Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bolton PZC debates simplifying lot coverage rules, removing routine engineer review and the 20% affordable-unit requirement
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed clarifying lot vs. building coverage, reducing the 5% minor-modification trigger, replacing mandatory Town Engineer review with a department-consultation approach, and whether the 20% affordable-unit requirement for multi-family projects is deterring development; staff will draft proposed text.
At the Sept. 11 Bolton Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, staff and commissioners spent substantial time on proposed clarifications and edits to the town’s subdivision and zoning regulations.
Consulting Director of Community Development Patrice Carson said Article 11 lacks a definition of "lot coverage" while defining building coverage, and recommended simplifying language to cover lot and other forms of coverage. Carson proposed changing references from a specific "Town Engineer" review for minor modifications to "any applicable municipal department," allowing the zoning officer to request reports as needed and reducing unnecessary cost and delay for applicants.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael D’Amato said the 5% threshold that triggers the minor modifications review is a small percentage that should allow more flexibility and that requiring a Town Engineer review is unnecessary and costly. Commissioners agreed staff should return with a draft of revised language at the next meeting.
The commission also debated rules for mixed-use development and the requirement that 20% of units in certain multi-family projects be affordable. Carson confirmed the 20% requirement exists; D’Amato and others said that requirement and the associated annual income verification and enforcement burdens can hinder developer interest. Suggestions included permitting mixed-use sites rather than mixed-use buildings, capping unit size to encourage attainable housing, and encouraging smaller homes or site-sharing to support equity and ownership.
Carson noted inconsistent yard definitions for corner lots and proposed clarifying the rules so that corner lots are treated as having two front yards and no rear yard unless otherwise specified. The staff will draft corrections and updated definitions for the commission’s review.
No zoning text amendments were adopted at the meeting; the commission requested draft language to be presented at a future meeting.
