Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force weighs site‑coverage and 'McMansion' tools after contentious votes
Summary
Eastham members debated moving to F (floor area ratio), the counting of finished basements, and design controls such as glazing limits after town meeting pushback; members cited recent ZBA cases where design changes reduced neighborhood impacts.
Eastham Zoning Task Force members spent a large portion of their June 1 meeting on technical zoning tools—how to measure size, what counts toward a home’s floor area, and design controls that can reduce neighborhood impacts. The discussion followed public opposition at town meeting and a packet misprint that members said amplified confusion.
Members repeatedly discussed reverting to an F (floor area ratio) approach to site coverage as a clearer technical metric. One member noted that earlier proposals set numeric upper limits—"4,800 square feet," as discussed by several speakers—but emphasized those numbers were intended as upper limits that should be balanced with community‑impact review, not guaranteed buildable rights. The group also revisited whether finished basements should count toward floor area; several members said a finished basement could push a house from an upper threshold into a much larger total (examples discussed ranged from roughly 4,800 to 6,000 square feet).
Speakers urged keeping design controls—such as restricting extensive glazing, limiting decks visible to neighbors, and curbing exterior lighting—as tools the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and planning staff can use when large houses cause perceived neighborhood harms. Members pointed to recent cases where applicants redesigned homes to reduce glazing, removed decking or changed lighting, and neighbors accepted the changes.
Jackie explained the planning board’s perspective: smaller lots (under roughly 20,000 square feet, as discussed) felt most penalized by some proposed recalibrations, while larger-lot proposals prompted the strongest neighbor fears about potential rental or commercial use. She said neighbors’ concerns often center on perceived future use (short‑term rentals or high‑intensity commercial activity) even where projects meet dimensional rules.
The task force recommended targeted outreach and a technical workshop with the planning board to refine thresholds and consider more specific language clarifying that numeric charts indicate maximums subject to community‑impact review. Members agreed to include these clarifications in the June 15 select board preview and to explore additional design controls as part of the site‑coverage/FAR follow-up work.
