Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jericho committee debates removing maximum front setbacks; opts to coordinate with planning commission before advancing recommendation
Summary
Committee members debated whether maximum front setback rules in village centers harm affordability and agreed not to send an urgent recommendation to the planning commission, opting instead to seek coordination and potentially invite planning commissioners to the March 10 meeting.
The Affordable Housing Committee spent much of its Feb. 10 meeting debating a proposal to recommend removing maximum front setback requirements in village centers. Committee member Chuck framed the change as an equity measure, saying the current setbacks would effectively push low‑ and middle‑income residents to live immediately adjacent to Route 15 and other busy roads.
"To force the people that are low and middle income to live next to the road is really kind of a justice issue," Chuck said, pressing that setback rules combined with other zoning constraints make lower‑cost housing less attractive. He argued that land already being developed has produced large, luxury single‑family homes rather than the smaller units the committee wants.
Other members, including Eric and SJ, urged a more targeted approach. They said much of future infill is likely to occur on side streets or in new PUD (planned unit development) clusters rather than directly on Route 15, and that permitting small clustered dwellings (for example, units under about 1,200 square feet within a PUD) could expand housing options without requiring buildings to sit immediately adjacent to busy roads. "From a compact housing perspective, you want houses to be built closer so that there's room if you want to put an ADU in the back," one member said.
After extended discussion the committee declined to forward an urgent, stand‑alone recommendation to the planning commission. Instead members agreed to continue studying the issue, monitor the planning commission’s package of zoning amendments, and seek a coordinated forum — either a joint meeting or a planning commission update at the committee’s March 10 meeting — to present a refined, evidence‑based suggestion.
Members also reiterated support for the committee’s earlier recommendation to incentivize clustered small dwellings within PUDs as one tool to increase the supply of more affordable homes. The committee discussed guardrails (caps, design review and DRB oversight) to avoid unintended conversions of 10‑acre lots into high‑density mobile home parks and emphasized the need for clear language on any incentive.
Next steps: committee members said they will track planning commission agendas, consider bringing planning commissioners to the March meeting, and refine recommended language on setbacks and PUD incentives before any formal transmittal.
