MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 MEETING OF THE ZONING REVISION COMMITTEE

Attending: Joel Russell, Tom Weiner, Danielle Kahn, Peter McLean, Jim Nash, Steve Gilson, Dillon Sussman, Dennis Bidwell
Absent: Adin Maynard

1. Public Comment. Jerry Budgar, President of Ward 3 Neighborhood Association, asked the Committee to consider two recommendations. The first was that the City adopt a formal policy of notifying affected property owners when zoning changes are proposed. The second was to recommend preparation of an easy-to-understand guide to the City’s zoning code.

The Committee’s discussion of the first recommendation included the potential cost of implementing such a notification process, especially for proposed zoning changes that would affect the entire City.

Ben Spencer sought clarification of City policy on notification of abutters in the case of a special permit application. He was told that City policy is to notify abutters within 300’ of the affected property.

2. Report from the Urban Agriculture Subcommittee. Jim Nash and Danielle Kahn reported on a meeting the previous Monday to solicit input on possible zoning changes pertaining to chickens and other animals. They later submitted a full report, which is attached to these minutes.

3. Report from the Cluster Rewrite Subcommittee. Steve Gilson reported that he and Joel had had several meetings, where most people believed that the cluster development discussion should be divided between rural clusters and infill clusters. They submitted a full report, which is attached to these minutes.

4. Report from the Energy Subcommittee. Dennis Bidwell reported that attempts were still underway to arrange a meeting with Carolyn Misch, Chris Mason and Tony Patillo to discuss coordination of the work of the Energy and Sustainability Commission, the Building Department, and the Energy Subcommittee (Dennis and Adin) of the Zoning Revisions Committee. He also reported that it would make sense to confer with the Housing Subcommittee on the matter of possible density bonuses and expedited approvals for existing residential structures that undertake deep energy retrofits. There is potential to address the goal of increased residential density in core areas while at the same time making a dent in the problem of energy efficiency issues in existing residential structures. He also reported continuing interest in looking at the possibilities for a deep energy finance program in Northampton.

5. Report from the Housing Subcommittee. Dillon Sussman described a meeting planned for October 22 of the Planning Board and the Housing Subcommittee of the ZRC, and discussed the live/work space issue. He and Tom and Peter later submitted a full report, which is attached to these minutes.

6. Future ZRC meetings. The group agreed to keep ZRC meetings on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month, at 7 pm. Due to lack of meeting space on those nights in the City Hall complex, meetings will continue to be at Bridge Street School. (Note: Subsequent to this meeting, it was learned that City Council chambers will be available for the ZRC’s Oct. 28 meeting.)

The October 7 meeting of the ZRC will be at 7 pm at Bridge Street School.

7. Restructuring the Subcommittees? Joel raised the possibility of restructuring the ZRC’s subcommittees. Pros and cons of the existing subcommittee structure were discussed. The group also discussed whether the ZRC should act as a committee-of-the-whole to use a particular area of the City as a laboratory for bringing together the ideas generated by all of the subcommittees. The Conz Street neighborhood was cited as one possibility. No consensus was reached on this matter.

8. Design discussion. The Committee turned its attention to a memo distributed by Joel about the meaning of “design” for purposes of the work of the ZRC. A lengthy discussion followed about City-wide land use patterns vs. streetscale and corridor scale neighborhood design issues vs. the architecture of specific buildings. There was also discussion about whether to use the guiding principles of the Sustainable Northampton plan as a jumping off point in going forward, or whether fresh attempts should be made to define sustainability before proceeding with zoning revision work. There was also continuing discussion of selecting an area of the City to serve as a “laboratory” for integrating areas. Or, would we need to develop as many as six different model areas, recognizing the six different types of land use area identified in the SN report? No consensus was reached on these matters.

9. Plans for the Oct. 7 meeting. Joel and Danielle will review for the Committee the City’s existing zoning ordinance at the Oct. 7 meeting. Committee members are encouraged to bring their copies of the ordinance to that meeting. Time will also be set aside on Oct. 7 to continue the discussion of the Committee’s next steps. Wayne will be asked to present to the whole Committee his proposal that the Conz St. corridor/neighborhood be considered as a laboratory for integrating the various ideas coming from the subcommittees.
Future meetings. The ZRC will meet jointly with the Planning Board on October 22 at 7 pm. The October 28 meeting of the ZRC will include further discussion of the laboratory idea.

10. Audience comments. Ben Spencer expressed frustration that attendance at ZRC meetings was not greater. He also suggested that visuals like the maps used at tonight’s meeting be displayed vertically, so that audience members would not have to walk 5 or 6 feet to view them displayed horizontally.

The meeting was adjourned at roughly 9 pm.

Respectfully submitted, Dennis Bidwell




Urban Agriculture Subcommittee Status Update
September 16, 2009
Submitted by Jim Nash and Danielle Kahn

The Urban Agriculture Subcommittee held a public meeting on Monday, September 17th. A number of citizens and representatives of groups such as the Pioneer Valley Backyard Chickens Association and the Western Massachusetts Goat Alliance attended. Overall, the meeting enjoyed a good turn out. Most of the attendees came to support increasing the number of allowable hens on residential properties. There was much discussion about the requirements for raising livestock in an urban setting, as well as discussion about how to minimize nuisances and environmental impacts. There seemed to be an informal consensus that 6 is an arbitrary number, and that we should consider allowing larger numbers.
Future steps: Focusing for the time being on chickens, consolidate all the information collected to date, research additional zoning examples in cities similar in size to Northampton, convene a second public meeting to help make decisions on what the new allowances and requirements will be.

Cluster Subcommittee Report for September 16, 2009
Submitted by Steve Gilson and Joel Russell

Joel and I had several meetings in the last two weeks to discuss the current zoning ordinances. The people interviewed agreed that splitting cluster development into two areas, rural and infill, made sense.
Much of the discussion centered on infill projects, and differentiating infill between new construction and renovations to existing structures. For example, there was a general consensus that the zoning is too restrictive when creating infill renovations because of:
• Parking requirements
• Restrictions on converting single to multi-family houses
• Lot size requirements for multi-family houses
• Frontage requirements for multi-family houses
For cluster development, there was also agreement that the existing zoning is too complicated for determining the buildable area for open-space calculations, percent of area to be protected, and density.
There was general agreement that cluster development was the best approach to developing in the more rural parts of the town, but there was a sense that it was not working as well as it could.
Some options discussed with rural cluster were:
• Changing the density requirements in SR/RR to reduce the allowed density in clusters
• Increasing the ANR frontage required in SR/RR and reducing the required frontage for clusters
• Restricting ridge-top development in clusters or any other development
• Increasing the minimum lot sizes of single family ANR lots in RR/SR
• Simplifying the cluster regulations, especially with respect to which land can be included as open space
• Little incentive to developers to building different types of clusters (Steve: it’s not clear to me what this means)
What’s next
We will continue our meetings to gather feedback. At some point we may want to hold a community forum on cluster and other issues relating to open space in the outlying areas. Infill cluster issues may tie in more with housing and design.


ZRC Housing Subcommittee Status Update
September 16, 2009
Submitted by Dillon Sussman, Peter McLean and Tom Weiner

1. We met with Wayne and got a good introduction to housing and zoning in the city.

2. The city is currently engaged in two projects to assess housing needs.

These projects will give us a clearer picture of what housing needs really are in the city. (now: OPD knows what we have, but not what we need).
a. Housing needs assessment by outside consultant
b. PVPC-Asked to collect models from around country. PVPC will report to Planning Board on October 22. Hoping that City Council and Zoning Revisions committee will also attend.
Next Step: meet with Peg Keller re Housing Needs Assessment
Next Step: Attend Oct 22 meeting

3. Housing occupies a majority of the zoning document so changes to it are a different scale of project than the other subcommittees' work.
We're having some difficulty wrapping our heads around the complexity, but its a good opportunity to learn the zoning, etc.

4. We’ve reviewed the Housing section of Sustainable Northampton in detail.
We’ve synthesized broad goals from Sustainable Northampton that we agree should be basis of change to Zoning re housing:
• minimize development in outlying areas of city
• concentrate development in traditional (pre 1950?) neighborhoods, especially within 1/2 mile of basic services and commercial areas (retail, schools, workplaces, etc)
• provide a range of housing.
Unit types (single family, 2 family, 3 family, multifamily, townhouse, cottages). Unit sizes (sq ft, # of bedrooms).
Ownership, rental, condo, SRO.
Range of affordability (Affordable=80% of median income. Typical homes are at 150% of median income in Northampton. So we also need to be creating conditions for homes between 80-150% of median income. Wayne calls this "workforce housing.")
• Facilitate walkable mixed-use neighborhoods.
Mixed use=mixed housing, retail, workplace, services.

5. We’ve reviewed the Zoning for topics that were in the "workplan" given to us by planning board. Below is an outline of our findings.

a. Live/work Space
Presumably this means "mixed residential/work space", implies artist space, which Sustainable Northampton mentions repeatedly.

Should we expand consideration of “Live/work” to look at mixed-use more broadly?

Curent Zoning has four categories of mixed-use
• Mixed residential/work (aka Live/work? See definition)
Not allowed in Residential Zones, except URC
Not allowed in PV, M, GU, BP, SC
Allowed if Planning Board approval in URC (above first floor) and HB
Allowed in CB, GB, NG, and SI

• Mixed residential/retail commercial (see 350 Attachment 1:2)
Not allowed in Residential Zones, except URC
Not Allowed in Medical (M), Industrial (GI, SI), Business Park (BP), Conservancy (SC)
Allowed if Planning Board approval in URC (allowed on all floors but limited to professional and business offices, except--banking, real eastate and insurance offices or retail, personal and consumer service establishments, medical doctors, dentists or chiropractors.
Allowed in Business except PV. Can be mixed within building and unit. Can be on any floor except in NB where it must be above first floor

• Home office (see 350-10.12)
allowed in Residential zones, Business (except PV), SI, BP, SC
Not allowed in PV, M GI

• Home occupation (see 350-10.12)
Not allowed in PV, M, GI, SC
Allowed with ZBA special permit in Residential Zones, HB, SI, BP
Allowed in CB, GB, NB

Thoughts:
• Info about mixed-use is scattered throughout Zoning document. Some info is in definitions, some in special permits, some in table of uses.
It’s difficult to find it all.
• There are political challenges with expanding mixed/use aka live/work. Work can bring traffic, noise, fumes, etc.
• Site plan review can/should demonstrate that there will not be adverse effects on neighbors due to noise, fumes, etc (through sound proofing, air filtration, etc). So possibly can eliminate concerns about onsite problems with live/work space.
• Traffic/Parking issues are more difficult to prevent. Parking is the main driver behind current limitations to mixed-use. There is especially concern about businesses that frequently have clients visit their office (e.g. doctors, laywers, therapists)

Next Steps:
• Investigate organizing Zoning so that all information about mixed-use to one section of the zoning code. Explicitly state the goals/purpose
• Dig deeper into conflicts between desire to create walkable mixed-use city and desire for separation of uses.
• Identify areas of city that may be most appropriate for live/work space
• Look at special permit requirements for mixed-use in more detail.

b. TDR
currently limited to transfers from FFR to PV
was created as a one-off and has limited applicability
Wayne is dubious of expansion- sending areas are easy, receiving are more difficult

Next Steps:
Need to look into other situations where TDR might be useful. For example might consider expanding from RR to URB & URC. Or within zones to facilitate densification?

c. Inclusionary Housing
3 most effective zoning actions thus far according to Wayne
• waivers in subdivision developments for developer to provide affordable housing
• accessory apartments
• 2-family homes – creates market rate affordable units, but more 2 family to 1 family happening

Wayne says there is currently no clear policy approach for affordable housing. Right now, its easy to do affordable housing, but its not mandated to do it. Do we want to make it mandatory?
Eg. If we want development on King St. – should we require inclusionary housing. Or if on Ryan Rd., should there be inclusionary housing if there must be development… How important is credit to us under 40B

Next steps:
???


d. range of housing/ aka infill
big topic, we haven't tackled this yet.

e. Other Housing related topics from Wayne
Consider starting with changes to Conz Street to look at a potential mixed use more directly.

Consider moving district boundary lines where appropriate

Consider tweaking dimensional standards to facilitate infill, etc. (especially frontage requirements)

Next steps:
• Discuss focusing on an area with ZRC committee
• Investigate moving district boundaries/areas.
• Identify areas where where Zoning don’t seem to make sense (Conz, lower King; Route 9 from Pomeroy Terrace to Hawley St).
• Focused investigation of current dimensional standards.