Board finds proposed Crescent project is a multifamily dwelling but rules R‑5 parcel cannot satisfy C‑2 usable‑open‑space requirement

The Board of Appeals spent the largest portion of the meeting on a contested interpretation for the Crescent project, a proposed residential development that spans a C‑2 commercial parcel and an adjacent R‑5 residential parcel. Counsel, planning staff and board members debated whether common outdoor recreation/open space located on the R‑5 parcel may count toward the 15% usable open‑space requirement the code imposes on multifamily development in the C‑2 zone.

Counsel and staff outlined two distinct questions: (1) whether the proposed project qualifies as a multifamily dwelling under the village code, and (2) whether usable open space required for a multifamily use in the C‑2 may be satisfied by space located in the R‑5 portion of the applicant’s lot. The board treated the two questions separately.

On the first question, the board majority concluded the proposed development falls within the code definition of a multifamily dwelling. That finding turned on use characteristics, not on whether supportive services are available on site. As chair Dave Neufeld summarized, the issue is whether the structure and occupancy pattern meet the multifamily definition — the board found that they do.

On the second question — whether the R‑5 portion can be counted toward the required 15% usable open space for the C‑2 parcel — counsel and staff reviewed the zoning table and the applicant’s open‑space calculations. Staff presented the arithmetic: the combined lot area (C‑2 + R‑5) is about 23,324 sq ft yielding a 15% requirement of roughly 3,499 sq ft. The applicant’s materials list roughly 6,450 sq ft of spaces labeled open or recreation, but about 5,460 sq ft of that acreage sits in the R‑5 parcel. Excluding the R‑5 piece, the C‑2 portion provides only about 990 sq ft at ground level; some additional terrace/roof areas were presented, but the code and planning rules limit rooftop/terrace credit (staff noted rooftop/atrium credit may be allowed up to a modest percentage if the planning board finds the space usable). The board wrestled with whether the code’s phrase “on the lot” means that usable open space may be anywhere on the applicant’s contiguous lot (even when portions are in different zones) or whether the zoning districts’ permitted principal and accessory uses prevent counting the residential parcel to meet a commercial district requirement.

After extended discussion and arithmetic checks, the board took a series of narrow, formal positions to guide drafting of the final resolution: the building inspector may correct an administrative error from prior actions (board consensus), the R‑5 parcel may not be counted to satisfy the C‑2 multifamily usable‑open‑space requirement (majority), and the proposed development otherwise qualifies as a multifamily dwelling (majority). Board members asked counsel to prepare and circulate a written decision and an amended resolution that incorporates these discrete findings and the editorial corrections discussed in the meeting. The board did not adopt final language tonight; members asked to see the memorializing draft before signing a final determination.