The purpose of this blog is to open a web-based dialogue to address the challenging issues facing the Town of Marion as we continue to plan and respond to these difficult times. The purpose of this post is to discuss the proposed Neighborhood Overlay (NOD) Bylaw that is being developed to be voted on at Marion's Spring Town Meeting.
The idea for the NOD bylaw comes from the 1996 Growth Management Report and has been carried forth in all additional Town-wide efforts including the Marion 2015 Report. For the past 4 years, the Planning Board, with the help and encouragement of Selectmen and other Town Boards has been at work investigating possible paths to ensure that future development is consistent with Marion's rural seaside village character and achieves benefits for the Marion taxpayers.
On a personal basis, it is my belief that all regulation of individual and property rights must have a compelling rationale. It is also my belief that we, as your elected (or in some cases appointed) representatives have a responsibility to expose to all the taxpayers both the negative consequences and the benefits of such potential regulation. In the case of the NOD, this is very easy to accomplish, but runs the risk of obfuscation (confusion) cased by those who do not share this "Open" responsibility and would rather seek to scare people into not acting - by defeating the bylaw by any means possible. Therefore, I will attempt to address the objections as well as the benefits fairly and openly. By using this blog, it is my hope that the few individuals who oppose the bylaw come out from the shadows and engage in a positive dialogue about their concerns so that you, the reader, can make up your own mind before Town Meeting. All too often we are asked to vote on subjects at Town Meeting that we have little familiarity - in which case we can be easily swayed by slick speeches or emotional pitches that do not reflect reality.
By way of additional background, the PB first introduced a previous version of the NOD Bylaw a few years ago at Town Meeting. When I presented this bylaw, I knew and stated that for many this was the first time they were exposed to the subject. Despite televising meetings and holding a number of public hearings on the subject, few were fully prepared to embrace the bylaw on Town Meeting floor. Those who were engaged, ranging from public officials to the Sippican Lands Trust supported the bylaw on Town Meeting floor, but I agree that too few people understood it at the time. It was overly complex and too new for many. Even I suggested that we not take a definitive vote at that meeting. (Contrary to emails sent by naysayers, it was not defeated and no vote to do so was taken.)
Good thing too that we took the next couple years to hone in on technical issues and the regulations themselves. From this process we have learned a great deal about how we can limit the scope of the bylaw, simplify it and yet provide the tools that the PB is requesting to achieve the goals that we all can agree.
Some key points;
1. The need for the bylaw is simple: Current zoning does not give the PB the tools or teeth to prevent sprawl development from being developed in the future and this not only puts the character of the Town of Marion in jeopardy, but puts the fragile Village Center at risk. This can be seen in the fact that it took 9 years to permit the Dunkin Donuts and that project could have been much better.
2. While the PB has adopted the Marion Design Guidelines of 2003, these are questioned by every applicant because they are not referred to in the Marion Bylaws, making it more difficult to enforce them.
3. The PB does not believe that this bylaw will cause a flood of new development, but will give us the tools to ensure that the development that is coming - like what we have experienced with Dunkin Donuts and Cumberland Farms - will be better able to be shaped to meet the goals we all have for preservation of the character of Marion and the protection of the Marion taxpayer. Discussions of hundreds of new homes is either completely disingenuous or takes on its premise that the PB will simply allow developers to max out every lot and that the entire district will be torn down and redeveloped.
4. The actual bylaw is very simple. It consists of three components. The first is the definition of the area via identification of lots. The second is the 3 points of flexibility from the underlying zoning (housing density, mixed use and single special permit process, and flexibility with setbacks). (These shall be discussed in more detail to follow.) The third is the additional considerations, on top of the current considerations in Section 7.2 of the current bylaw, that must be reviewed in order to determine if a special permit is warranted.
5. Of the 40 odd acres in the NOD, they are all current zoned General Business and only about 12 acres are undeveloped. While some infill (redevelopment of existing structures) may happen, we believe that the majority of potential consideration will occur in the undeveloped area, if at all.
6. The NOD does not change the current rights of property owners in the district in any way. No rights are lost. The flexibility from the bylaw can enhance the rights of the property owners if they meet the high hurdles for approval under the NOD Special Permit requirements.
7. The PB, your elected representatives, is asking for this flexibility so that they can better do the jobs we believe that we are being asked to do. Your support of this effort will significantly affected by your perspective on whether you trust us to do what you would do in our place. We cannot underestimate this point as it underlies each objection to the bylaw that has been raised.
Let us look at the changes that are requested;
HOUSING DENSITY - In consultation with the Affordable Housing Trust and as has been articulated in housing reports over the years, the PB settled on 8 units per acre as a maximum number. The Village Center is 12 housing units per acre with mixed use throughout. The 40B originally proposed was about 20 units per acre. The density calculations are only based on uplands - i.e. no wetlands are used in the calculations.
A recent email from one objector makes the statement, "For those who are math averse that's 312 units." This calculation assumes that the entire area is to be developed at the maximum density permissible. Nothing could be further from reason.
We believe that the 8-unit per acre density number is the maximum that would be acceptable under the most beneficial terms possible for the town.
Marion lacks lower maintenance small unit housing for seniors. Marion lacks a stock of small units for young couples and young families - 2 bedrooms. Marion needs "affordable" housing, not just to meet our 40B needs, but also to provide affordable market rate options to many who do not have them today.
See Marion Housing Needs report:
http://www.marionma.gov/Pages/MarionMA_BComm/assessment2.pdf
See Marion Housing Needs report:
http://www.marionma.gov/Pages/MarionMA_BComm/assessment2.pdf
MIXED USE SINGLE PERMIT - Today, an applicant must apply for up to five special permits when seeking the permitting of any new use on a site. With the bylaw, the PB can consolidate these into a single special permit, saving time and expense - as well as viewing each special permit consideration against the whole project. This is an incentive to encourage mixing of uses and incorporating the needs of the Town, enabling better design and greater overall benefit to the Town.
A point of confusion has ben raised during our public hearing process saying that this is unnecessary as all can be done under current zoning. To some extent this is true, but any housing greater than one unit per lot is currently not permissible. When considering retail and office use as well as housing, it really gets challenging. By streamlining through the mixed use special permit, we make it clear that we offer flexibility in return for benefit to the Town of Marion. Tax revenues are increased, and other needs such as affordable housing is enabled because better economics means lower costs.
SETBACKS - Under current zoning setbacks are the same for General Business throughout the Town, with an even larger from setback on Route 6.
Front setbacks under the overlay are a minimum of 10' and a maximum of 18'. This gives flexibility in the frontage so that we don't end up with a completely uniform street line. It accomplishes the goal of pulling the structures closer to the street and insists on broad pedestrian ways that can accommodate trees - creating walkable and consistent developments.
Side setbacks must always meet the safety needs of fire, ems and police. THat usually means a minimum of 10' from sidelines for structures. However, we are aiming to minimize curb cuts through shared driveways. In some cases it will make sense for the PB to allow setbacks even as low as 0' from sidelines. Critics warn that 0' side setbacks can result in an urban feel with buildings abutting one another through the district. Again, this is where you, the resident and voter, must ask yourself if you trust the PB not to allow this. To us, the PB, this is clearly the exception, but should be available to use if the safety issues and benefits warrant it - without creating an urban setting.
Rear setbacks have been recommended to be reduced as low as 3'. This originally came from a recommendation of Cornish Associates, the firm that managed the meetings on the bylaw that took place last Spring. Cornish suggested that having this flexibility may be needed when parking is in the rear and we wish to have broader aisles as properties are connected from behind to provide alternative paths within the overlay or to ensure pedestrian friendliness on any given project. While the PB feels that we will normally stick to the 10' rule as a minimum, we agree that this flexibility makes sense so long as safety is not compromised.
Now let's look at concerns that have been raised;
1. The NOD density will create traffic problems
2. New housing will cost us more in schools
3. New housing will force us to spend millions on new sewer
4. New housing will cause the decline of the Village Center
5. The NOD will create infrastructure problems (roads, utilities, ...)
6. The NOD will raise all of our taxes
7. The NOD will set us back against our 40B needs of 10% of our housing stock being "affordable" under the State's 40B definition.
These represent the basis for the concerns that have been raised to date. Let us take each in turn.
1. Will the NOD density create traffic problems?
First, we must understand that no projects have been applied for under the NOD bylaw. Each project must stand on its own regarding traffic at the time it is applied for. As a standard practice, traffic studies are required for new applications, particularly in sensitive areas. Any application that adds traffic would be required to show this and, if such a problem is envisioned, provide remediation or the Special Permit is not issued. This is the current practice and is used today.
Let's look at the current bylaw and see if this consideration is addressed;
Article X Section 7.2
General Requirements
Special permits shall be granted by the special permit granting authority, unless otherwise specified herein, only upon its written determination that the adverse effects of the proposed use will not outweigh its beneficial impacts to the town or the neighborhood, in view of the particular characteristics of the site, and of the proposal in relation to that site. In addition to any specific factors that may be set forth in this bylaw, the determination shall include consideration of each of the following:
1. Social, economic or community needs which are served by the proposal;
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
4. Neighborhood character and social structures;
5. Impacts on the natural environment; and
6. Potential fiscal impact, including impact on town services, tax base, and employment. Special permits may be granted with such reasonable conditions, safeguards, or limitations on time or use as the Special Permit Granting Authority may deem necessary to serve the purposes of this bylaw. Special permits shall lapse twenty four months following final action (plus such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred to M.G.L. c. 40A, s. 17, from the grant thereof) if a substantial use thereof has not commenced nor construction begun, except for good cause.
2. Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading;
3. Adequacy of utilities and other public services;
4. Neighborhood character and social structures;
5. Impacts on the natural environment; and
6. Potential fiscal impact, including impact on town services, tax base, and employment. Special permits may be granted with such reasonable conditions, safeguards, or limitations on time or use as the Special Permit Granting Authority may deem necessary to serve the purposes of this bylaw. Special permits shall lapse twenty four months following final action (plus such time required to pursue or await the determination of an appeal referred to M.G.L. c. 40A, s. 17, from the grant thereof) if a substantial use thereof has not commenced nor construction begun, except for good cause.
Therefore, a written determination of the traffic impact is currently required to determine if any project qualifies for a Special Permit. As the PB is required by law and oath to uphold the bylaws of Marion we would hope that this would be sufficient to address this concern regarding traffic and safety. Having been a PB Member for a number of years, I can assure you that traffic is always a consideration.
2. Will the NOD result in more costs for schools?
Not every housing unit is a house, nor is every housing unit appropriate for families who would put children in schools. Today Marion's Sippican School, where young families with 1 or 2 children who would be OK in small houses or apartments, has a great deal of excess capacity.
If we take out Project grow, the tuition-based pre-K program run by the YMCA that competes with others such as the Children's Depot, then the current enrollment is 425 students. This is only anticipated to increase by the Central Office to 426 next school year. The capacity for the the Sippican School is 660 students at 18 students per classroom, 730 students at 20 students per classroom and 800 students at 22 students per classroom. (As someone who attended parochial school with 36 students per class, one teacher and no aides, I am no authority on why we educate this way.) This means that we have tremendous capacity within our existing school for students. Therefore, the real cost per student is only the variable cost of staffing - which is not insignificant, but it is not the $12-14K we pay today. The idea that we need a home valued at over $700,000 to be revenue neutral does not apply directly.
On the other hand, as the housing units will be small, whether apartments or small townhome-like units, we should not expect new housing units in the NOD to create a student population impact like that which we experienced with the Point Road development of the 1990's.
This being said, the current bylaw requires the PB to make a written determination of potential fiscal impact and to weigh this in the determination of qualification for a Special Permit. In addition the NOD bylaw as currently proposed under 16.6.6 reads as follows;
16.6.6 Economic and Community Impact
In addition to considering the direct economic impact related to tax revenue and services the SPGA shall include due consideration of the indirect positive and negative economic impacts of the proposed development, including, but not limited to, housing for local municipal volunteers and employees, living wage jobs to be incorporated within the project, and other such factors that bring positive benefits to the Community.
Certainly school impact is a consideration for economic impact. The PB is quite aware of the desire to lower the overall tax burden and is directed to be very cognizant of raising that burden. (40B has no such consideration.) Again, we believe that this concern is addressed in our proposal and our current bylaws.
3. Will new Housing (or development in general) will cause us to spend millions in sewer plant expansion?
The short answer is no for all the same reasons that economic considerations for schools will be addressed, but this area is specifically addressed in a number of additional ways.
First, under Article X Section 7.2.3 above adequacy of existing public utilities and services is specifically called out. Therefore, the PB can not issue a Special Permit without subjecting it to this review. Every Special Permit is conditioned on such availability.
Second, the Selectmen, as Water and Sewer Commissioners must approve any new sewer hookups. No building permits can be issued without such approval. Today's Sewer Moratorium is indicative of how they would react to any large scale sewer needs.
Third, the impact would also need to be considered further under the proposed 16.6.6 that was just described above.
As a matter of record, you probably know that the sewer capacity is a function of both total volume and bioload. This means that capacity can be impacted by each. New hookups mean more bioload and more volume, but the volume problem is one of "Inflow and Infiltration" (I&I). While we spent millions to reduce the amount of I&I from broken pipes, we have learned that illegal connections from sump pumps in peoples' basements accounts for a great deal of that volume. We are about to spend millions upgrading our stormwater systems and making sure that these sump pumps are connected to the stormwater system, instead of the sewer system. I won't comment on this, but you should be aware that we are already spending these millions
16.6.4. Protection and Preservation of the Marion Village Center
The SPGA shall give due consideration to the economic benefits of proposed
developments within the Neighborhood Overlay District and shall weigh the potential
negative impacts of new development within the District upon existing commercial
developments and uses within Marion’s defined Village Center.
This is not as simple as it seems. We cannot specifically refuse businesses that might compete with the retail businesses in the Village, but we can do things to encourage continuity between the two so that trips made from parts of Marion that might otherwise shop in Mattapoisett or Wareham would consider using these retail locations more frequently.
For many in Marion it is just as easy, or easier, to go to neighboring towns to make their purchases. By having a more offerings and a more attractive NOD area, we would expect to bring more Marion residents to this area. We would expect the result to be that it is easier to enter the Village and go to the Post Office, the General Store, the Bookstall, ...
We believe that, if done right, all of Marion benefits and we can have more positive impact on preserving the Village than losing it - as happened in Mattapoisett.
A second consideration for the Village Center is that is has been the rise of home prices that has been the real culprit in loosing business vitality. Home values were simply too high for retailers to afford them for local businesses. We are very fortunate that a few people have stepped in to protect and preserve what we have.
As housing prices have collapsed and have at least another 15% decline to go (IMHO), only to be followed by what looks like years of flat values (again IMHO), we may have bought a stay for the decline of the Village Center as a retail area.
It should be noted that a survey in 2009 showed a very significant number of businesses, offices and retail in the Village Center. These office have had a great impact on the current vitality of this area that we all wish to preserve.
So, the short answer is that we will do all we can - and have a specific mandate to consider any negative impacts to the Village Center when considering businesses in the NOD.
We should also be very clear, we are not promoting new development in the NOD, we are simply giving the PB the tools to shape what comes in the future to best meet the needs of the Town. We want to avoid single story sprawl retail shops that aim to leverage the 195 exit to sell their wares. If they want to come, they will have to meet our terms and contribute significantly to the benefit of the Town.
5. Will the NOD create infrastructure problems?
We have already addressed the question overburdening utilities, so let us focus this on roads, etc... We have also already discussed the traffic impact. These being addressed, it does not mean that in the future we will not consider changes in the roads and traffic patterns. This bylaw does not address this, but it is worth discussing.
For the purposes of answering this question on the subject of roads, the answer is no. That answer is because the granting of any Special Permit would naturally preclude adding traffic that would put the people at risk or create problems.
Please do not confuse this NOD or the bylaw with endorsement of any of the discussions that have been thrown around like narrowing Route 6 or making Spring Street one way. Someday we may consider these things, but they are not being discussed or proposed in any way by this effort. There will no doubt be much discussion and review before anything of that magnitude is considered.
6. Will the NOD raise our taxes?
As we have addressed sewer, schools and more, any other municipal costs would be considered the same way. We would expect that every project would be minimally revenue neutral - and most revenue positive. That is a significant goal for every PB Member and one that must be made under the existing Special Permit considerations as well as that additionally imposed under the proposed bylaw.
A resounding "No" should be understood by all.
7. Will the NOD set us back regarding our 40B count?
Some time ago the PB introduced a bylaw that requires new housing developments to provide a minimum of 10% of the units to meet 40B. There is an option to pay $200,000 for each unit required to meet the 10% target which is to be used by the Affordable Housing Trust to keep us ahead of the target.
Under the NOD bylaw new housing units must meet this requirement.
Please feel free to add your own comments and concerns. We welcome the chance to communicate openly with all.
Many thanks and best regards,
Tom Magauran
Vice Chair, Marion Planning Board
