Jump to content

Zoning Board of Review


TheAnk

Recommended Posts

But this will never happen, and in this case, my big complaint is not that you have developers fighting and undermining such planning and zoning. As one developer once told me, they crave rules and direction. Uncertainty is their enemy and can be expensive. No, in this case, you have neighborhood groups fighting it. So that's my complaint right now.

- Garris

I've had the opportunity to meet with a collection of the neighborhood groups very recently. They are hardly objecting to a new zoning ordinance being drawn up that allows for denser, more urban development. They are objecting to the process.

In fact, if the administration had followed through on their initial plan of holding meetings in each and every neighborhood to formulate a new comprehensive plan, CONCURRENTLY with the new zoning revisions, then we would probably have newly implemented zoning right now. Instead, they cancelled already scheduled neighborhood meetings and tried to ram it through.

I just want to clarify something again. Belmonte Castello (ick) was WILDLY non-conforming to the existing zoning ordinance, and will be WILDLY non-conforming to the new zoning code. It never should have been proposed, let alone granted the variances. I mean, look at it - is it even remotely better than Dominica Manor? At least that building has SOME connection with the taller buildings of downtown. This one is surrounded by 3 story wood frame buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

AAA Surgical may have been an ugly building to some (not me, btw) but there were many many people interested in buying the property and turning into any number of things (namely restaurant) with its own parking. So, any idea floated that you couldn't do anything else with that property but raze it and ask for 28 zoning variances is simply false. One of the very first posts i contributed when i got here was that people need to use the law in order to object to inappropriate development and design because thoughtful reason gets them nowhere in entirely too many instances.

Developers bring to the table the cheapest product they can get away with. They don't start at the halfway mark. They start at the lowest possible place. Neighbors don't come to the table at the halfway either. They often start at the highest use they can possibly imagine (and for some, it is simply green, open space). The deal is that everyone starts off on opposite ends and work their way towards the middle.

When projects get a little inside wheeling and dealing help, then it is no longer a negotiation, but a battle. And i am not at all sympathetic to developers who opt for this route, rather than one that is more open.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

btw, was anyone at the street abandonment meeting at the CPC this past week, when residents and commissioners rejected the abandonment which would have served only the MetroLofts project because it was not at all in the public interest as those two streets are still viable, public streets. I suspect the CPC would have done voted the same way regardless of whether business owners and abutters hadn't come out to remind the board of its task, but you never know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to clarify something again. Belmonte Castello (ick) was WILDLY non-conforming to the existing zoning ordinance, and will be WILDLY non-conforming to the new zoning code.

This is one of the things that really rubs me the wrong way. Ok, maybe the existing zoning makes it difficult to enable new development, and we should allow greater height and density along commercial corridors, etc. But the reality is, the proposals getting through are significantly out of whack with even the proposed zoning, so right off the bat, we're giving away variances!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, was anyone at the street abandonment meeting at the CPC this past week, when residents and commissioners rejected the abandonment which would have served only the MetroLofts project because it was not at all in the public interest as those two streets are still viable, public streets. I suspect the CPC would have done voted the same way regardless of whether business owners and abutters hadn't come out to remind the board of its task, but you never know...

What streets were those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about all those storefronts on Westminster? :huh:

I believe the storefronts would be unaffected. it would be the ugly buildings to the downtown side of those storefronts that would be knocked down... Check out Cotuit's excellent skyview map...

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out Cotuit's excellent skyview map...

WestSide.jpg

I don't see a reason why these streets can't be condemned. Lyman Street is currently a dead end and doesn't reach the Service Road, and Stewart Street is Joseph Merritt's parking lot. They are in effect, already condemned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a reason why these streets can't be condemned. Lyman Street is currently a dead end and doesn't reach the Service Road, and Stewart Street is Joseph Merritt's parking lot. They are in effect, already condemned.

I dont see any issue with it either. From what I have seen so far, i like the metro lofts project. I think it will be good for the west end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those streets are still being used by the public. the comp plan really frowns on abandoning streets that people still USE.

What exactly is the public using them for, one is a dead end and one is a parking lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have used these streets -- rather than u-turning on Westminster Street, I'll take Stewart to Lyman (not sure if I have the two confused), out to Dean Street and then back to Westminster. The parking lot is adjacent, but you can travel down both.

I hardly think your need to make a u-turn should block this project. You could make a u-turn at the next block if you needed to. Stewart Street should have been abandoned when the highway was built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those streets are still being used by the public. the comp plan really frowns on abandoning streets that people still USE.

What do people use them for besides getting to the parking lot which would no longer be there once the building was built? I dont see how abandoning them would have any negative impact on anyone and It certainly wouldnt affect traffic flow or anything like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hardly think your need to make a u-turn should block this project. You could make a u-turn at the next block if you needed to. Stewart Street should have been abandoned when the highway was built.

I didn't say my need to make a u-turn should block the project, I simply answered the question about whether or not these were even usable streets in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say my need to make a u-turn should block the project

I didn't mean to make you personally out to be a force against progress.

Why are you making u-turns anyway, don't you know your way around? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to pile on the "who needs those streets" argument, but I again drive by here nearly every day and I've never seen a single automobile use these roads. The only time I've seen a car use them (and I may be guiltly of this myself) is when people driving by a looking for a place to park to run into Subway... :whistling:

No, this should not be a barrier to Metrolofts...

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i use those streets any time i'm on westminster, visiting Abode, Figments, or getting tea at White Electric and don't want to have to cross 95, bang a left and then another left on to Washington Street and then another left on Dean in order to get back on Westminster going in the other direction.

Just because you guys don't use those streets doesn't mean they aren't still being used by other people... :lol: the fact that the cpc actually voted unanimously (something that doesn't happen very often, you know) to not allow the abandonment means that folks still believe those streets to be useful city streets. I don't know why this project would be stalled as a result, it would merely need to be redesigned. What's the big deal? the square footage gained by abandoning these streets has to be nominal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abandoning under-used streets is one of the few tools a city has to incentivize development. And it can GREATLY impact development costs, depending on the situation. I am not pretending to know the particulars here, but I also wouldn't assume that what you perceive as minor "tweaks" really are such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Wayland:

"Even opponents of the 4 story condo agreed that it was a pretty building as represented on the render. The neighborhood eventually negotiated them down to 3.5 stories (I'm serious) with a kind of catelevered half floor on top. It looks kind of odd to my eyes, lacking much of the architectural integrity of the original 4 story building, but the neighborhood considers it a victory. "

There's no cantilever -- just a setback, with 3 units on the 4th floor, instead of the 4 that were first requested. It allows sunlight to enter the northern windows of the building to the south of the project. Pushing for 3 stories rather than 4 is nuts, but I think that asking for setbacks and taking into account neighbors is reasonable. (And completely normal. And any development proposal is written, and any drawing drawn, assuming that the developers are going to have to make some compromises.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abandoning under-used streets is one of the few tools a city has to incentivize development. And it can GREATLY impact development costs, depending on the situation. I am not pretending to know the particulars here, but I also wouldn't assume that what you perceive as minor "tweaks" really are such.

oh, like when Westminster St was abandoned to build Bishop McVinney Auditorium? :lol:

and i think anyone who works for a developer knows there are many many many tools cities can use to incentivize development. I would be very interested to hear of a recent incident when a developer packed up his/her grand scheme because they couldn't get a project built due to a street abandonment being denied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.