Urban Affairs Committee moves to recommend denial of rezoning request for 1 Maple Terrace; forwards recommendation to full council

The Marlborough City Council Urban Affairs Committee moved to recommend denial of a zoning map amendment for 1 Maple Terrace (Map 70, Parcel 24) after discussing a planning board recommendation and neighborhood impacts.

The committee considered Council Order 24109305, a communication from Justin Malay, trustee for 1 Maple Terrace Real Estate Trust, seeking to change the parcel’s zoning to the Marlborough Village District. The committee heard that the Marlborough Planning Board voted 5-0 to send a negative recommendation to the city council, citing concerns that the proposed rezoning would allow greater density and height than the proponent proposed and could negatively affect the neighborhood.

The planning board’s written recommendation said the proposed development shown by the proponent “is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood” but that the zoning change itself would allow higher density and taller structures than the concept presented. The board noted parking concerns and said the developer had not demonstrated that the zoning amendment would provide a use not available elsewhere in the district.

Committee members also discussed the parcel’s location relative to surrounding business zoning. The chair noted the map shows the Marlborough Village District wrapping the downtown business area while leaving this RC (residential) parcel excluded; several councilors said that historical zoning lines made it difficult to judge whether adding this parcel would be consistent with the original ordinance.

Councilor Doucette said the request raised the risk of “spot zoning,” arguing the council should be cautious about changing a single lot’s classification. Councilor Preciado raised concerns about future buyers, saying the council could not guarantee that a future owner would build only what the current proponent proposes: “we don't know if the person that is buying would want to tear down your house and build, you know, something much bigger.”

The property owner, who spoke at the meeting and was not identified by name in the committee record (listed in committee materials as represented by Justin Malay, trustee), said the lot is underutilized and described interest in building a three-family structure with parking beneath the building. The owner said he believes he could apply for a special permit if rezoning is not granted: “I would be able to apply for a special permit. I'm pretty sure.”

Committee members advised the owner to consult the zoning and building offices for guidance. The committee discussed zoning code language cited at the meeting (section cited as “65018 a 9 e” in the planning materials) governing landscape-area requirements and suggested a special-permit route could be an alternative to rezoning if the owner meets the applicable conditions in the table of uses.

After discussion the committee moved to recommend denial of the zoning amendment and agreed to report the recommendation to the full City Council. The chair said the committee would present the report at the next council meeting (the chair referenced a meeting on Feb. 27) and noted options including asking the full council to suspend rules to vote earlier or waiting for a later meeting; no final council vote on the rezoning occurred at this committee meeting.

The committee meeting record shows three voting committee members were present for the discussion; other council members attended and asked questions but the committee noted only three members would officially vote on this item at the committee level. The planning board’s 5-0 negative recommendation and the committee’s forwarded recommendation will accompany the matter when the full council considers Council Order 24109305.