Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
’Starter Home’ zoning proposal for 49 Elm Street spurs debate over parking, height and density
Summary
Planning Board members on Jan. 20 debated a draft Chapter 40Y-based overlay for 49 Elm Street. Key sticking points included whether to require parking, a two-story/30-foot height cap, and a proposed density of 10 units per acre needed for the concept plan.
Members of the Bedford Planning Board spent much of their Jan. 20 meeting wrestling with a draft "Starter Home" overlay based on MGL c.40Y, introduced by Lynne Sweet on behalf of the 49 Elm Street owner.
Assistant Planner Catherine Perry told the Board that the state regulations implementing Chapter 40Y are still in draft form and that MAPC housing staff did not expect the rules to be finalized until later in the year. "The state regulations are still only in draft form," Perry said, and the planning staff noted that the state agency (EOHLC) had offered to review the town’s draft but could not guarantee that its comments would reflect final regulations.
Several policy choices divided the Board: Pam Brown, advising the proponents, warned that "not having a minimum requirement might trigger public concern," and suggested the bylaw could require some parking while allowing waivers. Board member Christopher Gittins said he prefers quantified standards and does not favor discretionary provisions; Todd Crowley said he generally preferred lower height limits and some site-specific Planning Board discretion. The Board agreed to change the height metric to a maximum of two stories and 30 feet for new construction, with an exception for pre-existing buildings.
Staff noted that the conceptual project for 49 Elm Street depends on a density of about 10 units per acre to deliver the shown layout (the proponents described nine units on just under one acre) and that proponents propose reducing the footprint of the existing house to under 1,850 square feet while adding a garage. John McClain asked whether he should recuse because he lives near the site; staff and the Chair advised that participation was appropriate.
Board members asked for additional clarity on whether Bedford should submit a Chapter 40Y petition to EOHLC for pre‑Town Meeting review or instead craft a local bylaw and wait for finalized state regulations. Ms. Sweet said she believes EOHLC "knows what the final rules will be" and is awaiting signature, but staff cautioned that EOHLC guidance had caused last‑minute issues in other towns.
Proponents said they will appear before the Select Board at its Monday meeting, and they asked to return to the Planning Board agenda the following week (they noted Ms. Sweet’s availability only after 8:00 p.m.). The Board did not take a formal vote on a zoning article that evening and asked staff and proponents to refine the draft and provide additional materials for further review.
