interstate and hospitable only to vehicular traffic.  There are no crosswalks for pedestrians, and traffic moves much faster than the 40 mph marked speed limit.  US Route 5, on the other hand, has a scale that is conducive to functioning as the main street of the village.  The Town of Weathersfield will need to plan for sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic calming in the village of Ascutney, as there is much pedestrian activity.  In addition, villages function best when they provide a sense of enclosure and represent a clearly defined space.  The Town should take steps soon to formulate a plan to accomplish this definition.  The characteristics of both the Route 131 and Route 5 corridors should be carefully considered as the Town plans for the future of the village of Ascutney.

Section 4.9: Recommendations for Weathersfield at Exit 8

Section 5: Windsor and Exit 9

Although Exit 9 is located just outside the Southern Windsor County region, it provides interstate access to the town of Windsor from the north.  Exit 8 in Ascutney provides access from the south.  Windsor is in the fourth year of internal rebuilding, focusing on the historic downtown.  There are no plans to build an exit on Interstate 91 for Windsor.   US Route 5 to the south and north of Windsor could experience increased levels of traffic as Windsor continues to redevelop and renovate its historic downtown.  There is a State park-and-ride facility immediately southeast of the I-91 interchange ramps at Exit 9.  This section analyzes the traffic conditions around the exit and the strength of the Hartland Town Plan in relation to the land use around the interchange.

Section 5.1: Traffic Conditions near Exit 9

Traffic counts from 2002 indicate that 18,400 vehicles a day travel between Exit 9 and Exit 10 (Hartford).  Since 1984, that volume of traffic has increased 104.4 percent.

US Route 5 intersects with I-91 3.7 miles north of Windsor village.  US 5 continues past the interchange into Hartland Three Corners where it continues north and VT Route 12 splits off to the northwest.  VT Route 12 north of the Exit 9 interchange experienced traffic volumes of approximately 3,400 vehicles a day according to 2002 traffic counts.  US Route 5, north of the I-91 interchange and the intersection with Route 12, carried 4,200 vehicles a day. 

Section 5.2: Hartland Town Plan

In contrast to Weathersfield’s Town Plan, the 2002 Hartland Town Plan pays a significant amount of attention to land use adjacent to its I-91 interchange.  The 2002 Hartland Town Plan recognizes the many benefits that an interstate interchange brings to a region.  Much of the land surrounding the interchange is identified as “undeveloped pasture,” and it is noted that the “rural business area character” provides “visual contrast to the highways.”  The Plan also states that this character makes the Exit 9 interchange “more visually pleasing and pleasant than commercial strip development that exits at many other interchanges.”  (See Map 14 – Existing Land Use)

According to the Hartland Town Plan, the guiding principle behind development around the interchange is that it must be compatible with its “rural surroundings.”  It is recommended that proposed uses be examined in terms of both their “character and nature.”  Future development around the interchange needs to preserve the “rural Vermont business image.”  Several types of uses should be encouraged around the interchange:  “professional offices, clean light industry, certain traveler services, farming heritage or other museums, and nurseries.”  ( See Map 15 – Natural Features Analysis)

Section 5.3: Recommendations for Hartland at Exit 9

At the request of the Town of Hartland and with funding provided by ACCD, the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission facilitated a study of the Hartland I-91 Exit 9 Interchange area.  The main focus of the study was to identify what land uses at Exit 9 would meet both the Town’s goal of promoting beneficial development while maintaining rural character and the state’s objective of fostering land conservation around interstate interchanges.   A detailed final report was completed in January 2003 and outlines the planning goals and recommendations that evolved from this undertaking.

Section 6: Controlling Interchange Development with the Town Plan

The first step in preserving the integrity of land adjacent to an interchange is to understand the character of the existing land use.  It is important that a town and its citizens establish a “vision” for the future of their respective interchange.  The key behind visioning is that it builds consensus among landowners, town officials, interested citizens, planners, and other stakeholders.  Involving key stakeholders when designing interchange goals and policies at the local level will help alleviate future misunderstanding and confrontation concerning land use decisions. 

It may not always be necessary for a town to apply strict zoning/development regulations to the land adjacent to an interchange.  It is, however, recommended that towns define the area as it presently exists and how they envision it to exist in the future.  It is recommended that towns with jurisdiction over an interchange establish a clear standard regarding the adjacent lands.

When establishing a standard for the areas adjacent to an interchange, the following items should be considered:

Towns are not guaranteed that they will prevent incompatible development adjacent to their respective interchanges by addressing these issues.  However, this approach does allow a community to accomplish two essential but often forgotten tasks:  identify the incompatible development before it occurs and identify the outcomes they wish to achieve.

Some of the work involved in addressing these issues has already begun in the towns of Southern Windsor County.  With the completion of the Southern State Correctional Facility near Exit 7 in Springfield, the town has drastically improved its town plan in relation to I-91.  Springfield has determined what types of business it will and will not be encouraged near the interchange.  The Springfield Town Plan clearly states that development along Charlestown Rd. (VT Route 11) should not compete with the economic development interests of the larger community.  In addition, the Plan explains the function of the interchange corridor as a “gateway.”

Weathersfield should engage in a planning process that focuses on its interchange corridor.  The result of such an exercise would be to add specific language to their town plan addressing development and land use near the interchange.  Weathersfield should also consider goals and policies to address development patterns along the US Route 5 corridor. 

Section 7: Recommended Goals and Policies for Interchanges in the Region

The following goals and policies are recommended for consideration and use by the RPC and the towns in southern Windsor County that are affected by interchanges.

Financial Impact to Towns

Goal:  To ensure that interchange development does not adversely impact a town’s ability to pay for required infrastructure improvements.

Policies: 

  1. Developers should pay the cost of additional traffic control devices or improvements in the existing transportation facilities resulting from new development.
  2. New developments within adjacent to the region’s interchanges should conduct a traffic impact assessment quantifying the proposed traffic impacts on adjacent roadways.
  3. Developers should mitigate any predicted change in the flow of traffic as a result of a new development.

Interchange Function

Goal: To prevent the degradation of the interchange function as a result of new development. 

Policies:

  1. Regardless of project size or traffic generation, measured sight distances at access/egress locations shall, at a minimum, meet VTrans and AASHTO standards for safe stopping sight distance at the marked speed limit.
  2. New developments should use interior roads to limit the number of direct access points (curb cuts) on roads as determined by State and town access management thresholds.
  3. Development should not be allowed near entrance and exit ramps to prevent additional turning movements and potential points of conflict between vehicles.

Multimodal Transportation

Goal:  The needs of pedestrians and bicyclists should be accommodated in developments adjacent to the region’s interchanges, with additional efforts made to coordinate development in relation to existing public transit routes.

Policies:

  1. Proposed developments should provide facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.  New developments should connect facilities with adjacent sidewalks and bike paths.
  2. Commercial and industrial developments that employ more than 15 employees per shift should make efforts to coordinate and cooperate with local transit providers and Upper Valley Rideshare.
  3. The RPC should coordinate existing and future transit routes with new developments adjacent to the region’s interchanges.

Strip Development

Goal:  To minimize the effects of strip development through the coordination of transportation and land use planning activities at the town, regional, and state levels. 

Policies:

  1. The RPC should continually review local land use and transportation plans to ensure that the goals, policies, strategies, and objectives established are consistent with one another and mutually supportive.
  2. The RPC should sponsor a collaborative planning process involving the affected landowners, municipalities, and the RPC when dealing with land use adjacent to the region’s interchanges.
  3. The RPC should work with towns to implement access management strategies through zoning and subdivision regulations for transportation corridors influenced by interchange development.
  4. Where VTrans does not have authority to review curb cuts, standards should be created and adopted by the towns to mirror those of the State.

Smart Growth

Goal:  Reduce the demand to develop lands near the region’s interchanges by reducing barriers to, and providing incentives for, infill development and transit-oriented, pedestrian/bicycle-friendly development in close proximity to village centers.

Policies:

  1. Towns should cooperate with regional economic development entities and Chambers of Commerce to match appropriate retail and commercial businesses with vacant properties in the region’s downtowns and village centers.
  2. Developments that diversify the local and regional economy and assimilate within the existing economic and aesthetic environment should be given priority.
  3. Retail and commercial uses best suited for the village centers/downtowns should be discouraged from locating near the region’s interchanges.

Sensitive Development and Open Space

Goal:  Proposed developments adjacent to the region’s interchanges should preserve the aesthetic nature and open space that typifies Vermont.

Policies:

  1. The RPC will work with towns to develop appropriate design standards for development adjacent to the region’s interchanges that address lighting, parking, aesthetics, signage, building size, shape, etc.
  2. The RPC will continue to work with towns to identify and protect “critical lands” near the region’s interchanges
  3. Development adjacent to interchanges should be encouraged to provide tourist and information facilities for visitors to the region.