Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Form Based Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant-led workshop prompts planning board to consider special permits and clearer submission rules for form-based code
Summary
A consultant presentation on form-based code scenarios prompted the Hamilton Planning Board to discuss when additions or new buildings on parcels with preexisting nonconforming features should trigger remedies or a special-permit review; members favored keeping the code simple and using case-by-case special permits for complex situations.
At a workshop segment of the June 16 meeting, a consultant identified as "Util" walked the Hamilton Planning Board through scenarios that tested how the town’s new form‑based code treats additions to nonconforming buildings and brand-new structures placed on lots that already contain nonconforming features.
The consultant used quick studies (including a 17 Mill Street example) to show that small additions that increase nonconformity (for instance by further reducing open space or encroaching on setbacks) would generally not be allowed under the code as written. “It’s essentially an addition that is making this structure even less conforming than it was,” the consultant said during the presentation.
Board members explored thorny nuances, including whether adding a second story (which increases building volume without using more land) constitutes an increase in nonconformity, and whether a brand-new structure on a lot with a preexisting nonconforming building should be held to remedy site features such as open space and parking. The consultant said the code is not explicit on many of these situations and suggested that requiring a special permit in some cases preserves board discretion.
Several board members voiced support for a cautious approach: requiring clearer submission graphics that show build-to lines and form-based elements on plans, using a special-permit process for new structures on lots with existing nonconformities, and preparing design guidelines or checklists to make reviews predictable. One board member urged keeping the code simple so it fits Hamilton’s small-lot downtown; another suggested grant-supported design tools to help applicants and the board.
What happens next: the board discussed drafting clearer submission requirements (diagrams and checklists) and considering special-permit triggers for certain new-structure scenarios; staff and the consultant will provide materials for further refinement.
