I’m sitting here listening to Don Mercier grill Tim Richardson of BMLD about easements for electrical poles. Yep — you guessed it — its another night at Town Meeting. Don seems convinced that something untoward is afoot with these easements — the Town’s been slipping envelopes of cash to homeowners, or building kitchen additions or something. Tim says this is really about making it easier for BMLD to locate equipment. After some back and forth, its approved — cause we’ve really got bigger fish to fry.
I should also note that, contrary to my previous post about “Crazy Ideas bubbling up to Town Meeting,” the Board of Selectmen has pulled its earlier request that Town Meeting send a message to Belmont Hill School to get on the bus and negotiate a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement with the town at long last. It seems that Belmont’s Board of Assessors is working up a more comprehensive plan for PILOT payments that will be presented to every non profit in town, including Belmont Hill. Angelo Firenze claims the motion was shelved so as not to single out one non profit for criticism.
That’s all well and good — if this “comprehensive plan” ever sees the light of day. It sounds like the right way to go, but I’m putting a tickler in my calendar for two months from now to see what becomes of it.
On to zoning issues and clarifying amendments. I’m searching under the Pumpkin orange seats here in the BHS auditorium for a triple shot of espresso.
UPDATE: OK. Now we’re talking about houses of worship and other non profits (i.e. schools) allowing third parties to use their lots in violation of town zoning laws and even accepting fees for that use – a possible violation of their tax exempt status.
Seems the use of these lots is a big help in relieving congestion in areas like downtown (Post Office employees use the Unitarian Church’s lot, as an example) and in Waverly Square. But neighbors are pissed — they want to live next to a church, not a municipal lot. I’ve actually heard complaints about this at B2, but its not a straight forward issue (as we’re learning). We’re now hearing about the town’s new policy guidelines for these lots…
By-right uses will include residential overnight parking of non-commercial vehicles is cool, as well as use by town departments and for public/private vents. Employee/customer parking shouldn’t account for 30 spaces or 50% of the lot. No permit needed for that stuff. Uses requiring special permits would be use by commercial trucks, vans and heavy vehicles. Long term regular use by more than 30 vehicles or 50% of the lot. Potential commercial eveninguses (restaurant, etc.). Hmm…
Long and short — the amendment passes almost unanimously. I’m not sure what this will mean, practically, though it certainly clarifies our bylaws for use of these lots and gives some relief to frustrated abutters.
Now its on to an effort to preserve Belmont’s few remaining “Historic Accessory Buildings” (aka “barns”). This is a about real barns — recognized by historic commission and pre 1921. Many along Pleasant Street. Owners will get benefits to preserve the exterior of the building — including a perpetual Preservation Restriction, including using them for home occupation (making them less likely to be torn down).
UPDATE: Oh gosh. Its barns barns barns.. Jenny Fallon’s (too long) Powerpoint concerning the zoning changes and a detailed detailed detailed explanation of the pros/cons has been followed by an even longer Powerpoint giving TM members a whimsical tour of barns and carriage houses in Belmont, Cambridge and surrounding towns. It’s wonderful. Adorable. These barns can beat up my puny one car garage any day. I’m sold on this zoning change. Don’t even think about tearing down a barn in this town. Let’s vote! Please! But no. It’s more barns…another impassioned plea by Sue Bass for barn conversions. Stick the Au Pair in ‘em. Go for it. Methinks they doth explain too much!
UPDATE: OK. Now there’s debate. Barns increase traffic, yada, yada. Liz Allison is talking now. She’s asking “who benefits”? Benefits flow to owners of the home, not residents. Most of us don’t see these barns. Also…the numbers…Vermont barn rennovations can cost between $5,000 to $25,000 range. This is encouraging people to do preservation and we’ll give you a second building worth much more — big benefit for merely rennovation. National Park Service already provides 20% tax credit for qualifying barns. A lot of benefit flowing to small group of people: 28 houses. Average assessed value of $1m. My god…I’m actually agreeing with Liz. This may be a first. OK. Advantages neighbors or developers? Developers benefit. Neighbors get worn down. The nut here is that preservation is great, but this regulation is asking the town to pay too much for what is a small benefit to the community as a whole (you get to look at some barns as you pass by on the street). Also, zoning exceptions tend to concentrate power in the planning board, which is subject to political influence or at least discretion.
Jenny F. answering questions about the ramifications to the town – will it increase tax revenue or cost us revenue? How will neighbors’ views be addressed? How many could be subdivided? Not clear.
Great, the town Assessor isn’t attending, so we don’t know what the impact on tax assessments on these properties will change. Now Tom Younger is getting ready to speak. He says its impossible to determine how assessments will change before permit applications are received.
Phil Curtis of Warrant Committee is speaking on barns — this is a public subsidy for private development, that the benefit goes to a small group of people and that its a zoning change that enhances the value of the property to the homeowners. WC thinks private home owner should maintain their own houses. A public subsidy – increasing value of property — in the name of barn preservation.
Now we’re hearing from Martha Moore (?) an actual Belmont barn owner. We’re now hearing about their barn rennovation. Queue the This Old House theme.
Anne Mahon and others have spoken in favor of this — arguing that all zoning changes end up benefitting a minority of property owners at the expense of others, and that the changes make it possible to preserve bits of Belmont’s history.
BOS member Ralph Jones warns that abutters can get worn down and that the changes will benefit property developers. TM member Monty Allen is questioning the “only benefits rich folks” argument — is the town really subsidizing these owners? Is this cost free to the town? Jenny: not directly — assessment of property will increase (and thus taxes) also the perpetual preservation restriction for the town. Don Mercier is telling TM that the change will immediate increase the value of the properties in question.
Some drama here — the question was moved to a voice vote, which was too close to call (sounded like it passed). Sue Bass requested a roll call vote which, itself, requires support from 35 TM meeting members. So now we’re having a vote to see what kind of vote we’ll have. Crazy. I’ve vassilated but will vote against it (I’d be glad to explain why), but I think it will pass anyway.
OK. I’m in the _way_ minority voting against this one. Now all my libby TM friends are made at me. Let me clarify – I’m all for preserving historic barns and support the goal of historic preservation with every fibre of my being. I just happen to think that this zoning change is a big give away to a small number of home owners and developers in town, and I’m just not sure what the benefit to the community is. Its the populist in me — after all: many owners who own properties with barns on them have already renovated the structures, and nothing in this law prohibits barns from being taken down – it just creates incentives for them not to be torn down. Ah well.
Wanted you to know how much I appreciate these notes – I am not a TM member – lucky to live in Pct. 1 where we usually have lots of great people wanting to run, and my plate is pretty full with other stuff, but I really like being able to be a fly on the wall and get a sense of what is going on. Thanks for taking the time to type away!
Nice commentary Paul, but on the barn issue, I think we are simply overthinking this. If you have an improvable building on your lot, and you can afford to improve it, then good for you for buying the property to begin with! If it turns into a multi family dwelling, then the vehicle parking limit should curb the number of residents just fine. We all know that is why we have the overnight parking ban and limit on number of cars in a driveway anyhow, right? Belmont does not want tons of college kids or a huge extended family moving into a small house or apt.
Hey Kim. Not sure from your comments where you stand on it (though I think I remembered that you supported the zoning change). As you can tell: I was on the fence on this and could have gone either way. I tended to agree (amazingly) with Liz A and with Phil that the town was giving up a lot to create an incentive for private owners to preserve these structures, without getting much in return. Anne M. painted pictures of elderly relatives using them as in-law apartments, or multiple generations gathered on the same homestead. It's touching and quaint, but I doubt we'll see much of that. And, after all, the goal isn't to foster dense, multi use development (which I wholeheartedly support). The goal is preservation of historic barns and carriage houses, and there are other programs to help homeowners do this. Frankly, I think many of the folks voting for this saw it as an anti-NIMBY measure, and I totally get that. I'm all for eradicating NIMBYism in town. But this wont really do much to end that practice. What it will do is create a huge loophole for developers and a huge benefit for these 28 homeowners. In the meantime: will my kids or I ever get to see the inside of these historic barns the town is desperate to maintain? As the map showed, many of them are sequestered up on Belmont Hill and I'm not hopeful. Furthermore, homeowners who are intent on tearing down their barn to build a McMansion (or an actual mansion) aren't blocked from doing so. So, again, where's the benefit to me and my family? Finally: I'm sympathetic to folks who say “I bought my property thinking that my neighbor had a barn. Now its going to become a second dwelling that sits right up on my property, with everything that goes along with that. I'm pissed.”
On barns:
It's not a straight giveaway, there's that perpetual restriction that comes with it, plus you have to deal with the historical people and get a special permit.
One thing I did not know was the relative distribution of barns and lot sizes. The barn I know well (across the street, with Charm the miniature horse in it) is on a 15000 foot lot; in that district, you could split it in half and have two completely conforming lots, or even split it into thirds and probably get it approved, and put a 2-family on each one. Jenny Fallon thought that this was not the usual case. On the other hand, Sumner Brown reported that in fact most (?) of the barns were too small to accommodate a permanent tenant. So, the “increased density” claim was not a winning argument — in some cases, a conforming tear-down and rebuild might result in higher density than preservation, and in others, the barn was too small for anything other than an office or a true guest bedroom.
Liz Allison's (? I think it was her) remarks about being governed by rules instead of arbitrary humans were forced, I thought. Our zoning laws are nothing to be especially proud of — most houses in town (every single house on our little street, for example) could not be rebuilt in their current configuration under our current zoning laws — the lots are too small, the setbacks are insufficient, etc. Yet somehow, we mostly like the current houses, or are at least used to them. On the other hand, if you look at what we get when a house is torn down and rebuilt by a developer, we generally seem to think it is too big, too looming, too lot-filling, even though all the laws are obeyed. This was mostly what influenced me on this issue — in general, we like what we've got built already, so given a chance to preserve an existing building envelope, why not keep it? The zoning laws do not guarantee a favorable outcome. (This also undercut Ralph Jones' “developer friendly” remarks — yes, he is right, but the developers also seem to do just fine with the current zoning rules, too.)
All comments well taken- I see your point Paul, but I believe the size of these properties really may be too small to be more than a studio or guesthouse. Maybe I don't know enough about owning barns, but had I bought a house with a barn and then was told I couldn't plumb it, I would have been shocked. I guess I am confused by the fac that we have to go through this exercise at all.
Kim,
It was mentioned that the potential for occupancy among the barns was 35 people. My concern was the potential burden this article puts on the School System. One would think the planning board and assessors could have provided rough numbers as to possible occupancy rates and possible assessment impacts. This was not the case and is a major reason the general public has no trust for town government.
We have succeeded in providing a benefit to a loud greedy group of mostly million dollar home owners at the expense of many abutters and taxpayers. The Town is going bankrupt and we are subsidizing million dollar home owners to maintain their property. Let them eat cake…
See you in June.
PJ
PJ – don't you think that's sort of a glass-half-empty view of things? Those barns might also be turned to uses that increase their (taxable) value, but don't add people. And at least one barn (the one I abut) could legally be replaced with a 2-family home, as I understand lots sizes and zoning laws — so your worst-case 35, is really a net worst case of 27-30 (I am not sure what occupancy-per-unit estimate was used to arrive at 35).
And yes, better numbers would be nice.
PJ – don't you think that's sort of a glass-half-empty view of things? Those barns might also be turned to uses that increase their (taxable) value, but don't add people. And at least one barn (the one I abut) could legally be replaced with a 2-family home, as I understand lots sizes and zoning laws — so your worst-case 35, is really a net worst case of 27-30 (I am not sure what occupancy-per-unit estimate was used to arrive at 35).
And yes, better numbers would be nice.