[MassHistPres] neighborhood preservation through zoning

[Dennis De Witt]

There have been two recent promising zoning related positive developments in Brookline.

Dennis De Witt, Brookline

First
Brookline, whose zoning is substantially FAR based, has for several years seen a rash of demolitions of two-family buildings that fit their neighborhoods.  They have been replaced by much larger, flat roofed, two unit condos in which each unit sells for more than the price of the replaced building, destroying the neighborhood character and making it even less affordable than it already is.  This has been a result of Brookline’s longstanding FAR limit for two families which is a disproportionately high 1.0.  And, these were neighborhoods where there was not quite sufficient traction for getting an LHD through Town Meeting.  Another solution was needed.  Reducing FAR was not viable because it would create too many non-conformities.  Instead a new form-based zoning standard for two-family zones was developed, based with modifications on one used in Boston.  As soon as it was published in the warrant, four two-family tear down projects were put on hold by their developers.  Last night it overwhelmingly passed Town Meeting, having been endorsed even by a housing expansion group that generally opposes preservation efforts.

Second
For decades Brookline has had the following section in its zoning bylaw — and it has been ignored by developers and paid lip service at most (if at all) by the Planning Board and ZBA.  Recently, both came to understand that it was enforceable and that it could be used to effectually prevent a developer from casually demolishing a building that met the criteria below (again, in this initial case, a two-family, but it need not have been) and over developing the site.  Both the planning department and a determined neighborhood played significant roles in this important evolution.

5.09.4(c) Relation of Buildings to the Form of the Streetscape and Neighborhood—Proposed development shall be consistent with the use, scale, massing, height, yard setbacks and architecture of existing buildings and the overall streetscape of the surrounding area including existing abutting buildings and existing buildings that conform to the zoning by-law on lots of similar size in the neighborhood. The Board of Appeals may require a modification in massing, scale, height, setbacks or design so as to make the proposed building more consistent with the form of such existing buildings and the existing streetscape, and may rely upon data gathered that documents the character of the existing streetscape in making such a determination. Examples of changes that may be required include addition of bays or roof types consistent with those nearby; alteration of the massing, scale, setbacks and height of the building to more closely match such existing buildings and the existing streetscape, or changes to the fenestration. The street level of a commercial building should be designed for occupancy and not for parking. Unenclosed street level parking along the frontage of any major street as listed in paragraph 2., subparagraph a. of this section is strongly discouraged. Otherwise, street level parking should be enclosed or screened from view. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20230601/8954fdea/attachment.html>