ZRC Final Report 7.7.11
April 29, 2011 Planning Board City of Northampton 210 Main Street, Room 11, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Dear Members of the Planning Board, The Zoning Revisions Committee has completed
its two year term, and I am writing to report back on what we learned, what we have to pass on to you, and potential next steps. In the first year of our work, the committee developed
a process for conducting its work, learned about a number of sustainability topics related to zoning (housing, energy, urban agriculture, etc.), conducted a detailed analysis of how
well the current zoning meets the goals of the Sustainability Plan, and completed an in-depth study of one issue of particular concern: infill. In the second year of our work, we spent
the first six months reviewing and discussing the King Street Rezoning Proposal that we received from the Chamber of Commerce. In the final six months of our work, we developed detailed
proposals on home occupations, backyard chickens and residential infill development. In the course of our work, we took our charge of involving the community seriously – In all, we have
had discussions with numerous stakeholders, from community and ward associations to developers, backyard chicken advocates, and others – and we held five well-attended public forums,
including one forum to hear general community feedback on infill development, two forums on the King Street proposal, and two forums to get more specific feedback on home occupations
and residential infill. In sum, I submit to you the following products of our work, which are appended to this letter: 1. A General Process Flow Diagram illustrating the process adopted
by our committee. We believe that this is a useful process because it describes how and when public input should be collected and how it should be used in the decision making process.
In short, we should first learn about the zoning issue (analysis and synthesis), we should then go out and ask particular stakeholders for their input about the issue, then we should
solicit input from the larger community, and finally, we should generate recommendations. You’ll notice that the diagram includes circular feedback loops, indicating points in the process
where it may be appropriate to go back through again to refine our understanding of the issue or our recommendations. 2. A Review of Zoning and the Sustainability Plan. The ZRC reviewed
the city’s Sustainability Plan and its Zoning Ordinance to determine how well the current zoning meets the goals of the Sustainability Plan. The Preliminary Zoning Analysis adopted by
the ZRC is included at the end of this report. Key findings in this analysis were: The zoning district regulations in many cases do not support sustainability goals Only a small
amount of the City is zoned for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods Our zoning does not allow for the variety of types and scales of infill development that are desirable Design standards
to guide development are lacking, especially for infill Parking requirements are arbitrarily high in many many districts, discouraging infill development and forcing sprawl patterns
Rural areas are zoned for suburban sprawl type development
There are significant organizational and readability issues In addition to improving the city’s zoning incrementally over time, the ZRC recommends that the city begin planning for
a comprehensive zoning overhaul process. 3. King Street Analysis. The ZRC spent over six months of its two year term reviewing, analyzing and discussing the King Street Rezoning Proposal
we received from the Chamber of Commerce. Two public forums were held as part of this process. For your review, a copy of the ZRC portion of the forum presentation has been provided.
4. Home Occupations Proposal. Beginning in January, based on a recommendation from the Office of Planning and Development to select a “Low Hanging Fruit” item to address in addition
to our main area of work (infill), we began to develop a proposal to improve the current Home Occupations regulations. After four months of work, we are pleased to pass this completed
proposal on to you. We spent significant time crafting the details of this proposal, and our process incorporated public input from our recent community wide forums and our committee
meetings, as well as input from Zoning Enforcement Officer Louis Hasbrouck. The committee adopted a summary of the input we heard at these forums, which is also appended, as is a copy
of the forum presentation. 5. Backyard Chickens Proposal and Urban Agriculture Recommendations. At the very beginning of the committee’s term, several members of the community asked
that we look specifically at the issue of backyard chickens. The results of this work, a Framework for Revised Zoning Addressing Fowl and an additional Urban Agriculture Summary & Recommendations,
are appended. Our zoning proposal would increase the current number of backyard chickens allowed from three to twelve per lot. This proposal incorporated input from many participants,
including backyard chicken owners and advocates, the Pioneer Valley Backyard Chicken Association, the Agricultural Commission, Department of Health Director Ben Wood, Zoning Enforcement
Officer Louis Hasbrouck, City Stormwater Coordinator Douglas McDonald, and City Planning staff Wayne Feiden and Carolyn Misch. A letter of support received from Grow Food Northampton
has been appended along with the proposal. 6. Residential Infill Proposal and Next Steps. The bulk of the ZRC’s work over the past two years has addressed residential infill. First,
we conducted a thorough analysis and learned that there are many ways in which the current zoning discourages or does not allow for infill. We discussed infill issues with community
groups, developers and others. We then held a community wide forum on infill, which led to a summary of the forum (attached), more analysis, and initial proposals for how to address
infill issues. We then took these more concrete ideas back to the public at two additional community wide forums. Finally, we synthesized everything learned throughout the process to
develop the attached recommendations, which include proposals that address both dimensional standards and design. In addition, I have attached initial language, created earlier in the
ZRC’s term, for an Infill Special Permit – this is intended to serve as a temporary stopgap measure to allow good projects to move forward while the base zoning is being fixed to allow
for desirable types of infill. Please note that the committee worked on this language in several iterations, but never formally adopted it. However, it may provide a useful starting
place for the Planning Board to adopt a short-term solution.
In addition to these products, the ZRC supported: A proposal to improve watershed protection by amending the boundaries of the Watershed Protection District to reflect updated FEMA
floodplain maps Efforts to adopt the Stretch Code, an optional energy efficient appendix to the state building code that can be adopted by individual municipalities Improvements
to the city’s driveway grading standards The creation of the Bean Allard Farm Task Force, and we appointed two adjunct members to this task force Efforts by the Office of Planning
and Development to combine and make the Tables of Use Regulations and Dimensional and Density Regulations easier to understand Lessons Learned & Next Steps The Zoning Revisions Committee
was established to tackle a daunting task: to implement the Sustainability Plan through zoning. In the process, we learned a great deal about both zoning and public engagement. We learned
that smart growth means focusing growth near existing goods and services while minimizing development where there are significant natural resources and where there is little or no infrastructure
or services. During its two year term, the ZRC focused largely on mixed-use and infill issues. We learned that there are significant barriers in our zoning laws that prevent mixed-use
and infill development, and we were surprised to learn that the zoning regulations that govern our urban residential districts are wildly out of sync with the actual traditional neighborhoods
that we have. We also learned that quality of life is a key component of smart growth -residents care about walkable neighborhoods, green spaces, and good design. In the attached Dimensional
and Design Standards Proposal, there are ideas that are not fully detailed and loose ends that suggest logical next steps for future work. This proposal was developed in keeping with
our overall goals, but will need additional analysis and revisions. In addition, our committee has discussed next steps for implementing the Sustainability Plan. Based on our discussions
as well as an early Work Plan of the ZRC, some unfinished issues that could be a priority in the future include: Affordable housing issues Making revisions to cluster development
regulations Developing Zoning Map changes by comparing the Zoning Map to the Future Land Use Map Revising parking and landscaping regulations Developing environmental performance
standards for development (e.g. solar orientation in subdivisions and new construction, tree preservation, limits to site disturbance, water use reduction in landscaping, parking and
trip reduction, farmland protection, site assessment, etc.) Determining areas within walking distance of commercial centers whose zoning designation should be amended (e.g. properties
zoned URB that should be zoned URC) Proposing locations for higher density residential districts (e.g. within proximity of the greenway, bus stops or commercial services) Proposing
locations for mixed-use neighborhood commercial districts in order to allow and encourage more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods Identifying good parcels for mixed-use development
or multi-unit residential development to further test the current zoning In addition, the Sustainability Plan provides additional suggestions for zoning amendments. Although we were
able to address a few key issues, there are many topics we were not able to address.
Successes, Struggles & Continuing to Implement the Sustainability Plan Overall, the committee agreed that the ZRC’s greatest success has been its efforts to reach out to and involve
the community. The committee felt that it had generated a valuable dialog about sustainability and zoning. The ZRC’s process involved the public in discussions about zoning, and community
input was considered carefully as we refined our recommendations. Many members of the ZRC expressed that it would be desirable to see the dialog continue. Both the forums and smaller-scale
public outreach efforts have been a success. Continued efforts could be made to further the dialog about sustainability, particularly in Florence, and to reach out to underrepresented
parts of the community. In addition, although the committee did engage the community, more efforts need to be made to access less involved residents – particularly ethnic minorities,
residents of color and low-income residents. While the committee was successful in certain endeavors, we struggled from the beginning with the scope of our task. We also faced a steep
learning curve. In retrospect, it was too big a job for one committee, within a two-year term, to learn about and analyze the city’s zoning problems, propose significant changes to fix
them, conduct an extensive and meaningful public process, and also develop detailed final zoning language to be passed onto the Planning Board. In one discussion, the ZRC talked about
the various possible roles that need to be played in the zoning revisions process in order to implement the Sustainability Plan. For example, the Planning Board may continue to need
additional technical resources, and one suggestion was made that there could be some sort of reviewing body that looks at all zoning proposals through the lens of the Sustainability
Plan and issues comments. With regard to zoning, the committee understands that the Planning Board is charged with implementing the Sustainability Plan and using the plan as guidance
for amending the city’s zoning. If this task of assessing zoning amendments through the lens of the Sustainability Plan is already being systematically completed by the Planning Board
and/or Office and Planning and Development Staff for all proposed zoning changes, it would be helpful for the results of these assessments to be made explicitly available in writing
to the public, including a discussion of: Whether the proposed change is consistent with the Sustainability Plan Any recommended improvements that would improve the proposal Any
future steps the city might consider to continue to move towards full implementation of the Sustainability Plan The role of reviewing zoning proposals through the lens of the Sustainability
Plan and issuing comments for the public to view could be taken on by the Planning Board (or a subset of Planning Board members), by the Office of Planning and Development, or by a separate
committee. To implement the Sustainability Plan, another important job is to foster public discussion and collect community input regarding topics ranging from general Sustainability
Plan concepts to detailed rezoning proposals. Finally, we found there to be a significant time tradeoff between two other important roles: focusing on refining proposals crafted by other
parties (i.e. Home Occupations from the Planning Department, King Street from the Chamber of Commerce) versus being able to engage in a public dialog about sustainability and generate
new proposals based on that dialog (i.e. our infill efforts). The committee also discussed whether it should recommend to the Planning Board that another version of the Zoning Revisions
Committee be convened in the future. Some members of the committee believe that the ZRC should continue to exist because its job – implementing the Sustainability Plan through zoning
– is not done.
There may be a role for a standing committee to take on some of the functions listed above. We understand that the city is committed to implementing the Sustainability Plan. Therefore,
a standing committee could be a proactive tool for the city to continue pushing implementation of the Sustainability Plan forward. There is precedent for this in other communities. For
example, in Hadley, there is a standing Long Range Planning Committee that was originally responsible for creating the Master Plan and now is responsible for making zoning recommendations
to implement it. On the other hand, some members of the committee do not think that a standing committee is needed or appropriate. Instead, the Planning Board could continue to form
ad hoc committees to address different issues as needed. Some possible areas that seem particularly appropriate for ad hoc committees would be large, stand alone topics like King Street,
form-based code in a particular area of the city, design standards, etc. Depending on the Planning Board’s objectives, it would also be possible to use a combination of the two approaches,
using a standing committee for some roles and ad hoc committees to address special topics. Should the city decide to have a standing committee in the future, the ZRC believes that continuing
the community dialog about sustainability and soliciting public input on zoning proposals would be significant roles to consider giving to that committee. In addition, some members of
the ZRC felt that, if possible, it could be helpful to have a consultant to help the committee with difficult rezoning issues. In closing, thank you for giving us the opportunity to
serve our community, and best of luck as you decide on your next steps forward. Sincerely, The Zoning Revisions Committee: Dennis Bidwell Stephen Gilson Danielle McKahn Peter McLean
Jim Nash Bob Reckman Dillon Sussman Tom Weiner
Zoning Revisions Process
Summary of Preliminary Northampton Zoning Analysis: Content The purpose of this analysis is to present an overview of Northampton’s zoning ordinance in order to help the ZRC identify
areas on which to focus in making the zoning an effective tool for implementing the Sustainability Plan. Sustainability Plan goals do not translate directly to zoning because they are
organized topically (housing, transportation, land use, arts and culture, etc.), while zoning is organized by land uses, districts, development standards, and dimensional requirements.
The ZRC needs to translate the goals and recommendations of the Sustainability Plan into terms that are relevant to zoning. This preliminary analysis highlights major “big picture” issues
but does not go into detail. Issues relating to organization and readability of the ordinance are listed on a separate sheet. 1. The Zoning Map appears to largely reflect the Sustainability
Plan’s land use map. However, the text and district regulations do not necessarily support sustainability goals and the map does not zone enough areas for mixed use. 2. Emphasis is on
use-based regulation: lack of flexibility of uses; uses are very detailed and specific; only a small amount of the City is zoned for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods; the lack of mixed
use zoning undermines goals of walkability and mixing of uses. 3. Infill is discouraged in many ways that are difficult to discern from initially reading the document (especially lot
area, frontage, and setback requirements, nonconformity, use regulations, parking requirements) ; the zoning does not allow for the variety of types and scales of infill development
that are desirable. . 4. Design standards to guide development are lacking, especially for infill; instead of design, arbitrary dimensional standards dictate urban form in many areas;
there is insufficient emphasis on desirable urban form and flexible building types; the result is tendency toward single-use buildings in single-use districts; another result is infill
proposals and developments that comply with the zoning dimensional standards but do not fit the character of the neighborhood. When badly designed infill is built, people turn against
infill in general. Where design standards do exist (e.g. Central Business, Village Hill), they are not always understood or followed. There is a need to foster more public understanding
of what design is and why it is good for the community. We have been lucky that some owners have voluntarily practiced quality design, especially downtown, but we cannot rely just on
luck. 5. Parking requirements are arbitrarily high in many districts, discouraging infill development and forcing sprawl patterns. There is a lack of understanding and support for putting
parking where it does not harm urban form and this cannot just be legislated but must also be understood and discussed with affected parties. . 6. Rural areas are zoned for suburban
sprawl types of development (single-use, large-lot residential); cluster regulations need to be strengthened and made more flexible; “cluster sprawl” is not a significant improvement
over conventional sprawl in terms of sustainability; cluster regulations need to be made clearer in defining what kinds of open space are to be protected.
2 Northampton Zoning Analysis: Translating Sustainability into Zoning Some possible formulations of sustainability goals for zoning purposes: 1. Concentrate development in pre-1950 neighborhoods,
especially within 1/2 mile of basic services and commercial areas (retail, schools, workplaces, etc). 2. Enable 80% of households to be within a 10-minute walk of stores, services, schools,
workplaces, transit lines, parks, natural areas, and bikepaths. 3. Substantially increase areas zoned for walkable mixed-use neighborhoods with appropriate controls on scale and design
4. Identify and create detailed plans for intensive mixed-use infill in appropriate locations (especially King Street, Conz, Pleasant, and downtown infill); create zoning based upon
the plan vs. plans based upon the zoning 5. Zone for a wide range of housing types (single family, 2 family, 3 family, multifamily, townhouse, cottages), unit sizes, and affordability
levels. 6. Regulate urban design (form) to a greater degree; uses to a lesser degree; degree; more use of design standards and guidelines 7. Permit and encourage local food production
at different scales (residential lots, commercial and institutional properties, community gardens, agricultural areas) 8. Reduce energy consumption through compact development patterns
and incentives for green building 9. Minimize development in outlying areas 10. Create a zoning document that is more accessible to users
3 Preliminary Northampton Zoning Analysis: Organization and Readability These items do not relate directly to sustainability, except that insofar as the ordinance is opaque and difficult
to use, it does not lend itself to productive public discussion and transparent decision-making, which is one of the goals of Sustainable Northampton. 1. Organizational issues: The zoning
ordinance is difficult to navigate; it is hard to find information; many items are listed under the wrong headings or in the wrong sections; tables are overly complicated and have too
much text in them; the result it is difficult to find information and understand the document. This has most likely resulted from the piecemeal way that the zoning has been amended over
the years, dealing with specific issues by inserting new sections, rather than by reviewing and modifying the ordinance as a whole. The ZRC may want to step back and try to avoid continuing
this pattern. Examples of material located in the wrong section, making it difficult to to find: Regulations are often placed in definitions rather than in regulatory sections Definitions
and textual regulations often appear in tables, either in the body of the table or in footnotes, rather than in regulatory sections Some important special permit requirements are listed
in the wrong sections (e.g. the requirement of site plan approval as an element of special permit approval is in the site plan section, not the special permit section) Uses that do
not require special permits are listed and regulated in the special permit section (e.g. “home office”) 2. Language and terminology issues: Many sections are overly complicated, vague
and /or confusing, such as the provisions on dimensional averaging (350-6.3B); land countable as open space in a cluster (350-10.5G through I); zero lot-line (350-10.14); and “big-box”
regulations (350-11.6G and H). The number of different overlay districts, and their labeling, are also confusing, e.g. Water Supply Protection District (WSP), Watershed Protection District
(WP), and Special Conservancy-Flood Plain (SC), all of which involve protection of floodplains and water supplies. The Sustainability Plan relies heavily on Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) concepts (sending and receiving zones), but the TDR provision in the zoning does not reflect this broad application of the concept. 3. Need to Clarify Intent: The various districts
in the zoning exist for specific reasons, but the zoning ordinance does not spell these out. There may be a need to develop different types of districts that better reflect the goals
of the Sustainability Plan. District purposes should be revisited in light of Sustainability goals and changing circumstances (e.g. does URC allow sufficient density and mixed use, what
City goals does the Educational Overlay serve?) 4. Process Issues: There is confusion as to how review and approval processes work and how to effectively involve the public, as witnessed
by recent development controversies; some of this is process management, but some some is related to the zoning itself, e.g. confusion over the relationship of special permits and site
plan review.
Proposed Home Occupations Language Page 1 SECTION 2 (Definitions) HOME BUSINESS A vocation, trade, small business, craft, art or profession which can be conducted in its entirety within
the principal residential or accessory building of a property by a bona fide resident of that main building and which, by nature of its limited size and scope, does not cause any outward
manifestation (such as traffic generation, parking congestion, noise or air pollution, outdoor materials storage, and public service or utility demand) which is uncharacteristic of or
an additional disturbance to the residential neighborhood in which said property is located. The following occupations are not considered home occupations if clients will be seen in
the home, although other uses may be excluded on a case-bycase basis: any clinical medical/dental practice veterinary hospital, restaurant, retail or wholesale supply shop or store,
any mortuary. (See § 350-10.12 for additional criteria.) Home businesses are allowed by-right when the following conditions are met: 1. It must not occupy more than 40% of the gross
combined floor area of the main residential building, and the accessory structure (if such accessory structure is utilized for said home occupation). 2. It must be clearly incidental
and secondary to the use of the building or property for residential dwelling purposes. 3. A principal practitioner of the home business must occupy the main residential building as
his/her bonafide residence. 4. Any by‐right home businesses with an average of 30 vehicle round trips per week which are generated by the business but no more than seven vehicle round
trips per day must first register with the City of Northampton Building Commissioner.The nature of the business, hours of operation, and the requested vehicle trips generated by the
home business from clients, employees, residential scale deliveries must be identified in registration. . For the purposes of this section, trips do not include those trips made by the
resident owner of the business. Trips anticipated to be generated in excess of weekly average of 25 and/or daily maximum of 7 by the business may only be approved with a home business
special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Unless approved through a special permit, hours of operation must be within 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. 5. No more than one sign of one square
foot in area may be displayed advertising the home occupation, provided that: a. It is attached to the structure next to or on the entryway for said home occupation; and b. It is not
illuminated. 6. No goods, except for those created in the home or those sold by internet, telephone or electronic transactions may be sold from the premises. 7. Residents creating original
products in the home may have open studio functions where items may be sold up to 2 times per year without triggering a special permit for home occupation. 8. No outdoor storage of materials,
merchandise, or equipment for home business is allowed; 9. If said home occupation takes place in an accessory structure then said structure must conform to the setback requirements
for accessory structures in that district, unless a Finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance with 350 9.3 is made.
Proposed Home Occupations Language Page 2 10. It shall produce no noise, obnoxious odors, vibrations, glare, fumes or electrical interference which would be detectable to normal sensory
perception beyond the lot line. 11. The portion of any structure utilized for a home occupation shall conform to all applicable Fire, Building, Electrical, Plumbing and Health Codes.
SECTION 10.12 (SPECIAL PERMIT SECTION) All home business generating more than 25 average weekly vehicle round trips and/or 7 per day, hours of operation outside of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. or
more than 2 open studios per year or outdoor storage of materials (as defined in § 350‐2.1) require a special permit issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals and shall comply with the following:
A. All provisions in section 2.1 B. Goods may only be offered for sale from the premises if the Zoning Board of Appeals expressly permits it in the issued special permit. C. The hours
of operation shall be expressly stated in the special permit issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals. D. The hours and frequency of deliveries, number of clients seen, number of employees
on premise, products and/or materials on site shall be expressly stated in the special permit issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals. E. Limited outdoor storage of materials maybe allowed
so long as the storage is not visible from the street or by adjoining property owners and does not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. F. All special permits for home business
must be renewed once, immediately following the first
year of operation. Permit may be renewed in perpetuity upon application to the Building Commissioner if nothing has changed in the project since its first special permit application.
G. All special permits for home occupations are nontransferable and are specifically issued to a specific applicant for a specific home business.
Framework for Revised Zoning Addressing Fowl in the City of Northampton Page 1 Framework for Revised Zoning Addressing Fowl in the City of Northampton The keeping of fowl is permitted
in all zones as an accessory use to any principal use, subject to the standards of this section. 1. The keeping of twelve or fewer adult female chickens, or up to three ducks, is permitted
by right on a lot. Additional chicks or ducklings are not subject to this limit. 2. The Board of Health may create standards for the care of fowl. Fowl owners must register with the
city’s Health Department, so that the city can take appropriate action in the event of a disease outbreak. Upon registration, owners must sign that they have read the guidelines handed
out by the Health Department. 3. Owners must maintain fowl on their property, except if it is on the premises of another person with his or her permission. 4. Coop and run areas shall
meet the following requirements: • Be regularly maintained to control dust and odor • Not constitute a nuisance or safety hazard • Be built and/or sited so that water drains away from
the coop 5. Coops must meet the standards for detached accessory structures in Section 350 Attachment 2: Table of Dimensional and Density Regulations. 6. No coop may be sited closer
than 20’ to an existing residential structure occupied by someone other than the fowl owner or custodian. 7. All stormwater runoff from the coop, run and compost areas shall be contained
on site. Note: The Zoning Revisions Committee determined that slaughtering provisions should not be included in the zoning, but that such provisions should be contained within Board
of Health regulations. The Zoning Revisions Committee recommends that the Board of Health allow on‐site culling of diseased birds, roosters, and low‐producing hens. On‐site slaughtering
of birds for meat should be prohibited. This approach is in accordance with recommendations made by the Agricultural Commission. New Zoning Language Provided by the Office of Planning
and Development 350 5.3‐B. The keeping of household pets, for personal use is permitted as an accessory use for animals commonly considered household pets, including: 1. dogs 2. cats
3. fish
Framework for Revised Zoning Addressing Fowl in the City of Northampton Page 2 4. birds (parrots, parakeets, doves, pigeons, etc.) 5. six or fewer rabbits 6. twelve or fewer adult female
chickens or up to three ducks. Additional chicks and ducklings are not subject to this limit. All of the following standards apply: a. Fowl must be maintained on subject premises; b.
Coop and run areas shall be regularly maintained to control dust and odor and not constitute a nuisance or safety hazard; c. Coops shall be located at least 4’ from property boundaries
and no coop may be sited closer than 20’ to an existing residential structure on an abutting parcel; d. All stormwater runoff from the coop, run and compost areas shall be contained
on site; Possible Regulations and/or Guidelines for Department/Board of Health Consideration 1. Chickens must be provided adequate living space, as follows: • At least 6 square feet
of external enclosed and covered coop area per chicken • At least 12 square feet of external pen area per chicken 2. All coops shall meet the following requirements: • Be predator‐proof
• Provide water at all times • Provide adequate protection from cold and rain/moisture, as well as adequate ventilation 3. During daylight hours, the adult fowl shall have access to
the fowl coop and, weather permitting, shall have access to an outdoor enclosure on the subject property, adequately fenced to contain the fowl and to prevent access to the fowl by dogs
and other predators. 4. Other Provisions • Fowl feed must be stored in a pest‐proof container. • No fowl manure may be put into household trash. All waste must be composted. (Could be
included in the Guidelines.) • On‐site slaughtering of meat birds is prohibited. The culling of diseased birds, roosters and lowproducing hens is allowed.
March 30, 2011 Dear Members of the Zoning Revision Commission, Grow Food Northampton wishes to express its support for the revised ordinance on the keeping of fowl in Northampton. We
have participated in and witnessed the extensive public input that has gone into the drafting of the ordinance and are supportive of its effort to make backyard chicken owning more accessible
and viable for Northampton residents, while offering guidelines that maintain public health and positive community relations. Sincerely, Lilly Lombard Executive Director
Urban Agriculture Summary & Recommendations Page 1 Urban Agriculture Summary & Recommendations Northampton residents have asked the Zoning Revisions committee to address sustainability
issues related to urban agriculture. Specifically, residents asked the committee to address the numbers of livestock, chickens in particular, that can be kept on residential properties.
What is Urban Agriculture? Urban agriculture includes growing, processing and distributing food products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in and around cities.
It includes farming at the city’s edge, in community gardens, on residential lots, and on vacant and underutilized lots. A diverse array of activities comprise urban agriculture, from
backyard vegetable gardening to fish farms, domestic farm animals, municipal compost facilities, schoolyard greenhouses, restaurant‐supported salad gardens, backyard orchards, rooftop
gardens, behives, and window box gardens. With a little creativity and effort, the potential for food production in cities is great. Commonly cited benefits of urban agriculture include:
food that travels a shorter distance from farm to plate, creation of green spaces, revitalized brownfield sites, preservation of cultivable land, cooler buildings, and improved biodiversity.
At the same time, a number of social benefits have been claimed, including: vibrant public spaces, community building, participatory decision making, enhanced sense of place, food security,
social inclusion, improved health and nutrition, bringing people back into contact with how their food is produced, etc. Organizations like Nuestras Raices in Holyoke use urban agriculture
to promote economic development and self‐sufficiency, to build community, and to improve health and nutrition. What Urban Agriculture Issues Relate to Sustainability in Northampton?
The Zoning Committee was asked to address urban livestock. While we have focused the bulk of our work on this relatively narrow area, urban agriculture is a much larger issue that is
intimately related to sustainability and merits further study and action. A number of cities throughout the U.S. have addressed agriculture within their comprehensive plans, and many
cities are revising existing urban agriculture policies or formulating new ones. Some significant urban agriculture issues that relate to land use and zoning are summarized below: Community
Gardens: There is only one community garden area in Northampton, and there is a large demand for these garden plots, which has resulted in a waiting list for garden space. In addition,
the community gardens are located to the west of downtown, beyond the Smith College Campus, leaving other neighborhoods underserved. One challenge in creating additional community gardens
will be to identify and, if necessary, secure ownership of appropriate properties. Future community gardens should be located to serve Northampton’s highest density urban neighborhoods.
Commercial Farms: The city already has an Agricultural Commission. We need to determine what additional actions can be taken to encourage and support commercial farming. This should
be included in any comprehensive planning effort that addresses agriculture and the food system.
Urban Agriculture Summary & Recommendations Page 2 Supplementary Income: The city should support policies that allow residents to make supplementary income from their farming pursuits,
and this will in turn promote greater small scale agricultural production. To the greatest extent possible, people should be able to sell their garden vegetables, eggs, etc. from front
yards, on downtown sidewalks and streets, and at farmers markets. We should learn from other cities as well – for example, in Greenfield, there is a market with a “barter area.” Fertilizer
and Pesticide Application: While this is not strictly an urban farming issue, it is closely related. Pesticide application by residents may affect farmer organic certification. Conversely,
pesticide application by farmers may impact residents. Finally, overuse of commercial fertilizers and pesticides in home gardens results in water pollution. Urban Livestock: Keeping
animals is an important tool for increasing food production and food security. Many Northampton residents already keep chickens, and a number of residents have expressed a desire for
the current limit of three ducks or chickens to be increased. Future efforts may address other livestock, such as miniature goats, which can provide milk, among other benefits. Issues
that need to be considered with regard to urban livestock include nuisance (noise, odor), density (space requirements for livestock, proximity to neighboring residential structures),
and waste/landscape management (to prevent water pollution). Recommendations & Outcomes to Date 1. The City should initiate a process to develop an Agriculture & Food Policy section
to be appended to the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Northampton Agricultural Commission should consider expanding its work to include urban agriculture. Alternatively,
the city might establish an Urban Agriculture Committee. 3. The ZRC is pleased to see new community gardens being created at the Bean Farm. To encourage more of these types of projects
to serve all residents and neighborhoods, the city should create a Community Gardens Committee (or the Urban Agriculture Committee mentioned above) that will work to identify appropriate
locations and establish more community gardens throughout the city. 4. The City should consider adoption of an ordinance that limits application of manufactured fertilizers. Examples
of such ordinances are common in the U.S.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 1 Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning
Districts Zoning Revisions Committee Goal: Facilitate higher density in existing urban districts (infill) while minimizing negative impacts of infill on existing properties. Problem:
The city’s current zoning requirements prevent units from being added to our traditional urban neighborhoods, and when homes are converted to accommodate fewer units, they often can
never be converted back to their earlier higher number of units. The implications of this are that the city is slowly losing housing units over time, homeowners lack the flexibility
to meet the changing needs of households over time (e.g. changes in household size and needs), and the city cannot meet the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan (2008),
which calls for increased residential densities in traditional neighborhoods. Analysis: A review of zoning in the city’s urban residential districts revealed very high rates of nonconforming
properties. “Non‐conforming” refers to a property whose existing use or structures are not permitted by the zoning for the property. Usually these characteristics were in place before
the current zoning was enacted. The use or structure is then “grandfathered”, or permitted to continue. The analysis conducted by the Zoning Revisions Committee revealed the following
rates of non‐conformance based on minimum lot size requirements in our urban neighborhoods: URC Zoning District • 63% of 1‐3 family homes do not conform • 83% of 4 family homes do not
conform URB Zoning District • 32% of 1 family homes do not conform • 62% of 2 family homes do not conform • 82% of 3 family homes do not conform URA Zoning Distrcict • 35% of 1 family
homes do not conform • 100% of 2 family and multiple‐family homes do not conform (they are not allowed) This analysis looked only at conformance with lot size requirements. An analysis
of properties that also meet minimum setback, frontage and other requirements would yield even higher rates of nonconformance. The ZRC was unable to do this further analysis because
it would be very time‐consuming. However, spot checks of random properties shows that there is quite significant non‐conformance of setbacks, frontage and other requirements. This correlates
with anecdotal evidence gathered in forums.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 2 On the whole, the Zoning Revisions Committee found that the non‐conforming status
of a property does not significantly impact residential property owners (other than creating anxiety). However, there are some cases in which the non‐conforming status of a residential
property can be a nuisance or significantly limit use of the property. For example, many homeowners in our urban residential zoning districts cannot use their garages to create an accessory
apartment because their garages do not meet the setbacks for residential structures (they do conform for the most part to the required setbacks for garages). This is because detached
garages are allowed to be closer to the setback than residential structures in all districts. In addition, this situation contradicts the goals of Sustainable Northampton, which encourages
greater density in existing in‐town neighborhoods and reduced development out of town. Perhaps most importantly, however, the high rates of non‐conforming properties in our residential
districts serve as an indicator: This indicates that our current zoning does not match (and in fact is very, very different from) our existing urban neighborhoods. As a result, we have
great urban neighborhoods that can never be built again. As units are lost and cannot be replaced over time, the character of our traditional urban neighborhoods is changing. In addition,
in the rare occasion when new multi‐building developments are built within existing neighborhoods, zoning encourages their character to be out of context with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Some key points from the Zoning Revisions Committee analysis are: ● The existing dimensional standards, especially the requirements that govern the number of units per square foot of
lot size, and frontage requirements greatly limit the creation of new units in urban districts. ● When structures are converted to a lower number of units, it can be impossible to convert
them back to a higher number of units. These standards are contributing to the loss of units and population in urban districts. ● Many existing accessory structures do not conform to
residential setback requirements. This limits their conversion to accessory apartments. ● The setback requirements do not match our current neighborhoods, so new structures are unlikely
to be sited in a way that matches—or is in character with‐‐the other homes on the block. ● The current zoning forces the city to lose units over time, which is in direct contradiction
to the city’s comprehensive plan, which calls for concentrating development in traditional neighborhoods. Public Feedback: The Zoning Revisions Committee held three general public forums
that addressed the issue of infill. The first, held at Northampton Senior High School, was attended by 100 to 150 people. The second, held at the Florence Civic Center, was attended
by approximately 40 people. The third, held at the Bridge Street School in Northampton, was attended by approximately 30 people. Those in attendance expressed general support for infill
as long as it does not affect the existing character of our neighborhoods. Major concerns that were voiced include traffic, parking, intrusions into views or solar access and loss of
“green space”.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 3 Residents are most likely to be sympathetic to: ● Owner‐occupants who want to add
units ● Conversions that revert a structure to its historic number of units ● Additional units that help maintain affordability for owners, as well as renters to a lesser degree Residents
expressed concern about infill projects that: ● Are out of scale with the neighborhood in terms of height, bulk, or number of units ● Add new houses on existing streets (especially through
subdivision of lots) ● Create multi‐family housing on predominantly single‐family streets ● Affect land that neighbors feel a “sense of ownership” over, such as privately owned woods
or fields that have been used informally by neighborhood residents ● Result in the demolition of “loved” structures ● Consolidate lots for larger projects Residents also expressed concerns
about: ● Zoning that is difficult to understand, unpredictable, or unequally applied ● Effects on property values (either increases OR decreases in property value) With regard to design,
residents expressed concerns about projects the block views or sunlight, and that are out‐of‐scale with the neighborhood. However, residents do not seem to want to over‐regulate design
by creating very specific architectural standards or a complex design review process. In general, residents expressed a preference for standards that address site design characteristics
(how a building is situated on a lot, for example) rather than architectural characteristics (the style and characteristics of the building itself, other than its height and bulk). Interpretation
of Public Feedback: Based on the public feedback received, the types of infill that are more acceptable to residents are: ● Accessory units within houses and accessory structures (owner‐occupied)
lot ● Additional units within existing structures with no external changes to the building or lot ● Additional units within existing structures with minor changes changes to the building
or lot ● Filling gaps in a street with new buildings that match the scale of the neighborhood Less acceptable types of infill include: ● Additional units within existing structures with
major changes to the building or lot (large additions, large parking lots, major demolition and rebuilding) ● Filling gaps in a street with new buildings that are larger than the building
in the existing neighborhood ● Large new projects (new neighborhoods, multi‐unit town homes, etc.)
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 4 There was support for adaptive reuse of existing non‐residential structures (e.g.
churches, schools, factory buildings, municipal buildings, barns, etc.), as well as innovative housing, such as cottage housing. However, there was not a detailed discussion about design
of these types of developments. Proposed Improvements: This document proposes the following approach to improving the zoning regulations to allow for more infill in a way that addresses
the feedback received at the public forums: 1. Revise the city’s accessory apartment regulations to make it easier to have accessory apartments on owner‐occupied properties An accessory
apartment, also known as an “in‐law apartment” is an extra unit that can be built on an owner‐occupied property. Under the current zoning, an accessory apartment is only allowed by right
if incorporated within a single‐family dwelling. Accessory apartments are allowed by special special permit in a detached accessory structure on the lot IF the structure conforms to
current zoning requirements. The following changes to the current regulations are recommended, in order to encourage maintenance and reuse of historic structures and to allow for small‐scale
residential infill: • For detached accessory structures built prior to 1975 (including garages and carriage houses), allow accessory unit conversions in existing structures that are
closer to property boundaries than homes. For example, this would allow garages that were built at or near the lot line to be converted to accessory units. • For all other existing and
new detached residential accessory dwelling units, allow such structures to be located within 10’ of the front and rear property line by right. In URC, allow this to be reduced to a
minimum of 4’ by Special Permit. As part of the Special Permit, the Planning Board should consider impact to neighbors. The Planning Board may require that healthy specimen trees be
preserved or, alternatively, replaced. • Allow conversion of a detached accessory structure into an accessory apartment by‐right rather than requiring a special permit. • Allow the entrance
to an accessory apartment to be located in the front of the building (in addition to the side or rear) in URA, URB and URC. 2. Amend the city’s Planned Development regulations to allow
for innovative housing and adaptive reuse of obsolete structures by Special Permit • Develop zoning provisions to allow for Cottage or Pocket Housing. For example, some possibilities
for Cottage Homes zoning could include: o Allowing more than one principal structure on a lot o Limiting cottage home units to 800 square feet or less o Allowing single family or duplex
structures o Allowing shared open space and parking
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 5 Additional standards can be developed using examples of innovative housing bylaws
from other communities. • Adaptive Reuse o Allow conversion of a non‐residential building to a residential use o Requirements for such conversions can be developed 3. Amend the dimensional
tables in the city’s urban residential zoning districts to preserve the city’s traditional urban neighborhoods and to promote small‐scale infill, as discussed in detail in the sections
below. This proposal includes zoning changes that promote traditional urban neighborhood design and flexible conversion of homes in the following ranges: • 1 – 4 Family Homes in URC
• 1 – 3 Family Homes in URB • 1 – 2 Family Homes in URA Approach: For the small‐scale infill types listed above, this proposal removes the link between the number of units and lot size,
allowing flexible conversion of homes in these ranges (e.g. homes in URB could more easily converted up to 3 family or down to 1 family over time as needed). This proposal also sets
minimum lot size and frontage requirements to minimize splitting of lots. Finally, this proposal follows a more form‐based approach in which setback and other dimensional requirements
are set to promote a traditional urban form and do not vary by number of units (e.g. the front setback and frontage required for a one family home and a three family home is the same.)
Next Steps: In order to move forward with these recommendations, additional analysis and testing is required as a next step. 4. Establish general design standards that apply only to
larger projects • In the urban residential districts, apply design standards with Administrative Site Plan Review to all new construction or additions that expand the footprint of a
structure by over 700 square feet. • Based on public feedback and committee discussions, design standards should be general (versus detailed and specific) and should address building
massing and relationship to the street and neighboring properties (versus establishing detailed architectural standards). • Design Standards to include: o New structures (including additions)
should not interfere with solar access of neighboring building structures. Solar access provisions should be developed and tested. o For projects requiring a Special Permit with Site
Plan Review, the principal residential structure on a lot must have a front door that faces the street, and a pathway from the front door to the street. Possible exceptions: The applicant
demonstrates that this would be impractical based on unique considerations relating to the lot or building structure; or
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 6 The development is Cottage Housing or other Innovative Housing project approved
by Planning Board Special Permit under the Planned Unit Development regulations. o Develop tree preservation and replacement standards for infill projects. o Develop standards for front
yard shade trees for projects in which the front yard will be affected (Note: front yard shade trees may be exempted from solar access standards). o An applicant may apply for relief
from the by‐right standards in the dimensional tables subject to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. o As part of a Special Permit with Site Plan Review, an applicant must demonstrate
“fit” with neighborhood regarding setbacks and building massing. o Develop more detailed design standards for townhomes and larger developments. • Other (not part of design standards,
but related to design) o Amend the city’s Special Permit process for requesting an alternative front setback based on dimensional averaging. The new dimensional averaging approach should
be: Allowed by Administrative Site Plan Review (Special Permit not required, but Administrative Site Plan Review decision could be appealed by applicant, resulting in a Special Permit
Planning Board Site Plan Review). Based on the front setbacks on the block in which the home is located. The requested front setback should be within 5 feet of the average front setback
distance of all homes on the same side of the street (the “blockface”) on which the home is located. In consultation with the Planning Department, an applicant may amend the group of
neighboring homes to be included in the averaging calculation (e.g. to leave out homes that are not compatible with the neighborhood, or, if appropriate, to select a smaller group of
homes near to the subject property instead of using the entire blockface). o The ZRC encourages the city to renew its commitment to street trees and to reinvigorate its street tree planning
and planting efforts. 5. Develop a Design Guidebook with more detailed (non‐binding) design guidelines that: • Explain basic architectural and site design concepts • Illustrate the range
of housing types and appropriate building designs in Northampton • Provide examples of the range of traditional and modern Northampton building styles and materials • Summarize green
building principles • Help applicants evaluate whether their project “fits” within the existing neighborhood • Discuss different neighborhoods or use a broad approach • There are many
examples from other towns. One possible starting place are the residential design guidelines for Springfield. Another excellent design guidebook is the “Heart of Knoxville Infill Housing
Design Guidelines”. Funding for the guidebook may be available through CPA under historic preservation.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 7 6. Provide Guidance and Make Improvements that Make Zoning Easier to Understand
See Additional Recommendations Regarding Nonconforming Properties and Making Zoning Easier to Understand at the end of this document.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 8 Amending the Dimensional Tables URC Problem: The current zoning discourages infill
in urban districts (particularly URC), while the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan encourages greater density in these neighborhoods. Analysis & Discussion: URC is the residential
zone nearest to downtown Northampton. URC is very diverse, and it has the smallest residential lots and greatest residential densities. These are some of Northampton’s oldest neighborhoods
and this district has a very high proportion of properties that do not conform to the current zoning (63% of 1‐3 family homes, 83% of 4 family homes). Due to already small lots sizes
and its highly built‐out nature, this district has the fewest opportunities for new lots or new structures. However, there are opportunities for adding units within existing structures
– including primary structures and accessory buildings, like garages – and allowing the number
of units in a structure or on a property to change over time as demographics (household size and needs) change. At the forums, we heard that some residents want to add units to existing
structures or convert homes back to an earlier state that had more units. There was general support for conversions within existing structures and accessory buildings like garages. Compared
to other districts, a greater proportion of residents live within walking distance of their jobs – For example, an analysis of the Market Street neighborhoods found that 26% of residents
walk to work (U.S. Census 2000). Anecdotal evidence from the forums suggests that there are residents, particularly students of nearby colleges, who live in this area who do not own
cars. However, although residents of this zone are less car‐dependent (and may own fewer cars per household), parking is a continuing concern for residents, especially as street parking
is at a premium in these neighborhoods. Parking is a particular concern for residents who live close to downtown. There is a wide‐spread perception that workers and visitors to downtown
choose to park in residential neighborhoods. Proposed Short‐Term Solution: Revise the dimensional standards to allow for infill within existing lots, but prevent splitting of small lots
into even smaller lots, which would result in more new construction and a sense of less “open space” in these neighborhoods. Standards to promote small‐scale infill for 1‐4 family homes.
• In order to promote traditional neighborhood design, 1 – 4 family small scale infill, and prevent splitting of already small lots, set minimum frontage and lot sizes as follows: o
Frontage: 65 feet (it may be worth exploring reducing this down to 50 feet) o Depth: 45 feet in order to allow for frontage and lot size reductions o Lot Size: 3,200 square feet (70%
percent of existing properties have lot sizes of 3,750 and above. (Outcome: 6,400 sf would be required to subdivide a property into two 3,200 square foot lots. Both lots would need the
required frontage in order to subdivide.) • In order to allow small‐scale infill development in existing structures and on existing lots, remove the link between the number of units
and lot size for 1 – 4 family homes. To allow
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 9 development in character with existing neighborhoods, change the dimensional standards
to match the traditional neighborhoods more closely. Finally, simplify the requirements for 1 – 4 family home lots.1 o Replace current standards with the following performance requirements:
Front Setback: Dimensional averaging by Administrative Site Plan Review (see above). Side Setback: 10 foot minimum Rear setback: 20 foot minimum Parking: Same off‐street
requirements as current regulations for now (see Long Term Recommendations below) Open Space: Same as current regulations Comparison of Current Requirements to Proposed Requirements
for 1 – 4 Family Home Lots2 Summary (1 – 4 Family Structures) (By Right Standards Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 6,000 – 24,000 sq. ft. 3,200
sq. ft. Min. Frontage 75 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 80 – 250 feet 45 feet Front Setback 20 feet feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR3 Min. Side Setback 5 ‐15 feet 10 feet
Min. Rear Setback 20 – 30 feet 20 feet Max. Building Height 40 – 55 feet Same4 Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per
accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 30% ‐40% 30% 1 Redefine what is currently called “multifamily” in the current zoning to be 5 units or more 2 Does not include comparison to cluster
development provisions, as these largely do not apply in URC due to large minimum parcel size required for a PUD under current regulations 3 An 8 foot min. to 12 foot max. range was
previously considered 4 This may be an area to consider further simplification or reduction of dimensional requirements
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 10 How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Single Family Structures (By Right Standards
Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 75 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 80 feet 45 feet Front Setback 20 feet min.
Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 15 feet 10 feet Min. Rear Setback 20 feet Same Max. Building Height 40 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500
square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 30% Same How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Two Family Structures (By Right
Standards Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 75 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 80 feet 45 feet Front Setback
20 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 15 feet 10 feet Min. Rear Setback 20 feet Same Max. Building Height 40 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1
space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 30% Same
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 11 How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Three Family Structures (excludes townhomes)
(By Right Standards Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 18,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 100 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 100 feet 45 feet Front
Setback 10‐20 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 15 feet 10 feet Min. Rear Setback 20 – 30 feet 20 feet Max. Building Height 40‐55 feet Same Min.
Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 40% 30% How Proposed Changes Above Apply to
Four Family Homes (excludes townhomes) (By Right Standards Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 24,000 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 100‐200
feet 65 feet Min. Depth 100‐250 feet 45 feet Front Setback 20 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 15 feet 10 feet Min. Rear Setback 20 – 30 feet 20
feet Max. Building Height 40‐55 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space
40% 30% Long‐Term Recommendations • Implement parking permits, then reduce parking requirements to 1 off‐street parking space per unit, with provisions for snow emergency parking NOTE:
These recommendations do NOT cover projects with more than 4 units. Zoning should treat larger projects differently than 1‐4 family projects.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 12 Amending the Dimensional Tables URB Problem: The current zoning discourages infill
in urban districts, while the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan encourages greater density in these neighborhoods. Analysis & Discussion: URB differs from URC in that lot sizes
are generally larger and there are generally greater side setbacks between structures. Residents generally support the addition of units to existing structures and accessory structures,
but have expressed concerns about new large structures being built. In general, the existing conditions in URB are more diverse than they are in URC. Some neighborhoods are urban in
character (Orchard Street) while others have significantly larger lots and predominantly single‐family homes (Lincoln Ave). In URB, in order to allow only for infill that is in keeping
with the current neighborhood character, subdivision of lots resulting in new primary structures being built between existing structures should be minimized (allowed only on the largest
lots where new infill would be in keeping with existing neighborhood character). Residents have also expressed concerns about parking. In general, there is more street parking available
in URB than in URC. However, some URB streets do face on‐street parking shortages. Infill in URB is more likely to be noticeable to its residents than infill in URC. URC already has
an urban character. URB neighborhoods are generally less urban. Although URB neighborhoods might have more capacity to absorb density than URC neighborhoods (open space, on‐street parking,
etc.), the effects of infill have more potential to significantly alter the existing character of a neighborhood. Proposed Short‐Term Solution: Revise the dimensional standards to allow
for infill within existing lots, but prevent splitting of small lots into even smaller lots, which would result in more new construction and a sense of less “open space” in these neighborhoods.
Standards to promote small‐scale infill for 1‐3 family homes. • In order to minimize splitting of lots, set minimum frontage and lot sizes as follows: o Frontage: 65 feet o Depth: 75
feet o Lot Size: 5,000 square feet (50% percent of existing 2‐family properties have lot sizes of 4,400 and above. 10,00 sq. ft. would be required to subdivide a property,) • In order
to allow small‐scale infill development in existing structures and on existing lots, remove the link between the number of units and lot size for 1 – 3 family homes. To allow development
in character with existing neighborhoods, change the dimensional standards to match the traditional neighborhoods more closely. Finally, simplify the requirements for 1 – 3 family home
lots.5 o Replace current standards with the following performance requirements: Front Setback: Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR 5 Redefine what is currently called “multifamily”
in the current zoning to be 5 units or more
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 13 Side Setback: 15 feet min. Rear setback: 20 feet min. Parking: Same off‐street
requirements as current regulations Open Space: 30% Comparison of Current Requirements to Proposed Requirements for 1 – 3 Family Home Lots6 Summary (1 – 3 Family Structures) (By Right
Standards Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft – 28,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 75 – 120 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 80 – 150
feet 75 feet Front Setback 20 – 30 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR7 Min. Side Setback 15 – 30 feet 15 feet Min. Rear Setback 20 – 30 feet 20 feet Min. Building
Height 35 – 40 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 40 – 50% 30%
How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Single Family Structures (By Right Standards Comparison) Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 8,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.
Min. Frontage 75 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 80 feet 75 feet Front Setback 20 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 15 feet Same Min. Rear Setback 20 feet
Same Max. Building Height 35 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Open Space 50%
30% 6 Does not include comparison to cluster development provisions 7 It was determined that establishing a range is most difficult in URB due to the wide range of URB neighborhood characteristics.
A range of approximately 8 feet to 12 feet, 20 feet or more was previously considered.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 14 How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Two Family Structures (By Right Standards Comparison)
Current Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 80 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 100 feet 75 feet Front Setback 20 feet min. Dimensional
Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 15 feet Same Min. Rear Setback 20 feet Same Max. Building Height 35 feet Same Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to
2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 50% 30% How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Three Family Structures (By Right Standards Comparison) Current Regulations
Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 21,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 120 feet 65 feet Min. Depth 150 feet 75 feet Front Setback 30 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative
SPR Min. Side Setback 30 feet 15 feet Min. Rear Setback 30 feet 20 feet Max. Building Height 40 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum
per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 40% 30% NOTE: Proposed Changes Apply to 1 – 3 family properties only and do not propose any zoning changes to 4+ unit properties.
Long‐Term Recommendations • Consider parking permits and parking requirement reductions, with provisions for snow emergency parking.
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 15 Amending the Dimensional Tables URA Problem: The current zoning discourages infill
in urban districts, while the Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan encourages greater density in these neighborhoods. Analysis & Discussion: URA is the least dense of the three
urban residential districts. The district has approximately 700 single‐family properties, approximately 50 2‐family properties, and a handful of 3 to 8 family properties. The city should
encourage smaller lots in this district and allow two‐family dwellings by right. In addition to the short‐term proposal below, in the long‐term, the city might consider allowing three‐family
dwellings by special permit. Further, future rezonings for commercial districts (e.g. neighborhood commercial services) should consider proximity to URA neighborhoods in particular,
as well as underserved URB and URC neighborhoods. Proposed Short‐Term Solution: In order to encourage smaller single family lots and traditional neighborhood design: • Change minimum
lot size requirements for single‐family homes to 10,000 square feet (~1/4 acre), 76% percent of existing 1‐family properties have lot sizes of 10,000 sq. ft. and above. 20,000 sq. ft.
(~1/2 acre) would be required to subdivide a property,) • Change minimum open space requirements for single‐family homes to 30% (reduced from 60%) • Set front setbacks by Dimensional
Averaging by SPR • Keep existing setbacks for attached garages the same in order to promote garages located farther back than principal structure • Reduce minimum open space to 30% In
order to promote small‐scale and neighborhood‐appropriate infill, allow for two‐family homes: • Use current URB requirement of 6,000 sq. ft. per unit, or 12,000 sq. ft. for a 2‐family
home • Otherwise, same requirements as for single‐family homes
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 16 Comparison of Current Requirements to Proposed Requirements for 1 – 2 Family Home
Lots Summary (1 – 2 Family Structures) (By Right Standards Comparison) Current Regulations (single family only, two family properties not allowed) Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot
Size 12,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. (single family) to 12,000 sq. ft. (two‐family) Min. Frontage 75 feet Same Min. Depth 100 feet 80 feet Front Setback 20 min. Dimensional Averaging by
Administrative SPR8 Min. Side Setback 15 feet Same Min. Rear Setback 20 feet Same Max. Building Height 35 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit
up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 60% 30% How Proposed Changes Above Apply to 1 Family Structures (By Right Standards Comparison) Current
Regulations Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Min. Frontage 75 feet Same Min. Depth 100 feet 80 feet Front Setback 20 feet min. Dimensional Averaging
by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 10 feet Same Min. Rear Setback 20 feet Same Max. Building Height 35 feet Same Min. Off‐street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit
up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment Same Min. Open Space 60% 30% 8 A range of 15 – 25 feet was discussed before dimensional averaging was settled on
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 17 How Proposed Changes Above Apply to Two Family Structures (By Right Standards Comparison)
Current Regulations ‐Not Currently Allowed, Current Single Family Regulations Shown Results of Proposed Change Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. for a two‐family home (6,000
sq. ft. per unit) Min. Frontage 75 feet 75 feet Min. Depth 100 feet 80 feet Front Setback 20 feet min. Dimensional Averaging by Administrative SPR Min. Side Setback 10 feet Same Min.
Rear Setback 20 feet Same Max. Building Height 35 feet Same Min. Off‐Street Parking 1 space per 500 square feet for each unit up to 2 maximum per unit, 1 space per accessory apartment
Same Min. Open Space 60% 30%
Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal for Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts Page 18 Additional Recommendations Regarding Nonconforming Properties and Making Zoning
Easier to Understand Goal: Reduce inconvenience and hardship associated with owning a non‐conforming property. Problem: The city has high rates of non‐conforming properties. This can
create additional requirements, as well as anxiety among property owners. Recommendation: The Office of Planning and Development publishes a document that summarizes “What Non‐Conformance
Means to You.” Goal: Make the zoning easier to understand. Problem: The zoning code is quite complex and difficult to understand. Implications: ● Residents worry that zoning is not being
applied equally in all situations. ● Residents feel like they cannot predict what to expect on neighboring properties. ● Some residents may not pursue projects because they think the
zoning does not allow the project, when in fact the zoning has exceptions that would allow it. ● Some residents need to hire experts to interpret zoning. Recommendations: ● Publish a
handbook on how to use the zoning code. The handbook should layout step‐by‐step processes for determining how zoning applies to common projects. ● Publish a summary of all administrative
rules used by the Office of Planning and Development, the Planning Board, or others on the city’s website. ● Use graphics to explain zoning whenever possible. ● Improve the definitions
section of the zoning code. All definitions should be in the definition section—not in the body of the code. ● Improve the use and dimensional tables ○ Either combine the dimensional
and use tables, or ○ Reorganize the tables so that their structures are parallel ● Long‐term: Restructure and rewrite the entire zoning code
To: Parking and Transportation Committee Re: Infill Parking Plan Over the last two years the Zoning Revisions Committee conducted several public forums to solicit public input on ways
to best meet the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Plan. We are reporting to you that in these discussions participants consistently expressed concern around increased traffic and
parking pressures as we implement the infill goals of Sustainable Northampton Plan. While traffic is beyond our purview, parking is not. Our current zoning features Parking Requirements
for new development. We find that this relationship between parking and development in our zoning often hinders increased vibrancy and density. Currently, property owners are required
to apply arcane parking formulas that do not recognize the multiple ways a project is minimizing parking by being in an urban setting. There is an assumption in our Parking Requirements
that everyone is bringing a car. However, in a tightly knit setting with a mix of residential, office and neighborhood commercial uses, more customers will come by foot or bicycle, reducing
the need for high commercial parking requirements. At the same time, Urban Residential developers are required to provide parking for residential units intended for people who frequently
walk, bike, and may not even own a car. When residences are located in tightly knit, traditional urban neighborhoods that are located in walking distance of goods, services, jobs, and
transit, households are able to keep fewer cars. A wonderful example of this in Northampton is in the neighborhoods around Market Street – In these neighborhoods, U.S. Census data report
that an astounding 26% of residents walk to work. In this neighborhood, 22% of households reported having NO vehicles and 52% of households reported having one vehicle – 74% of these
households have 0 to 1 vehicles! We find the city’s parking formulas to be ineffective and we have recommended the Parking Requirements in our zoning be relaxed or lifted. At the same
time, we do feel that many of the concerns expressed around parking and density are valid and that the city needs more appropriate and targeted strategies than zoning ordinances to address
parking pressures. Therefore, we are recommending to your committee the development of an Infill Parking Plan. We anticipate that as the vibrancy of our downtown and village centers
flourish, the need for parking strategies will increase. Some ideas we discussed included on-street residential parking permits, as well as allowing parking in front yard open space
during snow emergencies. Having a plan to address parking issues as they arise will go a long way towards easing citizens’ concerns surrounding the implementation of the Sustainable
Northampton Plan. Respectfully Submitted The Zoning Revisions Committee
Proposed language for infill special permit Page 1 Proposed language for infill special permit in Northampton Zoning (revised draft, June 6, 2010redlined 12-10) Section 350-10.16 Infill
Special Permit Interim Zoning A. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to provide a means to allow carefully planned infill development, consistent with the City’s Sustainable Northampton
Comprehensive Plan, to be built within existing developed areas of Northampton closest to Downtown and Florence and Leeds Centers. This Section is adopted as an interim zoning provision
while dimensional and use regulations for the City are being reviewed and comprehensively revised. This Section is intended to provide a means for expeditious implementation of infill
development on a case-by-case basis, consistent with existing neighborhood character and the design standards in this section. B. Applicability 1. The provisions of this section shall
apply in the URA, URB, and URC zoning districts. 2. This Section 350-10.16 shall remain in effect for two years from the date of its adoption, unless extended longer or terminated earlier
by amendment of this ordinance. Any special permit application filed under this section and found to be a complete application by the Office of Planning and Development before the expiration
of the effective period of this Section shall be allowed to continue through the approval process, notwithstanding the termination of this provision. Any special permit duly granted
under this section shall run with the land and have permanent effect once exercised in accordance with the zoning and MGL 40 A. C. Types of Infill Development Permitted The Planning
Board may grant a special permit allowing for the modification of otherwise applicable dimensional regulations, consistent with the purposes of this Section, the Sustainable Northampton
Plan, and the standards in Subsection E below to permit the following: 1. Reduction in applicable minimum frontage, setbacks, lot depth, and lot area requirements, unit configuration.
CONCEPT DRAFT
Proposed language for infill special permit Page 2 2. Additional dwelling units, detached cottage units, or accessory dwelling units on a lot, through new construction and/or conversion
of existing structures. 3. Reduction in the open space requirement to 40% within the URA district and 30% within the URB district, regardless of the use of the lot. 4. Increase in maximum
height of no more than one story or 10 feet. D. Parking. This section may not be used to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements. E. Design Standards and Approval Criteria
1. A special permit granted under this section shall comply with all of the special permit standards contained in Section 350-10.1. (Modify to address vague standards in 10.1-like “protection
of views, light, air”) 2. In order to receive a special permit, an applicant shall submit and the Planning Board shall approve a site plan at a sufficient level of detail to allow the
Planning Board to determine whether or not the proposal complies with these design standards. 3. Infill development shall maintain the prevailing pattern of front setbacks that exist
on the block on which such development occurs, except that no new attached or detached garage may be built unless it is at least 20 feet behind the front façade of the principal building.
4. Infill development shall be designed to maintain the privacy of adjoining properties by screening new and enlarged structures with existing or new vegetative screening and/or with
wooden fencing. No healthy trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 16 inches or more shall be removed within 12 feet of a side or rear property line. Light emitted by external
light fixtures or by vehicle headlights in off-street parking areas shall not shine into adjoining properties. 5. Infill development shall be designed to be architecturally compatible
with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of scale, massing, building orientation, garage location (if any), and architectural character and detail. Principal buildings shall
align along a street to create a sense of enclosure of the street in a manner similar to that found on the same block faceand adjoining blocks. The Planning Board may adopt design guidelines
to serve as criteria in administering this section. Neighborhood associations are encouraged to recommend neighborhood-specific design guidelines to be considered for adoption by the
Planning Board for individual neighborhoods or blocks. CONCEPT DRAFT
Proposed language for infill special permit Page 3 6. The Planning Board may consider historic uses of a property. If a proposed infill development would reinstate a condition that historically
existed on the property, this shall be considered favorably in the Planning Board’s deliberations. 7. This section may not be used to increase the number of dwelling units on a lot by
more than five. F. Procedure. 1. Before filing an application for an infill special permit, the applicant shall notify and make a good faith effort to meet with owners of adjoining properties
to discuss plans for the proposed infill development. 2. The Office of Planning and Development shall provide a list of supporting materials required for submission of an infill special
permit application to assist an applicant in preparing an application. 3. The special permit, filing, fee, hearing etc process for infill development shall otherwise be the same as required
for any other special permit, except that site plan approval shall be integrated with the special permit. 4. The Planning Board shall attach appropriate conditions to any approval relating
to architectural and landscape design, lighting, parking location, and improvements to the facades of existing buildings, to ensure that the infill development will enhance the character
of the neighborhood. 5. The City Council shall, by resolution, set an appropriate application fee or fee scale for infill special permit applications. CONCEPT DRAFT
Summaries of Public Input From Forums
Synthesis of Comments from Zoning Revision Forum, 2010 Page 1 SYNTHESIS OF COMMENTS FROM ZONING REVISION FORUM Report of the Zoning Revisions Committee, April 2, 2010 The following is
a synthesis of the comments and input received at the Zoning Revisions Committee public forum held on March 17, 2010 at Northampton High School. It is not a verbatim transcript of notes
from the meeting, but rather an attempt to extract the main themes to help guide the ZRC as it moves forward in recommending changes to the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Many other sources
of input will also be considered in developing these recommendations, including meetings with various neighborhood groups and stakeholders, the experience from
other communities, and the extensive public input that was a part of the Sustainable Northampton process. The ZRC is distributing this document widely in the community to indicate what
we heard at the forum and to invite further comments both from those who came and those who were unable to attend. Since the main subject addressed at the forum was infill development,
most of the points below are focused on the subject of infill. If you did not attend the forum and would like to see the introductory presentation, which explains infill and other zoning
concepts, you can view the presentation online at http://www.northamptonma.gov/planbd/zrc/docs/-just scroll down to “Zoning and Sustainability (Public Forum Presentation). There was
general support for the use of infill development to make the City more sustainable and to encourage economic development, provided that certain safeguards are in place. The zoning should
encourage rather than prevent infill that meets the criteria that follow (points 1 through 6). 1. Infill development should be in scale and character with its surroundings. a. Within
residential neighborhoods, buildings should be compatible in scale and architectural character to existing buildings; their relationship to the street should be similar; conversions
of large houses, addition of units units to existing buildings (encouraging 2 and 3-family dwellings), and conversions of garages and other accessory buildings are preferable to large-scale
new construction projects. b. Larger scale infill should occur on already developed or vacant but previously developed sites on heavily traveled streets, such as Downtown, King Street,
Pleasant, and Conz; existing buildings should be reused as much as possible throughout the City. Larger-scale infill should consist of mixed-use walkable areas as much as possible. c.
Green spaces and trees should be retained as much as possible; open space uses and landscaping should be part of infill, including neighborhood recreation, large and small parks, wildlife
corridors, stormwater retention, and local food production, including urban agriculture, CSAs, and community gardens. d. Infill should fill gaps in the street and be in scale with its
surroundings (neither too large nor too small).
Synthesis of Comments from Zoning Revision Forum, 2010 Page 2 e. Some felt that infill should contain a mix of housing types and accommodate different income groups. Not all agreed on
this. f. Infill should not disproportionately affect any one area of the City. g. Infill should not adversely affect historic and landmark structures. 2. Mixed-use development should
be encouraged to make neighborhoods more walkable, provided that it is in scale with the neighborhood and does not generate too much traffic. a. Mixed uses should be allowed not only
in commercial districts but also in rural areas, co-housing developments, and residential areas, provided that it is in scale and compatible with surrounding uses. b. Infill development
should put residences within walking distances of stores, offices, jobs, parks, bikepaths, and other green spaces. Infill can and should support related goals of supporting local businesses
and making streets safer by encouraging pedestrian activity and “eyes on the street.” c. Greater Greater density, in scale with neighborhoods, is needed to support local businesses and
neighborhood schools, to make housing more affordable, and to make public transit cost-effective. 3. Design is important! a. There should be better design controls over new development.
b. Traditional relationships between the building and street should be required c. Design should consider not only the streetscape, but also views from the side and rear of properties.
d. We should avoid ugly, cookie-cutter designs that do not fit the community. e. Parking lots should not be prominent parts of the streetscape if possible (the issue of commercial viability
led to a lack of consensus on how far this should go). f. Attention should be paid to lighting and safety. 4. Infill should be energy efficient and take advantage of solar and other
renewable energy opportunities; green roofs, water-efficient development should be encouraged. 5. Infill should help make housing more affordable by allowing greater density (within
the character of existing neighborhoods) and by encouraging more residents to rent out part of their homes, providing affordable units for renters and an income stream for owners, especially
the elderly. 6. We need to remember to set aside land for industrial uses and the jobs and tax base that come with them. 7. Cluster development in the more rural parts of the City should
be done in a way that protects open space resources, especially farmland, and that fosters a sense of neighborhood and community. The layout of the co-housing communities in Florence
is a good model for how this can be done.
Synthesis of Comments from Zoning Revision Forum, 2010 Page 3 8. Complementary infrastructure strategies: In order for infill to work, a number of nonzoning measures must also be instituted.
While not part of zoning revision, these overarching planning strategies and actions are important because they affect the sustainability of the city overall and of infill development
in particular. (Some of these strategies don’t work without greater density, but greater density won’t work without these measures – a “chicken and egg” problem.) These measures include:
a. Better public transit (more routes, more frequent service) b. Redesigning streets to reduce speeds and encourage pedestrians and bikes: narrower lanes, street trees, planting strips,
bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, onstreet parking, etc. c. Better bicycle infrastructure including bike parking and more bike lanes on major streets d. More parks and public open space
e. Sidewalks: more, better-maintained, and wider f. Better and safer intersections g. Better parking solutions in areas of mixed uses, including parking lots, on-street parking, garages,
and improved management of parking h. Better stormwater management, especially where infill adds impervious surfaces i. Stronger neighborhood organizations to advocate for and plan these
measures, provide input on planning and zoning issues, and build community spirit
ZRC Infill Forums Summary, February 2011 Page 1 ZRC Infill Forums Summary Florence Civic Center February 15th Bridge Street School February 16th On February 15th & 16th, 2011, the Zoning
Revisions Committee held two public forums to discuss methods for meeting Sustainable Northampton infill goals. Three topics were covered: a proposal called Home Business, a discussion
of Dimension Standards, and an exploration of Design Standards. The ZRC sought public input to improve our understanding of citizens concerns to discern our next steps forward. Feedback
for the three topics have been clustered into themes and are followed by summaries. 1. Home Business The ZRC sought feedback on a proposal to change the restrictive Home Office regulations
in order to create a more flexible Home Business permit. The impact of the business would be measured by the number of vehicle trips generated. Home Business Feedback Enforcement. Many
participants expressed concern about how the city might enforce the ZRC Home Business proposal. Some were concerned about the complications of monitoring the number of trips and what
mechanism would trigger a response from the city. Some were concerned that monitoring and reporting would fall to neighbors “ratting” on neighbors. Several spoke of how they find current
enforcement of home based businesses as lax or inconsistent. Some expressed concern that Home Business would further uncap home occupation pressures and “open a can of worms”, “it’s
a great plan for sprawl”. Some expressed the desire to see hours of operation for Home Business. Rights and Over-regulation. Several people stated that they do not like the idea of further
regulation. Some participants pointed out that deliveries are currently unregulated. One person spoke of concern surrounding Home Business in condos and rentals where customers and employees
would be using common spaces; what rights would neighbors, abutters, (or property owners) have? Traffic and Parking. Several participants expressed concern that Home Business could significantly
increase traffic and parking pressures. Several people mentioned the inconvenience that snow has already put on city streets, and in some cases eliminated on street parking. Questions
were raised about the range of deliveries (lunch delivery, UPS/FEDEX, tractor trailer trucks) and which of these constitutes a delivery. Several people thought five trips was too much;
one person thought it was not enough. One citizen asked if we had considered limiting the number of Home Businesses on a street.
ZRC Infill Forums Summary, February 2011 Page 2 Nuisances. Concerns were expressed about noise, odor, increased trash, vehicle cleaning, vehicle repair, large signs, children learning
to play piano, significant pedestrian traffic. Other Concerns. One citizen expressed concern about businesses such as law offices or pizza restaurants in “beautiful old homes” creating
decay. Home Business Summary Enforcement, Traffic, and Parking dominated both discussions. All three were regularly discussed in conjunction with the others and are seen as related.
The ZRC should review the Home Business proposal with the Building Inspector to explore if there are ways to monitor and enforce the number of vehicle trips. Developing mechanisms to
monitor and enforce should help to ease many citizens concerns. We may also wish to have a more general discussion with the Building Inspector about enforcement issue. Some of the feedback
received around Home Business indicated some broader concerns about enforcement. Many citizens were were concerned we were proposing to soften regulations that currently require a Special
Permit. In the future the ZRC needs to emphasize that we continue to support strict enforcement of the thresholds that require a Special Permit. Participant feedback did not give us
a clear idea of whether there would be public support for the Home Business proposal once we address concerns. 2. Dimensional Standards The ZRC sought input on three different strategies
to promote infill in our urban residential zones: URA, URB, & URC. The three strategies discussed were • Adjusting the Dimensional Table so they better match neighborhood realities •
Replacing Dimensional Tables with “performance-base” requirements • Creating a Special Permit for Infill Feedback The complexity of the topic was ever present in our discussions. Participants
asked many pertinent questions, “What choices are you presenting?” “Which choice gives us the greatest flexibility?” “How does owning a non-conforming home effect me?” “Has the ZRC done
economic impact studies for these proposals?” “Are we considering an incremental approach to zoning changes?” To their credit, participants worked diligently to grasp the topic and give
helpful feedback.
ZRC Infill Forums Summary, February 2011 Page 3 Types of Infill Supported. Several citizens thought it would be fine for property owners to convert garages and carriage houses (even
non-conforming structures) into residential units. There was support for infill flexibility (adding/subtracting units) within existing structures. Parking. Some concern was expressed
about parking pressures, even when the infill is in an accessory structure or is within an existing structure with no outward changes. One participant expressed support for on-street
parking. Another participant expressed reservations when the on-street parking lacks a tree belt and lax parking regulations.. However, one participant called for lifting the parking
requirement for residential areas citing she often rents to people without autos. Types of Infill that raised Concerns. • New/expanded structures that take greenspace • Teardowns • Additions
to structures that significantly increase size, bulk, height • Additions to structures that decrease decrease an abutter’s sunlight • Density that is out of proportion to the neighborhood
Restrictions. Several participants spoke of how our current zoning restricts what they can do on their properties (Bridge Road mobile home, Suburban homeowner, Dimensional Complexities.
Several people noted the variety of differences in dimensional realities from neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street. One participant noted how poorly sited many homes are throughout
the city. Blending/Combining Infill Strategies. Several participants suggested the ZRC develop proposals that combine the strategies discussed (Adjusting Dimensional Tables, Developing
Performance Based requirements, Infill Special Permit, and Design Standards) One participant suggested we apply new Dimensional Standards to create greater conformity and then have non-conforming
properties apply for Special Permit that is Performance driven. Another participant asked if Performance Based standards could be developed as an incremental step between By Right infill
and Special Permit. Greenspace. Some participants were interested in knowing how greenspace would be protected or preserved in infill zones. Support was expressed for protecting greenspace
for backyards, trees, gardens, and chickens. Special Permit. The Special Permit process received divergent feedback. One participant spoke of trusting the SP process and city committees.
Another spoke of it as a way to get community input to regulate infill projects. One participant shared a story about a Special Permit project that ended well with the neighborhood pleased.
Another participant spoke of how SP politicizes the permitting process. Several people spoke of being wary of city boards and distrusting their ability to make decisions
ZRC Infill Forums Summary, February 2011 Page 4 Zoning is personal. As one participant pointed out, while the ZRC is talking zoning in general, participants are often responding in very
personal ways that relate to their properties. Dimensional Standards Summary Participant feedback indicates that they understood and accepted our premise that Northampton’s current zoning
does not match the dimensional realities in our neighborhoods. People often regularly cited the inconsistencies we are wrestling with from street to street, neighborhood to neighborhood,
village to village. Based on the feedback received the ZRC should consider developing proposals that combine the various strategies discussed: Adjusting Dimensional Tables, Developing
Performance Based regulations, Infill Special Permit, and Design Standards. Several participants saw a need for combining strategies and saw them as way to get to concrete proposals.
Citizens would like to know with reasonable certainty the level of infill we are talking about. Developing scenarios that model different outcomes will help focus discussion and assist
citizens in understanding zoning choices. Sustainability. The discussion in Florence yielded some interesting feedback around how people feel about Sustainability. We heard a participant
refer to Northampton as a Suburban city and how the Sustainability Plan will change this. One person whose home was not in URA-B-C left when he realized his home was not directly affected
by our discussions. One person thought our Home Business recommendations were promoting sprawl, while another participant thought we were emphasizing economic interests over environmental
and social equity. The discussion was qualitatively different from previous forums. The ZRC may want to consider exploring this further. Sustainability Goals. One participant suggested
we be more precise with our infill goals by identifying particular Sustainability objectives. The example given was student housing. 3. Residential Design Standards When discussing infill
the ZRC heard a lot of support for Design Standards . This discussion aimed to discern how broad or specific people wanted the regulations. Feedback Suggested Design Targets. “aesthetics
beyond architecture”, greenspace and trees, siting of structures on lots, mass/bulk, loss of sunlight, setbacks, height, new additions and new structures, tiny or cottage housing, historic
districts that preserve a neighborhoods vernacular. Several people mentioned the differences between neighborhoods and developing a method for determining Neighborhood/Street averages.
ZRC Infill Forums Summary, February 2011 Page 5 Over Regulation. Many participants were wary of over-regulation. Examples of excessive design standards were restrictions on materials,
windows and doors, limits on the range of architecture allowed, establishing a standard of taste. Several people spoke of being supportive of modern and contemporary architecture. One
participant saw frontage as a dubious requirement when compared with setbacks. Public Process. Several people mentioned the need for neighbor/neighborhood to weigh in on infill projects.
Care/Upkeep. One participant asked if there were a way to better regulate the care and upkeep of structures, that the biggest “eyesores” are not infill but poorly maintained buildings.
Number of Units and Size. A question was asked about the threshold between small and large projects. A ZRC member suggest the number was around five units. Design Standards Summary There
was strong support for the ZRC to continue exploring Design Standards. Feedback was clearly in favor of standards that allow for flexibility. Further Design Standard discussion should
explore the targets listed above. When meeting with the Building Inspector we could also discuss the possibility of enforcing upkeep issues. It maybe helpful in the future to have a
clearer idea of the threshold between small and large projects.
Forum Presentations
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 1 Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC) Who We Are – A
volunteer committee, appointed by the Planning Board – Formed to help implement “Sustainable Northampton” (the city’s comprehensive master plan adopted in 2008) – Selected to represent
a variety of viewpoints, expertise and neighborhoods. fences street trees open space requirement What is Zoning? Zoning is a local ordinance that regulates development and land use Zoning
establishes the community's development pattern. It controls: • Lot dimensions and where buildings can be built on a lot (dimensional regulations) •What land can be used for (use regulations)
• How development applications are reviewed • Parking requirements, signs, lighting, landscaping, etc. lighting signs parking landscaping building height lot size number of units use
What is Zoning? Zoning ordinances have a map AND text – The map divides the city into zones – The text says what is allowed in these zones Zoning sets parameters for how land can be
used, but it doesn’t MAKE development happen. Development will not occur unless there is a market for it. Good development still requires responsible landowners, enlightened developers
and financiers, and skilled architects and builders
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 2 Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future Our Charge: Get Sustainability into Zoning – Review current zoning & recommend revisions – Be
a technical resource for the Planning Board – Provide a wide range of opportunities for public input to the zoning revision process 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Northampton
begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted ZRC Formed ZRC’s 1st Public Forum Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable This meeting is part
of a long-term planning process ZRC suggests changes 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted
ZRC Formed ZRC suggests changes ZRC’s 1st Public Forum Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable The ZRC’s ProcessAnalysis and Information Gathering • Learned about the Sustainable
Northampton Plan and Zoning Ordinance • Conducted an analysis comparing the Sustainable Northampton Plan with the current Zoning Ordinance • Explored Subtopics: Energy, Urban Agriculture,
Cluster Development, Housing • Began discussions with key stakeholders and focus groups • Developed a process for including public input 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Northampton
begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted ZRC Formed ZRC’s 1st Public Forum Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable The ZRC’s Process
ZRC suggests changes 1st Public Forum (We’re here!) Tonight’s goals are: • Share what we’ve learned about zoning and sustainability • Gather general input about how zoning could be made
more sustainable • Gather in-depth input about infill (where, how much, what should it look like?)
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 3 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted ZRC Formed
ZRC suggests changes ZRC’s 1st Public Forum Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable The ZRC’s Process ZRC Makes Recommendations • Formulate specific recommendations for zoning
revisions • Continue discussions with key stakeholders and focus groups • Conduct additional public forums • Refine recommendations • Present recommendations to Planning Board and get
feedback 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted ZRC Formed ZRC suggests changes ZRC’s 1st
Public Forum Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable The ZRC’s Process Implementation • Planning Department and ZRC write zoning changes and submit to Planning Board • Planning
Board reviews changes and holds public hearings with the City Council Ordinance Committee • Planning board votes on proposed changes • City Council votes on proposed changes • Process
continues! Sustainable Northampton Plan Relevant Guiding Principles Sustainability – If you keep on doing it, you can keep on doing it (Environment, Economy, Equity) Sustainable
Land Use – Minimize human effects on natural systems; build the kind of places we want to live in Sustainable Land Use in Northampton – Concentrate development in existing neighborhoods
– Minimize sprawl/protect open space – Promote appropriate economic development – Preserve community character – Encourage walkability and transit Translating Sustainability Goals into
Zoning Goals Task: Boil “Future Land Use Map” and 45 pages of goals, objectives and strategies from the Sustainable Northampton Plan into a short set of summary goals that are relevant
to zoning. Concentrate development and allow for a wide range of housing types and work spaces in walkable, mixed-use neighborhood, village and commercial centers Minimize development
in areas that lack infrastructure or have significant environmental, open sp ac e or agricult ural resources Promote environmental performance, including energy and resource efficiency
Make the zoning code more user-friendly and processes more transparent Promote design that fits into neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better place.
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 4 Sustainable Northampton’s Future Land Use Map Where should future development happen? Sustainable Northampton says that development should be
concentrated in traditional neighborhoods and mixed-use commercial centers (colored on map). Is this possible under current zoning? And does current zoning meet Traditional Neighborhoods
Mixed-use Commercial Centers sustainability goals? Example -Mixed-use Goal: Concentrate development and allow for a wide range of housing types and work spaces in walkable, mixed-use
neighborhood, village and commercial centers Analysis: Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning – Only a small portion of the City is zoned for mixed-use neighborhoods – Use regulations
are confusing and limiting – The lack of mixed-use zoning undermines goals of walkability Takeaway: – Allow mixed-uses in more zones – Rewrite zoning text and tables to facilitate mixed
use – Concentrate on regulating form more than than use Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning Zoning Example -Walkability Goal: Concentrate development and allow for a wide range
of housing types and work spaces in walkable, mixed-use neighborhood, village and commercial centers Within 1/4 mile of basic services Analysis: Zoning for most of Northampton does not
create walkable neighborhoods Takeaway: – Expand areas zoned for mixed use – Encourage infill so that more residents will be within walking distance of downtown or neighborhood centers.
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 5 Example -Minimize sprawl Goal: Minimize development in areas that lack infrastructure or have significant environmental, open space or agricultural
resources A l i Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning Analysis: Rural areas are zoned for lowdensity suburban sprawl Takeaway: – Cluster regulations need to more flexible, with clearer
definition of the open space that should be protected – Continue to acquire open space (not part of zoning) – Reduce density of outlying development Example – Design Goal: Promote design
that fits into neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better place. Analysis: Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning – Lack of design standards to guide development
– Dimensional standards in zoning do not match historic neighborhoods – Current zoning does not create attracted streetscapes and public spaces Takeaway: – Design standards are needed
– Zoning should focus on shaping urban space – Site plan and architecture should be reviewed together Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning A Typical 3-Family Home Example: 17 Trumbull
Road Zoned URC Lot Size: 4,835 square feet House 030.jpg Today, would need 18,000 SF (~1/2 acre) to build this home Few of the city’s 3-family homes conform to lot size requirements
In fact, today, you could not create a buildable lot of this size (6,000 SF required). Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning Is an existing 2-family home in a traditional urban neighborhood
of the city legal under the current zoning? Example: 20-22 Elizabeth, Ward 3 Zoned URB Lot Size: 5,183 Square Feet House 030.jpg Today, would need 12,000 SF to build this home
In fact, today, you could not create a buildable lot of this size (8,000 SF required).
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 6 Zoning Out Traditional Neighborhoods Example: Walnut Street Traditional Urban Neighborhood -Sidewalks -Street Trees -Small Setbacks -Walkable
Entire Street Zoned URC -6,000 sf min. lot size per unit Zoning Out Traditional Neighborhoods Example: Walnut Street – Lots that Do Not Conform to their Zoning (by lot size) Address
Lot Size (SF) # Units Lot /Unit Conforming 1Walnut St 2,483 5 497 N 5Walnut St 2,701 2 1350 N 9Walnut St 3,311 2 1655 N 11Walnut St 3,441 4 860 N 13Walnut St 6,490 2 3245 N 16Walnut
St 12,981 2 6490 Y 17Walnut St 6,229 3 2076 N 19Walnut St 7,536 2 3768 N 20Walnut St 7,405 2 3703 N 24Walnut St 11,500 2 5750 N 25Walnut St 6,011 1 6011 Y 84% 29Walnut St 4,792 0 N/A
N/A 32Walnut St 14,810 1 14810 Y 33Walnut St 4,312 1 4312 N 33Walnut St 4,704 0 N/A N/A 35Walnut St 4,617 2 2309 N 38Walnut St 6,273 2 3136 N 41Walnut St 4,487 2 2243 N 42Walnut St 9,278
4 2320 N 45Walnut St 4,400 1 4400 N 46Walnut St 6,403 2 3202 N 46Walnut St 5,881 2 2940 N 48Walnut St 3,311 1 3311 N 49Walnut St 4,879 2 2439 N 50Walnut St 6,403 1 6403 Y 55Walnut St
4,661 2 2330 N 56Walnut St 4,269 3 1423 N 60Walnut St 6,970 2 3485 N 84% could not be built on these lots today! Zoning Out Traditional Neighborhoods Example: Walnut Street –Lots that
Could Not be Built Today (by lot size) This Analysis Accounted ONLY for Lot Size! Consider: -100’ min. frontage -20’ min. front setback Median Lot Area per Unit on Street: 3,169 SF.
Compare to requirement of 6,000 SF /Unit If created today, 48% of these lots would not even be buildable -40% min. open space In all likelihood, there is not a single fully conforming
building on this street. This story is the same throughout the traditional neighborhoods of our city!!! Why Does This Matter? Traditional urban neighborhoods that are within walking
distance of goods and services create a compact, energy efficient development pattern that enhances quality of life and supports sustainability goals Current zoning mandates development
that is out of character with our best neighborhoods
— Lot sizes, frontages, parking requirements, etc. don’t match historic precedents The city’s urban neighborhoods are losing housing units — When an existing non-conforming multifamily
house is converted to a single family, it can never go back — Adding new buildings in developed areas (infill) is discouraged by the zoning code Lots that do not conform to their
zoning are a hassle to land owners — Land owners often can’t put additions on their houses or build garages — Land owners often can’t change the use of a non-conforming lot — Land owners
need to go through complicated procedures to be granted exceptions
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 7 Summary of Zoning Analysis Comparing the Sustainable Northampton Plan (Zoning Goals) to the Current Zoning Ordinance In most respects, the
zoning does not reflect sustainability goals Many of our best neighborhoods could not be built under current zoning Emphasis on use-based regulation limits flexibility and mixed-use
Parking requirements discourage infill development and force sprawl Rural areas are zoned for suburban sprawl Infill is discouraged in many ways Design standards to guide
development are lacking, especially for infill The current zoning is very difficult to understand! Why Infill? Infill is new construction or redevelopment that 'fills in' empty
lots or adds units or uses in areas that are already developed. Infill is an important tool for concentrating development in walkable neighborhoods, rather than sprawling into undeveloped
areas. Infill is the historic pattern of development in Northampton Parking Lots Downtown Florence Leeds Baystate South St. Elm St. Neighborhoods Current Development Pattern=Sprawl
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 8 What Future Do We Want? What is More Sustainable? Infill and Sustainability Infill rose to the surface as a critical issue for sustainability
Infill and the “Three E’s” Environment – Infill reduces the need for new infrastructure – Infill can be more energy efficient and lower carbon emissions – Infill is less damaging to
natural systems than “greenfield” development Economy – Infill can increase the number of shoppers walking to local businesses – Infill can create more commercial real estate (which
leads to more jobs) – Infill makes public transit more viable Equity – Infill can create more housing and work spaces where people want to live and work – Infill can provide a wide range
of housing types that meet peoples’ needs Flavors of Infill New development on brown/grayfields Building taller/adding stories Adding units within existing buildings Converting
outbuildings to new units Filling gaps in existing streets Building a larger number of small small units on a lot that would currently only allow a single large structure Allowing
multiple uses within single structures (multipurpose spaces) Infill and Design To meet the goals of Sustainable Northampton, traditional neighborhoods, village, and mixed-use commercial
centers will need to accommodate additional units (infill). Infill must be designed in a way that respects its surroundings and creates a "sense of place." How can we do infill in
a way that makes the city a better place? Look at the following examples of infill . What do you like? What do you dislike? What specific elements of these projects work well? -Scale?
-Materials? -Proportions? -Relationship to street? -Relationship to existing buildings? -Detailing (cornices, doorways, roofline)? House 030.jpg -Color? -Green space? -Plants/Trees?
-Parking? -Yards?
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 9 Infill Examples SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK Infill Examples SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK Infill Examples SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK Infill Examples
BLUE BACK SQUARE, WEST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 10 Infill Examples BLUE BACK SQUARE, WEST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT Infill Examples MASHPEE COMMONS, MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS Infill Examples MASHPEE
COMMONS, MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS Infill Examples CHURCHILL NEIGHBORHOOD, HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 11 Infill Examples CHURCHILL NEIGHBORHOOD, HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS Infill Examples POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD Infill Examples – Historic-Style Architecture
PHOENIX HILL, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY Infill Examples – Modern Architecture DUTRA BROWN BUILDING, SAN DIEGO
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 12 Infill Examples – Contemporary Architecture PROSPECT, COLORADO Infill Examples In Northampton – Adaptive Reuse MAIN STREET & SOUTH STREET Infill
Examples in Northampton -Additions BRIDGE STREET & POMEROY TERRACE Infill Examples in Northampton -Conversions CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSION, BUTLER PLACE
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 13 Infill Examples in Northampton STATE STREET – FLY BY NIGHT Infill Examples in Northampton STRONG AVENUE Where Should Future Infill Happen in
Northampton? Parking Lots? King Street Empty Lots? Existing Structures? Where Should Future Infill Happen in Northampton? Carriage Houses? Garages?
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 14 What Should Infill Look Like in Northampton? King Street… SARATOGA SPRINGS NORTHAMPTON What Should Infill Look Like in Northampton? King
Street… VISIONING NORTHAMPTON What Should Infill Look Like in Northampton? King Street… VISIONING NORTHAMPTON What Should Infill Look Like in Northampton? King Street… VISIONING NORTHAMPTON
March 2010 Public Forum #1 Presentation 15 What Should Infill Look Like? Garage Conversions… www.lisadepiano.org What Should Infill Look Like? Invisible Infill… Converting existing 2-family
homes into 3-family homes … BEFORE: 2-UNITS AFTER: 3-UNITS House 030.jpg If this lot were created today, it would not even buildable under current zoning. The End! Tonight’s Discussion
What are your hopes and concerns for your neighborhood…for the city? What are the ingredients of effective infill that has occurred in your neighborhood? Other parts of Northampton?
What characterizes infill that has not been well done? Where are the best opportunities for future infill in the City? Are there some in your neighborhood? What kinds of infill would
be appropriate? Considering your vision of a sustainable Northampton, what are the key zoning issues in both your neighborhood and the City as a whole? -Infill development -King St.
revitalization; Conz and Pleasant Streets -Walkability and transit -Attracting business and jobs -Agriculture; urban, suburban and rural -Energy use and conservation -Design and urban
form -Affordable Housing -Open space preservation Sustainable Northampton’s Map Changes New Green Space Development More Restricted Development Less Restricted New Business, Industrial
or Live-work New Commercial
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 1 Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future The Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC) Who We Are – A volunteer committee, appointed by the Planning
Board – Formed to help implement “Sustainable Northampton” (the city’s comprehensive master plan adopted in 2008) – Selected to represent a variety of viewpoints, expertise and neighborhoods
Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future Our Charge: Get Sustainability into Zoning – Review current zoning & recommend revisions – Be a technical resource for the Planning Board
– Provide a wide range of opportunities for public input to the zoning revision process Infill is a Key Issue Infill Rose to the Surface as a Critical Issue for Sustainability Infill
is new construction or redevelopment that 'fills in' empty lots or adds units or uses in areas that are already developed Infill is an important tool for concentrating development
in walkable neighborhoods, rather than sprawling into undeveloped areas Infill is the the historic pattern of development in Northampton Parking Lots
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 2 Flavors of Infill – Adding Units Within Existing Homes BEFORE: 2-UNITS AFTER: 3-UNITS House 030.jpg ATTIC CONVERSION = “INVISIBLE INFILL”
Flavors of Infill – Converting Outbuildings to New Units CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSION, BUTLER PLACE Flavors of Infill – Converting Garages to New Units BEFORE AFTER Flavors of Infill –
Building Additions BRIDGE STREET & POMEROY TERRACE
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 3 Flavors of Infill – Filling Gaps in the Street ? How should this gap in Walnut Street be filled? ? Infill and Sustainability Environment
– Reduces the need for new infrastructure, and reduces driving – Can be more energy efficient and lower carbon emissions – Is less damaging to natural systems than “greenfield” development
Economy – Increases walking to businesses, supporting more commercial real estate and local jobs – Makes public transit more viable Equity – Provides a wide range of housing types and
work spaces that meet peoples’ needs To Meet the Goals of Sustainable Northampton: – Traditional neighborhoods, village, and mixed-use commercial centers will need to accommodate additional
units (infill) – But, it must be designed in a way that respects its surroundings and creates a "sense of place" Forum #1: What We Learned General support for infill and mixed-use development
in commercial and residential districts, especially in existing neighborhoods within walking distance to businesses and green spaces, because infill… Makes the city more sustainable
Encourages economic development Provides affordable units for renters and income for owners Makes neighborhoods more walkable Support for infill as long as it is compatible
with neighborhoods, including: Scale Design Traffic Forum #2: Why We’re Here After Forum #1: We considered how to create more flexible regulations that… -Allow for a greater
mix of uses -Allow some new residential units and new options like cottage housing -Ensure that this happens in a way that is compatible with our neighborhoods We Need Community Feedback
On: -Topic #1: Home Business Proposed approach to regulate home occupations in a simple, flexible way that ensures that business uses will be compatible with residential neighborhoods
-Topic #2: Dimensional Standards for Infill Possible approaches to allowing for a greater variety of residential developments -Topic #3: Residential Design Standards Design standards
we should have for residential development, and what types of projects they should apply to
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 4 Simplify Home Business Permitting What We Heard About Mixed-Uses (Forum #1) -Should be allowed in commercial and residential areas… -Provided
that it is in scale and compatible with surrounding uses What We Did -Worked on zoning to allow more uses in commercial districts -Now working on more mixed-use mixed in residential
neighborhoods The key step is revising “Home Occupation” provisions. We’re proposing replacing them with what we call “Home Business.” Simplify Home Business Permitting Overview of Current
Regulations A home occupation does not require Special Permit only if: – No clients or customers are seen on site – There is no sign for the business – There are no sales of goods
from the premises – You don’t meet or work with other people in your house If home business activity doesn’t fit this narrow definition, then a Special Permit is required to allow
a small sign, sale of goods from the home, or one other person to work with you Simplify Home Business Permitting Goal Allow many types of home business by right, but minimize impacts
on neighborhood Allow current illegal home businesses to operate legally Strategies Regulate auto traffic instead of clients and customers seen Don’t distinguish between types
of visits (by client, employee, delivery person, contractor, etc.) Simplify Home Business Permitting Proposed Home Businesses Changes Allowed Without Special Permit No more than 5
automobile round trips per day can be generated by the business A one square foot sign, attached to building and not lighted, is allowed Home made goods can be sold from the premises
Up to two “open studios” to sell home made goods permitted per year Special Permit Required If the Home Business… Generates more than 5 automobile round trips per day Holds
more than 2 open studio functions per year Stores materials outdoors (as long as not visible from street or adjacent properties)
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 5 Simplify Home Business Permitting Benefits for Sustainability Supports… Infill and uses existing structures for multiple purposes Entrepreneurship,
and lowers barriers to small business Equity -applies to all kinds of work equally (professional services, home made goods, etc.) Reduces… Traffic and use of nonrenewable resources
– Note: A recent report states that telecommuting opportunities have increased 400% in the last three years Cost of doing business in Northampton Regulations -fewer special permits
required Simplify Home Business Permitting We Need Your Feedback Does it make sense to relax the home business standards? Do you prefer an approach that regulates, based on: –
A. the effects of the business on the neighborhood (e.g. number of trips generated by the business)? OR – B. use and lot characteristics? (e.g. parking requirements) Simplify Home Business
Permitting We Need Your Feedback Does 5 automobile round trips per day seem seem reasonable? Should we allow any outdoor storage? What didn't we think of? Does the proposed
zoning meet the goals of the Sustainability Plan? Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones What Are Dimensional Standards? – Regulations that govern development, e.g. location
of buildings on a lot – Standards are different for each zone and use – examples include minimum… • Lot sizes • Setbacks, or distance between a building and the property line • Frontage,
or length of property line along the street • Percentage open space What We Heard at Public Forum #1: – General support for infill development within walking distance of stores, offices,
jobs, parks, bike paths, etc. – Preference for small projects over big ones (i.e. filling gaps in the street, adding units to existing houses and accessory buildings, converting large
houses) – Design is important (covered later) – Traffic and infrastructure are concerns – Infill should not disproportionately affect one area of the city
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 6 Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones What We Did: -Identified Dimensional Standards as key barrier to infill development in existing
neighborhoods -Studied current neighborhood dimensions in depth -Researched innovative housing development types and zoning changes being made in other cities to allow for more innovative
developments -Developed proposals for changing dimensional standards Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones Sustainability Benefits of Dimensional Standards Changes to Allow
Infill Environment: More people live in walking distance to goods and services = less driving Economy: More residents to support nearby businesses, both existing and new – (and
more businesses nearby will make neighborhoods even more walkable) Rental income for property owners More disposable income due to lower car expenses (more walking = less driving)
Equity: More variety of in-town housing = more people can afford to live here Zoning Out Out Traditional Neighborhoods What percentage of homes in our urban neighborhoods do not conform*
to current minimum lot size zoning regulations?** URC -63% of 1-3 family homes do not conform -83% of 4 family homes do not conform URB -32% of 1 family homes do not conform -62% of
2 family homes do not conform 82% of 3 family homes do not conform Why Does this Matter? -Zoning doesn’t match -our existing URA -35% of 1 family homes do not conform -100% of 2 family
and multiple-family homes do not conform (they are not allowed) *Non-Conforming refers to a property that is used or structures that are built in a way that is not permitted by the zoning
for the property. The use is “grandfathered”, or permitted to continue, because the land was being used in such a fashion before the zoning law was passed. **This analysis looked only
at conformance with lot size requirements. An analysis of properties that also meet minimum setback, frontage and other requirements would yield even higher rates of non-conformance
neighborhoods -We have great urban neighborhoods that can never be built again!
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 7 Zoning Out Traditional Neighborhoods Example: Walnut Street – Properties that Do Not Conform to their Zoning (by lot size) 84% Example: Elizabeth
Street – This 2-Family Home Could Not be Built Today 84% could not be built on these lots today! ― Lot Size: 5,183 Square Feet ― Today, would need 12,000 SF to build this home ― Would
need 8,000 SF to even build a single family home Innovative Infill Housing NOT Allowed COTTAGE & POCKET HOUSING Adaptive Reuse Infill Housing NOT Allowed Allowed Downtown, but…. ADAPTIVE
REUSE OF OBSOLETE BUILDINGS Not allowed in Leeds… Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones Summary: Problems with The Current Zoning The current dimensional regulations are
designed to DECREASE the density of existing neighborhoods, while the sustainability plan says to INCREASE density -and that was confirmed in our last public meeting on infill Innovative
housing types, especially where people have smaller homes with shared yards (y e.g. cottage housing), are not allowed Adaptive reuse of obsolete structures like old churches and schools
for housing is not possible in our neighborhoods
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 8 Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones Summary of Possible Approaches: Fix the dimensional tables – Reduce lot size, frontage,
setbacks, etc. to match our existing neighborhoods better and allow infill. – Keeps the minimum lot size requirements Develop performance-based standards – Replace the dimensional
tables to regulate only setbacks, parking, open space (and design). – Gets rid of the minimum lot size requirements – Allows new units no matter what lot size exists, if you meet the
performance standards Create a special permit for infill – Using either approach above, ONLY allow new units on a case-bycase basis through – Planning Board special permit -Could
be used to test above methods Existing Zoning: URB 2-family Minimum Lot: 12,000 SF Example Zoning Change: URB 2-family Smaller frontage, setbacks and lot size Minimum Lot: 8,000 SF Existing
Zoning: URB 1-family Minimum Lot: 8,000 SF Example Zoning Change: URB 1-family Smaller frontage, setbacks and lot size Minimum Lot: 6,000 SF Infill and Innovative Dvpts in Neighborhoods
Performance-Based Zoning Approach This approach does not regulate number of units per lot area If you meet setback, parking and open space requirements, you can build your project Also
provides an easy approach to allow for innovative developments like cottage housing without requiring a special permit.
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 9 Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones Brings our traditional neighborhoods into greater conformance with our zoning regulations,
and allows good neighborhoods to be reproduced Allows flexible reuse of existing buildings and properties in face of changing household sizes and needs More people in neighborhoods
makes a community more vibrant and increases safety through more “eyes on the street” Considerations: Changing the Dimensional Standards to Allow Infill street Residents of neighborhoods
where you can walk to services and jobs drive less, but there are more total drivers New construction can be beautiful and add to the “sense of place” of the neighborhood, but sometimes
neighbors don’t like the way a particular project looks (design is discussed later) Reduces the need for expensive new infrastructure, but also increases use of existing infrastructure
Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones Where We Need Your Feedback: Should the dimensional standards be revised to bring the zoning closer to what exists in Northampton's
existing neighborhoods? Which dimensional standards are most important to you? For example: – how close houses are to each other – how close houses are to the street – how much street
frontage houses have – how big lots are – where parking is located and how much there is Should new dimensional standards apply by right, or should they only be available by special
permit? If changes to dimensional standards allow for more units to be added to existing neighborhoods, what are your concerns? How can we address these concerns to make one of
our proposed methods or another strategy work for you? What are design standards? Design standards are regulations that can govern how development should look Examples include how buildings
should be sited and configured on a lot, how tall and how bulky the structure should be, and what architectural details should be present Residential Design Standards How do design standards
work? -Development plans are reviewed based on whether they meet the design standards -For example, all plans in the Central Business zoning district are reviewed for compliance with
the city’s Design Guidelines for the district Sustainability Goal: Promote design that fits into neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better place. Forum #1: What We
Learned Design is important! The zoning should encourage infill that…. – Is in scale and architectural character with its surroundings – Has a similar relationship to the street
as neighboring structures Residents more likely to accept infill if there is assurance through design standards that it will fit in with their neighborhood House 030.jpg
February 2011 Public Forum #2 Presentation 10 Possible Zoning Solutions: Apply design standards to… – All development in neighborhoods – Developments over a certain size, e.g. projects
that renovate or add more than 700 square feet – Only to new buildings – Only to infill that requires a special permit Residential Design Standards y q p p (only to new buildings, additions
or units not currently allowed by right ) Create standards that are… – Detailed and specific e.g. require specific architectural details – General and less specific, evaluating general
“fit” with the neighborhood e.g. based on existing conditions on that block Springfield, Massachusetts Residential Design Guidelines Site layout, materials, architectural detailing and
other characteristics Knoxville, Tennessee Infill Housing Design Guidelines Site layout, parking, materials, building scale, porches, roof shapes, landscaping, etc. Examples of Residential
Design Standards List of Possible Items Covered by Design Standards: – Splitting large lots into two narrower lots – Building and front façade height – Setbacks – Size and front setbacks
for porches –Location of front door and walkway to street – Size and position of windows Residential Design Standards – Location of garage or parking area – Roof shape –Location and
height of additions – Design of multi-unit buildings /townhomes – Standards for modern architecture homes Residential Design Standards Would you be comfortable with regulations about
the design of projects in your neighborhood and on your property? What kinds of projects should design standards apply to? (e.g. all projects, projects of a certain size, only infill
special permit projects, other ideas?) What aspects of design are important to you? – Site design (e.g. how close houses are to each other, how buildings relate to the street) – Or
building design (e.g. roof shape, window placement and size, porches, architecture) How detailed should the design standards be? Should design standards be proscriptive? In other
words, the standards will detail what applicants can and can't do. OR Should it be left up to the applicant to make a case for how their project "fits" into the neighborhood? Applications
would be reviewed by staff or a board who would have some discretion to make subjective decisions.
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 1 Rezoning King Street for a Sustainable Future The Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC) Who We Are -A volunteer committee, appointed by the Planning
Board -Formed to help implement “Sustainable Northampton” (the city’s comprehensive master plan adopted in 2008) -Selected to represent a variety of viewpoints, expertise and neighborhoods.
Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future Our Charge: Get Sustainability into Zoning – Review current zoning & recommend revisions – Be a technical resource for the Planning Board
– Provide a wide range of opportunities for public input to the zoning revision process King Street Process Tonight’s Goal • Get public input about changing the zoning on King Street
with the Chamber Proposal as a starting point for discussion • The Zoning Revisions Committee received a new zoning proposal from the Chamber of Commerce • We are seeking community input
to help review the proposal and develop recommendations After this forum, the ZRC will: • Formulate recommendations for zoning changes • Continue discussions with key stakeholders and
focus groups • Conduct additional public forums • Present recommendations to Planning Board • Ultimately, City Council votes on zoning changes
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 2 Building height Parking ` How Zoning Shapes King St Zoning sets parameters for how land can be used -Site design -Building design -Uses
Zoning doesn’t MAKE development Uses happen. -Development will not occur unless there is a market for it. Infrastructure vs. Zoning Road infrastructure is typically in the public
realm and is not controlled by zoning. Good streetscape requires investments from government Private developers can affect infrastructure on a site by site basis Public road infrastructure
projects can include: site-by- Infrastructure improvements and zoning need to work together -width of street -number of lanes -on-stret bike lanes -medians -crosswalks -sidewalks -utility
poles -tree belts (between street and sidewalk) -speed of traffic -amount of traffic Sustainability and King St. Sustainability -If you keep on doing it, you can keep on doing it
-Environment, Economy, Equity ZRC Goals for King St. -More types of businesses -Bike and pedestrian friendly -Buildings fit with local character -Concentrate development on King St
to reduce sprawl -Businesses that strengthen the local economy -Less unused parking, better stormwater mgmt -Buildings built to last What is King Street Good for? King St. is one
of Northampton’s best locations for: -mixed-use infill development -goods and services within walking distance of dense residential neighborhoods -large footprint businesses -transportation
connectivity (pedestrian, bike, auto, train, bus) -generating property taxes -providing an attractive gateway into the city
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 3 Opportunities & Constraints Opportunities Residential neighborhoods wrap around southern and western King St. Cars, buses, pedestrians
and cyclists travel King St. In the future, a multi-modal station with commuter rail may be sited on lower King St. Constraints Railroad tracks, Industrial Park, and Barrett St. Marsh
limit access to King St High land prices What’s Wrong with (North) King St? Streetscape is not pedestrian or bike-friendly Most buildings erode Northampton’s sense of place
Site design is inconsistent Large areas of unused parking Not achieving economic potential Design Comparison -CVS Sidewalks 10’ buffer with trees Shade, benches 55’ setback
Clear path to front door 20-25’ streetfront building height Design Comparison – Sherwin-Williams Paints (image flipped horizontally for comparison to CVS) Sidewalks 14’ setback No buffer
Traverse parking lot to building 10 -15’ streetfront bldg height
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 4 Design Comparison – Honda Sidewalks 40’ buffer with trees and landscaping 85’ setback Clear path to front door 25’ streetfront bldg height
Design Comparison – Athletic Club Sidewalks Single tree belt (not shown) 59’ Setback No front entrance to building 25’-30’ building height Sidewalks Single tree belt 59’ Setback No front
entrance to building 25’-30’ building height Sidewalks Tree belt 59’ setback No front entrance to building 15’ streetfront bldg height Design Comparison -Toyota(image flipped horizontally
for comparison to CVS) Sidewalks 10’ buffer with trees, bench
No shade 55’ setback Clear path to front door 30-35’ streetfront bldg height Design Comparison – Fire Station Sidewalks Tree belt and buffer with trees Benches, deep shade 29’ Setback
No front entrance to building 25-40’ streetfront bldg height
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 5 ZRC Sustainability Goals for King St. Allow a greater mix of uses Encourage design for bikes and pedestrians Encourage design that
reflects local character Maximize development on King St to reduce sprawl Attract businesses that strengthen Northampton’s economy Reduce excess parking and improve stormwater
management Encourage buildings that are built to last Make zoning easier to understand and enforce Emerging Consensus The ZRC agrees that revised zoning should…. Reduce the
number of uses requiring special permits… -to encourage more types of businesses on King Street Develop detailed landscaping requirements… -to make King St greener, more uniform,
and more pedestrian friendly Establish multiple zoning districts to… -respond to different characters along King Street -begin phased transition to pedestrian/bike-oriented development
Entranceway Business (between CBD and Bike Path) The ZRC agrees that this zone should be established Considerations: -Where should the zone begin (Trumbull, North, Finn)? -Should
design standards be implemented? -Would this zone also be appropriate between Damon Summer St. North St Finn St. Bike Path Crossing pp p Road and Barrett St? Infill Development (Framingham
MA) Trumbull Rd. St. Existing Zoning Highway Business Changes (Section Views) 2 story building no parking in front 55’ max setback 1 row of parking in front Chamber’s Proposed Zoning
wider sidewalk green Buffer parking location and quantity varies building location & orientation varies
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 6 Highway Business Changes Possible Results (Economic Impacts) -Development on King St. may proceed faster than if zoning is not changed -There
may be increases in tax revenue Considerations -Will a desirable mix of uses be achieved? -Is there concern over national retail chain development? -Long-term economic effects are
difficult to predict Possible Results (Streetscape Impacts) -Wider sidewalk, tree belt, landscape buffer -New buildings may be built further from the sidewalk, may be oriented away
from the street -Potentially more parking in front of buildings Highway Business Changes Stop & Shop is oriented at an angle, not towards (parallel to) the street Highway Business Changes
Considerations (Green Buffer & Path) -Will the green buffer provide an adequate pedestrian experience? -How long will it take to be established? -Will the multi-use trail be safe
for bicyclists? -What can we do to minimize conflicts between automobiles and bicyclists? Bike sidepath along University Drive Uniform treeline along strip development Fairly mature
trees –20-30 yrs old? Renton, VA p g y (The Swift Bikeway Connector) Amherst, MA Uniform treeline along strip development Fairly mature trees –15-20 yrs old? Poughkeepsie, NY Berm in
front of parking Ellicott, NY Highway Business Changes Considerations (Second Story) -Should the incentive for building multistory buildings be abandoned? Former strip mall, Saratoga
Springs, NY 0’ setback 284’ setback Illustration of a multi-story building on King St. Strong Ave, Northampton
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 7 Highway Business Changes Considerations (Site Layout) -Should the goal of framing the street with tall buildings and small setbacks be abandoned?
-Does the distance between the sidewalk and buildings matter? From a car? From the sidewalk? -Does the orientation of buildings to the 55’ setback sidewalk matter? 284’ setback 85’ setback
Oriented at an angle Considerations (Parking) -Does amount of parking between the sidewalk and buildings matter? -Does the placement of parking matter (front?, side? rear?) Highway
Business Changes One row of parking Two rows of parking Many parking spots Highway Business Changes (Design Standards) Considerations (Design Standards) -Should we improve building
and landscape design standards in this district? -What should they be? Monro Muffler Saranac Lake, NY (left) Dublin, Ohio (right) Staples Wickford, RI (left) Wakefield RI (right) Hill
& Dale as It Is
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 8 Hill & Dale as It Might Be Under Chamber Proposal (with Buffer) Buffer + Smaller Setback + Design Standards Smaller Landscaped Buffer & Setback
Very Small Setback + Taller Building
Fall 2010 King Street Forum Presentation 9 What Should the future of King St. Zoning be? Questions for Discussion General • What is working on King St.? • What do you want King St. to
be in the future (e.g. walkable, more retail, car-oriented)? • What is your biggest concern about King St.? • Should the current zoning on King Street be changed? Why? • Does the idea
of zoning different sections of King Street differently make sense? • Is a landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and buildings or parking desirable? • Are building design standards
important? • Should more uses (e.g. medical offices, professional offices, banks) be allowed by right? Specific • Where should the different zoning district break points be? (Trumbull,
North, Finn, Stop and Shop, Barrett, Damon) • Should the penalty for retail projects without a second story be eliminated? • Is there concern over national retail chain development?
• Should the current zoning requirements about building and parking placement and orientation be changed?