Town officials have unveiled a new set of proposed planning ordinance revisions designed to clarify and 
tighten restrictions on home construction in the old part of town.
The rules changes, published on the town website, would affect the height, square footage and setback requirements for new homes, renovations and additions, in the Village Infill Planning Area.
A public hearing on the revisions is planned during the Town Board meeting Tuesday, April 10, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.
The town decided to tighten the rules last year after concerns arose that some residential construction projects were out of character with surrounding neighborhoods.
“The Town’s historic core cannot remain static, but its existing character is worth preserving,” says the text of the revisions. “It is acceptable for new houses to be larger than old ones, but not so much larger as to threaten the neighborhood character.”
The revisions unveiled this week incorporate and build upon interim rules that the town board adopted in October 2006, according to town planner Lauren Blackburn, who has been overseeing the revision process.
The interim rules are scheduled to expire this October, or sooner if the town adopts the new rules, Ms. Blackburn said.
Among other things, the latest revisions set slightly different requirements for each of six new “overlay districts” within the Village Infill area. One criticism about the interim rules was that blanket restrictions were inappropriate for the diverse collection of new and old neighborhoods within the infill zone.
WHAT THE RULES DO
Town officials began working on planning ordinance revisions in 2006, after some residents complained about construction that was dramatically increasing home sizes, pushing construction too close to lot lines or adding height beyond what exists in their neighborhoods.
So the town adopted the interim rules last fall. They say:
- Additions of more than 250 square feet must meet design and size restrictions.
- Front setbacks cannot be greater or less than other structures within 500 feet on either side, and must be within 10 feet of the closest house.
- Heights are restricted to 37 feet or 2½ stories, whichever is less.
NEIGHBORHOODS UNEQUAL
The revisions offered this week keep much of the intent of the interim rules, though some restrictions have been updated. Maximum heights are lower, and vary by neighborhood, for example.
The biggest change is the addition of new overlay districts designed to recognize the varied character of neighborhoods within the Village Infill Planning Area.
“This is all in response to the concern in October that an ordinance for the entire Village Infill was not being sensitive to different neighborhoods within and their distinct character,” Ms. Blackburn said in an e-mail.
A map published along with the rules (above), and a key supplied in the text of the rules divides the old part of town into zones where height and square footage restrictions will vary. So instead of a blanket height limit of 37 feet or 2½ stories, for example, the proposed rules now set a range of height limits, from 32 feet to 35 feet, depending on the neighborhood.
The text of the revisions is on the town Website, and it continues to undergo minor revisions this week in advance of Tuesday’s hearing, according to Ms. Blackburn. The most up to date version of the rules is available on the town site.
Residents will be invited to give their views on the revisions on Tuesday.
PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, April 10, 7 p.m., during the town board meeting, at town hall.
More information, including the text of the revisions and overlay map, is available on the town website.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE
Dec. 4, 2006, Davidson News & Notes, “Revised Village Infill building rules published.”
For a list of all stories mentioning the Village Infill rules changes, CLICK HERE>
I wish the town had included restrictions on the potential noisy, disruptive, polluting infill building process including:
1. Allowing work only Monday-Friday, not weekends.
2. Prohibiting closing of sidewalks for months at a time
3. Requiring daily clean-up of mud tracked on streets
4. Requiring adequate dust abatement procedures
5. Prohibiting parking large construction vehicles on the street for more than an hour
6. Prohibiting lengthy idling of construction vehicle engines
7. Requiring a performance bond for builders
8. Requiring builders to prove they have the financial resources to complete their project in a reasonable amount of time.
9. Requiring builders to submit a reasonable construction schedule, with forfiture of their performance bond, if not met.
It’s interesting that planners specifiy building heights and setbacks down to the inch, but do not appear to be concerned with the quality of life during construction.
After all, infill construction is not an isolated event. It is a continual process of adding-on, tearing down, and rebuilding. For sure, the building codes will be stretched, as exceptions are sought and granted and administrations change.
Why not make a stab at codifying good building practices for infill? This is just as important to preserving the town as design theory.
I think Bob has a great suggestion, and his list is a good start. Infill rules are separate from construction rules, but both are important. The lesson we’re learning from infill projects underway right now is that construction practices that are acceptable in “greenfields” areas create havoc in infill areas. I’d add one more item to Bob’s list: developers should make any street connections that are part of a project early in the process so that they can minimize the impact of the construction vehicles on neighborhood streets.
I always thought performance bonds were required as part of development projects. I know that in researching the ordinance in preparation for the development we are doing, the ordinance specifies a bond. Whether it is enforced or not, I don’t yet know. I agree with most of Bob’s comments. I would only ask that there be an understanding that many aspects of scheduling (weather, governmental reviews and approvals) are not under the direct control of the developer. As a builder/developer I can assure you there is no incentive on our part to delay projects. Obviously, delays mean more money spent and a longer wait for the money to (hopefully) come in. Thanks.
Of course, it would have to be reasonable. However there are some, I suspect, since they are in every business, who jump from job to job to follow the most money. I’m sure that is not you, Rodney.