Madison Considers Allowing Multi-Family Housing Downtown

Madison Planning and Zoning officials say they are reviewing the possibility of allowing multi-family housing development downtown.

The revelation comes as there are two proposals being created by two separate developers, who are interested in providing multi- family residences, both of which would be located in the D district, a small section of downtown that comprises Bradley Road, Wall Street, and a little bit of Boston Post Road, according to meeting minutes from earlier this month.

Town Planner David Anderson stated that the commission and its subcommittee have discussed the possibility of multi-family housing development in downtown Madison.

The following information comes from the zoning meeting minutes and is very thorough and lengthy.

Since the current Planning and Zoning Regulations do not provide for multi-family housing downtown, there are two ways the issue could be addressed: town land use officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission, itself, could create a regulation to provide for such development, or town land use officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission could wait for a developer to hire an attorney to craft a regulation to allow for multi-family housing, according to Anderson, via meeting minutes.

“Rather than wait for someone else to approach the commission with a proposed regulation, Mr. Anderson stated it would be better for the town and the Planning and Zoning Commission to craft the regulation, since that approach would give town officials and the commission more control,” meeting minutes state.

In downtown Madison, the Planning and Zoning Regulations currently only allow apartments above commercial enterprises; there are no first floor residential uses allowed downtown, according to Mr. Anderson.

He stated that he thought it would be worthwhile for the commission to have a discussion about allowing multi-family housing of various types downtown. Anderson submitted a proposed draft of a regulation for the commissioners to review, entitled Possible Regulation Change for Multi-Family Dwelling Units, dealing specifically with Section 6.2.2, Permitted Uses in the Downtown Districts and Section 6.2.2.2, Uses that Require Special Exception Review; this draft also included a summary of basic thoughts behind the proposed changes.

Language in Section 6.2.2(o) would be modified to include the words multi-family, and would be written as follows: o) Multi-Family dwelling units in compliance with Section 6.4-15.2 in the “D” District only. Section 6.15.2 would contain the following modified language: Multi-family Dwelling Units, adding the words Multi-family and deleting the words Above First Floor Commercial Uses. Furthermore, Section 6.15.2 (a) would read as follows: a) Each Dwelling Unit shall be used solely as either (1) a residence by the owner thereof, or (2) an apartment leased for periods of no less than three months; the words located above the first floor of the building and shall be, which came after the words Each Dwelling Unit shall be would be deleted.

Also removed from this section would be: b) The total Floor Area of the Dwelling Units shall not exceed 67 percent of the Floor Area of the Building in which they are located. It will be replaced with b) No dwelling unit shall have more than two (2) bedrooms. That sentence is currently known as c) in the regulations. A new c) would be added, as follows: c) In addition to the criteria outlined in Section 4.4 regarding consideration in granting or denying special exceptions, the Commission shall also have the authority to consider the following in granting or denying a special exception for multi-family dwelling units: a. The extent to which the proposal will help develop an optimal mix of residential units within the zoning district, while maintaining Madison Center as primarily a commercial area. b. The extent to which the proposal preserves active street level commercial uses, primarily along Boston Post Road, between Wall Street and Route 79, and along Wall Street.

This proposed regulation would allow the development of various types of multi-family residential units—condos, townhouses, apartments, and ownership or rental—in the “D” District—Bradley Road, majority of Wall Street, and portions of Boston Post Road, east of Wall Street—and it is supported in several policies and tasks contained within Madison’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), according to Mr. Anderson.

The proposed special exception criteria contained in Section 6.15.2(c) will allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to control the mix of commercial and residential uses, as development occurs, and it will also direct where multi-family housing projects are appropriate, according to Mr. Anderson.

This special exception process also allows the commission the ability to deny projects that are proposed in a location better suited for commercial development, according to Mr. Anderson.

This regulation is written to allow building height, coverage, and floor area, known as bulk standards, to dictate the density that can be achieved, rather than proposing specific density limitations within the regulation.

In his summary of basic thoughts behind the proposed changes in the regulations, Mr. Anderson stated, “In my opinion, Madison Center should logically contain our highest density housing. That density will look very different depending on the type of housing units proposed (apartments vs. townhouse vs. condos), and I think the bulk and scale of the buildings should control, rather than the number of units inside the building.”

The Planning and Zoning Commission has a lot of aesthetic control over any project that would be proposed under this regulation, since the eligible locations are within the Downtown Village District; if the commission found a project “too dense,” for instance, the tools are in place to ask an applicant to scale it down or to simply deny the application, according to Mr. Anderson.

Commissioner Joel Miller stated that Wall Street has always been residential, but Wall Street is interesting, because some of its character comes from that Americana commercial flair that is found on Wall Street. In general, Commissioner Miller stated that he has no problem with first floor residential off of Route 1; he is in favor of the proposed regulation, but the town has to be careful, so “condo city” is not created.

Chairman Clark stated that the area near the library and Scotland Avenue has never been successful commercially, nor has Bradley Road been a high demand commercial location. Commissioner Thomas Burland stated that it must be asked what is the vision for the downtown district; as more people are brought downtown, there will be more of a demand for commercial enterprises. Some of the allure of living downtown is being able to walk to the stores and restaurants, and Commissioner Burland stated that he does believe a higher density residential development downtown would be beneficial. Commissioner Miller questioned whether the proposed regulation is defendable.

Mr. Anderson stated that the town zoning regulations have coverage limitations that address housing density, in a way, and the commission has the tools necessary to control density without setting a cap within the regulations. By not putting a cap on density within the regulations, more creative projects will be brought forward, according to Mr. Anderson.

This regulation proposal, most importantly, is by special exception, and it gives the Planning and Zoning Commission all of the control, according to Mr. Anderson. It is not the town’s desire to have the entire downtown turned into a residential area; it is a mix of commercial and residential that is being sought, according to Mr. Anderson. Commissioner Burland stated that he would be more comfortable with a standard being set within the regulation, such as no less than 60 percent commercial can be downtown. Chairman Clark stated that he did not see where setting such a standard would do anything except take away from the town the ability to do what is right.

Mr. Anderson stated that the town of Madison is no where near having too much residential density downtown, but as time marches on, the commission could certainly come closer to applying stronger standards, perhaps even two years from now.

On Wall Street, it is the direct frontage that must be preserved—property on back lots could retain residential—but it is the direct frontage that brings the character to that area, and that is what must be preserved, according to Commissioner Miller. Commissioner James Matteson asked whether there is a population count on the number of residents living downtown; Mr. Anderson stated there is not a firm count, because the assessor’s office gives bedroom counts for houses but not for apartments, though he will look into trying to get an amount on the residential population downtown.

Mr. Anderson stated that he is not proposing that any of the multi-family development downtown include affordable housing; it is cost prohibitive for developers in the downtown district to be required to include affordable housing units in their proposals; builders lose money on those projects. In Madison’s downtown, to get affordable housing that would pay off, a lot of units would be needed, in order to support such projects, and this would not be suitable for the downtown district, according to Mr. Anderson. It would be better to find locations outside of the downtown district for affordable housing development, according to Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson stated there are two reasons he is proposing this regulation for this area, the “D” District: first, the commission does not have to do any zone boundary changes, and second, there are known projects that are in the planning stages, and the commission will be seeing development proposals for the downtown district.

He stated that he would like to move forward with this proposed regulation, and he will have the town attorney review it, first, but a public hearing on it could be given as early as Sept. 17, 2015. Mr. Anderson stated he will send an email to commissioners who were absent, notifying them that there was positive feedback on the proposed regulation, and the intent is to have the public hearing the third week in September; wording on the regulation can change, depending on comments made in the public hearing. It is unanimous that the commission wants to move this forward, Chairman Clark stated. No vote was needed on moving it forward, according to Mr. Anderson.

The proposal will be reviewed by the town attorney.