Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning director previews zoning changes to ease two‑family rules and reconsider URB setbacks
Summary
Northampton planning director Carolyn Mish told the Legislative Matters Committee the planning board is preparing a proposal to remove the site‑plan review trigger for many two‑family projects that exceed 2,000 sq ft and is re‑examining Urban Residential B sideyard setbacks; both items will require public hearings and additional local discussion.
Planning Director Carolyn Mish told the Northampton City Council’s Legislative Matters Committee on March 9 that the planning board is moving toward formal proposals that would lower regulatory hurdles for modest two‑family housing and reconsider sideyard setbacks in the Urban Residential B (URB) district.
Mish explained that zoning amendments can be initiated by the planning board, the city council, other authorized boards or by resident petition under state statute, and that city practice refers such proposals for an official public hearing (often jointly held by the planning board and the legislative matters subcommittee). “The zoning ordinance is … a regulatory mechanism for implementing the land‑use policies that have been adopted in the Sustainable Northampton plan,” Mish said, adding that different communities use either a wholesale consultant rewrite or an incremental, topic‑by‑topic approach; Northampton has favored the incremental path.
On the first proposal, Mish said the planning board has discussed removing the site‑plan review trigger that applies when a project creates more than 2,000 square feet of new construction. Under current code, single‑family homes are exempt from that threshold while many two‑family projects that exceed 2,000 sq ft must undergo site‑plan review; the planning board’s draft would extend the single‑family exemption to many two‑family projects to reduce the time and cost of creating a modest second dwelling unit.
Committee members raised practical concerns. One member asked whether the change would apply only to two units or to larger multifamily projects; Mish said the proposal targets two‑family creation only and that other site‑plan triggers (for example, adding parking spaces, curb cuts or commercial uses) would remain in place. Members also voiced worries about curbside parking patterns and driveway configurations in areas with narrow streets; a committee member suggested raising the size threshold rather than eliminating the review requirement entirely. Mish noted the planning board has been discussing this topic for several years and that the board believes the change could help add modest, “missing middle” units without undermining technical site standards.
Mish also described a separate, open conversation about sideyard setbacks in the URB district. She said URB has historically required 15‑foot side setbacks, a standard set decades ago, while lot‑width requirements were reduced in 2013 from 75 feet to 50 feet. The planning board is considering reducing the side setback (draft redlines mentioned 12 feet, with discussion of 10 or 5 feet), partly to allow wider single‑level footprints favored by aging residents. “There’s a lot of interwoven pieces of the zoning in the URB district,” Mish said, and she stressed the board intends to host broader public discussion before any formal submittal.
On technical tools, Mish explained the difference between variances and special permits and noted that some existing regulations already allow reduced lot‑line approaches (effectively 10‑foot spacing between structures in particular scenarios). She directed councillors to the planning department’s updated interactive zoning map as the best public reference for parcel‑level zoning information.
Mish said the planning board expects to be ready to submit the two‑family site‑plan exemption to the council soon; the sideyard setback work will require more outreach with councillors representing URB wards. The committee did not take formal action on either proposal at the March 9 meeting; both items will proceed through the normal referral and public‑hearing process if and when the planning board submits drafts.
Background and next steps: if the planning board submits an ordinance amendment, by statute the proposal must be referred for public hearing; in Northampton that hearing is often shared by the planning board and the legislative matters subcommittee before final council consideration. The committee scheduled no vote at this meeting and councillors asked staff to provide drafts and to coordinate ward‑level outreach before public hearings are posted.
