Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board narrows multifamily changes; eyes Pine Road as industrial district, proposes map simplification
Summary
Board discussed redefining Pine Road as industrial to limit residential uses, simplifying overlapping commercial/professional/multifamily districts, proposing 6‑plus‑2 density bonus (six units per upland acre plus two affordable units), and setting Route 125 setback to 100 feet to align with DOT corridor guidance.
The Brentwood Planning Board discussed multiple edits to the town’s multifamily and commercial zoning framework on Sept. 24, including a proposal to treat the Pine Road corridor as industrial to avoid mandatory multifamily allowances in commercial districts under the new state law.
Board members said Pine Road is primarily industrial now and that reclassifying the corridor as industrial — while allowing some commercial uses — would help the town argue that the area is not appropriate for multifamily housing under the state’s new requirements. One board member said, “Who wants to live next to a tar paper factory?” as part of the rationale for a separate industrial designation.
The group agreed to simplify overlapping districts (multifamily, professional office, commercial) into fewer, clearer categories. Members suggested making commercial districts on Routes 125 and 27 explicitly include multifamily and professional office uses while keeping industrial uses concentrated on Pine Road. Staff proposed preparing an updated map to show the proposed simplifications to the public.
On density and unit sizing, the board revisited a consultant proposal described in the meeting as “6 units per upland acre with a 20% density bonus,” effectively allowing up to eight units per upland acre with two units designated as affordable. The board discussed practical constraints: septic capacity and the requirement to install a community water supply once a project exceeds 18 units, which carries large capital costs (a participant said a community water supply can cost about $600,000). To help residents visualize the change, members asked staff to prepare illustrative schematics (e.g., what an 8‑unit layout on 10 acres would look like) to use in public outreach.
Setbacks along Route 125 were debated. The DOT corridor study recommends a 100‑foot setback; several members favored matching that recommendation rather than lowering the town’s standard. One member moved and the board reached consensus on 100 feet as a “middle ground.” Board members also discussed limits on the number of units per building (existing draft language referenced 6–8 units per building) and whether to require architectural treatments that break up large façades so projects do not appear as “giant blocks.” Staff said they would gather example images and short model language for the next meeting.
Members emphasized two consistent themes: complying with the state’s mandates while tailoring local controls to what the town considers appropriate; and communicating changes clearly to residents with maps, schematics and newsletter articles ahead of public hearings.
