SCENIC ROADS AND DRIVEWAY CURB CUTS

In recent months there have been multiple efforts by homeowners to relocate and/or expand driveways, especially to create circular driveways. In some cases, it appears that they are unaware that there are rules governing such actions. One of the features that makes Sherborn a great place to live is its rural and historic character. One of the primary contributors to this character is the preponderance of heavily treed scenic roads lined with stone walls.

There is a state law called the Scenic Roads Act that is designed to allow local governments to protect its scenic roads. When a Scenic Road is designated, trees within the street right-of-way cannot be removed and stone walls within the right-of-way (or on the property line) cannot be altered without a hearing before the Planning Board. Such hearing must be advertised in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks and abutters within 500 feet must be notified of the proposed action and the place, time  and date of the hearing. For new or moved driveways, there are specific rules pertaining to design (including width) and there is a rule that allows only a single "curb cut" (meaning any vehicular connection with the street) per lot. This means that  circular driveways are not allowed because they require two curb cuts.

The Rules and Regulations for Scenic Roads can be found in the Planning Board Rules and Regulations just after the rules pertaining to subdivisions. They are posted on the  Planning Board web site. The application form for applying for a Scenic Road hearing can also be found by clicking on  "Forms"    on the front page of the web site. 

What if you are not on a designated Scenic Road? Or what if you are on a Scenic Road but there are no trees or stone walls in the way? There are also Community Maintenance and Development (CMD) rules pertaining to connecting driveways to public ways. Those rules also limit such connections to one per lot.

EATON APOTHECARY STAYING!

According to a story by Kathleen Moore in the "Community Briefings" section of  Globe West on December 6, 2009, Walgreen's has decided to keep Eaton Apothecary open. The store will now be called "Eaton Apothecary - a Walgreen's Pharmacy."

EATON APOTHECARY CLOSING

As you may have heard, Walgreens has purchased the Eaton Apothecary chain and is apparently planning to close the Sherborn store on North Main Street. When I first heard the news of the sale, I was hoping that Walgreens might expand the apothecary into the entire first floor of its building, because I knew the 2500 square foot size of the current Apothecary is way too small for Walgreens. However, obviously even the entire floor of about 5000 square feet is too small for them since their normal size is about 12,000 to 15,000 square feet.

Obviously, this is another blow to efforts to improve the Town Center. The first floor retail space of the building at 19-23 North Main has been half empty since the building was completed in 2006. Now the entire first floor will be empty, at least for some period of time. The septic capacity of the building precludes types of tenants that use lots of water, like food establishments.

I have heard that there is some sort of petition being circulated asking, I believe, that Walgreen's not close the store. I am not sure how effective that will be. In any case, feel free to leave any comments here.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS: IS SHERBORN TOO RESTRICTIVE?

Sherborn’s Zoning Bylaw currently has a very limited provision for accessory apartments. In essence, they are allowed only to house up to three persons related by blood, adoption or marriage or by up to two domestic employees of the family residing in the main part of the dwelling. Rent is not allowed for such units. There are various other restrictions that include limiting the area to the greater of 30% of the gross floor area of the dwelling or 800 square feet; the design must be such that the facilities of the accessory apartment can be readily removed or reintegrated into the main dwelling, and approval in the form of a special permit from the Board of Appeals must be obtained.

There is one other option that does allow the collection of rent: if the accessory apartment qualifies as a “Low or Moderate Income Unit” under state law. Among other requirements is that the unit must be fairly available to all eligible persons, and this usually means they must be selected by a lottery. In this situation the owner is not able to select the tenant. Other requirements are similar to those presented above but the unit size is allowed to be as large as 1200 square feet. This bylaw was adopted in 1991 and no one has ever taken advantage of it.

There has been some discussion that the accessory apartment requirements may be too restrictive and should be loosened somewhat to allow occupation by non-relatives and to charge rent for such apartments. One argument in favor of this position is that many older persons who have lived in Sherborn for many years would like to stay in town but are not comfortable in their large houses due to property taxes, maintenance issues or other reasons. An accessory apartment would provide some income and would also provide another person in the house who might be available to assist with household tasks or in the event of an emergency.

On the other hand, there is concern that allowing accessory apartments could change the character of Sherborn by converting single family homes to “duplexes.” Also, creating additional housing units could result in more school children, thus increasing costs to the Town.

Of course, the impacts depend to a large extent on how an accessory apartment bylaw were structured. If allowed only by special permit, the Town would retain much control. Also, the bylaw could specify maximum size of the unit, require that the single family character of the residence not be altered, and it could even limit the total number of such units that could be created.

It should be noted many similar towns, including Dover, Carlisle, Lincoln, Weston and Wayland all allow accessory apartments. Their restrictions differ, but they all allow occupancy by non-relatives as well as the collection of rent.

SHERBORN ZONING HISTORY

The first Zoning Bylaw in Sherborn was adopted at a Special Town Meeting on June 7, 1937. It established two classes of districts – one for Residences and one for Businesses. It required a minimum of 1 acre in the Residence districts and at least ½ acre in the Business districts. [Unable so far to find a zoning map and there is no reference to one in the Bylaw].

A major change in the Zoning Bylaw was adopted on December 13, 1954. That Bylaw put in place the major features that remain the essence of the Zoning Bylaw to this day. It established three residential districts requiring minimum lot sizes of one, two and three acres, respectively.

There was a single type of Business district, but there were five separate locations to which it applied. One of those locations was essentially what is now the Business-General (B-G) district along North Main Street, with the exception that the Sherborn Inn property was not yet a part of it. Also, what is now the Business-General district along Washington and South Main Streets also existed except that the portion on the east side of South Main Street extended from the Split down to the Pilgrim Church property. This district has since been reduced.

There was also a district on the south side of Kendall Avenue. Except that a portion of this was rezoned to EA in 2001 (resulting in the development of Sherborn Meadows), this district still exists. The other districts, which have since been repealed, include the 4 corners at the intersection of Western Avenue and Washington Streets, and a strip along the railroad tracks just north of Forest Street.

The next significant zoning change impacting the Town Center occurred in 1983 when the Business-Professional (B-P) district was adopted for an area on the east side of North Main Street. This change allowed the construction of the office building known as 20 North Main Street in the mid-1980’s. Since that rezoning also included the Clark House, it also led to the restoration of that property and its adaptive reuse as an office building. Another significant change occurred in April 1984, when Town Meeting voted to extend the Business-General district across Powderhouse Lane. This allowed the construction of the Sherborn Inn in the late 1980’s.

At the 1998 Annual Town Meeting in April, the Town adopted the Planned Unit Development (PUD) provision of the Zoning Bylaw. This bylaw did not make any changes in the business district boundaries. However, it does allow for business development to occur on parcels with at least 25% of its area within the B-G or B-P districts, by special permit. The PUD bylaw allows more flexibility than the B-G or B-P with regard to setbacks and other provisions, but it also requires significant public amenities and provides for greater Town control than the B-G and B-P districts require. The PUD bylaw limits the size of any retail outlet to 2500 square feet, exclusive of any kitchen, storage or mechanical space, and promotes traditional, pedestrian-friendly Town Center development. No development has taken place under the PUD bylaw. In 2008 and 2009, the Planning Board proposed amendments to the PUD bylaw to allow a single retail outlet to exceed the 2500 square foot limit and to allow residences as part of a PUD. These proposals fell short of the necessary 2/3 vote needed for approval.

At the 2000 Annual Town Meeting, the B-G district was extended slightly on the east side of North Main Street to encompass the entirety of the parcel on which Rose Automotive is located. For the rest of the east side of North Main Street, the B-G district extends only 150 feet back from North Main Street. No expansion has taken place as a result of this extension of the B-G district.

BICYCLE RACKS COMING

Thanks to a program administered by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Sherborn will soon have several additional bike racks to encourage and facilitate bicycle use in Town. MAPC has $898,000 available to distribute among its 101 cities and towns. The funds are distributed by population, but with a minimum allocation of $3000 per town. Being one of the smaller towns in the MAPC region, Sherborn is eligible for the minimim of $3000. Installation and shipping ($400) are not included.

There are three vendors participating in the program with several styles available. After reviewing what is available, I selected a style called "Hi Roller" from Dero Bike Rack Company located in Minneapolis. This style consists of a series of "humps" with the "humps" bent for greater stability.

We have ordered two 7-bike racks and six 4-bike racks. They will be installed by CMD at Jameson and Fessenden Fields, Laurel Farm Fields, Town Hall and the Library, and Farm Pond.

ARTICLE 10 - PUD AMENDMENTS

As noted below, the Planning Board is again sponsoring a warrant article to amend the Planned Unit Development provision of the Zoning Bylaw. One of the posts below is in "question and answer" format and it addresses most questions that may arise. However, I also wanted to present this map because many have the mistaken impression that the PUD bylaw is for the benefit of a single property. The map above indicates the properties (outlined in blue)that are eligible for a PUD right now (because they meet the minimum size requiremnent of 60,000 square feet, as well as the location requirement). However, ALL of the properties within the Business General and Business Professional zoning districts are potentially eligible if they were to collaborate with their abutters to meet the minimum size requirement. The Planning Board wishes to encourage development under PUD because it provides more flexibility and more Town control. In fact, it allows the type of development that was most preferred by residents who attended two forums sponsored by the Planning Board last year, while the regulations of the Business General and Business Professional district actually prohibit that style because they require a 60 foot front setback which guarantees parking in front of any building.

As is the case with the proposed adaptive use special permit discussed below, there is currently no protection for any historic structures that are in PUD-eligible locations (except for the Clark House, which is eligible for PUD and is within the local historic district and subject to the regulation of the Historic District Commission). One of the express purposes of our PUD is to "preserve historic buildings by providing economically viable uses for them." Thus, PUD adds some protection of historic resources where none is currently in place.

Also, the article last year would have allowed a single retail outlet to be as large as 7500 square feet, excluding storage, kitchen and utility space. The proposal this year is to allow only one retail outlet up to 8000 square feet GROSS (including storage, kitchen mechanical and any other space). Thus, Article 10 is roughly the same as last year's article.

It is important to note that Planned Unit Development is not by right. It is only by special permit from the Planning Board. In order to approve a special permit the Planning Board must find that the project meets certain standards. Among these are the following:

-- "building designs that are complementary in scale and style to those of abutting properties and that are, in general, appropriate for a small New England village;

-- significant public amenities on or off site which may include, but are not limited to the following: landscaped open area with walkways, benches, fountains, monuments, and/or other features; bike racks and/or separate bicycle access; hitching posts and/or separate horse access; drinking fountains; awnings or pavilions; or other suitable amenity;

-- pedestrian linkage(s) with abutting properties that is (are) well defined and of a design and quality that will encourage significant use;

-- vehicular linkage with abutting properties.

These are in addition to the dimensional requirements that must be met. Also, among the submittal requirements in the application is a written statement comparing the effect of the proposed PUD to a conventional development that could be built on the parcel in terms of expected impact on tax base; town services; traffic; wetlands; groundwater; views from public ways and lands; historic structures; recreational wildlife, agricultural and forestry uses of land, and other relevant and applicable subjects.

These standards are already in the PUD bylaw. The only changes that Article 10 would make are to allow ONE retail outlet to be up to 8000 gross square feet and to allow residences to be part of a PUD project.

Please feel free to contact the Planning Board office at 508-651-7855 if you have any questions about Article 9 or 10.

ARTICLE 9 - ADAPTIVE USE SPECIAL PERMIT

At the request of affected property owners, the Planning Board is sponsoring an article that would allow, by special permit only, limited business uses in two properties (36 and 32-34 North Main Street - see map) with certain conditions. Among the conditions are that at least one residence must be maintained on the property and very limited building alterations will be allowed. The regulations of the Sherborn Historic District Commission will be used as a guide, though not strictly applied. The only business uses allowed would be professional offices, design studios and retail sales of art, handcrafted merchandise or antiques.

Some have argued that it would not be fair to allow something for these residential properties that is not allowed for others in the Residence districts. There is a big difference. These two properties are unique in that they are the ONLY residential properties on North Main Street whose frontage is directly across the street from the Business General district. One principle of zoning is that a street should be a spine and not a border between 2 zoning districts.

It has also been suggested that current zoning already allows offices in these properties with a special permit from the Board of Appeals. That is true except the current opportunity is very limited. First, under current rules, ZBA can only grant a special permit for a professional use if the professional lives on the premises. However, there is more to it than that. It is a very limited use under the current rules. For example:

(1) The professional use must be "clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the premises for residential purposes." Article 9 would not have this requirement. Using an entire first floor for professional use would clearly not be incidental and secondary.

(2) Only 1 person other than a resident can be employed, and no more than 1 member of the public may be served at a time under current rules, unless the ZBA grants permission for more. Article 9 would not have this restriction. It is likely that there would be more than a single employee and more than a single member of the public served at a time if an entire first floor were used for professional purposes.

(3) There could be no retail sales under current rules. Article 9 would allow limited retail sales of handcrafted merchandise, art works or antiques.

As stated above, these properties are unique due to their location. They are also historic buildings. There are currently no protections in place to preserve these buildings. This bylaw adds some protection by both providing economically viable uses and by requiring that the any adaptive use project "shall include restoration, renovation or improvement of the primary existing building(s) to maintain, restore or enhance the building's original integrity."

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

This year, the Planning Board is again sponsoring an article to amend the existing Planned Unit Development provision of the Zoning Bylaw. The article proposed represents modest changes from articles proposed last year that received strong majority votes in favor, but short of the 2/3 required.Many questions have arisen about both the article itself and Planned Unit Development in general. In an attempt to answer some of those questions, the Planning Board has prepared the following:


What is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) – The Planned Unit Development provision of our Zoning Bylaw was adopted in 1998 in order to allow for more flexible commercial development but with more Town control than is provided by the business district rules. It also allows up to 75% of a development to consist of abutting land that is zoned residential. It is by special permit only and allows more flexibility in siting buildings but requires more aesthetic sensitivity as well as public amenities, and has more limits on what can be built than the business districts allow. To qualify, properties must have at least 60,000 square feet.

In what way does the PUD provide more Town control? – First, all of the standards for site plan review and approval for development in the business districts are also applicable to PUD’s, plus more. The applicant must submit a statement comparing the effects of a PUD to a conventional development in terms of the impacts on the tax base; town services; traffic; wetlands; groundwater; views from public ways and lands; historic structures; recreational, wildlife, agricultural and forestry uses of land; and other relevant and applicable requirements. Second, the Planning Board must determine that the PUD “will not result in a detrimental impact to the neighborhood or the Town and that it meets the design and linkage (with neighboring properties) requirements and includes significant public amenities. Finally, as a special permit, the Planning Board has wide discretion as to whether or not it approves a PUD.

Why is the Planning Board proposing to change the bylaw? – The existing PUD bylaw limits retail outlets to a maximum of 2500 square feet (excluding kitchen, storage and mechanical space). Our survey of residents in 2008 indicated strong support for a small market up to 7500 ft2. Also a recent market study indicated that Sherborn could support a market of 6000-8000 ft2. Therefore, we propose to increase the maximum size of just one retail outlet to 8000 square feet (gross).

Is that the only change? – No. The current PUD bylaw does not directly allow residences to be included. Our survey of residents did not indicate strong support for residences in the Town Center, but the survey did not address mixed uses. Mixed uses are consistent with Smart Growth/Smart Energy and sustainable development principles, and residences add vitality to a Town Center. Therefore, we are also proposing to allow residences to be included in a PUD, but limited to 50% of the total area of a PUD development, and with the requirement that at least 10% be affordable if 10 or more are included in the project.

Will this article expand the business district, contrary to the General Plan? – No. The business district boundaries will not change. The PUD bylaw, if viewed as an extension of the business district, was already in place when the General Plan was adopted. Responders to the 2008 survey indicated some acceptance of the idea of making better use of what was already business zoned. This article only allows a single retail outlet to increase and provides for residences within a PUD. It does not change where a PUD could be built.

Is the PUD intended to benefit a single property? – Absolutely not. Right now five properties in the Town Center could qualify for a PUD (plus 2 other properties – the Citgo station on South Main and Sunshine Farm on Kendall Avenue). Potentially, all properties within the Business General and Business Professional districts could qualify if the owners of abutting properties worked together to meet the minimum 60,000 square feet of area.

Could a retail outlet of 8000 square feet be built currently in the Business General district? – Yes. The only size limit in the business districts is that building footprints cannot exceed one-third of the lot, and the height cannot exceed 35 feet. Six of 11 parcels are more than an acre in size. Thus, they could each host buildings with footprints of 15,000 square feet or more.

What is the point of Article 10 if an 8000 square foot building can already be built in the Business General district? – The point is that PUD results in a preferred style of development with more flexibility but more Town control. For example, the preferred style of development that was favored by the people who attended the two forums held by the Planning Board last year is actually prohibited by the Business General district because it requires a 60-foot setback which guarantees an auto-oriented development with parking in front of the building. By contrast, the PUD bylaw allows for a 20-foot setback and includes the following requirements:

· building designs that are complementary in scale and style to those of abutting properties and that are, in general, appropriate for a small New England village;

· significant public amenities on or off site which may include, but are not limited to the following: landscaped open area with walkways, benches, fountains, monuments, and/or other features; bike racks and/or separate bicycle access; hitching posts and/or separate horse access; drinking fountains; awnings or pavilions; or other suitable amenity;

· pedestrian linkage(s) with abutting properties that is (are) well defined and of a design and quality that will encourage significant use;

· vehicular linkage with abutting properties.

PUD would allow parking to be in the back of buildings, requires appropriate building designs and requires public amenities, all of which will result in a more attractive and more pedestrian-friendly streetscape.

Will the proposed PUD amendments threaten historic structures and the character of our Town Center? – No. In fact the purposes of the PUD, stated right in the bylaw, include to “preserve historic buildings by providing economically viable uses for them” and to “perpetuate and enhance the appearance of Sherborn’s traditional small town New England center.” Other purposes include greater integration of land uses and promoting better building location and overall site planning than is possible under the Business General district.

Why is Article 10 needed when we already have business vacancies in the Town Center? – This is a forward-looking measure that we hope to have in place prior to the next upswing in the economic cycle.

How will these amendments affect well and septic requirements? – These amendments will have no effect on well and septic requirements. Any new development will still need to meet Board of Health regulations, as well as any other requirements of the Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, etc.

What will be the impact on traffic? – According to the latest MassHighway traffic counts, about 27,000 vehicles per day pass through the Town Center. Any new development (whether PUD or not) would have to conduct a traffic study to determine its impacts and recommend measures to mitigate those impacts. However, if we assume a project of 20,000 square feet of retail space and 20,000 square feet of residential space (20 1000 ft2, residences) such a project would require about 100 parking spaces for the retail space and 30-40 for the residential units. Assuming that the retail spaces were full all day and turned over 5 times each, that would add 500 trips to the 27,000. Considering that the spaces would not likely be full all day and that many of those using them would be either residents who already make those trips or commuters who are passing by anyway, it can be estimated that the impact on traffic would not be significant. The residential units might add another 150 trips, which, again would not be significant.

What is the fiscal impact of Article 10? – That would depend entirely on whatever is ultimately built. Using the same example as above, based on estimated assessed values and the current tax rate, it would generate approximately $81,000 to $109,000 in new tax revenue. Depending on the size and type of residences built (and the special permit process would give the Town considerable control over this), the residences would not likely result in the number of children that single family houses would, but in any case the Town would be required to provide services to the new development that would offset the revenue to some degree.

TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES

The Planning Board is sponsoring three articles on this year's Town Meeting warrant. One is simply a housekeeping measure. The first substantive measure is similar to a proposal last year to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Bylaw in order to allow a single retail outlet to be up to a maximum of 8,000 square feet and to allow multidwellings and single family dwellings as part of a PUD. The other substantive article would establish a special permit process that would allow some limited business use of two historic buildings on North Main Street in return for some commitments to enhance or restore those buildings.

Last year, there were two proposals to amend the PUD section. One would have allowed a single retail outlet to be occupy up to 7500 square feet excluding, storage, mechanical and kitchen space. Some felt this was too open-ended and could lead to a very large facility. The Planning Board has responded by changing the upper limit to a flat 8,000 gross square feet, so that all space including storage, mechanical and kitchen space would be included in this figure. The limit on all other retail space would remain at 2500 square feet. This has no effect on building size. Building size is limited by the maximum lot coverage and height limits of the Business General and Business Professional districts, which are still applicable to a PUD.

It should be noted that this proposal does not expand the Business District in any way, nor does it allow larger buildings than are already allowed as part of a Planned Unit Development, nor does it allow larger stores than are already allowed in the Business General district. The Business General district has no limit on the size of stores or buildings other than the requirement that the building footprint cannot exceed 1/3 of its lot. This article would allow a single retail outlet, within a Planned Unit Development, to have a maximum area of 10,000 square feet. It has nothing to do with the size of the BUILDING. A building can be 25,000 square feet (or more) as long is it is broken up into 2500 square foot retail stores or is used as offices of any size. Planned Unit Development is by special permit only and gives the Town much more control over the details of the development than a similar development built under the rules of the Business General district.

The other proposal from last year was to allow multidwellings as part of a PUD. This is in accord with Smart Growth and sustainable development principles which encourage mixed uses and compact development. This year's proposal also allows single family units in an effort to encourage a village-style development around a Town Green. Dwellings would be limited to 50% of the square footage of any PUD, and a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units must be affordable if 10 or more units are included. Both the increase in the maximum retail outlet size and allowing the dwelling units as part of PUD are combined in a single article.

The second substantive article would establish a special permit process that would include two historic buildings on North Main Street. The qualifying properties must have its entire frontage be directly across North Main Street from the Business General district, and have at least a half acre of area. The special permit would only allow business uses such as offices, art or photography studios, or retail sales of crafts or antiques. At least one dwelling unit would be required to be maintained on the premises. Also, such business use would be required to maintain, restore or enhance the building’s original architectural integrity.

The Planning Board held a hearing on these articles on February 25, 2009 in Town Hall. Advisory Committee will hold its hearing on these articles on Monday, March 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM. Your comments are welcome and encouraged at or anytime before that hearing.