Knowing what you now do know about the questionable methodology of his polls/surveys, pay close attention to the Town Planner’s application of his so-called results. Specifically, note how he proclaims: “Looking at preliminary feedback from the polls I put up for Thursday’s discussion, these seem to be the limits that get the strongest support. Over 60% support the 900 sf limit. While about half support the 1,200 sf limit, when you try to look at a percentage that is close to that needed to pass Town Meeting, you find about 2/3rds support at the 1,000 sf and greater cut-off. Ultimate the living space discussion will be important on Thursday.”
Such comments are crucial to understanding the truly limited public discussion there was of this important issue.
You will probably need to read and review this section several times in order to keep the discussion clear in your mind. Just know that the Town Planner is trying to make the case for a dramatic increase in the size of so-called “cottages” in the zone that is being created. Remember that the Town Planner had said in November of 2009: “ . . . one of the things that’s going to be real tough to try to wrestle with and uh is going to be trying to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.”
As you shall see once again below, the Town Planner had reported in March of 2010 a breakdown of the footprints that were in existence: “The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf.” Yet, now the Town Planner is proposing something dramatically greater in size than “the largest cottage” (singular).
Why this change in thinking from “a level of conformity based upon what’s there?”
I do not know.
Still, you might find some interest in this self-proclaimed “fantastic profile” (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/translucent/mbd_20160405/#/8) written in 2016 by the developer of one of the properties within the Seasonal Resort Community zone. If he is to be believed, then perhaps this article provides some insight into the timing of Town Planner’s change of mind.
Meanwhile, this is the Town Planner’s post from June, 2010.
Cottage Colony Discussion – Responses
I received the information below from the Chase’s Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association. As a follow-up to the previous post I will try to answer the questions. As you will see, much of my responses illustrate the state of development and transition we may be going through with this proposal.
On behalf of the Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association Board of Directors
Overarching Question
Is it the intent of the Town to delete in its entirety the current zoning provisions and replace with the new zoning proposal (when completed)?
This question is central to the entire discussion and we need to address in the near term. As originally envisioned, the idea was to keep the underlying zoning (Resort Residential) and create an overlay specifically covering these uses. After a number of discussions with cottage and landowners, and reviewing the comments from last fall, I am now thinking that a new zoning district might be the best route. Such a zoning district would allow by-right, as long as certain conditions were met, Cottage Colonies, Recreational Vehicle Parks and the uses exempt from Zoning under MGL Chapter 40A Section 3.
DENSITY AND SITE PROVISIONS
Lot Area
The minimum lot area for a Seasonal Cottage or Recreational Vehicle Facility shall consist of a lot or lots, when combined, that comprise a minimum of five (5) acres of land. Adjacent parcels, even when separated by a road, may be considered as combined for the purposes of this zoning provision.
It appears that you are combining two distinct proposals Seasonal Cottages & Recreation Vehicles. Is it the intention of the Town to allow replacement of all the cottages with Recreation Vehicles and vice versa? We propose that Cottage Colonies and Recreation vehicles be distinct Zoning districts.
I understand your comment, there are a few reasons for a single zoning district. First, Camper’s Haven and Grindell’s RV Parks both contain a mix of cottages and recreational vehicles. As such, a single use RV or Cottage zoning would not be a good fit for either of these properties. Secondly, we need to be concerned with spot zoning. Generally creating zoning specifically crafted to one property is frowned upon, even if that particular use has been on the property for many years. We may still have a problem with how the by-law applies to Grindell’s as it is isolated and only about 7 acres of land. However, given its use is similar in nature to the larger areas that are targeted I feel comfortable that we can pass the sniff test with the current proposal. My intent is to provide a proposal that supports the land uses that are present on these properties. However, you are correct that the zoning could allow for the changes you are identifying.
Lot Coverage
Provisions Specific to Seasonal Cottage Complexes
B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor’s data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let’s mull this over.)
We support a 900 sq ft footprint standard and a 1000 sq ft FA standard. If a lesser footprint is adopted then some of the existing cottage colonies would remain non-conforming.
Looking at preliminary feedback from the polls I put up for Thursday’s discussion, these seem to be the limits that get the strongest support. Over 60% support the 900 sf limit. While about half support the 1,200 sf limit, when you try to look at a percentage that is close to that needed to pass Town Meeting, you find about 2/3rds support at the 1,000 sf and greater cut-off. Ultimate the living space discussion will be important on Thursday.
C. Seasonal Cottages may be 1 ½ stories tall with the upper story area consisting of usable loft area not exceeding one-half of the floor area of the first story.
We do not understand the need for the blue text because of item D noted below.
The idea of the one-half the floor space below is geared towards controlling the look of the cottages. If we said 1,000 sf of living space, someone could do a 500 sf first floor and a similarly sized second floor, leading to a two-story look. The half the floor area limit lends itself better to the second story being kept within the limits of a pitched roof, a 500 sf foot print would be limited to only 250 sf in the upper area.
D. Seasonal Cottages may be no taller than 17 feet tall above the higher of existing grade or base flood elevation.
E. Any seasonal cottage that exceeds 600 square feet shall meet the density requirements for a dwelling unit located in the same district. (900 sf?) ( Not sure what this means ? Are we saying that no new cottage may exceed 600 sq ft, or that no existing cottage may be enlarged to exceed 600 sq ft ? If an existing cottage already exceeds 600 sq ft, can the complex still be eligible for a special permit ? )
If you changed cottage to unit, you would include the single family homes you referred to above. We would suggest 1000 sq ft standard for FA
I will go through by-law and the general housing sizes in the Assessor’s information to see if this clears it all up. My goal is to make this as comprehensive as possible. It is also possible that the larger units (there may be a few in Curtis Pines) that challenge the 900 foot limits, could simply remain non-conforming without affecting the remainder of the property. This would be the ideal situation.
K. All Seasonal Cottage Complexes may be open for normal occupation between starting May 1st and ending October 31st. Seasonal Cottage Complexes may provide for short term use, up to ten days in any thirty day period, during the remainder of the year .
From an economic development point of view, why does the Town seek to remove us from supporting business in the off-season? We do not believe zoning should determine usage period. That being said, we do not oppose the language — if there is to be a limit within zoning.
Presently the town General By-law restricts cottage use to no more than 90 days of occupation in any 6 month time period. This has been on the books since 1937. It is not the best yardstick to measure a seasonal use. The goal of the proposal is to increase the availability of the cottages in the off-season, while also ensuring that they do not become winter rental housing which then turns into year-round housing units. The goal is to maintain this as the seasonal community it is and not turn it into 400 or more new year round homes with all the associated costs. I did notice that I used April 15th in the RV portion of the zoning, so will be suggesting we use a similar start date for full occupation in this section. The ten day limit in any 30 days in the off-season provides access for school vacation periods but helps to maintain the overall seasonal use of the properties.
L. Construction of new seasonal cottages or other buildings or additions to seasonal or housekeeping cottages, buildings or other structures must comply with the requirements of this section.
Again, what is the practical meaning of this section?
Some of the properties have significant amounts of undeveloped land. By making these conforming uses, we open up the possibility that they could expand and add units. The section is intended to ensure that such additions comply with this by-law. In the end, if the wording is not necessary, it can be removed.
No comments:
Post a Comment