Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board begins exploring multifamily housing as accessory to commercial sites to expand workforce housing options
Summary
Planning staff presented two approaches for allowing multifamily units on existing commercial properties: a fixed cap of accessory units or applying a floor-area-ratio model that could yield dozens of units on larger commercial parcels; members asked staff to study parking, septic, deed restrictions and caps before returning.
Planning staff opened a discussion on allowing multifamily dwelling units as an accessory use on existing commercial properties, describing two regulatory options and asking for board direction on how to proceed.
Kelly White told the board the options are (1) a static cap that would allow a set number of units on a commercial parcel, or (2) applying the town's multifamily floor-area-ratio (FAR) to the existing developed area to calculate additional multifamily area. Using the Shops at 10.5 as a modeled example under the FAR approach, staff estimated that the site could yield as many as 59 units; White and others emphasized that parking, septic, stormwater and lot-coverage constraints would likely reduce that number in practice.
White also noted the town already permits accessory residential uses in some contexts: a commercial property may have up to two accessory residential units (each limited to roughly 1,500 square feet) located above or behind the primary commercial use. The new discussion concerns whether and how to allow larger small-multifamily or workforce units beyond that existing accessory provision.
Board members raised key concerns: whether accessory units should be tied explicitly to employees of the principal commercial use, how deed restrictions or occupancy restrictions might be used to ensure the units serve workforce housing needs, and whether a cap or density limit should be imposed to avoid sudden increases in demand for parking or septic capacity. "We could get 59 units, but parking and septic would probably prohibit that," one board member said.
Staff reported some developer interest in small multifamily projects and said members asked staff to continue work and return with draft ordinance language, potential caps, and options for incentives that encourage workforce or restricted-occupancy housing. No formal vote was taken; staff said the item will return for further discussion in coming months.
