Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Route 134 Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs Route 134 overlay and a wastewater recharge site as part of multifamily strategy
Summary
Committee members discussed focusing multifamily growth in a Route 134 overlay and pairing density with a central recharge park. Members debated tradeoffs—wetlands, Zone 2 wells, tree loss, departmental reviews and potential consolidation of municipal operations—while asking for consultant feasibility and environmental review.
Members of the Zoning Bylaw Study Committee on Oct. 24 advanced discussion of a Route 134 multifamily overlay and options for wastewater recharge to support concentrated housing.
Paul Foley and other committee members recommended targeting a smaller, previously disturbed area south of Theophilus Smith Road for a multi‑family overlay (referenced as section 4.9). Foley said that concentrating development on already‑disturbed parcels—such as the Ocean State Job Lot and Northside Liquors properties—would avoid spreading new construction into undeveloped greenfields and could allow design guidelines and density bonuses tied to open space, solar and other community benefits.
"If we put that overlay on that little section of industrial district, it wouldn't be so huge that it would scare us with giant numbers, but it allows something that's not allowed there now," Foley said.
The committee also discussed wastewater siting and recharge. Members suggested making the recharge area a central park and building denser housing around it, but cautioned about high groundwater, Zone 2 well protection, and the potential environmental cost of cutting trees. Steve Gomez and others asked for more precise wetland mapping and urged routing any special permits to conservation, health, building and fire reviews.
"We should send that map upstairs and have our own layer because the state maps for wetlands are done from 30,000 square feet data," one member said, pressing for a local GIS layer of confirmed wetlands.
Several members said consultants are already evaluating feasibility for a candidate site at 30 Bob Crow Road and nearby parcels; the committee asked staff to ensure water‑department participation in site reviews and to provide a consolidated feasibility report on recharge, well impacts and relocation costs for municipal operations.
Next steps: staff and consultants will return feasibility findings and environmental assessments; members asked Paul Foley and others to draft design‑guideline language for section 4.9 and to prepare options for incentives and safeguards (impervious‑surface limits, density bonuses tied to water‑savings and net‑zero incentives).
