Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance Committee backs planning board on 1 Rosemary Way rezoning; opposes planning board's recommendation on Woodland Drive
Summary
The committee supported a planning board technical amendment to rezone 3 Rosemary Way to CTEC while keeping 1 Rosemary Way in R5, and separately voted to oppose the planning board's later motion to "not adopt" the zoning change for 13 Woodland Drive after the article sponsor withdrew deed-restriction commitments.
The Finance Committee on May 1 considered multiple planning-board technical amendments and recorded two opposing outcomes.
On the first item (Article 32), planning staff said the planning board reopened its hearing after a property owner at 3 Rosemary Way asked to move that parcel to the CTEC district rather than R5; the planning board supported allowing 3 Rosemary Way to move to CTEC while retaining 1 Rosemary Way as R5. The finance committee voted in favor of a motion to support the planning board's change; the roll call recorded ayes across a quorum.
On a separate zoning matter involving 13 Woodland Drive, the article sponsor, Steven, explained he could not make prior commitments that homes built under the proposed zoning would be attainably priced and year-round. He said he would record private deed restrictions to limit the whole site to nine buildable lots (one dwelling per lot) and that his intention was to reduce the total number of dwellings compared with what could be built under current zoning. The planning board ultimately changed its motion to "not to adopt" because the deed-restriction approach could not be implemented as discussed. The finance committee then voted to oppose the planning board's motion not to adopt (effectively supporting the original change to R20), registering a committee vote in favor of adoption.
Committee members discussed the limits on municipal control of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) under state law, the tradeoffs between lot-count reductions and total bedroom counts, and the sponsor's plan to pursue a flex development with significant open space. The sponsor said the proposed change would reduce the number of buildable lots from 15 under current rights to nine and that the deed restrictions would be privately recorded, enforceable by neighbors.
The committee recorded the votes and moved on to other planning technical amendments.
