Zoning Changes Proposal Detail 28 March 2011

1

Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts:

Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal

Goal: Facilitate higher density in existing urban districts (infill) while minimizing negative

impacts of infill on existing properties.

Problem: The city’s current zoning requirements prevent units from being added to our

traditional urban neighborhoods, and when homes are converted to accommodate fewer units,

they often can never be converted back to their earlier higher number of units. The implications

of this are that the city is slowly losing housing units over time, homeowners lack the flexibility

to meet the changing needs of households over time (e.g. changes in household size and

needs), and the city cannot meet the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive

Plan (2008), which calls for increased residential densities in traditional neighborhoods.

Analysis: A review of zoning in the city’s urban residential districts revealed very high rates of

non-conforming properties. “Non-conforming” refers to a property whose existing use or

structures are not permitted by the zoning for the property. Usually these characteristics were

in place before the current zoning was enacted. The use or structure is then “grandfathered”,

or permitted to continue. The analysis conducted by the Zoning Revisions Committee revealed

the following rates of non-conformance based on minimum lot size requirements in our urban

neighborhoods:

URC Zoning District

63% of 1-3 family homes do not conform

83% of 4 family homes do not conform

URB Zoning District




URA Zoning Distrcict


100% of 2 family and multiple-family homes do not conform (they are not allowed)

This analysis looked only at conformance with lot size requirements. An analysis of properties

that also meet minimum setback, frontage and other requirements would yield even higher

Formatted: Font: 14 pt

2

rates of non-conformance. The ZRC was unable to do this further analysis because it would be

very time-consuming. However, spot checks of random properties shows that there is quite

significant non-conformance of setbacks, frontage and other requirements. This correlates with

anecdotal evidence gathered in forums.

On the whole, the Zoning Revisions Committee found that the non-conforming status of a

property does not significantly impact residential property owners (other than creating

anxiety). However, there are some cases in which the non-conforming status of a residential

property can be a nuisance or significantly limit use of the property. For example, many

homeowners in our urban residential zoning districts cannot use their garages to create an

accessory apartment because their garages do not meet the setbacks for residential structures

(they do conform for the most part to the required setbacks for garages). This is because

detached garages are allowed to be closer to the setback than residential structures in all

districts. In addition, this situation contradicts the goals of Sustainable Northampton, which

encourages greater density in existing in-town neighborhoods and reduced development out of

town.

Perhaps most importantly, however, the high rates of non-conforming properties in our

residential districts serve as an indicator: This indicates that our current zoning does not match

(and in fact is very, very different from) our existing urban neighborhoods. As a result, we have

great urban neighborhoods that can never be built again. As units are lost and cannot be

replaced over time, the character of our traditional urban neighborhoods is changing. In

addition, in the rare occasion when new multi-building developments are built within existing

neighborhoods, zoning encourages their character to be out of context with the surrounding

neighborhoods.

Some key points from the Zoning Revisions Committee analysis are:

● The existing dimensional standards, especially the requirements that govern the number

of units per square foot of lot size, and frontage requirements greatly limit the creation

of new units in urban districts.

● When structures are converted to a lower number of units, it can be impossible to

convert them back to a higher number of units. These standards are contributing to the

loss of units and population in urban districts.

● Many accessory structures do not conform to residential setback requirements. This

limits their conversion to accessory apartments.

● The setback requirements do not match our current neighborhoods, so new structures

are unlikely to be sited in a way that matches—or is in character with--the other homes

on the block.

3

● The current zoning forces the city to lose units over time, which is in direct contradiction

to the city’s comprehensive plan, which calls for concentrating development in

traditional neighborhoods.

Public Feedback: The Zoning Revisions Committee held two general public forums that

addressed the issue of infill. The community expressed general support for infill as long as it

does not affect the existing character of our neighborhoods. Major concerns that were voiced

include traffic, parking, intrusions into views or solar access and loss of “green space”.

Residents are most likely to be sympathetic to:

● Owner-occupants who want to add units

● Conversions that revert a structure to its historic number of units

● Additional units that help maintaining affordability for owners, as well as renters to a

lesser degree

Residents expressed concern about infill projects that:

● Are out of scale with the neighborhood in terms of height, bulk, or number of units

● Add new houses on existing streets (especially through subdivision of lots)

● Create multi-family housing on predominantly single-family streets

● Affect land that neighbors feel a “sense of ownership” over, such as privately owned

woods or fields lots that have been used informally by neighborhood residents

● Result in the demolition of “loved” structures

● Consolidate lots for larger projects

Residents also expressed concerns about:

● Zoning that is difficult to understand, unpredictable, or unequally applied

● Effects on property values (either increases or OR decreases in property value)

With regard to design, residents expressed concerns about projects the block views or sunlight,

and that are out- of- scale with the neighborhood. However, residents do not seem to want to

over-regulate design by creating very specific architectural standards or a complex design

review process. In general, residents expressed a preference for standards that address site

design characteristics (how a building is situated on a lot, for example) rather than architectural

characteristics (the style and characteristics of the building itself, other than its height and

bulk).

4

Interpretation of Public Feedback: Based on the public feedback received, the following list

indicates the acceptability of different types of infill projects, arranged from most acceptable to

least acceptable:

● Accessory units within houses and accessory structures (owner-occupied)

● Additional units within existing structures with no external changes to the building or lot

● Additional units within existing structures with minor changes to the building or lot

● Additional units within existing structures with major changes to the building or lot

(large additions, large parking lots, major demolition and rebuilding)

● Filling gaps in the a street with new buildings that match the scale of the neighborhood

● Filling gaps the a street with new buildings that are larger than the building in the

existing neighborhood

● Large new projects (new neighborhoods, multi-unit town homes, etc.)

Some statements in favor of innovative housing were made at the forums, and several

people came up to ZRC members after the forums to express support for cottage housing.

Significant statements either for or against adaptive reuse of existing non-residential

structures (e.g. churches) were not made by forum participants, but nods of approval by

community members during the presentation of the committee’s analysis and the following

discussion of the need to make zoning changes to allow for the redevelopment of these

structures has been interpreted as support for the idea.

Proposed Improvements:

This document proposes the following approach to improving the zoning regulations to allow

for more infill in a way that addresses the feedback received at the public forums:

1. Revise the city’s accessory apartment regulations to make it easier to have accessory

apartments on owner-occupied properties

An accessory apartment, also known as an “in-law apartment” is an extra unit that can be

built on an owner-occupied property. Under the current zoning, an accessory apartment is

only allowed by right if incorporated within a single-family dwelling. Accessory apartments

are allowed by special permit in a detached accessory structure on the lot IF the structure

conforms to current zoning requirements. The following changes to the current regulations

are recommended:

Allow accessory units in garages that are closer to property boundaries than homes. For

example, this would allow garages that were built at or near the lot line to be converted

to accessory units.

Comment [DU1]: detached accessory structures or garages specifically? carriage houses?

5

Allow conversion of a detached accessory structure into an accessory apartment by-

right rather than requiring a special permit.

Allow accessory units in all owner-occupied buildings (not just single-family homes). For

example, this would allow owner-occupier residents of two-family or multi-family

homes to add an accessory unit.

Allow the entrance to an accessory apartment to be located in the front of the building

(in addition to the side or rear)

Allow a new attached structure for an accessory unit to have a front setback of 20 feet

(change from 40 feet)

2. Amend the city’s Planned Development regulations to allow for innovative housing and

adaptive reuse of obsolete structures by Special Permit

Cottage or Pocket Housing

o More than one principal structure allowed on a lot

o Each unit is 800 square feet or less

o Single family or duplex structures allowed

o Shared open space and parking

o Additional standards may need to be developed, using examples of innovative

housing bylaws examples from other communities

Adaptive Reuse

o Conversion of a building over 4,000 sq. ft. to, or from, a residential use; or

o Conversion of a home to be converted back to a historic use, e.g. converting a

single family back to a two-family (in the event that this situation is not captured

by proposed changes to dimensional standards below)

o Additional standards may need to be developed

3. Amend the dimensional tables in the city’s urban residential zoning districts, as discussed

in detail in the sections below.

4. Establish general design standards that apply only to larger projects

Apply design standards with site plan review by the Planning Board to all new

construction, additions or renovations over 700 square feet.

Standards to include:

o New structures (including additions) must not interfere with solar access of

neighboring building structure, except by Special Permit.

Comment [DU2]: If it is attached, shouldn’t it match the existing setback of the neighborhood. I think the setback for the detached structures is the more challenging one. Do we want to keep the requirements for garages behind the house?

Comment [D3]: Are there bulk concerns with allowing the attached structure to the current setback?

Comment [D4]: Given the not huge amount of support for design standards, do

Comment [D5]: Carolyn’s Comment: even for additions to existing homes that are to the rear of the principal structure? Is this in conflict with the goal of simplifying for homeowner? Dillon’s Response: public feedback indicated that additions to the rear of a building are as problematic as other additions- because they affect the neighbor’s rear yard. Example, recent condos on Round Hill Road

6

Definition: A new structure may not shade any point above the first floor

(10’) of a principal structure on a neighboring property for more than one

hour between 11 a.m. and 4 pm on December 21 (The day of the year with

the smallest solar altitude angle)

Simple Method: As an alternative to requiring full solar shading analysis, a

setback table based on a simplified set of assumptions may be provided by the

city. It could be consulted to determine whether the requirement is met based

on the height difference and distance between the two structures.

o The principal residential structure on a lot must have a front door that faces the street,

and a pathway from the front door to the street, unless:

The applicant demonstrates that this would be impractical based on unique

considerations relating to the lot or building structure; or

The development is Cottage Housing or other Innovative Housing project

approved by Planning Board Special Permit under the Planned Unit

Development regulations.

o An applicant may apply for relief from the standards in the dimensional tables

subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board.

o As part of the Site Plan Review, the applicant must demonstrate that:

If the front plane of the home is changed, front setbacks are no more or

less than 5’ from block average

For all projects in which the front yard will be affected, the front yard

must have street trees. Street trees are not subject to solar access

standards.

For all projects that receive Planning Board review, the applicant must

demonstrate “fit” with neighborhood regarding setbacks and building

massing.

5. Develop a Design Guidebook with more detailed (non-binding) design guidelines that:

Illustrate appropriate building design in Northampton

Explain basic architectural and site design concepts

Provide examples of typical (is there one?) Northampton building styles and materials

Summarize green building principles

Helps applicants evaluate whether their project “fits” within the existing neighborhood

Discuss different neighborhoods or use a broad approach

Funding for the guidebook may be available through CPA under historic preservation.

Comment [D6]: Changed from 3 hours to one hour. Solar engineer input: 3 hours on December 21

st would reduce solar gain by a lot!

Comment [D7]: Carolyn comment: Typically the onus is on the applicant. Dani: Onus would still be on the applicant to meet the table setbacks based on the height difference between 2 structures. Could be helpful for smaller projects - does the geometry for them (for simple projects)…

7

URC

Problem: The current zoning discourages infill in urban districts (particularly URC), while the

Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan encourages greater density in these

neighborhoods.

Analysis & Discussion: URC is the residential zone nearest to downtown Northampton. It has

the smallest residential lots and greatest residential densities. These are some of

Northampton’s oldest neighborhoods and this district has a very high proportion of properties

that do not conform to the current zoning (63% of 1-3 family homes, 83% of 4 family homes).

Due to already small lots sizes and its highly built-out nature, this district has the fewest

opportunities for new lots or new structures. However, there are plentiful opportunities for

adding units within existing structures – including primary structures and accessory buildings,

like garages – and allowing the number of units in a structure or on a property to change over

time as demographics (household size and needs) change.

At the forums, we heard that some residents want to add units to existing structures or convert

homes back to an earlier state that had more units. There was general support for conversions

within existing structures and accessory buildings like garages.

Compared to other districts, a greater proportion of residents live within walking distance of

their jobs – For example, an analysis of the Market Street neighborhoods found that 26% of

residents walk to work (U.S. Census 2000). Anecdotal evidence from the forums suggests that

there are residents, particularly students of nearby colleges, who live in this area who do not

have own cars. However, although residents of this zone are less car-dependent (and may own

fewer cars per household), parking is a continuing concern for residents, especially as street

parking is at a premium in these neighborhoods. Parking is a particular concern for residents

who live close to downtown. There is a wide-spread perception that workers and visitors to

downtown choose to park in residential neighborhoods.

Proposed Short-Term Solution: Revise the dimensional standards to allow for infill within

existing lots, but prevent splitting of small lots into even smaller lots, which would result in

more new construction and a sense of less “open space” in these neighborhoods.

In order to prevent splitting of already small lots, set minimum frontage and lot sizes as

follows:

o Frontage: 65 feet Comment [D8]: 65’ to match reduction allowed under zero lot single family.

8

o Lot Size: 3,200 square feet (70% percent of existing properties have lot sizes of

3,750 and above. (Outcome: 6,400 sf would be required to subdivide a property

into two 3,200 square foot lots. Both lots would need the required frontage in

order to subdivide)

In order to allow small-scale infill development in existing structures and on existing

lots, remove the link between the number of units and lot size for 1 – 4 family homes.

To allow development in character with existing neighborhoods, change the

dimensional standards to match the traditional neighborhoods more closely. Finally,

simplify the requirements for 1 – 4 family home lots.1

o Replace current standards with the following performance requirements:

Front Setback: 10’ max/min (can be increased to / 20’ max by site plan

review)

Side Setback: 10’ min

Rear setback: 20’ min (same as current)

Parking: Same off-street requirements as current regulations for now

(see below)

Open Space: 50 contiguous square feet per dwelling unit OR this

requirement can be waived by a finding that adequate outdoor space is

provided to each unit through alternative means, such as a porch, deck or

green roof.

Comparison of Current Requirements to Proposed Requirements for 1 – 4 Family Home Lots2

Summary (1 – 4 Family Structures)

Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change

Min. Lot Size 6,000 – 24,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft.

Frontage 75 feet 65 feet

Depth 80 – 250 feet 0 feet?

Front Setback 20 feet 10 feet

Side Setback 5 - 15 feet 10 feet

Rear Setback 20 – 30 feet 20 feet

Maximum Building Height 40 – 55 feet 40 feet

Parking 2 spaces per unit, 1 space per unit under 750 sq. ft. or accessory unit under 900 sq. ft.

Same

Open Space 30% 50 contiguous sq. ft. per unit (50 – 200 sq. ft.) or relief by SP

1 Redefine what is currently called “multifamily” in the current zoning to be 5 units or more

2 Does not include comparison to cluster development provisions, as these largely do not apply in URC due to large

minimum parcel size required for a PUD under current regulations

Comment [D9]: 30% of properties in URC are above 6,400 sf. But, many could not be easily subdivided – e.g. if principal structure is at center, or if lot is strange shape, not easy to subdivide – would need to meet 3,200 sf lot size and frontage requirements.

Comment [D10]: how does this comport with the cry from residents to save open space [owned by others] for their enjoyment?

Comment [D11]: Applies to URC only. Need to do an analysis of outcomes for both districts.

Comment [D12]: Purpose of depth? Perhaps a good place to simplify?

Comment [DU13]: why reduce? won’t most height additions be covered by special permit which has solar provisions? Who would change a roof to add less than 500 sq ft?

Comment [D14]: Not sure why a 4 family home should ever be more than 4 stories or 40’ (assuming typ. 10’ residential stories). That comes to 1 unit per floor….unless some units occupy 2 floors???

Comment [DU15]: I like this! why not 750 sq ft for accessory units too?

Comment [D16]: Accessory units are limited to 900 sf and the current regs require one extra parking space to be provided for them

9

10

Single Family Structures


Min. Lot Size 6,000 - sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft.

Frontage 75 65 feet

Depth 80 feet 0 feet?

Front Setback 20 feet min 10 feet max/min

Side Setback 15 feet 10 feet

Rear Setback 20 feet 20 feet

Maximum Building Height 40 feet Same

Parking 2 spaces per unit, 1 space per units under 750 sq. ft. or accessory unit under 900 sq. ft.

Same

Open Space 30% 50 sq. ft. or relief by SP

Two Family Structures


Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft.


Depth 80 feet 0 feet?




Maximum Building Height 40 feet Same


Same

Open Space 30% Two 50 sq. ft. open spaces100 sq. ft., or relief by SP

Formatted: Space After: 10 pt, Tab stops: Notat 2"

Comment [D17]: Purpose of depth? Perhaps a good place to simplify?

11

Three Family Structures (excludes townhomes)




Depth 100 feet 0 feet

Front Setback 10-20 feet min 10 feet max/min



Maximum Building Height 40-55 feet 40 feet


Same

Open Space 40% Three 50 sq. ft. open spaces150 sq. ft., or relief by SP

Four Family Homes (excludes townhomes)



Frontage 100-200 feet 65 feet

Depth 100-250 feet 0 feet?




Maximum Building Height 40-55 feet 40 feet


Same

Open Space 40% 200 Four 50 sq. ft. open spaces, or relief by SP

Long-Term Recommendations

Implement parking permits, then reduce parking requirements to 1 off-street parking

space per unit, with provisions for snow emergency parking

Implement fee-in-lieu of parking (this is more feel good than anything else because it

takes an enormous amount of money to create parking)

NOTE:

These recommendations do NOT cover projects with more than 4 units. Zoning should treat

these projects differently than 1-4 family projects.

12

URB

Problem: The current zoning discourages infill in urban districts, while the Sustainable

Northampton Comprehensive Plan encourages greater density in these neighborhoods.

Analysis & Discussion: URB differs from URC in that lot sizes are generally larger and there are

generally greater side setbacks between structures. Residents generally support the addition of

units to existing structures and accessory structures, but have expressed concerns about new

large structures being built. In general, the existing conditions in URB are more diverse than

they are in URC. Some neighborhoods are urban in character (Orchard Street) while others have

significantly larger lots and predominantly single-family homes (Lincoln Ave). In URB, in order

to allow only for infill that is in keeping with the current neighborhood character, subdivision of

lots resulting in new primary structures being built between existing structures should be

prevented.

Residents have also expressed concerns about parking. In general, there is more street parking

available in URB than in URC. However, some URB streets do face on-street parking shortages.

Infill in URB is more likely to be noticeable to its residents than infill in URC. URC already has an

urban character. Residents accept—and even appreciate--being close to neighbors, moderate

traffic and on-street parking. They are also accustomed to change, having experienced several

waves of condo conversion and multi-family housing renovations. URB neighborhoods on the

other hand are generally less urban. Although URB neighborhoods might have more capacity to

absorb density than URC neighborhoods (open space, on-street parking, etc), the effects of infill

will be more noticeable to URC residents. In URC, the risk of infill is to reaching a tipping point

where existing infrastructure can’t handle more development. In URB, the risk of infill is

primarily that thesignificanltly altering the existing character of a neighborhood is significantly

altered. For example, in URC, an additional unit might add one car parked on-street in a

neighorhoodneighborhood that always has cars parked. Residents won’t see the difference. In

URB, adding a single car to a street that has never has had on-street parked cars will could be

very quite noticeable to residents.

Proposed Short-Term Solution:

Revise the dimensional standards to allow for infill within existing lots, but prevent splitting of

small lots into even smaller lots, which would result in more new construction and a sense of

less “open space” in these neighborhoods.

13

In order to minimize splitting of lots, set minimum frontage and lot sizes as follows:

o Frontage: 65 feet (same as current)

o Lot Size: 5,000 square feet (50% percent of existing 2-family properties have lot

sizes of 4,400 and above. 10,400 sq. ft. would be required to subdivide a

property,))

In order to allow small- scale infill development in existing structures and on existing

lots, remove the link between the number of units and lot size for 1 – 3 family homes.

To allow development in character with existing neighborhoods, change the

dimensional standards to match the traditional neighborhoods more closely. Finally,

simplify the requirements for 1 – 4 family home lots.3

o Replace current standards with the following performance requirements:

Front Setback: 10’ max/min

Side Setback: 15’? min

Rear setback: 20’ min

Parking: Same off-street requirements as current regulations

Open Space: 400 square feet per unit

Comparison of Current Requirements to Proposed Requirements for 1 – 4 Family Home Lots4

Summary (1 – 4 Family Structures)


Min. Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft – 28,000 sq. ft. 5,000

Frontage 75 – 120 feet min 65 min

Depth 80 – 150 feet min 0? 80? min

Front Setback 20 – 30 feet min 10 feet max/min

Side Setback 15 – 30 feet min 15 feet min

Rear Setback 20 – 30 feet min 20 feet min

Maximum Building Height 35 – 40 feet max 35 feet max


Same

Open Space 40 – 50% Mininum of 400 contiguous sq. ft. per unit (400 – 1600 sq. ft.) or relief by SP

Single Family Structures


3 Redefine what is currently called “multifamily” in the current zoning to be 5 units or more

4 Does not include comparison to cluster development provisions

Comment [D18]: Was 5,200 based on 70% conforming analysis. Rounded to 5,000 based on Carolyn’s suggestiong. 5,000 sf is the statutory minimum for the “single lot exemption”

Comment [D19]: 50% of properties in URB are above 10400 sf. But, many could not be easily subdivided – e.g. if principal structure is at center, then not easy to subdivide.

Comment [D20]: Set to 70% conforming?

Comment [D21]: Not sure. Dillon suggested 15’ x 15’ or 225 sf per unit. What about keeping the current % open space? Say,30 or 40% open space

14

Min. Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000

Frontage 75 feet min 65 min

Depth 80 feet min ? feet min


Side Setback 15 feet min 15 feet min

Rear Setback 20 feet min 20 feet min

Maximum Building Height 35 feet max 35 feet max


Same

Open Space 50% One 400 sq. ft. space




Frontage 80 feet min 65 feet min







Same

Open Space 50% Two 400 sq. ft. spaces800 sq. ft.

Three Family Structures



Frontage 120 feet min 65 feet min







Same

Open Space 40% Three 400 sq. ft. 1,200 sq. ft.spaces

15

Long-Term Recommendations

Consider parking permits and parking requirement reductions, with provisions for snow

emergency parking.

16

URA

Problem: The current zoning discourages infill in urban districts, while the Sustainable

Northampton Comprehensive Plan encourages greater density in these neighborhoods.

Analysis & Discussion: URA is the least dense of the three urban residential districts. The

district has approximately 700 single-family properties, approximately 50 2-family properties,

and a handful of 3-8 family properties. The city should encourage smaller lots in this district,

allow two-family dwellings by right, and allow three-family dwellings by special permit.

Proposed Short-Term Solution:

In order to encourage smaller single family lots:

Change minimum lot size requirements for single-family homes to 10,000 square feet

(~1/4 acre), 76% percent of existing 1-family properties have lot sizes of 10,000 sq. ft.

and above. 20,000 sq. ft. would be required to subdivide a property,)

Change minimum open space requirements for single-family homes to 50% (reduced

from 60%)

Allow for two-family homes using current URB requirements

o 12,000 sq. ft.

Comparison of Current Requirements to Proposed Requirements for 1 – 3 Family Home Lots

1 Family Structures



Frontage 75 Same

Depth 100 0 feet 80?

Front Setback 20 min 15 feet max/min

Side Setback 10 15 feet

Rear Setback 20 20 feet

Maximum Building Height 35 feet 35 feet

Parking 2 spaces (?) 2 spaces per unit, 1 space per units under 750 sq. ft. or accessory unit under 900 sq. ft.

Open Space 60% 50%


Current Regulations - Not Currently Allowed, Single Family Regulations Shown

Results of Proposed Change

Comment [D22]: Carolyn’s comment: Or get rid of URA? Dani: Could we change URA and SR to RR? What is rationale for getting rid of URA?

Comment [D23]: 38% of properties in URA are above 20,0000 sf.

Comment [D24]: Not sure what is most appropriate.

Comment [D25]: Same as URB

Comment [DU26]: Do we really need an open space requirement on a 10000 square foot lot?

17



Depth 100 feet 0 feet




Maximum Building Height 35 feet 35 feet

Parking 2 spaces (?), 1 space per accessory unit under 900 sq. ft.

2 spaces per unit, 1 space per unit under 750 sq. ft. or accessory unit under 900 sq. ft.

Open Space 60% 50%

18

Additional Recommendations Regarding

Nonconforming Properties and Making Zoning Easier to Understand

Goal: Reduce inconvenience and hardship associated with owning a non-conforming property.

Problem: The city has high rates of non-conforming properties. This can create additional

requirements, as well as anxiety among property owners.

Recommendation: The Office of Planning and Development publishes a document that on

summarizes “What Non-Conformance Means to You.”

Goal: Make the zoning easier to understand.

Problem: The zoning code is quite complex and difficult to understand.

Implications:

● Residents worry that zoning is not being applied equally in all situations.

● Residents feel like they cannot predict what to expect on neighboring properties.

● Some residents may not pursue projects because they think the zoning does not allow

thefor a project, when in fact the zoning has exceptions that would allow itthe project.

● Some residents need to hire experts to interpret zoning.

Recommendations:

● Publish a handbook on how to use the zoning code. The handbook should layout step-

by-step processes for determining how zoning applies to common projects.

● Publish a summary of all administrative rules used by the Office of Planning and

Development, the Planning Board, or others on the city’s website.

● Use graphics to explain zoning whenever possible.

● Improve the definitions section of the zoning code. All definitions should be in the

definition section —not in the body of the code.

● Improve the use and dimensional tables

○ Either combine the dimensional and use tables, or

○ Reorganize the tables so that their structures are parallel

● Long-term: Restructure and rewrite the entire zoning code

Date post:	01-Nov-2014
Category:	News & Politics
Upload:	adam-cohen
View:	702 times
Download:	4 times

Zoning Changes Proposal Detail 28 March 2011

News & Politics