English
Spanish
Portuguese
Arabic
Haitian Creole
Chinese (Traditional)
Vecchione briefs Town Meeting members on modifications to his proposed Cliftondale Square Zoning Overlay District
Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member Joe Vecchione said he will stick with language that provides for a maximum building height of 50 feet in his Town Meeting warrant article for a proposed Cliftondale Square Zoning Overlay District.
“While some called for the process to be removed and include 4 stories with a maximum 45ft height by right, I felt it was important to not implement a one-size-fits all zoning as lots vary vastly in size and configuration,” Vecchione wrote in a recent email to Town Meeting members explaining modifications he’s made in his proposal.
“This was recognized in each of our other zoning overlays and the 50ft max height is still within scale of the neighborhood as floor to floor height was greater than it is now,” Vecchione wrote.
“It also allows a taller 1st story commercial level to increase the potential clientele (i.e. restaurants that need more height for exhaust systems and general spatial comfort. Structures range from 38-55ft in height in Cliftondale (not including steeples). I think several lots can easily be built to 3 stories 40ft so I think that’s appropriate by right with a special permit to be awarded when true hardship is present when considering other dimensional criteria as it relates to particular lots,” he said.
Article 22 – to create a Cliftondale Square Zoning Overlay District – takes up 17 pages of the Town Meeting warrant and is considered the most controversial of the warrant articles that will be considered when Town Meeting members convene on Monday, May 1 at 7:30 p.m. in the second floor auditorium of Saugus Town Hall. Vecchione said he considers the article “a critical component in the realistic pursuit of long-term revitalization of Cliftondale Square.”
“I do understand there is a fair amount of misinformation that is out there that I hope the text of the article helps clarify but I will certainly be proactive in making sure that Town Meeting members are informed prior to the vote,” Vecchione wrote in his email.
“I’ll also have a visual presentation the night of the Annual Meeting when this article is on the floor that highlights key components of the article and provides some visuals that may be helpful to digest what this article is and what it isn’t. It will also clarify what is in and out of the scope of zoning,” he said.
Vecchione noted the following modifications, based on feedback he received from members:
- Per Selectmen Serino’s feedback in the initial Cliftondale Report dated March 2022, the residential density per acre was lowered to 20 units per acre to be uniform with the rest of the overlays in town. As no property is an acre (largest lot is 0.66 acres), the largest development would be a maximum of 13 units while needing to incorporate driveways, parking, setbacks, and other dimensional regulations.
- Commercial use is required on the street level throughout the district.
- Aligned much of the process and regulations to be uniform with the amendments passed by Town Meeting last May including stories, height, special permit process, and parking.
- Increased minimum sidewalk width from 6ft to 8ft where feasible.
- Provided option for 10ft front setback for pedestrian scaled activity (outdoor dining, seating, etc.) or increased sidewalk width.
- Require one visitor parking space per 4 apartments with a minimum of 1 visitor’s space per project.
- Added bike storage as a requirement per project.
- Added language for parking to be reviewed on a case by case basis as to not discourage restaurant or retail use which may not be feasible to construct parking for all restaurant patrons, employees, and long term parkers, especially with a municipal lot in the works. While parking shall be provided for long term parking (residents and employees), the intent is to create flexibility for short term patrons.
- Addition of a vision statement as was present in the Waterfront Overlay article.
10. Tweaks to the purpose and intent to remove duplicate language.
11. Additional language pertaining to the special permit process based on feedback regarding the 50ft, 4 story height (I call out specifically for irregular lots that otherwise would not be viable and to ensure that all criteria is met). While some called for the process to be removed and include 4 stories with a maximum 45ft height by right, I felt it was important to not implement a one-size-fits all zoning as lots vary vastly in size and configuration. This was recognized in each of our other zoning overlays and the 50ft max height is still within scale of the neighborhood as floor to floor height was greater than it is now. It also allows a taller 1st story commercial level to increase the potential clientele (i.e. restaurants that need more height for exhaust systems and general spatial comfort. Structures range from 38-55ft in height in Cliftondale (not including steeples). I think several lots can easily be built to 3 stories 40ft so I think that’s appropriate by right with a special permit to be awarded when true hardship is present when considering other dimensional criteria as it relates to particular lots.
12. Called out that Jackson Street properties cannot exceed 3 stories and 40ft given the more residential scale of the street.
13. Require a 10 foot side yard setback for properties whose side yards abut R1 districts (only affects a few lots. Jackson Street properties also require a 10 ft side yard setback.
14. Added language that the town reserves the right to order removal of sidewalk amenities that are broken, hazardous, etc.
15. Tweaked building design standards to better align with the context of Cliftondale.
16. More clearly call out the Planning Board’s right to employ peer review for civil, architectural, or other relevant consultants to assist them throughout design and construction at the applicant’s expense to ensure projects are designed to comply with the purpose and intent of the bylaw and also constructed as approved and conditioned.
17. Retracted the district boundaries to the MEG and to the Sweetser SHA building and from Western Ave. to Granite Court. The boundaries are a median compromise between the most extreme boundary line proposed by all parties (expanded and contracted), staying within a core district primarily encapsulating land currently classified as B-1 already and/or has mixed-use currently present which are sound planning practices in transit oriented design and smart growth planning.
