Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers press for zoning text change to allow more coverage in apartment zone; commission keeps public record open
Summary
Developers seeking to redevelop legally nonconforming apartment-zone parcels asked the commission to amend zoning to permit up to 35% building coverage on certain lots and to clarify treatment of legally nonconforming multi-family dwellings; commissioners heard extensive discussion and left the public hearing open for further review.
A proposed zoning text amendment intended to ease redevelopment of small, legally nonconforming apartment-zone lots drew extended discussion on March 25 as applicants argued the changes would enable more feasible multi-unit redevelopment close to town core.
David Ruchi and principals Joe Bavona and Edward Zitzos, representing owners of 14 and 20 Richmond Hill Road, proposed amending section 5.4(c) of the zoning regulations to allow the Planning & Zoning Commission to reduce certain bulk requirements — specifically increasing allowable building coverage on legally nonconforming apartment-zone lots from 25% to 35% in select circumstances and clarifying how nonconforming dwelling density would be treated when rebuilding. Ruchi said the change would make it viable to preserve or recreate multi-unit housing on small lots that current rules effectively force into two-family or single-family redevelopment.
Commissioners sought detail on likely unit sizes, height and massing trade-offs, impact on neighborhood character and whether the amendment would produce more units or simply permit bulk increases. Town planner and staff cautioned that the apartment zone contains a mix of condominiums and older multi-family structures and that a zone-wide change could have broader consequences; staff recommended treating the amendment as a placeholder while the town updates the full zoning map and apartment-zone rules. Commissioners asked for additional data about existing parcel coverage and densities across the apartment zone; applicants said they had compiled an analysis showing a limited set of small lots that would be affected and stressed the proposal is intended to preserve existing multi-family density rather than spur broad upzoning.
Because of the level of detail requested and the involvement of other pending zoning updates, the commission left the public hearing open and indicated it will consider the proposal further at a future meeting. No vote was taken.
