I’m following up on an inaccurate statement made at the recent Special Town Meeting about what’s allowed under current zoning bylaws for two-family homes.
And, I’m updating readers on the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision of how to handle the defeat of their proposed bylaw change.
Last week, I promised readers that I would follow up with the Building Commissioner on an assertion that was made at the October 17th Special Town Meeting.
During the debate on Town Meeting floor many commenters worried about the impact of removing a 2 year time restriction for applying to convert single family homes to a two-family home. Some argued that it would lead to the tear down of modestly priced housing to be replaced with new, more expensive duplexes.
Affordable Housing Trust member Ellen Marya told voters that the current bylaw already allows for the change. She argued:
There is nothing in our bylaw now that says someone cannot buy a house that has been in existence for two years and tear it down and turn it into a two-family house. This is not a two-year waiting period on ownership. It’s a two-year waiting period on how long the building has been in existence. That is currently allowed, and that is not what we have seen in town.
Nobody rebutted her statement in the meeting.
When I covered the story last Tuesday, I noted that the current bylaw restriction is on the “conversion” of single family homes to two-family homes. I was surprised to hear that could cover building a new two-family home after tearing down an old home.
I wasn’t sure that was accurate, so reached out to the Building Commissioner. Since he was unavailable, I promised readers I would follow up.
Yesterday, I was able to confirm my reading of the bylaw with Building Commissioner Mark Robidoux (who is the Town’s Zoning Enforcement officer). According to him, the tear down and new build wouldn’t be covered as a conversion.
As for the ZBA’s plans. . .
At last week’s ZBA meeting, the board and their administrator discussed whether or not to revisit the zoning bylaw at a future Town Meeting. They decided to wait, based on the belief that the state will be passing related zoning changes.
As I’ve previously covered, state legislators have been working on changes that would limit Town’s abilities to to restrict two-family/multi-family housing. But the legislature’s house and senate have been hashing out very different bills. They have yet to settle on a version that both agree on.
ZBA members and their administrator appeared to assume the legislature will succeed at passing something. Once the state passes a change that the Town needs to address, the ZBA will propose a bylaw revision to Town Meeting.
In the ZBA’s recap of Town Meeting’s reaction to their zoning change, they appeared to misunderstand some of the criticism. (That may be related to their having interpreted the bylaws the same way that Marya had.)
Members referred to John Butler as having accused the board of changing the zoning without holding public forums on the change. What Butler accused the board of was not accurately communicating to the public what the change represented.
He said that what the ZBA described as simply removing a time restriction was actually their opening up a new use that didn’t previously exist in Southborough — the ability to apply to build new condos in any residential neighborhood.
During the Special Town Meeting, developer Jack Bartolini pointed out that, in a way, the option does already exist. But the method he outlined is a slow one with risks.
Bartolini described having built small single family units on Flagg Road. Two years later, he added on the other half of what are now duplexes.
A developer who followed in Bartolini’s footsteps could be thwarted if upset neighbors lobby the ZBA to deny a special permit for the second half of a duplex/townhouse.
