In three meetings last week, the Zoning Board of Appeals reiterated that their proposed zoning bylaw would simply eliminate a time restriction in the zoning bylaws for two-family homes. The change also opens the special permitted use to apply to new construction.
At the Special Town Meeting on Saturday, October 17th, voters will decide whether or not to allow the change that ZBA member Doris Cahill advocates as:
a step in the right direction to slightly increase housing without making some of the. . . more increased density that you might see with other types of housing solutions
Under current zoning, there are only two ways to create a two-family home. One is to convert a single family home that has existed for at least two years to a two-family home. The other is to add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
As Cahill has previously highlighted, the ADU laws were intended to allow people to add an accessory unit to an existing house. But since Southborough doesn’t have zoning for new two-family homes, some developers were looking to use the ADU laws for that purpose.
When the Town looked at neighboring towns, the only one that included a time restraint for creating two-family homes was Framingham. With help from their Assistant Lara Davis, the ZBA proposed a bylaw change to add a definition for two-family homes to Town zoning (since it’s referenced but not defined) and revise bylaws to remove time restraints.
At last week’s Select Board meeting, member Sam Stivers said he has heard directly from residents that worry the bylaw could change the character of their neighborhood. He noted that adds to the challenge of getting the over ⅔ support needed for passing a zoning bylaw change.
Unlike ADUs, two-family homes are defined as either stacked or sharing a wall. They can’t be stand alone units.
The two-family zoning use would still be subject to a discretionary special permit through hearings held by the Zoning Board of Appeals. And the properties would have to meet restrictions for setbacks and height. (Although, the ZBA is also the board with authority to grant variances for both of those restrictions.)
Any development would also need to meet septic requirements. That could be the biggest restraint on dense development, given water issues for many properties in town. Unlike with adding an ADU, building/converting to family homes requires having two septic tanks. (Scroll down to read more on ADUs related to this bylaw — differences and additional units.)
Last week, former Planning Board member Meme Luttrell raised the concern that the way the bylaw change is written might cause some applicants to incorrectly believe the bylaw allows denser housing than allowed in downtown zoning districts. I was one of those people — until I got clarity from Davis on the relevant residential carve out in existing zoning bylaws that I missed.
Instead of specifying that the zoning change is for lots of at least 15,000 sq ft, the revised language points property owners to the lot size restrictions for their zoning district.
At first glance, it seems that allows smaller lots in the Downtown District and Downtown Business Village. For instance, under the DD zoning the Development standards lists a Minimum area of 5,000 sq ft. But further down, the 9th standard in the list specifies:
Single-family or two-family dwellings in the Downtown District shall comply with [Residential B] District standards.
Under Residential B zoning, the minimum lot size is even more more restrictive than the current bylaw — 25,000 sq ft. In the Residential A zone, the lot size is even larger — 43,560 sq ft (1 acre) with a minimum 20,000 square feet exclusive of wetlands.
That appears to rule out someone carving up parcels into small lots to take advantage of the new use.
I asked Davis about the impact of bylaw changes for owners of existing single family homes on lots at least 15,000 sq ft but smaller than defined by the Res B and Res A zoning. She explained that those are non-conforming lots — ones that pre-existed modern zoning bylaws.
If the owner of a single family home on a non-conforming lot seeks to convert that home to a two-family house, they can apply for zoning relief under the bylaws for non-conforming lots.
Two Family Homes and/or ADUs
As I posted previously, Davis has publicly remarked that she believed the state laws for ADUs would allow adding one to a two family home. She confirmed that is accurate. But, if an ADU is attached to a two family home, that would trigger treating it as a three family home that has to meet commercial building code standards — including installing a sprinkler system.
That wouldn’t be triggered by adding a detached next to a two family home. Under the Town’s amended ADU bylaw, that accessory couldn’t be larger than the dwelling space of the primary unit, and would be capped at 1,200 sq ft. The zoning setbacks for the district would also still apply.
Plus, Davis noted that one of the two family home’s septic systems would need to cover the number of combined bedrooms for the primary and accessory dwelling units.
Special Town Meeting
Last Wednesday, the board voted to submit “clean” language to the Select Board for inclusion in the Warrant to eliminate some scrivener’s errors and extraneous text. (The Select Board is scheduled vote on the Warrant this Thursday morning.) The packet hasn’t been posted yet, but Davis shared the proposed language here.
The Special Town Meeting will open at 10:00 am on Saturday, October 17th. The zoning bylaw change is one of only eight Articles on the Warrant.
