ORDER-2023-59 : Per Council vote to divide this order, this original order has been duplicated into ten other orders reflecting each Zoning Amendment: Amending Melrose Revised Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 235, Corner Lot Setbacks

Transcript (~33 min @ 8:19)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 8:00 Leila Migliorelli: So, you know additional or any commenters I'll motion by unanimous consent to close public comment public comment is now closed since we have members of the administration here tonight to speak on the items before on the item before us on motion by unanimous consent to suspend the rules before we proceed. Seeing no objection. The rules are now suspended. So the one and only item on our agenda tonight is order 2023-59 amending Melrose revised ordinance chapter 235 various provisions. And tonight. We have the planning director Denise Gaffey along with the chair of the board planning board and chair of the zoning committee to speak on this order so welcome.

▶ 8:53 Speaker 6: Good evening.

▶ 8:58 Denise Gaffey: My name is Denise Gaffey. I'm the director of planning and Community Development and here on my right is Lori Massa. She is the senior planner in the planning office directly on my left is Greg Sampson who's the chairman of the planning board and to my far left is Aunt isuzu's award. She is the chairperson of the zoning subcommittee. So we are all here tonight to speak about the package of zoning amendments that were recently sent down and initiated by the planning board. Um this package of zoning amendments has been work been worked on by these zoning subcommittee primarily for I think it was about a year ago when we started working on this package. So it entails quite a bit of work many meetings lots of research on the part of planning staff. And in order to pull this this package together. This is a little different than some of the zoning we've done recently which were really focused on one particular issue. This is a package of items that we're we're attempting to Folds quite a few Provisions in we're kind of categorizing it almost like a housekeeping or a cleanup zoning Amendment where there are a number of different Provisions where over the years as staff to those only board of appeals. We see certain cases or certain Provisions that are come to the zoning board repeatedly that it makes sense to modify the zoning to kind of comport with what what we'd like to see or what we typically see with through the granting of variances. So so that's one of the one of the objectives with this zoning is deterrative clean up some of those those items we are all so trying to bring our zoning into compliance with Mass General law through some of the general laws changes over the recent years. So that's a couple of the provisions are related to that and basically in make it a little bit easier to understand so that was the other goal with this particular zon. So I'm going to Jump Right In.

▶ 11:00 Speaker 6: See if I can do this.

▶ 11:06 Denise Gaffey: Great, okay. So as you can see from from this slide there this basically summarizes the the 10 proposed zoning amendments and I'm going to walk through each one of these with a series series of slides and some illustrations to make it a little bit easier to understand the actual zoning. The actual proposed language was sent down with the zoning and you should all have that in front of you and I know that was attached to this order so so we're gonna start with The first one here, which is a zoning amendment to address corner lot setbacks. And so here we're proposing to make some changes to the the definition of corner lot and the section 235-25 paragraph C which are some dimensional and density Provisions related to corner lot. And essentially the issue here is the way we defined zoning Corner Lot in our zoning Amendment a corner lot a home that's on a corner lot has two front yards and two rear yards. It doesn't have any side yards. So what happens frequently and as you can see from this table, there were about 38 cases over the last five or six years that came in front of the zoning board of appeals seeking variances because of that strict definition of a corner lot having having two front yard set backs in some years, you know, there have been a dozen cases and that's almost a third of the case load in front of the zba. So this is this is very onerous for a property owner who wants to make a simple addition or Improvement to their home to have to go to the zoning board of appeals and seek a variants because of the way that corner lot is defined. It's very expensive to file with the zba and it's time it's it takes a lot of time and there's always there's of course always the chance you don't get the variance too. So there's a lot of risk involved generally speaking in most cases. There's only board has granted these variances. So here is this is a perfect example where it makes sense to if the zpa is routinely granting variances for chronolog properties that we would consider changing the way we Define them. This is identified in our master plan also as a As a best practice and something we should attempt to do. So that was one of the one of the reasons this also came to our attention. We've been thinking about it for quite a few years. Let's see.

▶ 13:52 Denise Gaffey: So basically we by making this change the corner lot property is would have have one front yard two side side yards and a rear yard just like any other property that isn't a corner yard corner lot property the planning board spent a lot of time and we spent a lot of time looking pretty much at all of those 38 cases that were in front of the zba over the last several years and agreed that with the granting of the variance is for the for those properties that there was no that there was no it was not detrimental at all to the streets to the streetscape by doing that. So we we had we analyzed we probably analyzed dozens of examples in the zoning subcommittee meetings. I provided two here in this slide presentation. But this this example here on Sycamore Road and Bow Street, I believe it is is a great example here the the property with the two front yard requirement is the addition that they were proposing was required to have a 20 foot setback on on both Street in addition to Sycamore. And and if they were only required to have a side yard set back then it would be 12 feet instead of the 20 feet on the Bow Street side. They were granted that variance because it seemed like a reasonable a very reasonable thing to do and so that's kind of a sort of a typical example. So just a just to be clear. They would still have to comply with the side yard setbacks in the particular zone of District that they're in just we wouldn't have to have that more oner. Requirement of having two front yard setbacks and in our zoning ordinance front yard setbacks tend to be greater than side yard setbacks. And here's an another example on First Street, very similar where in addition was proposed to the to the back of the house. But if you view the the side set back. The front set back on the side yard, then you they wouldn't be able to to build that addition without a variance.

▶ 16:10 Denise Gaffey: So next we have a proposal to amend the definition of structure. This is section 235-5 the structure definition.

▶ 16:23 Denise Gaffey: And here the zoning ordinance currently defines retaining walls in fences as structures. And so what happens here is that triggers the accessory building and accessory structure setback requirements which govern accessory structures. So this actually this came up through a case in Melrose where a resident was Concerned about a neighbor's wall and read the language very literally in our the definition very literally in our zoning and and was questioning why the Building Commissioner didn't require a forfeit four foot or whether it was a four foot or a 10 foot setback for the for their wall. And essentially we don't think it was ever in the building commission didn't really think was ever intended that walls and fences would have to comply or be be required to comply with the that accessory setback, you know fences and walls are typically on Approximately on the property line so but in a very literal definition of the of structure that's you know, it is because it's in the definition. It has to be treated that way so the proposal here which we reviewed very closely with the Building Commissioner was to to take the fence retaining walls and fences out of that definition. Which essentially resolves that concern?

▶ 18:01 Speaker 6: Okay and moving on.

▶ 18:04 Denise Gaffey: this is a this third provision is a proposal to make a very slight map change that section 235-8 And here is the the property in question this property on Franklin Street. It's 521 529 Franklin Street. It's split into two different zoning districts. It's part of our our communal rail zoning District the ba2 zoning, but there's a significant portion of the property. That's also in the urban residential district so that when that was brought to our attention, there was a request by the property owner to consider Changing this or just putting this entire property into the into the ba2 zoning District. He was having trouble with refinancing and ensuring the property and it made a lot of sense to us for that property to be in one zoning district and not to straddle the two different zoning districts. So that's this very simple map change that's being proposed.

▶ 19:16 Denise Gaffey: And next we have the definition of retail food establishments. This is also in a section 235-5 which is the definitions section.

▶ 19:28 Denise Gaffey: And this is a very simple Amendment where we're basically modifying the definition of the retail food establishment to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages off premise for off-premises consumption and we're just changing the language from Simply beer and our beer Malt Beverages and wine, which is how it's currently written. And that's because the city a couple of years ago actually expanded the the definition to allow for alcoholic beverages. So this is really just catching up with the ordinance change that's already occurred.

▶ 20:09 Denise Gaffey: Okay, and next we have a modification amendment to our existing in-law apartment Provisions. Again, this is section 235-5 the provisions around in-law apartments are in the definition section. And here we have a case where again the zoning board of appeals has frequently seen applicants come and ask for variances because there are some language in our in law Department definition. That's that's very restrictive. It basically requires that basically states that the an in-law apartment can't be part of a single family dwelling that has been added to or altered after 1990 and I think that's because 1990 was the year that the Law Department was Provisions were created. So I think that's why that year is in there. But that's basically very restrictive and doesn't not very logical. I will say there's no other changes whatsoever to this provision. It's still requires an enlar apartment is still can only be can only be done in a single-family home. It is still requires a special permit. There are really all the other Provisions will still will still apply. This is simply addressing an issue with that restriction around the the building being built at you know, no changes after 1990.

▶ 21:57 Denise Gaffey: And this one again as I mentioned the board appeals has approved many variances from this provision to permit in law Apartments where all the other Provisions are met this in this amendment is all so identified as an action item in the Melrose forward master plan.

▶ 22:22 Denise Gaffey: So here this next amendment is related to section 235-62 the special permit precedures in our zoning ordinance and here. Is a case where we are simply updating the Zone. We're probably proposing to update the zoning in order to be consistent with recent changes to Mass General Law chapter 40 a Mass General law this change that occurred several years ago. Reduces the number of votes that are required for a zoning approval if one is proposing to zone for multifamily housing mixed use development or reduce parking. So the reduction is from 2/3 super majority to a simple majority. And it's still done by special permit, but instead of that super majority, which is a requirement for all other special permits. Anything that is related to multifamily housing mix use development or reduced parking that's granted by either the zoning board of appeals or the planning board depending on who the special permit granny Authority is for that particular instance is only requires a simple majority. So this is state law we have to do that we have to abide by it anyway, but this is just making the language consistent with the state law. And then the other item here is a little bit different. This is allowing for the term of a special permit to extend from instead of two years to three years. So it's granting an allowance to extend the time by which a special permit is granted by that additional year. This is something we can opt into the zoning the chapter 48 allows a community to opt into this additional year. We think it there's a lot of logic and it makes a lot of sense to do that. So we're proposing to allow for for an applicant who has granted approval to have that additional year to actually act on the special permit.

▶ 24:30 Denise Gaffey: Okay. So next we got a several slides on this particular item and here we are looking at sight lines and fence Heights in front yard and corner on corner and on corner corner Lots. We specifically looking to amend section 235-25 paragraph K and paragraph l And this actually came to our attention from councilmember who raised a concern about sight lines around some vegetation and it's come up with other members of the public as well. We frequently get calls as you can imagine from members of the public around various zoning issues. And this is one we get a lot because our existing zoning is written is written in a really confusing way. So when we get when we got that inquiry and we took a look at it ourselves, we realized yeah it actually this language could be really cleaned up and a lot more clear than it is today. and so the the purpose of these regulations is to ensure Public Safety and visibility by regulating the height offenses and other structures on Corner lots and in front yards in order to maintain also a sort of a pedestrian friendly streetscape. So there's two two issues at play here. It's about it's about public safety first and foremost, but also about, you know streetscapes. So just getting into the the detail here, we spend an awful lot of time looking at this one and looking at provisions and other communities. We also took a close look at our own Provisions, which aren't which aren't that different from what we're proposing. They're just again a lot clearer and easier to understand. So we are here proposing. That within this triangular area and on a corner property. that the fence or a wall cannot exceed three feet in height in that dashed area. So it's 20 feet back from the corner of the property on either side and in that triangular area. And another way to view that here is through this illustration. You can see around the corner there and in the blue that that's where we were saying that offense or a wall could not be greater than three feet in three feet tall and I'll show in a minute some pictures of some some cases where you see where this is done or where you see some of these walls our fences that are higher than three feet and some of the barriers that that creates to visibility which is why we're proposing this you can also see here that in the front yard. so in the side yard structures or walls and fences could be set back. They can be set back three feet and then seven feet tall from there if there's if they're set back. Just move forward to see some of these photos and the three feet provision is already is in our existing zoning. You can tell by some of these some these are all pictures and from Melrose and some of these properties are already doing they're figured it out. They read the zoning in it and they understood it. And so they're that top picture on the left. For example, there's a picture of a side set back where this there's a taller fence but it's three feet back. So there's a little bit of a buffer if you're walking along the sidewalk you can see in the one next to that as well how right on the property line. There's a fence that's lower than three feet and that works really nicely. It doesn't seem imposing because it's lower than three feet. But then as you progress down the street, the taller fence is actually stepped back the three feet and that also that also works because it's not right on the right on the property line. And you can see a great example on the bottom left corner of this similar what they with vegetation how the vegetation is lower than the three feet right at the corner. And so that it doesn't obstruct visibility when a car is approaching that intersection. And then the two bottom two pictures on the bottom right are pictures where these this would not be allowed. And because the fence Heights it is exceeds three feet and it goes all the way to the property line and it makes it very difficult for for visibility when you approach that corner in a if you're a pedestrian walking on that sidewalk, and there's a car coming down the street from the other direction the car might not see you and it also just provides like a barrier. So not very pedestrian friendly. So the language were proposing will clean that up and make it very clear. what is allowed and here again on properties that are not Corner Lots the language the zoning will Let's see. So for no one corner Lots the amendment proposes that within the front yard setback. or from the line of the existing primary structure Whichever is less a fence wall or similar structure will not be cannot be taller than three feet and then beyond the setback of the primary structure or the front yard set back that fencer wall may be up to seven feet tall. So in the first case well in the case to the right you can assume the front yard setback is is roughly 20 feet, but the house is much further back from that. So the the three foot high tall fence would have to fencer wall would have to be within that three foot Dimension all the way to the to that setback line. And in the case on the left the house is actually moved. It's a pre-existing non-conforming house where in this example where the house is less than 20 feet set back or whatever the front yard set back is but there you would the fence or wall could be above the three feet as long as it's at the line of the house or back. If that makes sense. And I we have some examples that illustrate that here as well. You can see that first example on the left of the top of the screen shows where the fence pretty much is right in line with the the home.

▶ 31:19 Speaker 6: and then

▶ 31:22 Denise Gaffey: and then on the bottom image, you can see a fence that is actually in the front yard setback, but it is lower than three feet. So that that works fine. That's that would be completely allowed and then on the To the right the fence in this case. Also the bushes exceed the three feet high so that at the right at the property line and within the front yard setback, so that would not be allowed same with the picture to the bottom, right?

▶ 31:55 Speaker 6: so

▶ 31:57 Denise Gaffey: so related to that we also just wanted to make sure. That when we're dealing with that. We apply the same. Same level of attention to safety to all new developments. So we just make we just recommend some language in one of the site plan review criteria that reinforces for the planning board when they're performing site plan review that they should be looking at fences and walls and other types of structures like that in their review of cases in the they do that already. But this just kind of makes it makes a very clear

▶ 32:42 Denise Gaffey: so and then next Vegetation height for Corner lots and in yards and along streets. So here so currently vegetation and fences and walls are actually all lumped together in our zoning under Section 235 -25 paragraphs K and L but in the in the process of doing this work we met with the Building Commissioner and and he actually indicated to us that it made a lot more sense to for the public works department to be enforcing anything around vegetation because that's what they do now. So we also looped in the public works department and talk with them about these zoning provisions. And so the suggestion was that we we take out the provisions around vegetation and move those into the general code, which is where similar types of Provisions exist and it gives the public works department more of an enforcement role over vegetation, but we would still apply similar dimensional criteria to again with the goal being to promote safety. So that is the proposal here. And again, so the the goal here would be to promote driver and pedestrian safety by ensuring that there are no obstructions in the public way and also to maintain an interesting and pedestrian friendly streetscape. These two pictures I think illustrate pretty nicely the problem on the left with Hedges that have grown too high and too thick and might cause obstructions at an intersection and the proposal on the right which which allows for plenty of vegetation, but doesn't provide that same obstruction. So here again Hedges can be up to three feet tall and leafy vegetation cannot obstruct views within three feet of the front yard or the side yards. The Proposal also limits height following the same 20 foot measurement for Corner Lots as we just discussed with fences in walls. And again, these are some good examples here of what works and what does not work. It doesn't promote safety and what we will be addressing through these changes.

▶ 35:14 Denise Gaffey: Okay, I'm gonna jump I think we're almost done. We have two more Provisions these last two provisions. are we'll both actually attempt to Address the the recent state laws to promote multi-family housing for MBTA communities. I know you all have heard a lot about that and we've been spending a lot of time taking a look at these new regulations to try to to try to comply as best that we can we're actually in a really good situation. I think Mel is you know through all the work that we've done over the last two decades to promote housing around Transit. We we don't expect to have to make any changes to our dimensional Um or a density and dimensional regulations in any of our zoning districts. We think we're going to comply based on the model that they've produced. We haven't we haven't received approval yet. But the two items that we've discovered that we will need to modify are the definition of units the way unit sizes are regulated in our zoning and also the definition of family. So those are the two Provisions that we will have to be modified in order for Melrose to comply with the the new MBTA communities zoning. So this is section 235-25 paragraph I and currently in our zoning we do. Have we place limits our minimums on unit sizes drawing dwelling units? I'm talking about dwelling unit sizes. And that's some as I mentioned. That's something that we Were we cannot do in order to comply? So we're proposing that we remove those Amendment minimum unit sizes from our zoning. Um, and we provide this slide here because just to point out that there are still quite a few other mechanisms by which unit sizes are regulated. We still have all the other dimensional criteria in a zoning including floor area ratio, which also which regulates unit sizes this also the Board of Health and the State Building Code, which has regulations regarding minimum dwelling units or dwelling the sizes of dwelling units in bedroom counts and And also it's it's very much, you know driven by market demand. What unit size. You know is most people are looking for. Eliminating the unit size will allow us to comply with that with Section with chapter 48 section 3A will still regulating density through the other zoning Provisions that I just mentioned and it also allow for a variety of housing types in terms of size and costs which is a goal of the housing production plan and they have been a couple of projects where the zoning board of appeals has has granted variances to the minimum loss size and there have been successful that is a successful housing type in the in the marketplace. So we think this is a very logical Amendment. finally this last Amendment relates to the definition of family and dwelling units.

▶ 39:02 Denise Gaffey: And here again. In order to comply with the dhcd's new multifamily Zoning for MBTA communities. The definition of family needs to be amended so that the zoning it doesn't limit the number of occupants in a unit or otherwise respect restrict occupancy based on biological or legal relationships, which is which is also discriminating and not a purpose of zoning. And if you if you take a close look at the current definition of family, you can see it is it is pretty Antiquated. So we we actually propose to eliminate the definition altogether. We think that it is better captured by our existing definitions of dwelling unit and multifamily dwelling unit. So and by just defining the one family and two family dwelling units instead of defining Family itself. It organized the organizes the code in a more streamlined fashion. Also the Definition of dwelling unit establishes the primary intent of residential units being a space that with complete living facilities occupied by people who share the use of the space as a single housekeeping unit. So there's no real requirement. There's no need to Define. What a family is based on the These other definitions and also as part of this we just noticed that there is a use category and our Zoning for apartment house and garden apartment house, which is redundant to multifamily dwellings. So we propose striking that from the table. and

▶ 40:53 Speaker 6: the last the last one

▶ 41:00 Speaker 6: things you welcome. I think

▶ 41:01 Speaker 4: what we'll do now is we're gonna recess so we can gavel into the full council meeting and then we'll come back for questions and just do public. Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to recess and Teresa second motion made by President Grigoraitis writers seconded by counselor Williams and all in favor. Bye any opposed. We are now recessed from Appropriations.

▶ 41:29 Speaker 2: Yes.