Planning Consultant Offers Views On MHD Zoning Proposal

By Andrew Gorosko

A planning consultant has offered the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) some advice on fashioning a set of proposed land use rules known as the Multiple Housing Development (MHD) zoning regulations.

The P&Z has proposed MHD zoning as a mechanism to allow the construction high-density multifamily housing complexes whose dwellings would be rented out or sold at market-rate prices.

The MHD rules are proposed to promote housing choice, economic diversity, and open space preservation. Such zoning would allow cluster-style construction for single-family houses, two-family houses, multifamily dwellings, or some combination of those housing types.

The intent of the proposed MHD rules is to allow diverse housing types locally. The vast majority of residents live in single-family houses.

The proposed minimum lot size for a MHD project would be six acres. The maximum number of dwellings allowed at a MHD complex would be 100 units.

Planning consultant William Agresta of 11 Gopher Road, told P&Z members at a May 17 public hearing on the MHD proposal that his comments reflect his own views, adding that he was not representing anyone.

Mr Agresta said that the P&Z’s proposed maximum density of four dwellings per acre would not produce the desired result of attracting a diverse population, including younger people, but would actually result in expensive townhouse-style dwellings being constructed on a site.

Allowing 15 to 20 dwellings to be constructed per acre would be better from a planning standpoint, he said.

Mr Agresta agreed with the P&Z’s proposal that any MHD complex at any construction density be required to have both sanitary sewer service and public water service.

Also, the planner made a variety of recommendations to the P&Z regarding the clarity and the specificity of its proposed MHD rules.

“Multifamily housing is a commercial venture and should be subject to strict…site, landscaping, and architectural standards — not guidelines,” Mr Agresta said in a statement submitted to the P&Z.

Mr Agresta urged that the proportion of undeveloped open space land at any MHD site be at least 50 percent of the site, instead of the P&Z’s proposal for a minimum of 30 percent of a site being reserved as open space. Under the P&Z’s proposal, that open space would be jointly owned and maintained by the property owners at the site.

Mr Agresta said that the terms “townhouse and garden apartments,” as listed by the P&Z as allowed architectural styles for MHD complexes, lack specificity. “The specific architectural styles to be used [in a MHD complex] should be subject to town review and approval through design standards,” he said in his statement.

Other topics to be covered in the MHD rules should include: visitor parking, signs, mailbox coordination, the storage of trash and recyclables, and school bus pickup and drop-off, he said.

Broadly, Mr Agresta questioned whether there is a local need for the type of housing as described by the P&Z in the proposed MHD regulations. Also, if there is an actual local need for such housing, he asked whether the currently proposed rules would produce the P&Z’s desired results.

The P&Z public hearing on the MHD zoning proposal is slated to resume on June 21.

Under the P&Z’s MHD proposal, the applicant for a MHD project would need to obtain a special permit from the P&Z for the construction. Such complexes would be allowed in R-2 and R-3 (Residential) zones. Such projects would only be allowed on major roadways.

Three land parcels with R-2 zoning which are located along the south side of Mt Pleasant Road (Route 6) near the Bethel town line would be the most likely places for MHD zoning to be used to build multifamily housing complexes, according to town land use officials.