|
|
 |
Guidelines for Cluster Development
Download a Word file of this Bylaw
BYLAW: Guidelines for Cluster Development
MUNICIPALITY: Lexington, MA
DATE ADOPTED: 1997
PURPOSE OF BYLAW:
To expand upon the Cluster Development element of the Residential Development section of the Lexington Zoning Bylaw (section 9) with the following set of guidelines:
-
Clear Evidence of Public Benefits and Consistency with the Policy Objectives Must Be Submitted.
-
A Cluster Subdivision Cannot Be A Conventional Subdivision Under Another Name.
-
A Proposal Must Include Alternative Housing Types.
-
Building Types That Look Like Single Family Dwellings But Have More Than One Dwelling Unit Are Desirable.
-
The Planning Board Will Evaluate the "Usability" of Land Offered As Common Open Space.
-
To Be Considered "Lower Priced or Reasonably Priced Housing", Resale Restrictions Are Needed.
-
Rental Housing.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS BYLAW CONTACT:
Planning Director, Maryann McCall-Taylor x-242
mmccall@ci.lexington.ma.us
(781)862-0500 x 245 Fax (781)861-2748
TEXT OF THE BYLAW
Guidelines for Cluster Development
Adopted by Vote of the Board September 15, 1997
The Planning Board will use these guidelines to provide direction as to its thinking beyond the language of the By-Law. The Board does so with several general considerations:
- These Guidelines are intended to be flexible enough to permit the Board to respond to a variety of different types of plans and sites
- The Board, the staff and the developers will all need to learn how to make Section 9 work effectively; the Board welcomes suggestions and observations from developers
- The Board and the staff learn from real applications; that may result in further modifications to these Guidelines.
The Planning Board needs to keep faith with the 1996 Town Meeting that took a bold step in approving such an innovative zoning revision. During the lengthy debate on that amendment it was evident that the Town Meeting was placing its faith in the Planning Board to administer a procedure with a great deal of discretion. The objectives stated in the Board's report and its presentation to the Town Meeting were to:
- Protect Open Space
- Encourage Site Planning More Sensitive to the Natural Features of Land
- Encourage Alternative Housing Types, particularly those that have a favorable revenue/cost ratio for Town finances
- Encourage Development Compatible with Existing Neighborhoods of Single Family Houses
During the debate, the Board pledged to not approve everything that simply met the maximum technical criteria but to use its judgement and apply the written criteria included in Section 9.
The Board issues these reminders about its objectives while restating its intent to the development community that it will attempt to provide a workable procedure and predictable process.
These guidelines supplement the policy direction and specific provisions of the By-Law.
1. Clear Evidence of Public Benefits and Consistency with the Policy Objectives Must Be Submitted.
To be approved, a proposed cluster development plan must comply with both the technical quantitative standards and meet the written criteria based on public benefit.
Early indications are that applicants can become so intrigued by the calculation of the maximum development based on the five measures of the impact of dwelling units (section 9.5.3 and 9.5.4) and the opportunities they may present, that they overlook:
a. the dimensional standards in Section 9.2 and elsewhere in Section 9, and
b. the non-quantifiable criteria in 9.5.5 and elsewhere in Section 9.
Experience with several types of developments (in addition to cluster development) that require consideration of public benefit shows that some developers can have difficulty with the concept of public benefit. When required to enumerate benefits to the Town or an adjacent neighborhood, some applicants have furnished a list that shows benefits to the development or to the site but not to the Town or an adjacent neighborhood. That may require an applicant to think like a Planning Board member or a resident of the adjacent neighborhood. To assist an applicant in identifying benefits to the Town or an adjacent neighborhood as part of an application, we recommend that the applicant review:
a. the public benefits listed in 9.6.4.1.
b. the criteria for approval in 9.5.5.
c. the objectives listed in 9.1.1. and 9.5.2.
2. A Cluster Subdivision Can Not Be A Conventional Subdivision Under Another Name.
Section 9.1.4 of the Zoning By-Law states:
The procedure for a cluster subdivision or a special residential development or a development with significant public benefit (DSPB) is not intended be used as an alternative to allow the construction of a conventional subdivision that could not otherwise comply with the standards and requirements set forth in this By-Law or in the "Development Regulations".
Developers may have a tendency to think principally of the market for single family houses on individual lots - what the Lexington Zoning By-Law calls "a conventional subdivision". They will need to redirect their focus because the cluster development provisions are oriented to a different market and a different type of development.
3. A Proposal Must Include Alternative Housing Types.
As stated above, one of the objectives of the revised Section 9 is to:
- Encourage Alternative Housing Types, particularly those that have a favorable revenue/cost ratio for Town finances
One part of the objective is to consciously provide smaller housing units for one- and two- person households. Data developed by the Planning Department shows that the demographic characteristics of Lexington are that about 70 percent of the households in Lexington do not have children. Housing units need to be built for those households and not simply the traditional new construction market of large single family houses.
Some have interpreted this as an attempt to avoid housing that will have school aged children that will increase the Town's service costs. The Planning Board wants to avoid an interpretation that it is only attempting to provide housing for senior citizens or empty nesters. Small households with children, such as young families or single parent households, often require smaller housing units.
Smaller housing units, with fewer bedrooms, meet a housing need that corresponds to the demographic characteristics of Lexington and usually have a favorable cost/revenue ratio that helps the Town meet the service demands of the high percentage of its housing inventory that are individual single family houses with three, four and five bedrooms.
To be approved, a proposed cluster development plan should adhere to the following general guidelines:
3.1 Not more than half of the dwellings (buildings) shall be detached single family dwellings.
Note: the limitation here is on the building type, not the number of dwelling units.
3.2 Dwelling units for small households are those that do not have more than two rooms designed to be used primarily as bedrooms. Any additional room, used as a den, office, or however named, that may be used as a bedroom for guests, shall be small, shall have no, or limited, closet space and shall not have a direct entrance to a bathroom or lavatory.
3.3 Housing oriented to empty nesters or senior citizens with more than two bedrooms can be considered as dwelling units for small households if there is a master bedroom suite on the ground floor and the other bedrooms are small. A dwelling unit oriented to empty nesters or senior citizens may have more than two bedrooms, because the "bedrooms" are multiple purpose rooms that may be used for visiting relatives or other guests and meet the criteria in 3.2
4. Building Types That Look Like Single Family Dwellings But Have More Than One Dwelling Unit Are Desirable.
One of the criteria in paragraph 9.5.5.c.3) is that dwellings shall relate to the predominant characteristics of the adjacent one-family detached dwellings with respect to scale, mass, setback, proportions and materials. Without attempting to limit a developer's choices to these only, the Board mentions two examples of housing compatible with single family neighborhoods:
a. the New England farmhouse look - Town Meeting Members cited the housing at Fiske Common, Morrow Crossing and Potter Pond as examples of buildings that have two to four dwelling units but look like single family houses;
b. the extended family, intergenerational house - Section 5.2 of the Zoning By-Law authorizes a second dwelling unit in a dwelling that maintains the appearance of a single family dwelling. While technically a two-family dwelling a building with an accessory apartment does not need to look like the popular image of a two-family house. In a cluster subdivision a second dwelling unit in a dwelling does not need to comply with the restrictions on occupancy, size and the like contained in Section 5.2.
5. The Planning Board Will Evaluate the "Usability" of Land Offered As Common Open Space.
In the early days of the cluster provision, developers satisfied the common open space requirement by giving the Town wetland that they couldn't build on anyway. The rules (9.2.6) have been changed so that common open space is computed on the basis of developable site area (dry land.) The general principle of the usability of land will be extended to land on a site that, although not wetland, still couldn't be built on because it is too steep, has inadequate access, is awkwardly shaped or is otherwise not suitable for building.
6. To Be Considered "Lower Priced or Reasonably Priced Housing", Resale Restrictions Are Needed.
One of the justifications cited by applicants is to provide "lower priced or reasonably priced" housing. We have to be careful in terminology. To a builder, "lower priced" may be 50K-100K less than what is offered in a conventional subdivision. That could still be more than a half million dollars.
It is difficult for a developer to provide affordable housing, as defined in government programs and the Comprehensive Plan definition of that term (see attached) without governmental subsidy. The highest price in the "affordable" range is $221,000 for "upper moderate income" which is 110% of the median income for the region.
The Board might consider housing for households with 150% of the median income for the region as the upper end of "lower priced or reasonably priced" housing. That would be $89,400 (family of four) in 1997 and the purchase price would have an upper limit of $280,000.
If the Board is to approve a cluster plan because it includes "lower priced or reasonably priced" housing, there should be resale restrictions to maintain that type of housing and the benefit that the Board accepted.
To clarify, a developer is not required to provide "lower priced or reasonably priced" housing, but if he/she does use that as a justification, it should be on terms defined by and acceptable to the Board.
7. Rental Housing.
There is a severe shortage of rental housing in the Boston area. The Board will consider the provision of rental housing - both "affordable" and market rate- to be a public benefit. |
