Oxford Board Weighs Overlay Zone to Allow Smaller Lots on Route 26

[0:00] Select Board member: Workshop personally, yeah, so the [0:27] Code Enforcement Officer: code officer and I are just going to go over some thoughts on some possible zoning changes. So with the pending sale of that lot in 26, we need to have a conversation about changing the density requirements, either in that area or creating a new zone, or something that affects down to the 5000 thousand square foot plot minimum size. So with that thought in mind, a couple things to keep in mind, the comp plan committee has already started and we're going to be focusing on density areas, density growth areas and all that stuff. But as I've kind of talked to you guys individually and stuff, we need to, we need to get a 5 000 square foot minimum lot and make that allowable or the sale is going to go through and so forth. So Shane and I kind of talked about a couple of different ideas, talked to the lawyer about it. If we want to make a section of route 26 to be a 5,000 minimum lot size and a square foot lot size, we can do a couple different things. One, we could change the entire excuse to 5,000 square foot as a minimum lot size. We can create a new zone on 26, it just encompasses the parcel we're talking about or a portion of 46, and then Shane came up with an idea for potentially doing an overlay zone. So it'd be great to have Shane kick off with the overlay zone because that I think is the one that makes the most sense. So I did some [2:01] Select Board member: research on the most invasive, the least invasive way to determine the parcel we're talking about. All right, yeah, that was enough, yep. So that's 26 down the middle of the red, yeah, all this red 26, yeah, this whole red, every big shoes. So when I do my research on how to change this, I'm just going to jump right to my idea as opposed to talking through how I got to this. I would and I would, instead of creating a whole new zone which would require rewriting a very significant portion of the zoning ordinance, I would create an overlay district, follow what you want, it would work very simple, similar to the airport overlay district, it's on their back, the groundwater water overlay district, then you just add that section into the zoning ordinance and that overlay district can essentially just be, you can almost move it anywhere you want, put it anywhere you want, take it away, you don't have to change on the ordinance if the same five years from now we wanted to add an overlay district over here or Anywhere in town, it wouldn't require changing the ordinance, it will just require updating that if you go with the overlay to avoid illegal, to avoid anything remotely close to being a legal spot zone. And I suggested this from Ski Field, 26, Mainstream intersection, now to Room Rank Room. Okay, all this red in that area along Ski Field, go ahead and create that as our original overlay district to reduce lot sizes from 15 to 5 thousand. [4:18] Code Enforcement Officer: And when we chatted about that, I thought that was a great idea because it uses the roads as the boundary opposed to halfway through lots. Yes, makes life a lot simpler. So [4:30] Select Board member: basically to change it, this was just, you know, just how will we do our overlay location, what are the potential downfalls of that. So here's the downfall, I'm glad you asked. It's a research. We'll start with the top, we'll start with this lot. So this lot is currently 40 point, the tower that we're talking, discussing, it's currently 40.65 acres at 43,560 square feet per acre, you're looking at 1.7 million square feet in mixed use serviced by water and sewer. The lot density requirement is reduced 15,000 square feet currently, like right now, right now per household, per house lot. So that's 118 homes you could create, assuming all 48 was usable. When you account for that, you have to account for just usable land on town roads. For the purpose of this conversation, we'll just do the whole, we'll assume the whole thing is usable. Now when you apply the affordable housing bonus, this the state sets at 2.5, when you multiply 118 by 2.5, you get 295 homes in there currently. At 5,000 square feet, you're looking at stuffing 354 homes in there. If you use a affordable housing multiplier, you're looking at 885 homes could be stuck in here on that one block, on that one block. Now 885, the entirety of the zone is probably 10 times bigger, so you're looking at 8,000 homes if you go in there. But there's a mechanism that we would have a right of your own to prevent that from happening, if that's something we wanted to avoid. I don't, it would never happen. So the question is, if the developer for any parcel that's Currently making wanted to use the affordable housing multiplier and build affordable housing under the current landing ordinance. For example, right now on that lot, if this was producing 5,000 square feet under the old leg, you're looking someone could put 800 hundred homes in there. But we can, there are mechanisms that could be put in place that would regulate density pack in certain areas of town so that would happen. What's the state's definition? [7:22] Code Enforcement Officer: Subsidized it's affordable for the median income or whatever, which I think we talked about that like 180,000 or 200,000 or something like that. This is based on the irony that's [7:44] Select Board member: Worst case scenario there isn't 40.65 usable energy, you have to count for roads, that little bit of wetland that was up front, well that's one of the setbacks. The idea anybody else jumping having the definitive borders of school field and all that in between, but I bet there's not a solo announcement that I also see potential homes probably not even a quarter of that in that market. So but while researching this it, you know, I could see that could be a potential downfall to doing something like that. So that would, we would have to be mindful when writing the ordinance for that adjustment to prevent that. We know how big of an area we are going to be required for the law, not I don't know for sure, but I talked to Erica today in an email. Well and I think we can, we can do this now right, however we decide to do it based on your direction, when we get to that point next year when we have to come of the clients with all this, the new affordable housing initiatives, we can make adjustments based on That we don't have to, we want to race nothing, but if we have to make adjustments, we're going to have to make it anyway. Those would be made that I don't know, but everything we do now between now and then would be grandfathered, correct? So if you make the whole zone, the whole that old strip, yeah, there's five thousand square foot lots that people start filling it up with permits and you know way more than what we want, all that gets granted rather than if we start [10:00] Speaker C (unidentified): With a smaller piece then [10:03] Select Board member: At least we have to at least meet the state minimum, but it sounds like the state hasn't established it. I haven't seen it at the moment you're saying you have to do it, but there is a provision for the first, for the first four houses in the subdivision like what we're talking, you can reduce down to 1250. But [10:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Just saying I'm a little bit leary you're seeing it down the road if we don't [10:41] Code Enforcement Officer: Well we can always change it. I mean yeah we can always, well I mean you can't change it. [10:45] Speaker D (unidentified): They're already built on it. That's correct, I'm not arguing that, but I'm just saying. [10:52] Select Board member: And if you make changes now to accommodate what we're kind of going to have it again, right, we should do that right next between now and next year when we start what through the comprehensive plan, we'll get a better idea of that process. We'll get a good idea of what we're going to be doing as far as the updates for our zoning ordinance based on like value. When that ordinance is written, it goes into effect, but before it goes into effect we were already made whatever adjustments we needed to the surrounding overlap. Nothing would change in here if we already thought we might not have to change anything. What we do maybe already may already fall within the compliance requirements, but [11:48] Speaker D (unidentified): it says you've got to have one of these areas in your town, correct? You might assume them, yes we have to [11:55] Code Enforcement Officer: designate a growth zone by the time we get there. It is no, it doesn't say how big, it doesn't say [12:01] Speaker D (unidentified): how bad it is. [12:04] Select Board member: And no, really the only requirement is it's serviced by public sewer, right? But I mean [12:10] Speaker D (unidentified): so if we start off with that one there, are we shooting ourselves in the foot? You [12:16] Code Enforcement Officer: mean start off just make everyone? Yeah, I'll let Adam answer that. No, I don't think we're shooting ourselves in the foot. I mean my understanding when I had the conversation with Erica, the woman, and I asked her about that, I said we're looking at this, if we make this change, whatever that change is, but then at the end of the comp plan process we figure out that actually that designated growth zone should be shifted, and all of that has to go to town meeting anyway, way so it would be a town meeting vote. This will need to be a town meeting. When you say shifted, [12:54] Select Board member: you're going to pick your overlay up and move it two miles down the road, this is where it's going to be instead. It would, it would literally be redrawing the overlay onto the, on the new map. You can't move it if you've already built 200 homes in that. Maybe grandpa on the legs, yeah, you see where am I making sense? Yeah, so what was your plan to, you mentioned something about, yeah, so you could just have language, you just add language in the ordinance that in the growth areas you still abide when it comes to affordable housing, you apply the 2.5 bonus under the 15,000 square foot rule as opposed to the five. You could do that. States, get the state law dictates that 2.5, we can't change that, only the state can, so [13:56] Speaker C (unidentified): If we put that in the unions, then he's still the developer, is still okay, I [14:02] Code Enforcement Officer: think we should verify that because [14:06] Speaker C (unidentified): that almost sounds little bit like [14:11] Select Board member: I'll bring it down even smaller. So if you have a one acre, so if you don't, don't go any lower than that 40 acre lot we're starting with, that at a minimum like that. Yeah, no, I was just going to put in simpler terms and make shoes the minimum lot requirement size is 15,000 square feet, right? If you wanted to build affordable housing on that lot, okay, then you can multiply that by 2.5, and then there's your how many houses you're building on that 2.5, you round it, you run the number down or up, I can't remember which one, but then and as you, the more you, the bigger the lots, the greater that number, and that's just something to be mindful of when writing language. You did 4.5 on 15 square feet, that's still less than five thousand square foot lots, that's, that's currently that example is based on terms on it, and then the whole idea of outlining that is so that you can see the difference going from 2.5 to fit from 15 down. What will the process be if we decide we want to do this 40? You take the parcel, however you're going to draw the lines, and then a year from now, two years from now, five years from now, you want to expand that, it's the same process, same process. Did you guys [15:56] Code Enforcement Officer: decide that you want to put forward, let's just say the 48 parcel, we get the preliminary maps done, we work with abcog to do the amendments, the proposed amendments, the ordinance, it goes to the planning board, the planning board has to do a public hearing, and then it has to go to a town meeting or right part of the vote, a special talent with the vote, and so that's playing boards well and a public hearing, yep, and then if we want to amend it again after that, it's just the same process. Would [16:33] Speaker D (unidentified): you 'd rather do the whole thing, not just that law [16:36] Select Board member: am I reading that from you? Yeah, so my understanding of, I mean, spot zoning is doing is spot zoning attractively and specifically for a purpose, for the benefit of one individual, that's what I'm understanding. Well so [17:07] Speaker C (unidentified): and I and I get that because is somewhere, so what if we took that proximal line and went to rolling group like from the [17:20] Code Enforcement Officer: border over here and then all the way down, not what's [17:27] Select Board member: right here, there's no homes above, there's no residential above, correct, so that's probably there are rusty lantern residential [17:38] Code Enforcement Officer: that's the only time we'll call the wild, maybe all the while, which is, I mean, and then that's that right there to [17:48] Select Board member: Argue away with the, I mean, we have, yes, this [18:00] Code Enforcement Officer: Little lot is the way that little garage is, and then this is the four years [18:04] Select Board member: I think that's a much better option. [18:18] Speaker D (unidentified): So I'm understanding that if you want to go from where that launch starts, I'll say by Twin Town, we're all going to regrow, correct, only in the bridge section [18:42] Select Board member: Not right now, but what that is for, totally, yeah, so [18:51] Code Enforcement Officer: What I was kind of thinking for process wise is, you know, tonight we're going to get direction from you guys and what your thoughts are that we're doing, and then Shane and I will, based on that, put some, you know, put a proposal together, if you will, and then during a regular selections meeting come back and show you what we've come up with. If you guys are still kosher with it, then we'll move forward with the whole planning board process, with the regular process. I'm not, I'm envisioning that this is Going to take until into the new year, see how fast we go along. I don't think we want to try and have a [19:35] Select Board member: Special town meeting. Thank you. Notice to all the property owners in that zone, yes, because they'll, they'll, yes, anytime we zone, do a zoning change, every person affected will be notified, not just a public, we're having a meeting to do this, no, they'll get a certified letter, and then everybody within the zone and everybody on the outside within 500 feet, just [20:04] Speaker C (unidentified): A question, so obviously the town owns a little high piece there opposite Rolling to number 63, and this is just you go rep a roller rink or go across with public safety building sets, yeah, right there, we have that, we have that lot north of the public safety building to number six. This [20:30] Code Enforcement Officer: Only applies to housing, correct, residential housing, yeah, my [20:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Thought was is that if at some point down on the road it is, it is a lot, and whatever it is, cut it down to what's [20:56] Select Board member: Allowed, and the whole idea of the overlay is we don't have to rewrite the rules for mixed use, we just have to write a set of rules for the overlay, however that's applied now in the future, 100 years from now, this [21:20] Public commenter: Has not become a trailer doing five thousand or five thousand or whatever it is, and you're gonna put 800 in there, I don't know how you do that, will not be just like a trailer, my trailer qualifies, and [21:45] Select Board member: I don't know, I don't know if the town could restrict that at all, but the state is the one [21:51] Public commenter: Saying you will have to solve, oh I guess, yeah, I mean, I know I could put 800 in, what I said [21:59] Select Board member: I believe there's a provision in the zoning ordinance removal home parks, well it ought to be, it regulates what [22:12] Code Enforcement Officer: You're saying but it's not a mobile home park if you have individuals. [22:15] Select Board member: right now doesn't square lots that have mobile homes on them yes they do now by the way you could write a provision into the ordinance and would restrict what type of construction is built in those designated road areas i [22:37] Code Enforcement Officer: think so you know i'm not i'm not one to [22:40] Select Board member: try to restrict something for living in a mobile home. There's very different mobile homes we have [22:46] Public commenter: more like street field road [22:48] Select Board member: headache and Lowell has a very nice one now, nice yards. Well I said older but I mean I could move there if I wanted to, very nicely kept lots, eight roads, all kinds of unknowns and what they enforce the rules. Yeah I think a mobile home park would happen by chance but to deliberately create a mobile home park you'd have to go, it's kind of treated [23:27] Code Enforcement Officer: like a subdivision but even it's in the land used here but even the way it is now I mean with 15,000 square foot minimums. Somebody could buy up some acreage and just put one mobile home every 15,000 square foot. So you could have a [23:44] Select Board member: This is one every five. [23:58] Code Enforcement Officer: And that's the other reason that, you know, we're never gonna get to the 800 homes because roads and other infrastructure, we haven't really talked about setbacks. [24:09] Select Board member: Yes, the other thing that would have to be adjusted it in with the reduced acreage size is we would have to look at the setbacks like do we want, we should adjust them because a 5,000 square foot lot with a 50 foot road front end setback and then 15 foot side rear that takes up a substantial amount of usable buildable space, so that ought to be taken seriously. Huh, it's always been there for a reason but [24:47] Code Enforcement Officer: we're going this small I think we do. [24:52] Select Board member: That's all questions. Can you have the 15 foot, I mean if the 15 foot side back restriction I think you would, it would, I think by reducing it and say down to 10 feet, you know, I think it would limit the amount of variances requests we'd see, to reduce the amount of various requests we'd see, so it all depends on who's looking at it and somebody living 10 feet from the proper one to me 15 feet so we're too close and how the, how the lot's laid out too is configured, it has an impact on those setbacks. How those setbacks apply like [25:58] Code Enforcement Officer: a triangle or something like that, I didn't make it a non-reliable lot actually if it's a [26:03] Select Board member: Legally non-conforming lot that has only, you know, 50 feet of road frontage, and it's long and narrow, but it meets, to, you know, a lot of bench requirements. You subtract 15 from each side, this 30 feet out of the center, now you're down to 20 feet of buildable space, and you can't split off a lot and make it up, not a lot, right? No, that's illegally existing non-informing. Any lot splits moving forward have to be performed to a lot of dimensional requirements for that zone, so [26:52] Code Enforcement Officer: Here, all the same page, we'll do the, I'm hearing you guys basically the border of our 40 acre parcel, we want to include just make it a simple line right from 26 right over if you [27:06] Select Board member: Can draw a straight line, straight line here, is that a straight line on the north end of that property? It is right here all the way back, yep [27:18] Code Enforcement Officer: And then Roller Rink Road is the other [27:33] Select Board member: Now the next time you see this, just for full disclosure, the entire, this is the old zoning map, I use this for snakes reason because it's high depth, you can see the value lines, the digital version of the new zoning map is horrible, I had to have a special that made you hang along the office so they leave it, did you clean your makeup, which they aren't gonna change the colors, I'm not sure why, but next time you see it, this is gonna be like velvet or something or magenta, all right [28:19] Code Enforcement Officer: So we'll work on that and then try and get that back to, you know, with a proposal as soon as we can, including maybe Shane and I will take a little bit liberties with some of the setback stuff with the hard thoughts and you guys, and then if you want to, that's all right, does that sound like a plan, so [28:47] Speaker C (unidentified): The blue residential part for that 48-acre parcel [28:53] Select Board member: Does that interfere with any of what he's proposing, the [29:02] Code Enforcement Officer: 48-acre parcel does stick its finger out into the, yeah, it's right here because it touches you feel low with that, yeah, it's got [29:12] Select Board member: A, we've got right away, does it, does, yeah, all right, here it's a very narrow piece that goes out [29:21] Code Enforcement Officer: To, I can't tell from here, so yeah, there's like a, like a finger on the back, I mean I'm [29:30] Speaker C (unidentified): Going to assume that he's going to come pretty close to that, well [29:34] Select Board member: When we propose the new, we could change [29:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Change that at the same time, yeah, that's what I was getting, where you need to make an adjustment [29:43] Select Board member: There as well, but you probably need to like wear those back properly, I think that was drawn that way just to facilitate it right away, not necessarily buildable area, so [29:57] Speaker C (unidentified): It doesn't go in, it doesn't go [29:58] Select Board member: In there, that fabric or what was up into that? Yeah, leave it that way. Recolor that to incorporate. [30:08] Code Enforcement Officer: Way I'll be looking at it, I guess it'd be better, yes, a little better definition if you want. [30:25] Speaker D (unidentified): You guys are good bridge of that area. I don't think you get another 20 acres.