HomeMy Public PortalAboutGrowth Management Plan 1988 FILE COPY
Office
- Aji-ninistra#ion Building
Main Street
Watertown, MA 02172
WATERTOWN&
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
December 1, 1988
p U U
TABLE OF CONTENTS
nacre
1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Historical Overview 1
2 . 0 FINDINGS 3
3 .0 PLANNING PROCESS 8
4 . 0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
4 . 1 Residential Growth Management 9
Policies and Recommendations
4. 1(1) Residential Development Pressures
4. 1(2) -Affordable Housing
4 . 1 (3) Affordable Housing/Existing Neighborhoods
4. 1(4) Residential Development Potential/Open Space
4 . 1 (5) Ineffective Residential Zoning Districts
4. 1(6) Preservation of Residential Uses
4 .2 Commercial Growth Management 20
Policies and Recommendations
4.2 (1) Additional Commercial Zones
4. 2 (2) Watertown Square
4.2 (3) Urban Design and Watertown Square
4 .2 (4) Redevelopment Incentives
4.3 Industrial Growth Management 28
Policies and Recommendations
4. 3 (1) Industrial Zones and New Uses
4.3 (2) Redundant Industrial Zoning Districts
4 .4 Open Space and Growth Management 32
4.4 (1) Buffer Zones
4 .4 (2) Charles River
4. 4 (3) Distinct Open Space District
5.0 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS 36
6. 0 CONCLUDING REMARKS 37
TABLE OF MAPS
1. EXISTING ZONING
2 . PROPOSED ZONING
TABLE OF FIGURES
1. REVITALIZATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
APPENDICES
nacre
1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 1, 21 AND 3 A-1
lA TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE FUND A-7
1B GENERAL ZONING MAP CHANGES A-8
2 INCLUSIONARY ZONING A-9
2A HOUSING TRUST FUND A-15
3 SHARED HOUSING-SPECIAL PERMIT A-16
4 ACCESSORY APARTMENT AMNESTY-SPECIAL PERMIT A-18
5 LODGERS A-20
6 CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT A-21
7 DELETION OF CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS A-22
8 REZONING TO REFLECT EXISTING LAND USE A-23
9 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT A-24
10 MIXED USE CB DISTRICT A-26
11 REVITALIZATION OVERLAY A-27
11A REVITALIZATION OVERLAY - MAP CHANGE A-31
11B REVITALIZATION OVERLAY MAP CHANGES A-32
12 RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL SETBACKS A-33
13 OPEN SPACE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT A-34
14 AMENDMENTS TO THE DIMENSIONAL TABLE A-36
15 REORGANIZED DIMENSIONAL TABLE A-38
GMGTPLAN.705
WATERTOWN: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Growth Management Plan presented in this document has as its
primary focus the Watertown Zoning Ordinance. By redesigning the
zoning ordinance the plan seeks to create a land use and
development framework to guide future growth.
Watertown's zoning patterns have remained relatively unchanged
since the 1930's and in general have served the community
reasonably well. However, fundamental demographic shifts,
alterations to the regional transportation system, and major
regional, national and indeed international economic forces are
rendering significant portions of the existing zoning/land use
policies ineffective given the economic realities of the late
twentieth century.
During the course of the project, there were numerous suggestions
from the public concerning the subject matter of the study. The
most important change incorporated into the work program, as a
result of public input, has been the inclusion of affordable
housing provisions in specific zoning districts. Affordable
housing is a current concern but most likely it will continue in
the forefront of local concern for reasons of housing cost and
the impact of housing costs on overall economic development
potential.
The document is divided into five sections: (1) Historical
Overview, (2) Findings, (3) Alternatives and Planning Process,
(4) The Growth Management Plan and (5) Technical Appendices. In
many ways the Technical Appendices are the heart of the document
for here we have provided the specific zoning amendments that, if
adopted, will redirect growth and development in Watertown in a
manner we believe is more consistent with the economic and
demographic realities of the coming century.
1. 1 Historical Overview
Crossroads on the Charles,, a recently published history of
Watertown, is a comprehensive review of the geographical,
economic and social factors that have shaped the community. For
all its detail we were struck by the fact that Watertown's
history was divided into three major periods, and how many of the
major themes of said periods are apparent today.
1
GMGTPLAN.705
The period 1628-1750 was a time of settlement and agricultural
development. However, for our purposes it is important to note
that the existence of the Charles River as a highway into the
interior was a critical factor in the settlement of the town.
This transportation factor was continually enhanced as the early
roadways from Boston through Watertown and on to the agricultural
heartland of the state were improved. Watertown's current
position as a transportation focal point was apparent from its
earliest days, and indeed was one of the major reasons for
settlement. While in 1750 transportation linkages helped
Watertown to assert an identity, today the same factors tend to
minimize local identity in favor of regional access needs.
The second major period occurred after the tumultuous
Revolutionary War and Nation making decades of 1750 to 1800.
Essentially, the second period encompasses the nineteenth century
industrial revolution. It was in the early decades of this
period that Watertown's early industries helped to fuel the
American industrial revolution. Spurred by the Civil War,
Watertown emerged as a significant national industrial center.
As manufacturing prowess became a nineteenth century American
hallmark, Watertown not only attracted new businesses but
substantial worker populations. By the turn of the century
Watertown along with Somerville and Cambridge had become the more
densely populated communities in the state.
Crossroads of the Charles, calls the third period (1900-1980) the
"Challenge of Change". Indeed the challenge has come to
Watertown rather quickly in historic terms. For the first half
of this century Watertown continued to expand its industrial
base, until by 1950 it was generally known to be one of the most
industrialized communities in the nation. However, by 1960 it
was readily apparent that a new age was dawning not only in the
United States but the world. New nations, new international
political realities, new economic pressures and new technologies
simply did not easily mesh into an essentially nineteenth century
economic framework. The past thirty-five years have been not
only a period of industrial decline and population decrease, but
a period of infill development; and to a large extent hesitation
over the direction of future growth.
Elements of Watertown's history are easily observed today in its
continuing role as a transportation focal point and its remaining
but significant industrial base. The following recommendations
were made with an understanding of the major historical forces
that have shaped Watertown. However, the recommendations also
reflect a belief that a community can and should make decisions
that will redirect the course of development, answer the
"challenge of change" and begin a new chapter in its history.
- 2 --
GMGTPLAN.705
2.0 FINDINGS
We did not initiate the data assembly or analysis phase. We used
where applicable, and added where necessary, the data assembled
in Phase I of this project. Our objective was to draw reasonable
conclusions from the assembled data and to determine the
necessity of altering land use and zoning policies based on our
findings.
2.1 General Findinas
A. Regional Economic Role:
More than most communities, Watertown is impacted by
regional traffic and development factors; thus managing
growth can be more challenging than in many other
communities.
While diminished in scale Watertown remains a major
industrial and employment center for the Boston region.
Traditionally it has accommodated an influx of people, cars,
trucks, and trains from surrounding communities. These forces
have and still impact the fabric and character of its
residential neighborhoods. The previously predominant
industrial base has been significantly reduced, replaced in
part by regional shopping centers and office buildings.
However, the replacements remain regional attractions and
given the town's position at a crossroads of many secondary
arterials, it continues to have difficulty in insulating its
neighborhoods from regional economic and traffic impacts.
Currently, there are no zoning or land use policies that can
assist the community in lessening the impacts of regionally
oriented land uses on residential neighborhoods.
B. Shifting Economic Base:
Watertown is experiencing a transition from a manufacturing
economy to a retail and service economy. These changes are
in part due to the obsolesce of some industrial sites, the
changing need of the Federal Government (the Arsenal) ; but in
large measure they are a local reflection' of much larger
economic trends. Massachusetts has continued to lose
thousands of manufacturing jobs even in the "booming 1980's" .
This phenomenon is part of a global industrial restructuring
and Watertown is but a small piece in a large kaleidoscope.
However, while the economic base and realities have changed,
Watertown's zoning and land policies have not.
3 _
i
GMGTPLAN. 705
C. Community Image:
The image of Watertown is varied. It presents a strong
middle--class residential character but its traffic
congestion, parking problems, older physical plant and
mundane commercial centers reflect a more urban, somewhat
shopworn, image. Current zoning and land use policies
provide no mechanism to assist in improving the image of the
town.
D. Relationship to Geographic Boundaries:
Watertown, founded on the banks of the Charles River, has
little public access to the River. While the Charles River
is the strongest natural boundary and a major physical
element in the community, the existing land use and zoning
polices preclude its use as either an effective public
amenity or as a resource to initiate economic revitalization.
To the town's detriment the Charles River has essentially
been removed from land use considerations.
2.2 Soecific Findings
A. Land Use and Demographics
o Existing land use generally reflects local zoning and
historic development patterns, i.e. a commercial/
industrial belt running the entire length of the community
paralleling the Charles River and major the east/west
railroads.
o Watertown Square is no longer a retail oriented town
center. It is a weak community-wide retail center where
service activities now predominate.
o Since 1980 residential uses have been replacing commercial
and industrial uses in various locations throughout the
community. Strong residential demand has also created
illegal accessory units or encouraged legal conversions in
existing neighborhoods. These changes have begun to alter
the traditional character of the neighborhoods from one
and two family areas to multi-family neighborhoods.
o While Massachusetts and the metropolitan region has
experienced a small population increase since 1960 the
population of Watertown has declined by 6903 or 17 . 6% ; at
the same time dwelling units have increased by 2842 or
24 .5%. Thus, household size has been reduced from 3 . 37
per dwelling unit to 2 . 23 , well below the 2 .7 regional
average. This significant demographic change has altered
4 -
6
GMGTPLAN. 705
the character of the town and has increased pressure for
the development of smaller dwelling units, usually in a
multi-family format.
B. zoning
o Zoning districts are not strongly defined; this results in
"Patchwork" and divergent uses in close proximity and
constant conflict between abutting commercial/residential
uses and abutting higher and lower density residential
uses.
o The theoretical development capacity of existing zoning
(build--out capacity) is substantial. The existing
commercial/ industrial base could be expanded from 19. 6
million sq. ft. (MSF) to 55.4 MSF, an increase of 184%;
while residential build-out could produce another 1600
dwelling units or an 11% increase. In reality, however,
we believe that the existing commercial development
capacity is approximately 30 million square feet or an
increase of 50%, while residential capacity is less than
500 units. Most of the future development capacity is
found in the commercial and industrially zoned districts,
but roadway capacity in these areas is insufficient to
efficiently handle' the existing buildout potential.
o The zoning ordinance provides for a variety of residential
and commercial zones, but it lacks easily applied mixed
; use provisions in the" central business district. Further,
it does not provide any techniques to produce affordable
housing or open space as a product of the development
process.
o The ordinance does not provide for adequate buffering or
screening between business and residential land uses and
future development under the current ordinance will
exacerbate business and residential land use conflicts.
o The current zoning ordinance reflects development policies
that are becoming increasingly obsolete given changes in
the region's economic base and transportation system. The
current ordinance reflects a commitment to regional
commercial and industrial development, notwithstanding the
state-wide shift towards service employment and the lack
of any direct rail or highway connections to effectively
support new regionally oriented development.
C. Economic Base
o Future development will be almost exclusively
"redevelopment" with a tendency toward higher residential
5 _
i
GMGTPLAN.705
and commercial densities.
o While Watertown remains one of the important employment
centers of Greater Boston, the nature of the employment base
is undergoing profound changes. The employment base is more
balanced today than in 1960 when two of every three jobs was
in manufacturing, today only three of ten jobs are in this
sector.
o Since 1978, housing development has been the major economic
activity, even in commercially zoned areas. As a result the
overall acreage devoted to the commercial base has been
shrinking.
o Residential property values are essentially at the regional
average. Commercial and industrial land values per square
foot are also close to the regional average, but in most
instances somewhat below the values of neighboring
communities such as Newton, Cambridge and Waltham.
o Service sector employment is less than fifty (50%) of the
regional average, suggesting potential for additional
growth.
D. Transportation
o Watertown is not part of the rail rapid transit system, and
there are no planned expansions that include Watertown. Bus
service is its most direct link to the regional
Massachusetts transit system.
o Watertown is not well served by the regional highway system;
access to the Mass. Pike- is minimized by Galen Street and
Newton Corner. The community serves as a traffic
distributor for the major inter-community roadways.
o Significant traffic flow improvements will require major
intersection and roadway improvements. New signals, and/or
signage will only provide short-term relief. Major
reinvestment and reconstruction, including grade separation,
will be necessary to ameliorate some of the more serious
problems, such as those in Watertown Square and the
Southside.
E. Public Infrastructure
o Open space for passive or active recreation is at a premium.
The current zoning ordinance does not include meaningful
protection for existing public open space.
o The school population has declined by 1,813 since 1978, a
6 _
GMGTPLAN.705
39.75% decrease. Given that new residential development has
been and continues to be in the form of multi-family
dwellings and given present birth trends, the estimated
maximum number of school children that could be generated by
the present zoning is only 240 students.
o The existing roadway system is difficult to reconfigure
without major intrusions into residential areas. The traffic
volumes and congestion on existing roadways will be the
strongest factor in minimizing the existing zoning build-out
potential.
o Water, sewer, and public safety facilities are aging but
generally adequate for existing needs; they will require the
usual upgrading, reconstruction and maintenance in the
coming decades.
F. summary
Watertown is a changing community with little direction save
market forces. The emerging development pattern does not
address current residential neighborhood problems, nor does it
capitalize on the natural advantages of the Community.
Current zoning and land use policies, if maintained, may result
in a land use pattern that is typified by increasingly marginal
commercial/industrial uses along the riverfront. Existing
problems where business and residence abut will most likely
continue since current zoning does not provide or safeguard
either use from intrusions. Further, the issues of open space
preservation, affordable housing and overall community
character may go unaddressed.
7 -
GMGTPIAN.705
3.0 PLANNING PROCESS
After completion of the Findings portion of the work program in
September of 1987, the Growth Management Committee (Committee)
presented its findings at two public sessions. The purpose of the
public sessions was to review the implications of the assembled
material and to begin discussion of alternate growth scenarios.
Meeting on a monthly basis from October through February the
Committee explored various growth management concepts primarily
focusing on the zoning ordinance. Initially the discussion
centered on -two broad approaches, i.e. a local option vs. a
regional option. After public discussion the Committee opted to
pursue various local option alternatives. Two alternatives, 1 and
2 were outlined, discussed and amended via the public meeting
process. In March an amended Alternate 2 was presented at four
neighborhood public meetings, and special open-to-the-public
meeting with the Chamber of Commerce and the Watertown Housing
Authority. After completion of the monthly meetings and these six
public meetings, the Planning Department and Connery Associates
assembled Alternate 3, which essentially included amendments
developed during the neighborhood meetings in March/April of 1988 .
In May, Alternate 3 was presented to the public for additional
comment. At this juncture, the Planning Department and Board of
Appeals prepared various critiques and proposed amendments to be
addressed in the initial draft of the final document. After
reviewing and amending the initial draft with the Planning
Department during August and September, the document was prepared
for final comments by the general public; submission of the final
document to the Growth Management Committee and the Town Council
occurred in October of 1988 .
So as not to overly burden this report, a compendium of all
memoranda used at the various public meetings has been placed on
file with the Watertown Planning Board. The development of said
memoranda and their subsequent public review has constituted the
basic planning process. The practice of the Committee to hold
publicly accessible committee meetings was maintained throughout
the study effort. The Plan that follows in Chapter Four is a
product of an open and accessible public planning process with
input from all segments of the community.
- 8 -
GMGTPLAN.705
4.0 THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
The recommendations presented on the following pages will create a
fundamental change in the land use character of Watertown. They
are in large measure a response to the changing demographic and
economic environment affecting the community. However, they also
represent a determined effort to enhance the traditional
residential neighborhoods of the community in an effort to preserve
working and middle class neighborhoods and to prevent their
conversion into higher density non-family oriented developments.
Future growth should no longer erode the community oriented
commercial or residential base in favor of regional scale
development. At the same time the Plan offers a variety of
opportunities for new residential and commercial development that
will be necessary to meet the future residential and business needs
of Watertown.
Therefore, as an overall growth management policy we recommend:
The adoption of land use and zoning policies that will
minimize the creation of non-conformity among existing
- uses, reduce the potential for regionally oriented
projects, and place a greater emphasis on developments
with neighborhood and town-wide orientation.
4.1 Residential Growth Manaaement Policies and Recommendations.
Watertown is an established, high density residential suburb with
a long tradition of industrial activity. Nonetheless it has been
and remains -primarily a residential community for working and
middle income families. One of our major objectives has been to
propose policies that will enhance and protect the residential
character of the community.
Residential Development Policies,
1) To maintain and strengthen the traditional neighborhoods in
Watertown by redirecting growth pressures away from established
neighborhoods and towards older industrial areas whose economic
viability is most likely to continue to diminish;
2) To promote creative use of existing residential structures that
will allow for change without undermining the essential physical
and functional nature of existing neighborhoods;
3) To provide affordable housing units as part of the conventional
housing development process to supplement the more traditional
housing programs of the town.
_ 9 _
GMGTPLAN.705
Issues and Recommendations.
Issue 4.1 (1) Residential Development Pressures:, For the past
decade the Boston Metropolitan Area has experienced the largest
increase in residential property values this century. The
phenomenon has not only created an "affordability problem", it
has stimulated a broad market and demand for residential
development. Given that Watertown's existing zoning precludes
residential uses in the Industrial District and that this
district comprises a large portion of the community, much of the
residential market pressures in Watertown have been directed
towards existing neighborhoods or commercial centers in the form
of zoning changes, expansions and conversions. For Watertown the
net result of residential market pressures during the past
eighteen years has been mixed. Housing supply has increased by
24% since 1970 but at a cost of reducing viable portions of
town-wide commercial base and irrevocably altering portions of
the traditional residential neighborhoods. Locally, the reaction
to recent residential trends is the passionate call for "no more
condominiums" . However, current zoning policies will continue to
direct residential redevelopment pressure toward small business
centers and older neighborhoods. We believe the current
residential development pressures will prove to be detrimental in
the long term; yet, there remains a need to develop additional
housing units in Watertown to meet the needs of future
generations. The issue is where new residential development
should be encouraged; we believe that it should be encouraged
outside of existing neighborhoods.
Recommendations 4.1(1) : We recommend that a significant portion
of new residential development be directed towards areas most
likely to experience a decline in economic viability and where
residential uses are currently not allowed; specifically,
portions of the current Industrial District. Thus, we recommend
creation of a new industrial zone, Industrial-3 (I-3) , which will
allow continued industrial use and also permit residential
development by special permit.
Discussion 4. 1 (1) : As shown on Map 2 the Industrial-3 districts
may become the location of new residential units. In essence, the
Industrial-3 districts are the planned "new neighborhoods" of
Watertown. They would be moderate to higher density multi-family
neighborhoods with a small retail/service component providing
convenience commercial services. While they may attract some
traditional families, we would anticipate that they would
primarily house young couples, single people, first time home
buyers, and small families. The older, and in most cases larger,
dwelling units in the traditional neighborhoods will most likely
continue to house larger families and generate most of
10 --
GMGTPLAN. 705
Watertown's school age population.
Currently, the Industrial Zone permits industrial uses up to a
floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0. However, the new I-3 District
permits industrial uses up to a Floor Area Ratio of 1.0, the
residential aspect of I-3 is a redevelopment incentive; and
through the use of this incentive the community can express its
growth management objectives. The residential provisions of the
I-3 district create a framework for redevelopment and the basis
for transition from less viable industrial uses to moderate/
higher density residential neighborhoods. However, the decision
of when to change land use remains a decision and choice of
individual owners.
The specific language for the Industrial-3 District is contained
in Appendix 1. The basic outlines of the district are as
follows:
Uses by right: The I-3 district would allow for a broad range
of -activities up to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1. 0, including
all uses currently permitted in the Industrial Zone. However,
retail business would only be allowed up to five percent (5%)
of the gross floor area of any structure.
Uses by Special Permit: Residential use may be allowed by
special permit up to a Floor Area Ratio of 2 .0. Specifically,
parcels of less than 20,000 square feet will be permitted to
construct residential uses consistent with the criteria
established for the R.75 district (maximum FAR . 75) ; parcels
up to 80, 000 square feet will be permitted to construct
residential uses consistent with the criteria established for
the R1.2 district (maximum FAR 1.2) ; and parcels over 80, 000
square feet will be permitted to construct residential uses
consistent with the dimensional regulations of the R1. 2
district except that the floor area ratio may be increased to
2. 0. General commercial uses, excluding any retail or service
drive-up activities, would be allowed but in a limited
fashion. The commercial uses may be located in one building
but in all instances located on the first story.
Setback Requirements: For commercial development: the front
yard setback would be twenty (20) feet; side yard setback
twenty-five (25) feet; and the rear yard setback thirty (30)
feet.
Heiaht Requirements: Fifty (50) feet and five (5) stories for
all developments. However, for parcels within the I-3 district
that are 500 feet or more from any residential zoning district
the height may be increased to sixty-five (65) feet and six
(6) stories provided that the maximum lot coverage for all
structures shall not exceed 35%.
- 11 --
GMGTPLAN.705
Open Space Recruirements: A minimum of ten percent (10%) open
space will be required for all new developments (including
conversions to different uses) in the I-3 zone. However, lots
under ten thousand square feet (10,000 S.F) and projects that
are expansions of existing industrial uses (up to ten percent
of gross floor area) or renovations to any existing industrial
or commercial use would be excluded from the minimum open
space requirements. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) open
space will be required for development subject to a special
permit up to a maximum of 40% for projects attaining an FAR of
2. 0. The open space requirement would be a sliding scale
directly proportional to the FAR of any project. In the
instance where the parcel is over 500 feet from a residential
district and the building height exceeds 50 feet, a minimum of
50% open space shall be required.
- 12 -
i
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.1(2) Affordable Housinar: During the past decade, housing
costs have escalated far more rapidly than incomes in Greater
Boston creating housing affordability problems for Watertown and
other metropolitan communities. Simultaneously, federal housing
programs have been significantly reduced, and state programs have
limited resources. Thus, many communities have turned to the
private sector for assistance in meeting housing needs. during
the course of this effort, the Town created an Affordable Housing
Task Force. Their report of November 1, 1988 presents a broad
range of actions that will be necessary in order to effectively
address town-wide housing issues.
Our perspective has focused on housing issues relative to zoning
practices. We are of the opinion, given Chapter 40A Section 9 of
the Massachusetts General Laws, that requiring a certain number
of affordable housing units as a condition for a building permit
can only be achieved via the special permit process. Essentially,
the issue is one of creating a zoning mechanism whereby the
conventional development process will produce a certain number of
affordable units for both low and moderate income families.
Thus, as development of certain intensity occurs, a certain
percentage of the new housing stock will be made more affordable.
While not a replacement for traditional public housing programs,
the involvement of the private sector can be an important-
supplement to public housing efforts as long as the affordable
housing requirements do not deter or minimize overall housing
activities. Thus, it is important to require affordable housing
requirements.
Recommendation 4 . 1 (2) : Introduce zoning that includes affordable
housing criteria as part of the special permit requirements.
Specifically, adopt inclusionary zoning provisions in the R.751
R1.2 and I-3 zoning districts.
Discussion 4.1 (2) : Inclusionary zoning requires that developers
set aside a percentage of the total number of dwelling units in a
new project for low and moderate income housing purposes.
We are recommending inclusionary zoning as a special permit
feature in the R.75, R1.2 and I-3 districts. The amended R. 75
and R1.2 zones would have floor area ratios of 0.25 and 0.40
respectively; this level of development allowed would not be
subject to affordable housing requirements. However, all
development in the I-3 zone would be subject to the affordable
housing requirements.
Appendix 2 provides the specific language of the inclusionary
zoning proposal while the table below outlines the FAR ranges and
the percentage of affordable housing required for each zoning
district subject to inclusionary zoning requirements.
13 -
GMGTPLAN.705
TABLE 1: INCLUSIONARY ZONING BY DISTRICT
Max FAR Max FAR
without with Percent of
Affordable Affordable Project
District Existina FAR Housinq Housinq Affordable
R.75 0.75 0.25 0.75 10%
R1. 2 1.20 0. 40 1. 20 15%
I-3 -- -- 2 . 00 10-20%
* Projects with 5 units or less shall be exempt from all
affordable housing criteria, and shall not require a special
permit for the issuance of a building permit.
The recommendation detailed in Appendix 2 recognizes there may be
instances when state or federal programs may not be available for
use with inclusionary zoning provisions. To cover this
contingency the proposal includes a provision allowing the Town,
in its discretion, to require the payment of a fee in lieu of
affordable units. The fee is expressed in terms of dollars per
square foot, i.e. , five dollars per square foot. Any monies
collected by Watertown in this fashion will be deposited into a
Housing Trust Fund and expended for affordable housing purposes
only (see Appendix 2A) .
The adoption of inclusionary zoning provisions along with the
creation of an I-3 district will give Watertown the opportunity
to produce a significant number of affordable dwelling units in
the coming decades, i.e. approximately 300 dwelling units. These
units will meet some of the affordable housing demands and assist
in fostering community stability by providing additional housing
options for local residents without requiring any direct
expenditure of funds by the Town. It is important to note that
the affordable units created by inclusionary zoning must be
augmented by a continued effort in public housing programs if the
overall affordable housing needs of the Town are to be met.
f
- 14 -
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.10) Affordable Housina and Existina Neiahborhoods:
Housing needs can vary greatly in any community and as a result
affordable housing can take on many definitions. While new
construction can meet various housing needs, it does not address
the use of the affordable units already in the system, i.e.
existing housing stock. Existing structures cannot be easily
reconfigured to meet emerging housing needs, and in many
instances reconstruction of older units can damage existing
neighborhood characteristics and undermine neighborhood
stability. ' For Watertown the issue has become how to use the
existing housing stock for more affordable housing purposes
without destroying traditional neighborhood characteristics and
densities.
Recommendation 4. 1 0) : We recommend a three part approach: first
the adoption of a Shared Housing special permit that includes
neighborhood oriented design and density criteria; second,
provisions for a one year accessory apartment amnesty program
that would legalize some existing accessory apartments for use as
affordable units; and third, amending the lodgers requirements to
require on premise landlords.
Discussion 4.1 0) : Our first -recommendation concerning shared
{ housing would use larger older homes for shared living purposes.
Said units would be for people 55 years and older and limited to
five people per structure. The amendment, see Appendix 3, would
require at least one off-street parking space per resident (if
conditions warrant, a special permit can be issued with less
parking requirements) , and that all residents share, living,
dining and bath facilities, but that each resident has a separate
bedrooms of at least 125 square feet. The intent is to allow for
more efficient and affordable use of existing stock, while
providing an alternative to dividing larger older homes into
"apartments". Linking the maximum number of residents to
available off-street parking spaces is intended to minimize
impacts on the existing neighborhood in terms of traffic
generation and parking demands.
The adoption of a shared living amendment will provide lower cost
housing without the need to construct new units, and address the
overall housing needs of Watertown by broadening the housing
types available. Further, the inclusion of shared living
provisions will provide an incentive to restore larger older
homes and thus improve the visual and economic image of the
neighborhood. While shared living opportunities will not apply
to all structures, those that qualify will add additional depth
and dimension to housing opportunity in Watertown. Further, as
defined the shared housing proposal will be eligible for state
housing assistance; thus, broadening Watertown's participation in
state housing assistance programs.
- 15 -
GMGTPLAN. 705
The accessory apartment amnesty program, our second
recommendation, is related to the shared housing effort.
Essentially, existing illegal accessory apartments would be
grandfathered if they can meet minimum health and safety
regulations; and no new accessory units would be permitted to be
constructed. Further, the amnesty would require that any
legalized accessory units meet moderate income rent limitations
established by the Watertown Housing Authority. This requirement
is designed to insure that the approved accessory apartments
remain part of the affordable housing stock (see Appendix 4) .
Thus, while inclusionary zoning proposals can create affordable
units as part of future construction, the accessory and shared
housing proposals can address the affordability problem more
promptly, while maintaining existing neighborhood
characteristics.
Finally, while we support the concept of providing for lodgers as
form of housing, we do so from the perspective of neighborhood
protection. Thus, we support lodgers in single family dwelling
units only if said dwelling units are owner occupied-. (see
Appendix 5) . We are recommending this approach to forestall the
proliferation of "off-campus dormitories' in older neighborhoods.
In sum, our three part -approach to. the affordable housing/
neighborhood preservation issue encourages the more efficient use
of existing residential structures. The proposals will create
additional housing opportunities in the older neighborhoods but
will not require "infill" of new structures or the expansion of
existing structures. Further, the resulting dwelling units are
designed to stay affordable due either the nature of the unit
(shared housing) or the requirements of zoning (accessory
apartments) .
1
` 16 `
i
f
I
i
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.1 (4) Residential Develovment Potential and Oven Space:
Watertown has few large private open areas and those that remain
are currently zoned for single family use (S-10) . While this
designation is the least intensive district, it does not provide
for the preservation of open space should development occur.
During the planning process discussions have focused on methods
to preserve open space characteristics on privately held open
space should development occur.
Recommendation 4. 1(4) : Create a new zoning district, cluster
Residential, that maintains residential densities of the 5-10
zone while providing for the provision of open space.
Discussion 4.1(4) : The proposed Cluster Residential District (CR)
has been designed similar to a traditional cluster residential
zoning district, i.e. , the ability to locate a set number of
multi-family dwelling units with minimal dimensional controls in
return for significant open space preservation (see Appendix 6) .
Specifically, the CR district would allow up to four dwelling
units per acre, with up to five dwelling units per structure, and
require sixty-five percent of the total parcel to be devoted to
open space. While we do not encourage the development of areas
such as the Gore •Estate, or -the Oakley County Club, the CR
district will provide for the preservation of some open space
characteristics on these sites if development did occur. To
maintain the important private open_ spaces in Watertown it is
necessary to rezone the areas from the 5-10 designation, with no
open space requirements, to a CR designation with significant
open space requirements.
- 17 -
GMGTPIAN.705
Issue 4. 1(5) Ineffective Residential Zonina Districts:
Watertown has a number of residential zoning districts that were
most likely created to allow certain specific developments. The
districts are generally related to one particular site and have,
in our opinion, no potential beneficial use in the remainder of
the community.
Recommendation 4.1 (5) : We recommend the removal of the Single-
Family Conversion (SC) , Residential 2.3 (R2 .3) , Residential
Cluster (RC) and Residential Planned units (RP) districts.
Discussion 4. 1 (5) : The SC, R2 .31 RC and RP zoning districts have
no relationship to the residential development policies
recommended by this plan or to the overall character of the
community. We believe that the recommendations in this plan
provide an appropriate variety of residential districts that will
result in balanced and creative residential development.
The references to SC, R2 .3, RC and RP can be deleted from the
text and where necessary and sites zoned SC, R2 . 3 and RC can be
rezoned to the nearest compatible use (see Appendices 7 and 8) .
For example, the SC districts to the S-6 district, the R2 .3
district on Galen -Street can be rezoned to R1.2 and the RC
district on Bigelow Avenue can be rezoned to R.75. Since the RP
district does not appear on the map, no map amendments are
necessary.
The removal of the aforementioned districts will create a more
logical package residential zoning districts; one that more
accurately reflects existing realities and future needs.
E
f
I
I
i
i
GMGTPLAN.705
Issues 4.1 (6) Preservation of Residential uses: The preservation
of residential uses has been a major issue throughout the
planning process. This plan will recommend actions such as the
elimination of the Single-Family Conversion District (SC) and
reversion of said areas to Single Family 6000 (S-6) districts and
an amended definition of the term "height" and the addition of
the term "basement" in order to minimize additional development
in the older settled neighborhoods. Previously the town acted to
increase off-street parking requirements and eliminate commercial
parking in residential zones to protect one and two family
districts from negative impacts of infill development. In
addition to past actions and the elimination of conversion zones
and new definitions, we are also proposed the protection of
viable residential areas from commercial redevelopment pressures
by proposing a series of zoning map changes to protect
residential areas. In Watertown, zoning generally reflects
existing land use; however, there are a few instances where
established residential areas are zoned for commercial use. In a
community with a large percentage of its total area already zoned
for commercial or industrial purposes the issue has been raised
as to why maintain commercial zoning on a few areas that are
residential in character, particularly given the need to preserve
older and more affordable housing stock.
Recommendation 4. 1(6) : Areas that are now zoned for commercial
or industrial purposes that are part of a recognized residential
neighborhood should be rezoned into residential districts.
Discussion 4. 1(6) : The particular areas to be rezoned are listed in
Appendix 8 and shown on the proposed zoning map. For purposes of
discussion the areas can be generally described as:
o The residential neighborhood bounded by School Lane and the Boston
and Maine railroad tracks, excluding the frontage lots on Mt.
Auburn Street: to be rezoned from limited business to two-faritily;
o The corner lots on the west side of School Lane and Mt. Auburn
Street: to be rezoned from Industrial to two-family;
o The residential lots fronting on Arlington Street bounded by Grove
Street and Calvin Road: to be rezoned from Industrial to two-
family;
o The residential uses on Grove Street east of Crawford Street and
west of Coolidge Hill Road: to be rezoned from Industrial to two-
family;
o All existing one and two-family residential structures on Hunt
Street, Maple Street and the parking lot at the end of Hunt Street:
to be rezoned from Industrial to two-family;
I
o Rezone the residential uses within the existing LB district
centered on Belmont Street between Arlington Street and Keenan
Street to two-family.
- 19 -
GMGTPLAN.705
4.2 commercial Growth Management Policies and Recommendations
Like all communities, Watertown needs commercial zoning districts
to provide retail and service activities for residents and to
provide local employment opportunities. Watertown has responded
to this need by creating two business districts, i.e. the Limited
Business (LB) District and the Central Business (CB) District.
These districts can provide commercial opportunities for both
local and regional purposes; however, given Watertown's location
in the metropolitan area and the inherent development capacity of
these districts, the long-term tendency has been the development
of regional facilities in which local residents can participate.
Encouraging regional- scale development is not necessarily a
detrimental commercial development policy but larger scale
commercial uses can in some instances be harmful to abutting
residential neighborhoods; and it can minimize the role of local
or neighborhood businesses in the life of a community.
Our study indicate that Watertown needs to reorganize its
commercial development objectives while maintaining a variety of
commercial districts. Specifically, Watertown needs to emphasize
the preservation of its locally oriented commercial activities
and in particular arrest the decline of Watertown Square, its
central business district. -
To address these issues we propose the following Commercial
Growth Management Policies:
Commercial Development Policies
1) Provide a variety of commercial zoning districts that are
clearly delineated in terms of local, community-wide and
regional orientation.
2) Require that at least the ground floor of all new or
rehabilitation projects in Watertown Square be designed for
commercial purposes.
20 _
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.2 (1) Additional Commercial Zones: There are small Limited
Business (LB) zones throughout the community that are surrounded
by stable residential neighborhoods. While these commercial
areas provide desirable and traditional services, future
redevelopment at a level permitted by the LB district could
create larger scale commercial development which would no longer
be oriented or compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods.
There is a need to preserve the commercial nature of these areas
and redesign their future redevelopment capacity such that it is
consistent with the residential character of the surrounding
area.
Recommendation 4.2 (1) : Create a new commercial zone,
Neighborhood Business (NB) , that allows for a broad range of
commercial uses at a scale consistent with abutting
neighborhoods.
Discussion 4.2 (1) : The proposed NB district provides for the
same uses by right and special permit as the limited business
district. However, it also reduces the allowed floor area ratio
from 1. 0 to 0. 5 and lowers the maximum height from 3 to 2.5
stories. By lowering the potential development intensity, the
new district would effectively designate certain commercial areas
as neighborhood or local business centers and would reflect
current uses of those areas. While the NB district reaffirms the
commercial nature of an area, it precludes a level of
redevelopment that in the long-term would be inconsistent with
its neighborhood setting (See Appendix 9)
Map 2 illustrates the intended locations of the NB districts. In
general and narrative terms the proposed locations for the
Neighborhood Business locations are:
o The LB district centered on Belmont and Prospect Streets;
o The LB district centered on Orchard Street and Waverly Avenue;
o The LB district on the south side of Mt. Auburn Street from
Irving to Otis Streets;
o The LB district centered on Cypress Street and School Street;
o The LB district on Mt. Auburn between Porter and Adams Streets,
o The LB district centered on Nichols Avenue and Porter Street;
o Portions of the LB district on Belmont Street between Arlington
Street and Keenan Street used for commercial purposes (the
remaining areas are proposed for two-family zoning) .
21 -
GMGTPLAN.705
The remaining LB Districts are located on major arterials such as
Galen Street, Arsenal Street, Main Street and Mt. Auburn Street.
Essentially, these areas would be the focus of new community-wide
commercial development. Thus, the establishment of NB districts
and the maintenance of some LB locations would delineate both
local and community-wide business centers. Such a delineation
would help direct commercial development into areas that are more
appropriate given their use, access and market area.
Additionally, the delineation of local and town-wide commercial
areas would avoid a scattering of higher density commercial
centers throughout the town; whose use would unnecessarily
exacerbate the already serious traffic problems in Watertown.
22 - i
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.2 (2) Watertown Scruare: Watertown Square (Square) due to
economic and traffic pattern reasons is no longer a significant
retail center in the community. Its commercial base continues to
be eroded by rezonings or reuse for residential development.
Current zoning, Central Business District (CB) encourages
continued residential development at the expense of the Square's
commercial future since it allows entirely residential structures
by special permit. There is no mechanism in the existing Central
Business District to encourage mixed use of the Square. Existing
zoning is a hindrance to the revitalization of the Square since
commercial and residential uses are now placed in self-defeating
competition.
Recommendation 4.2 (2) : Support commercial preservation in the
Square by permitting residential use only as part of mixed use
development.
Discussion 4.2 (2) : Current regulations permit totally residential
structures by special permit (consistent with R2 .3 criteria) in
the Central Business District (CB) . Thus, future residential
redevelopment in the Square will continue to shrink its
commercial base and further diminish its economic importance.
The result of current zoning practices may be to reduce the
Square to a regional traffic interchange surrounded by
residential uses.
The recommendation for as-of-right mixed use allows residential
developments but requires that the ground floor be used for
commercial purposes, (see Appendix 10 for specific details) . The
intent is to preserve the commercial base of the Square while
providing development incentives linked to residential market
demand. We are concerned that if the Square is allowed to
contract further it may inhibit any revitalization effort the
community may undertake. We believe that the proposed zoning
amendment will preserve the commercial future of the Square, and
its new commercial uses will be supported, in part, by the
residential elements of the mixed use developments.
- 23 -
GMGTPIAN.705
Issue 4.2 (3) Urban Desian and Watertown Sctuare:, Despite
significant public and private investment in recent years the
facades and signs of many buildings in Watertown Square create a
disjointed and poor image. The poor visual image of the Square
continues to reduce the area's image and its ability to attract
redevelopment investments. Traditional sign and facade programs
have not proven effective in reestablishing the image of the
Square as an attractive urban environment.
Recommendation 4.2 (3) : Prepare design review procedures and
criteria for Watertown Square, and implement said criteria
through zoning regulations, grants and any other public or
private funding source.
Discussion 4.2 (3) : While we have not undertaken an urban design
review upon which to base design recommendations, we strongly
support that the community invest in a building by building,
block by block design analysis of the Square. It is our
understanding that the Town has funds to undertake such a study,
we would recommend the earliest possible commencement. The
regulations that may result from a study can be made operative by
the use of a design review overlay district. Said overlay would
be part of the local zoning ordinance and would serve to provide
urban design. guidelines for Watertown Square.
k
1
f
I
24 -
i
i
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.2 (4) Redevelotiment Incentives: Portions of Watertown's
commercial base have proven intractable in terms of
redevelopment. In some instances there are numerous zoning
districts in a small area or simply the zoning is inappropriate
for effective redevelopment; in other instances lot sizes or
shapes have been a problem. The commercial and institutional
uses intersection formed by Galen Street and Watertown Street has
resisted redevelopment for decades since it suffers from many of
the problems noted above. It is not only an inefficient
commercial site but a detriment to the abutting residential
neighborhoods and the overall visual character of Watertown
Square and the gateway to Watertown. We contend that an overall
concept and comprehensive approach is needed to guide
redevelopment. The selected concept must be sensitive to
abutting residential uses and to the re-use potential of the
nearby Nonantum MBTA Repair Yard.
Recommendation 4.2 (4) : Create a Revitalization Overlay District
and locate the southeast corner of the Galen street/Nonantum Road
intersection and the northerly portion of the MBTA Repair Yards
within said district.
Discussion 4.2 (4) : Essentially, a revitalization overlay
district is a specialized form of zoning, designed to address a
particular land use problem without creating a traditional zoning
district. In many ways it is a zoning technique that allows a
community to recognize the special or unique problems related to
a certain portion of the community, and deal effectively with
that area without having to apply the same criteria to less
suitable areas. It operates by maintaining the underlying zoning
but through the special permit process, it creates incentives
that make other uses more economically attractive. The
incentives reflect the real purposes of the revitalization
overlay in that they provide the economic reason for owners to
change land uses, densities or development configurations. The
revitalization overlay district is designed as the vehicle to
promote change in an area that has seemingly intractable
problems.
The revitalization overlay proposed for Watertown will unify the
area discussed into one development district, ameliorating the
problems caused by lot size and numerous zoning districts. The
revitalization overlay is designed to provide the overall concept
and comprehensive approach to redevelopment. (See Appendix 11)
Specifically, the amendment would permit mixed use development up
to an FAR of 2 . 0 with structures up to 4 stories and forty-eight
feet and require setbacks to allow for right of way takings that
may needed to improve the alignment of the Galen Street/ Nonantum
Road intersection. The revitalization overlay concept can be
used for various problem areas -that may arise in the future; it
can be reconfigured or other overlay districts can be created to
f
- 25 -
GMGTPLM.7 0 5
meet particular circumstances. However, for the purposes of this
plan we are recommending initial use only at the area stated
above and shown on Map 2.
As noted we are recommending the redevelopment of the MBTA
Nonantum Repair Yards and have included the site within our
overlay district proposal. In 1985 Connery Associates prepared
the Southside Master Plan and in that document we proposed major
roadway and parking improvements on the northern portion of the
existing repair facility while recommending public park use for
the more southerly portions. We continue to support the
recommendations made in the Southside Master Plan.
Consistent with our 1985 recommendations, Figure 1 represents the
recommended redevelopment of the area proposed for the overlay
district. As shown, the west side of Galen Street is essentially
a four story mixed use structure with below grade parking. While
the street level is used for commercial purposes, the upper three
stories are shown as residential use. Thus, mixed use is the main
theme of the Galen Street/Watertown Street portion of the
revitalization district.
Aldrich Road is a major factor in our plans. Specifically, we
recommend extending Aldrich Road across Galen Street until it
intersects with Water Street. We would suggest widening Water
Street to at least thirty feet. The new Aldrich Road/Water
Street would be two way only up to the entrance of the proposed
MBTA bus station and parking facility, beyond said point the new
street would be one-way in a southerly direction (to Nonantum
Road) . The new Aldrich Road/Galen Street intersection would be
controlled by traffic signals, and except for the signals at the
Galen/Nonantum intersection, all other signals would be removed.
The northern part of the present MBTA is proposed as a bus
terminal with rider drop off/pickup facilities. We also propose
that a 150-200 car below grade or partially below grade parking
facility be designed for the site. The parking spaces being
regulated for commuter use as well as long-term employee parking.
Bus service originating from this site should exit directly onto
the new Aldrich Road; access to Galen Street would be controlled
by traffic signals. As an urban design and traffic safety
measure, we would not allow any curb cuts on the east side of
Galen Street from the proposed Aldrich Road/Galen Street
intersection to the Galen Street/Nonantum Road intersection.
Further, as recommended in the 1985, we continue to support a
landscaped buffer strip along said area to screen the parking
facility and to add a more attractive entrance into the Square.
It is conceivable that a small amount of mixed use development
could be part of a new bus and parking facility; however, this
type of development would clearly be accessory in nature.
Coupled with the redevelopment of the west side of Galen Street,
- 26 -
FIGURE 1 :
SOUTHSIpE LANO USE PROPOSAL.
WITH NEW WATER ST. ALICNMG.NT
c
y'Ql�L PLANTIMCgS/BuFrER. STRIP
�S MAIN-rAI N TWO AGC-ESS
TRAFFIC, 51GNALS
R�vER
Cdf.laORtJ IA st
OLD Ai-iUNMEN
i OF WATER
BUS STATION
�AN b PARS I NCB
MIXED USE w AIZEA
(7EVaL.oPMENT e `�OtSPADES
'y STORE y 4% \
yam' 4i7� `
PUBLIC
1 It
ly
ed
WATEP
AL r>kIeH RD STREET
ONE tivAY p
NEV,J TRAFF,G FFZbM
I-)C4 H T5 MA Im 9NTFZANCE
ENTRANCE
PUF3LIG
PA R K
SA
t
r
ZT WATER srREEr
W,DENE�D TO
30 PEET
i
GMGTPLAN.705
the redevelopment of the MBTA site will provide an excellent
entrance to Watertown Square. It will address some of the area's
long-term parking problems, maintain transit service, and improve
traffic flow. However, to attain the above noted results we
believe it is critical that both sides of Galen Street be
redeveloped as part of one unified concept that includes the
extension of Aldrich Road, and the removal of the trolley tracks
along Galen Street.
r.
27 _
GMGTPLAN.705
4.3 Industrial Growth Management Policies and Recommendations
Industrial development has been one of Watertown's traditional
and highly visible land uses. Unquestionably, Watertown was one
of the premier industrial centers in the State and possibly New
England for the first half of this century. However, changing
industrial markets, lack of good access to the primary highway
system, and age of physical plants have all taken their toll on
Watertown's ability to host major industrial activities. While
all of Greater Boston has experienced declines in industrial
employment, no other community has had such a population decline.
Industrial employment which comprised 64% of the work force in
1950 is down to less than 30% today and it continues to fall.
Many of the great industrial landmarks are now suburban-type
shopping centers, offices or warehouses. This is not to say that
Watertown does not or should not have an industrial future; we
believe it should. However, we also believe the community should
face reality and designate certain industrial areas for continued
industrial use and prepare the remaining less viable areas for
recycling to other uses. While recycling of older, less viable
areas may take decades and at times be difficult, the time has
arrived for Watertown to reorganize its industrial zoning
district so that new activities can come into being.
Industrial Development Policv:
Reorganize the industrial zoning district by designating some
portions for continued industrial use and provide others with
the opportunity to redevelop into residential uses.
- 28 _
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.3 (1) Industrial Zones and New Uses:, Portions of the
industrially zoned areas in Watertown can no longer be considered
as prime industrial sites due to changes in transportation
systems, markets and industrial production techniques. While the
industrially zoned areas currently provide a significant part of
the Town's commercial base, consideration needs to be given to
the eventual reuse of some of the less viable industrial sites.
The proposal for an Industrial 3 District earlier described
earlier provides much of the background for this issue. However,
the Industrial 3 zone comprises only a portion of the overall
r industrial area and while some industrial sites are becoming
obsolete other portions remain viable industrial sites, all will
most likely remain so for the foreseeable future.
While there should be little debate concerning the need to
maintain an industrial and commercial base for employment and
fiscal purposes there has been considerable debate on how to
encourage industrial development without creating undue traffic
congestion for an already densely developed community and
minimizing the impact on abutting residential uses.
Recommendation 4.3 (1) : Divide the industrial district into three
distinct industrial districts: I-11 I-2, I-3 and limit the amount
of future regionally-oriented retail development in Watertown,
i.e. regional shopping centers.
Discussion 4.3 (1) : The propose of Industrial 1 and 2 districts
is to designate those areas in Watertown where future regionally
oriented industrial/commercial development is most appropriate
(see Map 2 and Appendix 1) .
The I-1 district is similar to the current industrial district,
the major difference being that the FAR has been reduced to 1. 0
from 2. 0. Commercial/industrial development to an FAR of 2. 0 is
allowed by special permit. While the special permit procedural
requirements are similar to the existing ordinance, two new
criteria have been assigned to the I-1 district.
One: If the proposed development is within 1/2 mile of an
intersection with a level of service of D or below (see Appendix
1 for specifics) the applicant shall be required to pay into a
Traffic and Infrastructure Improvement Fund (Fund) . The proceeds
of the Fund will be used to upgrade and/or maintain the traffic
and infrastructure system that is effected by the proposed
project. Only those portions of a future project that are
subject to a special permit for intensity of use greater than an
FAR of 1.0 may be required to pay into the Fund. This criteria
establishes a policy of public/private partnership for the
maintenance of the public infrastructure. Essentially, the
community would be adopting a policy to accommodate a new and
more intense generation of development, if the costs of providing
29
i
GMGTPLAN. 705
the necessary services to support said development is shared by
the development community.
Two: As development moves toward its maximum intensity (FAR 2. 0)
an open space requirement of up to 40% is required. The open
space requirement is intended to create an "internal buffer"
between the newer development and existing neighborhoods; thus
minimizing the frictions that can occur when industrial and
residential uses abut. (See Appendix 12 for additional setback
criteria. ) In order to provide flexibility to the development
community in the design of future projects the required setbacks,
atriums and landscaped areas in parking lots will be allowed to
be calculated as part of the open space requirements.
The Industrial 2 (I-2) district would allow the same broad range
of uses as the I-1 with one major exception; it would limit
retail development to 5% of the allowed floor area ratio in
projects subject to an intensity of use special permit. Thus,
convenience commercial activities could be provided but regional
retail development would be precluded. The 1-2 is proposed for
those existing industrial sites that either have minimal access
or whose development for regional retail purposes would have
adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. (See Map 2)
The development type most encouraged by the I--2 district are
offices and research/development facilities. Adoption of this
amendment would recognize the service and research/development
potential in eastern Massachusetts and sets aside areas for their
inclusion in Watertown's economic base. We believe that these
uses will have a lesser impact on surrounding areas than retail
uses which would generate far greater traffic volumes, and will
thus also serve as a buffer to existing neighborhoods.
Similar to the I-1, the 1-2 district allows development up to an
FAR of 1. 0 and up to 2 .0 by special permit. Any use greater than
an FAR of 1. 0 would require the issuance of the special permit
subject to the traffic and infrastructure maintenance fund and
open space requirements discussed earlier.
Combined the I-1, I-2 and I-3 districts provide for regionally
oriented development opportunities, with a more limited retail
character. Further, the proposed districts include criteria that
would assist in ameliorating future traffic impacts and provide
for buffering between commercial and residential uses. The I-1
and I-2 along with the 1-3 districts which will allow residential
uses given certain criteria (see section 4 . 1(1) of this plan)
will reorganized the existing industrial zoning district into
three distinct elements and provide Watertown with a more
sensitive and economically balanced industrial development
policy.
- 30 -
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.3 (2) Redundant Industrial Zonina District:. The proposals
for the I-11 I--2, and I-3 Districts address a wide range of
potential uses for industrial/commercial properties. The scope
of these districts and the proposed revitalization overlay
district which is essentially a mixed use district make the
Multi-Use (M) and Multi-Use Arsenal (MA) districts redundant.
The uses in the M and MA Districts can be replicated by the
industrial zoning proposals of this plan.
Recommendation 4.3 (2) s Delete the M and MA districts from the
text of the Zoning Ordinance and rezone the MA district (Arsenal
Mall) to Industrial 1 (1-1) .
Discussion 4.3 (2) : The rezoning as suggested in Appendix 7 will
remove redundant zoning districts from the ordinance while
maintaining the ability of the town to provide a wide range of
development opportunities. When considered in light of the
Industrial 1, 2, and 3 districts and the overall policies of this
growth management plan, we do not believe that the retention of
the M and MA districts has any economic or land use value. The
rezoning of the Arsenal Mall site to I-1 would result in having
both major regional shopping centers in East Watertown in the
same district• . it will make all major redevelopments in the area
subject to the same traffic improvement and open space criteria.
We contend that the consistency of zoning the two regional
shopping centers to I-1 will be of significant value to Watertown
as the east side redevelops in the coming years.
- 31 -
GMGTPLAN.705
4.4 Open Space and Growth Management
Watertown is a densely developed community; its most common
residential zone, the two family district, permits 17 dwelling
units per acre. While there are a number of small public parks
and recreational facilities associated with school properties, it
cannot be considered a' community with adequate open space
amenities. However, in recent years there has been more
attention paid to the need for open space and as a result
significant additions such a Filippello Park have occurred.
However, open space remains a relatively scarce commodity in what
is essentially a high density inner suburb of Boston.
This plan was not intended to function as a guide for open space
acquisitions. While we would strongly encourage acquisitions in
accordance with the 1987 Open Space Plan, we believe it will be a
rare occurrence given fiscal and budgeting constraints. We
therefore offer a supplementary method of open space enhancement
that essentially integrates open space preservation with the on
going redevelopment of the community.
Thus, we have prepared a series of recommendations ranging from
reductions in development allowances, buffer zones, open space
requirements .and special residential districts. . , In. essence we
have attempted to utilize zoning as a mechanism for open space
enhancement.
Open Space and Growth Management Policy,
Preservation and enhancement of open space must be a major part
of the Town's on-going redevelopment process and regulations to
that effect must be reflected in the zoning ordinance.
32
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.4 (1) Buffer Zones: Watertown as a densely developed
community has numerous instances where abutting commercial and
residential uses conflict. While there is a need for open space
as a buffer, there must also be opportunity for economic
expansion. Future redevelopment, at higher densities, should be
allowed to occur but visual and operational buffers should be
part of the redevelopment criteria. Essentially, the buffer
zones that can be legally created in Watertown, outside of
eminent domain takings, are landscaped setbacks of various
distances between uses which are generally incompatible in terms
of scale or operational characteristics. In some instances
visual buffers include vegetative screening or adjustments to
building height to increase compatibility with surrounding uses.
Recommendation 4.4 (1) : As part of the dimensional regulations
for development in the proposed Industrial zones, (1-1, 1-21 I-3)
require stepped setbacks between industrial/commercial
development and residential uses.
Discussion 4.4 (1) : While existing development patterns cannot be
altered without public takings, they can be altered over time as
part of the redevelopment process. Thus, our proposal for
stepped setbacks would come into effect with the redevelopment of
commercial/industrial sites (see Appendix 12) . Specifically,
within 25 feet of a residential zoning district no structure
would be permitted; within 25 to 35 feet only structures of two
stories or twenty-four feet would be allowed; within 35 to 50
feet structures shall not exceed 36 feet and three stories; and
after 50 feet the allowed maximum height of five stories and
fifty feet could be attained. Also, a minimum of 15 feet of the
required twenty-five foot no-build setback shall be landscaped to
provide a year round visual buffer.
Additionally, special permit developments in the I-1, I-21 I-3
zones that attain full development capacity (FAR 2. 0) shall be
required to have 40% of the site area as open space, as described
earlier. Since all development over 1. 0 is subject to a special
permit it is conceivable that approved site plans may have
additional open space between residential and commercial uses
without subjecting the applicant to additional open space
requirements. We would strongly recommend that the Planning
Board and the Board of Appeals consider utilizing its site plan
review powers to create the largest buffer practical between
commercial and residential uses.
The combined effect of stepped setbacks and special permit open
space requirements will provide the needed buffering between
residential and non-residential use without reducing commercial
development capacity and should improve the quality and
operational characteristics of both uses over time.
i
i
- 33 -
i
GMGTPLAN.705
Issue 4.4 (2) Charles River: Integrating the Charles River into
the open space system of the community in order to provide public
access to this important waterway has been a long-term goal of
the Town. The existing zoning ordinance does not provide any
mechanism to assist in the accomplishment of this goal.
Recommendation 4.4 (2) : Using the proposed open space requirements
in the I-3 district the special permit granting authority (Board
of Appeals) should develop a review policy that encourages open
space restoration and/or preservation along the riverfront.
Discussion 4.4 (2) : While the Town and the Metropolitan District
commission should be encouraged to acquire additional open space
along the river, it is vital that the redevelopment criteria of
the I-3 District be used as a mechanism to supplement riverfront
acquisition efforts. By using the I-3 open space requirements
the preservation of the banks of the Charles River can become
part of Watertown's redevelopment process. While projects along
the riverfront will differ from site to site, judicious review of
the open space requirement by the Board of Appeals can become a
valuable technique for the integration of the Charles River into
the open space system.
i
f
34 -
GMGTPIAN.705
Issue 4.40) A Distinct Open Space District:, Public property
either town, state or federally owned is now zoned for
residential use. There is no delineation on the zoning snap or
within the zoning ordinance as to the location of public property
or how it should be treated in terms of setbacks from surrounding
development.
Recommendation 4.4 (3) : Create an Open Space and Conservancy
District designed to delineate public property which would always
remain as open space for public use and to provide setback
requirements from public property.
Discussion 4.4 (3) : The proposed Open Space and Conservancy
District (OSC) can be applied to all town, state, and federal
properties including cemeteries (see Appendix 13) . Uses on said
property should be limited to public recreation, public facility
or semi-public or philanthropic uses. This action will clearly
delineate public properties and will also specifically limit the
use on said lands. ' Further, by requiring "reverse setbacks",
i.e. the distance that surrounding uses must be setback from OSC
districts, the public lands can be further protected from adverse
impacts of surrounding uses. As detailed in Appendix 13 if the
parcel size which abuts an OSC district is over 25, 000 square
feet no residential structure can be within 25 feet of an OSC
district and no commercial or industrial structure can be within
50 feet (excluding parking areas) . In instances where the
abutting parcel is less than 25,000 square feet, the required
setbacks of the district in which the property is located shall
apply.
While the OSC district does not add to the public open space it
offers a degree of identification and protection that does not
currently exist.
While it may be desirable from a planning perspective to
designate certain privately owned land (i.e. Oakley County Club)
in the OSC zones, legal factors prohibit such action, since it
would be construed as a taking by the Town which would require
the payment of compensation to the -landowner. For this reason
other provisions have been included in the plan (such as the CR
zone) to maximum the open space component all projects.
- 35 -
GMGTPLAN.705
5.0 TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Both Connery Associates and the Watertown Planning Department as
part of this effort have prepared a list of items that can be
categorized as technical amendments. They are intended to make
the use and interpretation of the ordinance easier and to revise
or eliminate certain sections of the ordinance which are
outdated, inappropriate or unworkable in the Town today.
In addition to the "technical amendments" there are others which 1
are significant in terms of the overall direction of the zoning
ordinance. The following list indicates some of these more
important changes, a complete presentation of the technical
recommendations are part of a zoning reformat document with is a
companion document to this plan:
o Removal of all language that would allow use variances.
o Reconstruction of destroyed non-conforming uses allowed
twelve months to commence reconstruction as opposed to
the present nine months to complete reconstruction.
o Providing special permits a two year use period as opposed
to the current nine months.
o As entirely new section regarding the storage of vehicles
on parcels used for automotive sales.
o New Table of Uses reflecting the proposed new zoning
districts.
o New Table of Dimensional Controls and associated footnotes
reflecting the new zoning proposals
o Elimination of formulas to determine setbacks and
replacement with specific numbers.
o Language controlling yard sales and, the sale of products
on the public right-of-way.
o New definitions, i.e. basements, buffer zones, setback
and open space.
o Elimination of roof signs.
The technical amendments document has literally hundreds of
language amendments. While the great majority have no bearing on
use of dimensional controls there are, as noted above,
significant amendments proposed.
- 36 -
GMGTPLAN.705
6.0 CONCLUD11IG REMARKS.
1 If enacted the numerous recommendations presented in this plan
would redirect the growth and development of Watertown and give
the Town better tools to manage growth. While diverse, the
' recommendations share the characteristic of reorienting
Watertown's future towards a more community-oriented development.
They would deflect residential development pressures away from
traditional neighborhoods towards older and obsolete industrial
' sites; in essence, they would establish the guidelines for the
development of new neighborhoods and business centers and protect
and preserve existing neighborhoods and viable business centers.
In terms of general impacts the recommendations will create an
opportunity to reverse the population decline experienced since
' 1950. It is conceivable that in 40 to 50 years Watertown would
have a population of 40,000 people, approximately it's 1950
level. If this maximum level were attained it would be primarily
the result of the older industrial areas converting to
residential use. These new neighborhoods would be multi-family
in nature and most likely not produce school children at a rate
normally found within one and two family neighborhoods, i.e. less
than one quarter of said level. Nonetheless, it is conceivable
that 300-360 school children could be added to the current
enrollment over the next three decades, an increase of
approximately 10 students per year. These students would range
in age from 5-17, with about 40% being eligible for grades K-8.
We believe that the overall impacts on the school system due to
the residential recommendations would be minimal. A more
1 dramatic impact on school enrollment is likely to occur if family
size in the United States reverses its long-term downward trend.
If this occurs in coming generations, school enrollments will
' increase beyond the above projections and the community would
most likely need to provide new facilities.
Assuming that the private individuals will make the decisions to
use the residential option in the I-3 district and that the net
impact to the school system will be small we see no reason why
Watertown should undergo any negative fiscal impacts as the older
1 less productive industrial areas shift to moderate to higher
density residential neighborhoods. In general, we believe the
plan is relatively neutral in terms of fiscal impacts and in any
event fiscal consideration should not become an overriding issue
in planning for the future; quality of life has always been shown
to be a good bargain.
We conclude by stating that adoption of our recommendations would
assist Watertown in making the transition from a
residential/industrial community to a residential/service
industry community while maintaining the integrity of its
existing neighborhoods which are the areas most at risk if
current land use and zoning policies are not amended.
37 -
/ �t � � 11 � •- � �� � FRESH POND
BELMONT
CAMBRIL) tt:
WALTHAM h-Ud
S-6 T a D 1 7 a�J I1 I)
S-10
,. ��lC i
S(
I I ! p R1.Z O l a.. { I� _
dr
iv
R 1 S-10
.......... X.-
..... ...... :X
X
E
T T
MA
NEWTON \V"
N
H A
R.2 ........... ........ ......
OW-J, MAP 1: EXISTING ZONING
BASE ZONING MAP W A T E R T O W N
S-10 SINGLE FAMILY (10,000 SQ. FT. LOT) R.75 APARTMENT-LOW DENSITY 0 LIMITED BUSINESS MAY.1914 M A S S A C H U S E T T S
AMENDMENTS THERETO
A 1979
S-6 SINGLE FAMILY (6,000 SQ. FT. LOT) R 1.2 APARTMENT-MEDIUM DENSITY CENTRAL BUSINESS Z. 1979
SC SINGLE FAMILY CONVERSION R 2.3 APARTMENT-HIGH DENSITY 0 INDUSTRY ZONING MAP
T TWO FAMILY RP RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT RC CLUSTER DISTRICT WATERTOWN PLANING BOARD
M MULTI USE I MAP CORRECTED TO:
DI N FEET FROM EMS OF FIGHT- 0 Soo Iwo 3200
MA MULTI USE- ARSENAL OF-WAY �Rs NO DIMENSION IS G VIETH.' I FEB..1984
IT SHALL BE ASSUMED TO BE 100 Fit
LEGEND
OSC - Open Space/Conservancy
CR - Cluster Residential
t <
�P"Ess P S - Single Family Zones
N " T - Two Family
5T R. 75 - Residential Low Density
R1 .2 _ Residential Medium Density ,/I r� I� 1
\� ]� JIlf !NB - Neighborhood Commercial _ W N
W 1 Limited Business
R " / a ""'.' '� •"_ °~° y F < WiWT\ e Q / } T CB - Central Business District
3T TPP >N�� /` -BC( ♦..•v[• F K A O / N N !'^'LJ•'1�L=i�_��
I-1 - Industrial 1 f"—'----'
� 9/ ; a` ¢ _ _ < Q < I-2 - Industrial 2
S <�J
I-3 - Industrial 3 14Ap 2 ; PROPOSER ZONING
r`
//
S� 6aOgR3(ay O�/�QW n q/f O V90i �tQa j �f y 9� y VO S PO/ / v n ¢ e J 90q 'i - Revitalization Overlay
a 1'2- vn•r ♦ z 1 1 i
-1 � OC< 4C•.9 4, V � I SOyR N 0 r < I( Vl •.A".h/ OL 9L (0 flf /'ONT e'I '1 I h I } y � y. Q q
J 2 ' Ar_ Q oa
< , R� > a _N.r• �.e.:-r\V � < •4� • t_ U R 6 •� Q/ O �/ 6 <¢ r' F a N YI A ( r)
1 l Q// o ' < y •� o \ 4 A •^\ LO A ST /. h 4 } .ma � d� Q CAfN [ F�/ ¢ i } W i
Z� ¢
/ H A b f d� Y . / \ 3 O � > 4V J • O ( ' tr 3 r o � 0= a t.t W �
3/ •(•x •�'• ••� 00 �' ! F i 2 N> > L•1 f '> n V Nr
C�1�� 2 e • T' �• �1 yK �NCY Je t• ST }JL i 4 //� ¢ £/C. al a hi C�� i , Y= sale m _. .__
o .. II CI
L$ 2h Ao . eLf v > j .ne• y F .� i i C i /(mil/ m /' ¢ � -Y 4 y ! `9(9 %EI X ST i � i L �.
+•� n
MOUNT
Q F
]T.
C SZ '}' ¢ 2 a. Q
2 lti 1 } 19 . 90 0 Q �;� s A P,W i• _O � \, T
1 ♦ i ' .x U7 W e ff „Y 40 c' Z W OgEL ¢ b .�.,. U AhN W[lt 1 r ACceaCt • 1 Cchic,,
_ V i ,. o en ST S P S u Q Q w S > i ; .•a .•: D VE \ T
y Q Q p e4 _ fLMf �' �4 90 CO( Oy< D C u. •/ 2 �� N 9 O ,S<.,a ri.�* � •'n•.. A EN I 0
V
y O 2 R<! b /. \/) j• W `n > S CA 'RO. <
STA1C0R f� � .� °cs -
< 3 J N 00 W i]•[3 �`
A P M1•T � i yy by /C' [C FI' S `f} 1 } FAI 'a1 b, ( Y
T l(•P O 3 R►.z �t' 1 \\ CO�rG} � y ��4 1 �\ ���• ZS � ! oA •sr• t ST. � h< `O S. 9At ' AV E.aru Ota I � 4 I
R GP MAI [ RR � / \ � \ 'O( [L n` ^ •a� O y 2 6 r 4 ! � yt ♦ P A J � C tuua.. .
?e'- - 9Sa Rxt/ > w. 4P S} T [cc •� PP A N.' Gt. G J/. .4 ..
-•. _-- - I - ` �J i i>WOx P[ .� 4 p S,. �" ._at[.IvG�y ']A A\a4 a6V (PF P SI. h M ST FV`NApV - O *T t0+( y ER%•~r - ^�' /� V�
% 1e.2"
V_L'Y R
Vv 805TON P <onr.nr QAT PpO � � ^ ^
' / y 9 x T ` R^CNA( ° RAIHC `TT }•(L ,V[e[n V� 5 G '
I q
/ l$ 1\ II II �- / JllrirMM ST :..` N •f ST R R PL nvOV �f
4y a ^ • �.<\. d CICON PS �- ; JAVfIM[RON�) O 104
2 1
'o' \ ,� O• ,• •' ' 1 a O O •r a BC4COt{ ( FR,HN ST, _ - - ARSCNAL ` r • n JA O�r.3 'T•Y
r 3 ` <G�� ,• to p °f f � �':1 a ..a r st _ T
< I
! P •. .e•m.• O - . r � • �qrn[ [<.w J` i � .____ _ 'L ST J9/p i{ �
r T 4i
UfilT 9 tlTA'f F5 AI15�YAL �-
WM 4 L9P/ I•` f Q '/f(O t
\ wA1<Pi0 P}S} TO yT T eat t9 4 ST �y � "♦ L O -
005,
All
4 iz l9pR �St�`s •nTl � , (.\;. O q°P - .�,!_.!(����i�'
\ O J to OY e fR �� 1„/ `,� '\�• 1 ` f0 - `' ¢
_ S 0 ;�]T y~ Z } pv.0[MI: N / /n(`SRAp '•I/.Rt<5 R^ r;;=` ^r1 �" �/ �.�•�<��• / ST
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 11 2, AND 3
To see if the Town Council will vote to eliminate the existing
industrial district and substitute three new industrial districts,
as follows:
A. Eliminate in Section 3 . 10 (C) the term "I-Industrial" and
substitute the following items:
I-1, Industrial 1
I-2, Industrial 2
I-3 , Industrial 3
B. Eliminate the column headed by the letter "I" in Section 5. 1
Table of Use Regulations and substitute three new columns
entitled "I-1", "I-2", 11I-311.
(1) Under the column entitled I-1 insert the appropriate
designations (i.e. N, Y, SP) as currently shown for the I
district;
(2) Under the column entitled I-2 insert the appropriate
designations as currently shown in the I district except for
the following:
The designation "Y" relating to Section 5.1. 3 g. and h.
shall be followed by the footnote 111" and "footnote 1" shall
be described in a new section, Section 5.21 Notes to the
Table of Uses.
(3) Under the column- entitled I-3 insert the appropriate
designations as currently shown in the I district except for
the following:
Items 5.1.1 i. , j . , k. change the designation from "N" to
"SP" and the designation "Y" relating to Sections 5. 1. 3 g.
and h. shall be followed by a footnote number "1"
C. Create a new section, "Section 5.21 Footnotes to the Table of
Uses" and add the following:
(1) Commercial uses permitted as described in subsections 5.1.3
g. and h. shall be allowed given the following criteria: for
a building or buildings subject to a special permit for an
increase in intensity of use or for residential use, the
uses permitted in the above noted sections shall not exceed
5,000 square feet in a building or buildings with a gross
floor area (GFA) of less than 100,000 square feet; or exceed
5% of the gross floor area for building or buildings with a
GFA over 100,000 square feet.
A-1
APPENDIX.705
D. Amend the Table of Dimensional Regulations 5. 30 as follows:
(1) Delete reference to the I District under the column entitled
"District" and substitute 111-111 , 111-2 , and 11I-3" after the
term "CB".
(2) Under the term Maximum Floor Area Ratio insert the number
111. 011 corresponding to the I-1, I-2, and I-3 districts and
after the number 111. 011, for each district add the footnote
designation 'Bg'B .
(3) Reorganize Section 5. 31 to reflect new dimensional
regulations, specifically:
Delete footnotes "a, "f", "gil, "hill "if', "j", I'll', limit lip"
and "q"
Reletter footnotes 'Ibl' to read 'fall; IWO to read f'b#'; IId" to
read "c"; Ilk" to read I'd", 'Intl to read 'Be"; and f;off to read off"
(4) Amend footnote "ell to read "Except as provided in Section
4.43, Exceptions to Yard Regulations. "
(5) Add Footnote "g" to the amended Section 5. 31
g. No use in the Industrial-1, or -2 Districts shall exceed
an FAR of 1.0 without receiving a special permit
consistent with Sections 9.1, 9.11, 9.12; and in no
instance shall the increased intensity of use allowed by
the special permit exceed an FAR of 2.0.
Further, no residential use in the 1-3 district shall be
allowed without receiving a special permit consistent
with the above noted sections and Section 9.13 and, in no
instance shall the increased intensity of use exceed an
FAR of 2.0.
(6) Insert the following dimensional criteria for the I-1, I-2,
I-3 districts for each of the following headings:
Maximum
Minimum Min. Yard (in feet) % of Lot
Lot Size Maximum Heiaht Front Side Rear Coveraa_e
I-1 none 50 feet/5 stories 20 25 30 50%
I-2 none 50 feet/5 stories 20 25 30 50%
I-3 none 50 feet/5 stories 20 25 30 50%
Maximum Floor Minimum Minimum
Area Ratio Frontaae/Width Open Space
I-1 1.0 (g) 50 10%
I-2 1. 0 (g) 50 10%
I-3 NON-RES 1. 0 (g) 50 10%
I-3 RES. 1.0 (g) 50 40%
A-2
APPENDIX.705
(7) Add footnote "h" to Section 5.30 pertaining to maximum
height in the I-3 district to read as follows: 1150 feet/5
stores (h) " and insert footnote "h" in Section 5.31 as
follows:
h. In the Industrial-3 District when applying for a special
permit for residential uses the maximum height may be
increased to six stories and 65 feet, if the boundaries
of the 1-3 parcel are at least 500 feet from any
residential district boundary, the maximum lot coverage
does not exceed 35%, and the minimum open spaced provided
is 50% of the total parcel size of which no more than 50%
is a wetland.
(8) Add footnote "i. " to Section 5. 30 pertaining to the I-3
district and minimum lot size to read as follows: "none
(i. ) " and insert footnote "i. " in Section 5. 31 as follows:
i. In the Industrial-3 District when applying for a special
permit for residential use the minimum lot size shall be
10,000 square feet. However, development shall be
allowed, on any sized lot greater than 5,000 square feet
without a special permit and without affordable housing
requirements if the total amount of dwelling units is
five or less.
(9) Delete the column Minimum Lot per Dwelling Unit in its
entirety for Section 5. 30 Table of Dimensional Regulations.
E. Renumber Sections 9.12 through 9. 16 pertaining to special
permits in the existing ordinance as 9. 14 to 9. 17 accordingly
and add a new Sections 9.12 and 9. 13 as follows:
9.12 Special Permit Criteria for Industrial Districts
(a) Applicability: In addition to the conditions described in
Sections 9.03, 9.10 and 9.11 special permits for increased
intensity of use above an FAR of 1.0 in the Industrial 1 and
2 districts shall also be subject to the conditions set
forth in this section as applicable.
(b) open Space Requirements: Applicants in the I-1 and I-2
Districts shall show that designs have been prepared
indicating that a percentage of the total site area has been
set aside for open space. The method of calculating the
required open space shall be as follows: The minimum open
space requirement shall be between 20% and 40% of the total
site area; the open space requirements shall increase on a
directly proportional basis from FAR 1.0 to FAR 2.0. For
example, a proposed project with an FAR of 1.5 shall be
A-3
APPENDIX. 705
required to have 30% of the total site area as open space.
For the purposes of this special permit no more than 50% of
the wetlands located on the site can be calculated as part
of the required open space as defined by this ordinance.
However, projects with a total lot area of 10,000 square
feet or less shall be exempted from these requirements.
(c) Traffic Safety and Infrastructure Maintenance Fund:
Applicants for a special permit for increase intensity of
use in the Industrial-1 and -2 districts shall be required
to make a payment into the Traffic Safety and Infrastructure
Maintenance Fund if the Planning Board determines the
following: That the boundaries of the proposed project
within a half mile radius of an intersection in Watertown
with a preexisting level of service (LOS) of D or lower that
accommodates at least 200 vehicles during either the A.M. or
P.M. peak hour. For the purposes of this section LOS shall
be defined by the National Transportation Research Board,
Highway Capacity Manual (current and future applicable
conditions) ; "The LOS shall be measured at the 50th highest
design hour (DHVSO) at relevant intersections."
If a finding is made by the Planning Board that the proposed
project is within a half mile radius of an intersection with
an LOS of _D_or below and ,consistent with the other criteria
cited above, the Board of Appeals may grant a special permit
for increased intensity of use and shall require the
applicant to make a payment into the Traffic Safety and
infrastructure Maintenance Fund. Said payment shall be
required only for that portion of the project that exceeds
the FAR of 1.0.
The rate of contribution shall be three (3) dollars per
square foot of applicable gross floor area. Monies
contributed by an applicant for a special permit shall be
spent on town services related to the proposed development
and/or in the immediate geographical area which is most
directly impacted by the proposed project, said services
shall include but not be limited to land takings for public
right of way improvements, road widenings, reconfigurations
of intersections, access lanes, signalization, associated
drainage and sewer improvements, lighting sidewalks, traffic
islands and similar improvements.
Payments into the Fund shall be made in accordance with a
schedule approved by the Board of Appeals. The amount of
the initial payment shall be determined by the Board of
Appeals at the time of the granting of the Special Permit,
but shall not exceed one--third of the total payment.
Further, at the time of the granting the special permit the
applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit for f
the balance. If the applicant fails to make any subsequent
payments the Board of Appeals may draw down the balance of
A-4
APPENDIX.705
the letter of credit. The balance of the funds, if any,
shall be made immediately at the time of the issuance of the
permanent occupancy permit. The applicant may, at any time,
make a lump sum payment of the entire required payment. All
payments made into the Fund shall be expended within a 10
year period and in accordance with the criteria established
in this subsection. Funds unexpended after ten years shall
be returned to the applicant or assignees with all accrued
interest.
(d) Commercial Uses: Applicants for a special permit for
increased intensity of use in the Industrial-3 shall be
permitted to develop commercial uses provided that no more
than 5% of the total square feet of the project may be used
for commercial purposes.
(e) Inclusionary Zoning Requirements: Applicants for a special
permit shall provide between 10 and 20 percent of the total
number of dwelling units subject to a special permit for
affordable housing purposes [see Section 5.4 (d) ] .
Additionally, add a new Section 9 . 13 as follows:
9. 13 special Permit Criteria for Industrial 3 District - Lot Size
(a) In addition to the conditions described in Sections 9.03,
9.10 and 9. 11, special permits for residential use in the
Industrial 3 District shall be subject to the requirements
set forth in subsections (b)- (e) below.
(b) Open space Requirements: for special permit projects on lots
less than 20,000 square feet, the open space requirements of
the R.75 district shall apply; for projects between 20,000
and 80,000 square feet the requirements of the R1.2 district
shall apply and for projects over 80,000 square feet the
requirements of the R1.2 shall also apply subject to
footnote "h" in section 5.3. Also, for purposes of this
special permit, no more than 50% of the wetlands located on
the site may be calculated as part of the required open
space.
(c) Density Requirements: Parcels less than 20,000 square feet
may have a maximum FAR of .75; parcels between 20,000 and
80,000 S.F. may have a maximum FAR of 1.2; and parcels over
80,000 S.F. may have a maximum FAR of 2.0.
(d) Minimum setbacks: For special permit projects on lots less
than 20,000 square feet, the setback requirements of the
R.75 zone shall apply; for lots between 20,000 and 80,000
A-5
APPENDIX.7 05
square feet the setback requirements of the R1.2 zone shall
apply; for lots over 8o,0oo square feet the minimum front
yard and rear yard setback shall be 70 feet, and the side
yard setbacks from legal lot lines shall be fifty (50) feet.
(e) Commercial Uses: Applicants for a special permit for
residential use in the Industrial 3 zone shall be permitted
to use up to 5% of the total gross floor area for general
retail or service purposes providing that no drive in
facility of any kind is provided. The commercial space
shall be limited to the first floor but may be located in
one or more buildings within the lot.
A-6
APPENDIX. 705
APPENDIX lA
(to be placed in General Ordinance)
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE FUND
A Traffic Safety and Infrastructure Maintenance Fund (Fund) shall
be established in the Town Treasury and shall be kept separate
and apart from other monies by the Town Treasurer. Any monies in
said Fund shall be expended only at the direction of the Town
Manager. All monies collected as a result of said Fund shall be
transferred to the principal of said Fund, and the Town Treasurer
shall be custodian of the Fund and may deposit proceeds in a bank
or invest the same in such securities as are legal for the
investment of funds in savings bank under the laws of the
Commonwealth ,or in federal savings and loan associations situated
in the Commonwealth. Any interest earned there on shall be
credited to and become part of such Fund. The Fund shall be
administered by the Town Manger.
Any monies in the Fund may be expended only by a majority vote of
the entire membership of the Town Council and shall be
appropriated only for the purposes of maintaining traffic safety
and public infrastructure related to public safety facilities
including: new roads, traffic and/control devices, roadway
improvements and widening, realignment or reconstruction of
water, and/or sewer utilities as a result of Traffic Safety and
Infrastructure improvements, street lighting, and sidewalks. No
monies in the Fund shall be used for any purposes not included or
directly related to the purposes listed above. If such funds have
not been expended during the ten (10)year period following the
date of contribution, such amounts shall be returned, with
interest to the contributor.
I
A-7
APPENDIX- 705
APPENDIX 1B
To see if the Town Council will vote to approve the following map
changes to accommodate the proposed Industrial Zones.
A. Consistent with the proposed zoning map entitled Proposed
Zonina, July. 1988 rezone the following areas:
1) Rezone all current Industrial Districts west of Watertown
Square to Industrial 3 (I-3) .
2) Rezone the current Industrial District located east of
Coolidge Avenue and bordered by Arsenal Street and Grove
Street to Industrial 3 .
3) Rezone the current Industrial District along Grove Street
and Coolidge Hill Road to Industrial 3.
4) Rezone the current Industrial Districts located at the
corner of Crawford Street and Coolidge Hill Road, the
corner of Coolidge Hill Road and Arlington Street, the
corner of Arlington Street and Elm Street, to Industrial 3.
5) Rezone the current Industrial District located north of
Arsenal Street and bordered by Walnut Street, Irving Street
and School Street to Industrial 3.
6) Rezone the current Industrial Districts located south of
Arsenal Street and bordered by North Beacon Street on their
southern boundary to Industrial 3 .
7) Rezone the current Industrial District along Water Street
and Nonantum Road to Industrial 2 .
8) Rezone the current Industrial District north of the
Watertown Mall bordered in part by School Street, Cypress
Street and Nicholas Avenue to Industrial 2.
9) Rezone the current Industrial District northwest of
Coolidge Avenue bordered by Clarendon Street and Grove
Street to Industrial 2.
10) Rezone the current Industrial District centered on Grove
Street and bordered din part by Calvin Road, Arlington
Street and Mt. Auburn Street to Industrial 2 .
A-8
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 2
INCLUSIONARY ZONING
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning
ordinance in the following manner:
l
A. Amend Section 5.30 Table of Dimensional Regulations by the
following:
1) Under the heading "Maximum Floor Area Ratio" for the R.75
District delete the number 110.75" and add the number 110.25"
with a footnote "j".
2) Add a footnote "j" to Section 5.31 to read as follows:
j . In the R.75 district, development shall be allowed to a
0.75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) without a special permit and
without affordable housing requirements if the total
amount of dwelling units in said development is 5 or
less.
3) Under the heading "Maximum Floor Area Ratio" for the R1.2
District delete the number 111.2" and add the number 110.4"
with a footnote "k"
4) Add footnote "k" in Section 5.31 as follows:
k. In the R1.2 district development may be allowed by ,right
to an FAR of 1,2 without a special permit and without
affordable housing requirements if the total amount of
dwelling units is five or less.
i
B. Delete Section -5.4 in its entirety and substitute. a new
Section 5.4 as follows:
Section 5.4 Affordable Rousing Requirements
(a) Intent and Purpose: To provide for affordable housing
units as defined by this section in the R.751 R1.2 and
I-3 districts, the Board of Appeals may grant a special
permit for an increase in intensity of use.
(b) Exclusions and Minimum Requirements
For projects resulting in 5 or less dwelling units in
the R.751 R1.2 and I-3 Districts no affordable housing
requirements shall apply. However, for all projects
A--9
i
APPENDIX.705
subject to the affordable housing requirements a
minimum of at least one dwelling unit shall be provided
for affordable housing purposes.
(c) R.75 District
For projects consisting of more than five dwelling
units, the Board of Appeals may grant an increase in
density above the by right 0.25 FAR up to a maximum of
0.75 FAR given the following conditions:
(1) The applicant must designate at least 15% of the
number of additional units being requested by
special permit for use in conjunction with one or
more state or federal housing assistance programs
or as directed by the Watertown Housing Partnership
(Housing Partnership) . In no instance shall any
special permit approval create less than one
affordable housing unit, and for purposes of this
ordinance any calculation of required affordable
housing units shall result in the fractional or
decimal equivalent of one-half or above shall be
increased to the next highest whole number.
The applicant shall be eligible to receive
compensation consistent with the state or federal
program(s) employed. If the Housing Partnership
requires that other methods be employed to fulfill
the affordable housing requirements, their total
cost to the applicant shall not exceed the costs
that would be increased for selling said units at
the average price required under the states, first--
time home ownership program. However, given an
agreement between the applicant and the Housing
Partnership a specific number of units, but not
less than 5%, can be given directly to the Housing
Authority for affordable housing purposes.
(2) The applicant shall certify in writing to the Board
of Appeals that they have a signed agreement with
the Watertown Housing Partnership as to the method
of discharging their affordable housing
requirements before the Board of Appeals may grant
a special permit for an increase in project
density. Further, any dwelling units for
affordable housing resulting from this agreement
shall be provided within 30 days of the granting of
any temporary or permanent occupancy permit
associated with the project.
(3) In the instance where the Housing Partnership
determines that the use of federal or state housing
assistance programs will not be available in a
A--10
APPENDIX. 705
timely fashion to be used in conjunction with the
affordable housing requirements of this ordinance
the Housing Partnership may at its discretion
require the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of
providing affordable dwelling units to the Housing
Authority. Said fee shall be five (5) dollars per
gross square foot above an FAR of 0.25 for all
projects structures excluding uninhabitable
basements, parking and recreational areas. The
payment shall be made into the Watertown Housing
Trust Fund administered by the Town Manager. said
payment shall be made in full before the granting
of a temporary or permanent occupancy permit by the
Inspector of Buildings.
(4) The Housing Partnership shall, in writing, provide
the applicant with their decision concerning
affordable housing requirements no later than 30
days after the required special permit public
hearing. If no decision is provided the Board of
Appeals shall determine the affordable housing
requirements.
(d) R1.2 District
For projects consisting of more than five units the
Board of Appeals my grant an increase in density above
an FAR of .40 to a maximum special permit density of
FAR 1.2 given the following conditions:
(1) The applicant must designate at least 20% of the
number of additional units being requested by
special permit for use in conjunction with one or
more state or federal housing assistance programs
as directed by the Watertown Housing Partnership
(Housing Partnership) . In no instance shall any
special permit approval create less than one
affordable housing unit, and for purposes of this
ordinance any calculation of required affordable
housing units shall result in the fractional or
decimal equivalent of one-half or above shall be
increased to the next highest whole number.
The applicant shall, be eligible to receive
compensation consistent with state or federal
program(s) employed. If the Housing Partnership
requires that other methods be employed to fulfill
the affordable housing requirements, their total
cost to the applicant shall not exceed the costs
that would be increased for selling said units at
the average price required under the statest first-
time home ownership program. However, given an
A-11
APPENDIX.705
agreement between the applicant and the Rousing
Partnership a specific number of units, but not
less than 10% can be transferred directly to the
Housing Authority for affordable housing purposes.
(2) The applicant shall certify in writing to the Board
of Appeals that they have a signed agreement with
the Partnership as to the method of discharging
their affordable housing requirements before the
Board of Appeals may grant a special permit for an
increase in project density. Further, any dwelling
units for affordable housing resulting from this
agreement shall be provided within 30 days of the
granting of any temporary or permanent occupancy
permit associated with the project.
(3) In the instance where the Housing Partnership
determines that the use of federal or state housing
assistance programs will not be available in a
timely fashion to be used in conjunction with the
affordable housing requirements of this ordinance
the at its discretion, require the applicant to pay
a fee in lieu of providing affordable dwelling
units to the Housing Authority. Said fee shall be
five (5) dollars per gross square foot above an FAR
of 0.40 for all projects structures excluding
uninhabitable basements, parking and recreational
areas. The payment shall be made into the
Watertown Housing Trust Fund administered by the
Town Manager. Said payment shall be made in full
before the granting of a temporary or permanent
occupancy permit by the Inspector of Buildings.
(4) The Housing Partnership shall, in writing, provide
the applicant with their decision concerning
affordable housing requirements no later than 30
days after the public hearing. If no decision is
provided the Board of Appeals shall determine the
affordable housing requirements.
(e) Industrial-3 District
In addition to the criteria established in Section 9.13
the Board of Appeals may grant a special permit for
residential use to a maximum FAR of 2.0 given the
following conditions;
(1) Projects with more than 5 dwelling units and
subject to the dimensional criteria of the R.75
district shall designate at least twenty (20)
percent of the total number of units subject to
special permit for use in conjunction with
A-12
i
APPENDIX.705
affordable housing requirements determined by the
Watertown Housing Partnership; projects on parcels
of more than 20,000 square feet but less than -
80,000 square feet and subject to the dimensional
criteria of the R1.2 district shall designate at
least twenty (20) percent of the total number of
units to affordable housing requirements; projects
on parcels of more than 80,000 square feet and
subject to dimensional criteria of the R1.2
district may attain an FAR of 2.0 if they designate
- at least twenty (20%) percent of the total number
of units subject to special permit for use in
conjunction with the affordable housing
requirements.
For purposes of this ordinance, any calculation of
required affordable housing units that results in
the fractional or decimal equivalent of one--half or
above shall be increased to the next highest whole
number.
The applicant shall be eligible to receive
compensation consistent with state or federal
program(s) employed. If the Housing Partnership
requires that other methods be employed to fulfill
the affordable housing requirements, their total
cost to the applicant shall not exceed the costs
1 that would be increased for selling said units at
the average price required under the states, first-
time home ownership program. However, given an
agreement between the applicant and the Partnership
a specific number of units, but not less than 5%
can be transferred directly to the Housing
Authority for affordable housing purposes.
(2) The applicant shall certify in writing to the Board
of Appeals that they have signed on agreement with
the Housing Partnership as to the method of
discharging their affordable housing requirements,
before the Board of Appeals may grant a special
permit for an increase in project density.
(3) In the instance where the Housing Partnership
determines that the use of federal or state housing
assistance programs will not be available in a
timely fashion to be used in conjunction with the
affordable housing requirements of this ordinance
the Partnership may, at its discretion, require the
applicant to pay a fee in lieu of providing
affordable dwelling units to the Housing Authority.
said fee shall be five (5) dollars per gross square
foot for all dwelling units subject to a special
permits, excluding uninhabitable basements, parking
A-13
APPENDIX.705
and recreational areas. The payment shall be made
into the Watertown Housing Trust Fund administered
by the Town Manager. Said payment shall be made in
full before the granting a temporary or permanent
occupancy permit by the Inspector of Buildings.
(4) The Housing Partnership shall, in writing, provide
the applicant with their decision concerning
affordable housing requirements no later than 30
days after the public hearing. If no decision is
provided the Board of Appeals shall determine the
affordable housing requirements.
A-14
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 2A
(To be placed in General Ordinances)
HOUSING TRUST FUND
A Housing Trust Fund (Fund) shall be established in the Town
Treasury and shall be kept separate and apart from other monies
by the Town Treasurer. Any monies in said Fund shall be expended
only at the direction of the Town Manger with the input of the
Watertown Housing Partnership for the purposes mentioned below.
All monies which are collected as a result of any contribution to
this Fund shall be transferred to the principal of said Fund, and
the Town Treasurer shall be custodian of the Fund and may deposit
proceeds in a bank or invest the same under the direction of the
Commissioner of Trust Funds. Any unexpended interest earned
thereon shall be credited to and become part of the Fund. The
Fund shall be administered by the Town Manager.
Any monies in the Fund may be expended only by a majority vote of
the Watertown Housing Partnership. Monies shall only be
appropriated for the following purposes (1) purchasing and
leasing of affordable housing as defined by the Commonwealth, (2)
providing rental assistance for persons qualified to receive
state or federal rental assistance subsidies, (3) providing
subsidies for reducing mortgage payments in accordance with
income and assets limitations established by the authorizing
state and federal agencies, (4) supplementing various state and
federal housing programs and funds, and (5) participating in
various affordable housing programs that may be made available by
the state and federal governments from time to time.
No monies in this fund shall be used for any purposes not
included or directly related to the purposes noted above.
A-15
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 3
SHARED HOUSING - SPECIAL PERMIT
A. Add a new Section 5.5 as follows:
5.5 Shared Housing
(a) Purposes: To provide alternate forms of housing and to
increase affordable housing opportunities by providing
alternative residential use of existing structures.
(b) Definition: A non-institutional residential shared living
environment which provides shelter for the functionally
impaired, socially isolated, or single elder (55 years of
older) who does not require the constant supervision or
intensive health care services provided by an institution.
The shared living environment must include at least two of
the following: 1) shared accessible community space; 2)
shared kitchen; 3) shared dining facilities, 4) shared
bathroom facilities.
(c) Applicability: In the 5-10, S-6, and T districts an
applicant may apply for a shared housing special permit in
residential structures that have been in existence for at
least 5 years. However, in the instance of two dwelling
unit structures, only one of the dwelling units may be
used for shared housing purposes.
(d) Procedures: An applicant for a shared housing special
permit shall follow the procedures and be subject to the
criteria set forth in Section 9.03, 9. 10 and 9.11 as
applicable.
(a) Allowed Density: No more than five people per shared
dwelling unit, and each person shall have one bedroom of
at least 125 square feet.
(f) Required Parking: All parking units being considered for
shared housing purposes must have the off-street
capability, on the driveway side of the dwelling unit, to
accommodate one vehicle per bedroom in either a stacked or
unstacked configuration. No parking shall be allowed in
the front or rear yards. The Board of Appeals may grant a
special permit for shared housing with less than the
required parking, if it can be shown that special
circumstances exist to warrant less parking. In no
instance, however, shall less than .5 parking spaces per
bedroom be permitted.
(g) Dimensional Requirements: All residential structures being
considered for shared housing purposes shall conform to
A-16
APPENDIX.705
the minimum dimensional requirements for the appropriate
district as required by Section 5.30.
Also, in no instance shall any exterior alteration of a
structure be permitted beyond what may be considered
traditional maintenance, redesign or restoration of
residential structures.
B. Amend Section 5. 1 Table of Use Regulations subsection 1
Residence by adding the following:
O. Shared Housing Under the headings S-10, S-6 and T add
(subject to Section 5.5) the designations "SP", under all other
headings add the designation "N"
A-17
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 4
ACCESSORY APARTMENT AMNESTY. - SPECIAL PERMIT
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the Zoning
Ordinance by adding Section 5.7 as follows:
5.7 Accessory Amnesty Apartment - Special Permit
(a) Purpose: To allow certain long-term illegal dwelling units
to be permitted by special permit if they meet Watertownts
building, health and safety regulations.
(b) Applicability: Long-term illegal dwelling units in the S-
10, S-6 and T districts shall be allowed to seek a special
permit to permit their use during a one year amnesty
period to commence sixty days after the adoption of this
section.
(c) Procedure: Consistent with the special permit procedures
of this ordinance the owner of a residential structure
shall apply to the Board of Appeals for an accessory
apartment special permit. The Board of Appeals will
endeavor to act as expeditiously as possible on all
accessory apartment special permits.
(1) Prior to the required public hearing the Building
Department shall inspect the premises and prepare a
report to the Board of Appeals before the public
hearing.
(2) Approval: If the Building Department report indicates
that the inspected accessory apartment meets the
minimum safety and occupancy requirements of the Town
a special permit may be granted.
(3) Approval with Conditions: If the Building Department
report indicates that the inspected accessory
apartment does not meet the minimum requirements a
special permit may also be granted conditional upon
the necessary improvements being made within one year
of the date of special permit issuance. When
improvements have been completed the owner shall
request reinspection by the building department; the
premises shall be re-inspected and if they meet safety
and occupancy requirements, the Board of Appeals may
grant a special permit for the accessory apartment; if
the requirements are not met the special shall be
denied.
A-18
i
APPENDIX.705
(d) Numbers of Dwelling Units Permitted: The Board of Appeals
shall not approve more than one accessory apartment per
residential structure.
(e) Additional Special Permit Requirements:
(1) An affidavit, witnessed by a notary public, must be
submitted at the time of application for a special
permit indicating that the accessory dwelling unit in
question has been occupied for at least one year prior
to the adoption of this section.
(2) Except for the provision of providing required access,
no modifications to the exterior of a structure shall
be allowed. Further, if additional access is deemed
necessary by the building department and said access
requires some exterior modification, the modifications
must be provided within the required setbacks of the
district.
(f) Amnesty Time Limit: No application for a special permit
for accessory use shall be accepted. after one year and
sixty days has lapsed from the date of the adoption of
this section. Further, this section shall be deleted from
the Watertown Zoning Ordinance at said date
A-19
i
I
APFENDIX.705
APPENDIX 5
LODGERS
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend Section 5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance as follows:
In Section 5.2 a. add the term "that is owner occupied" after the
phrase "within a dwelling unit" .
A-20
APPENDIX- 705
APPENDIX 6
CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning
ordinance as follows:
Create a new zoning district -- Cluster Residential CR
A. Amend Section 3.10 by adding the term "CR - Cluster
Residential" under subsection (a) .
B. Amend Section 5. 1 and 5.2 Table of Use Regulations by adding a
new column after the terms "5-1011, S-6" to read "CR" and under
said heading "CR" place all the use designations allowed as
shown in the S-10,- S-6 designation except for the following:
For items 5. 1. 1 b through i use the designation "Y"
For items 5.1.1 j and k (Apartment Houses and Row Houses,
respectively) add the designation "SP"
C. Amend Section 5.30 Table of Dimensional Regulations by adding
the term "CR" after the term "S-6" and indication dimensional
regulations as follows:
Maximum
Minimum Min. Yard (in feet) % of Lot
Lot Size Maximum Heiaht Front Side Rear Coveraae
CR --- 30 feet/2.5 stories 50 (1) 3 0(1) 50 (1) 15
Maximum Floor Minimum Minimum
Area Ratio Frontaae/Width Onen Space
CR --- 100 65% '
D. Add a footnote "l" to the yard requirements of the CR district;
place said footnote in Section 5.31 to read as follows:
1. In no instance shall any structure in the CR zone be within
50 feet of any other structure, except structures that are
used for allowed accessory purposes.
A-21
i
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 7
DELETION OF CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning
ordinance by deleting the following districts.
A. Section 3 . 10 (a) Classification of Districts delete the terms
"SC - Single Family Conversion, R 2.31 " 'tRP - Residential
Planned Unit", "RC - Residential Cluster", "M - Multi-Use"
and "MA -- Multi-Use Arsenal"
B. Section 5.1 and 5.2 Table of Uses delete the following columns
in their entirety "SC" "R2 3" "RP't "RC" and "M" and "MA"
C. Section 5.30 Table of Dimensional Regulations delete in their
entirety all items referenced under the term district that
pertain to "SC", 1IR2.3111 "RP"f "RC"I limit and "MA"
A-2 2
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 8
REZONING TO REFLECT EXISTING LAND USES
To see if the Town Council will vote to rezone certain areas
within the community as specifically designated on a map entitled
Proposed Zoni.nct Map, Watertown. Massachusetts Julv 6 . 1988 and as
generally described below:
1) Rezone area on Bigelow Avenue currently zoned RC to R.75;
2) Rezone the first two lots on the corner of Grove and
Arlington Streets from I to LB;
3) Rezone the lots on Arlington Street from Calvin Road up to
but not including the two corner lots of Arlington and
Grove from I to T;
4) Rezone the areas on Hunt Street that are currently zoned I
but are residential uses to T;
5) Rezone the front of the block bounded by Galen Street,
Williams Street and Maple Street from R2. 3 to R1. 2;
6) Rezone the westerly corner of School Lane and Mt. Auburn
Street, now presently used for residential purposes from I
to T;
7) Rezone the existing commercial areas bounded by Arlington
Street, Belmont Avenue and Prentiss Street from LB to NB
and further, rezone all existing residential structures in
said general area now zoned LB to T.
8) Rezone the portions of the Arsenal Mall that are not now in
private ownership from MA to Industrial 1. (See Proposed
Zoning Map)
9) Rezone to OSC all areas shown as OSC on the map entitled
Proposed Zonina Map, Watertown. Massachusetts Julv 6 . 1988,
regardless of their current zoning.
10) Rezone the current area shown on the Watertown Zoning Map
as Single Family - Conversion (SC) to Single Family - 6000
(S-6)
A-23
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 9
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning
ordinance by creating a new zoning district as follows:
Neighborhood Business.
A. Add a new designation to Section 3 . 10 b: before the term "LB -
Limited Business" add the term "NB -Neighborhood Business" .
B. Amend Section 5. 1 Table of Use Regulations by adding a new
Column entitled "NB" before the term "LB" and designate the
same terms for uses founded in the "LB" district for the new
"NB" district.
C. Amend Section 5. 30 Table of Dimensional Controls by adding a
new term under the column entitled "District" as follows:
Maximum
Minimum Min. Yard (in feet) % of Lot
Lot Size Maximum Heiaht Front Side Rear Coveraae
NB none 30 feet/2.5 stories none 10 (d) 15 50%
Maximum Floor Minimum Minimum
Area Ratio Frontaae/Width Onen Snace
NB 0.5 50 10%
D. Rezone the following parcels to Neighborhood Business
generally described below and indicated on a map entitled
Proposed Zoninq Map, Watertown, Massachusetts Julv 6, 1988.
(1) An area bounded by St. Mary Street, Belmont Avenue, and
Mt. Auburn Street (from LB to NB)
(2) The lots bordering the B & M railway and at the rear of
area now zoned LB generally bordered by School Lane and
Cottage Street (from LB to NB)
(3) An LB area on Belmont Street between Arlington Street and
Keenan Street (from LB to NB) .
(4) An area zoned LB along Nichols Avenue, centered on Bigelow
Avenue/Nichols Street intersection, (from LB to NB) .
A-24
APPENDIX.705
(5) An area on Mt. Auburn Street bordered by Porter Street and
Adams Street (from LB to NB) .
(6) An area on School Street from Walnut Street to Laurel
Street (from LB to NB) .
(7) An area on Mt. Auburn Street from Otis Street to Irving
Street (from LB to NB) .
(8) An LB area centered on the intersection of Waverly Avenue
and Orchard Street (from LB to NB) .
(9) An LB area centered on the intersection of Prospect Street
and Belmont Street (from LB to NB) .
A-25
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 10
MIXED USE CB DISTRICT
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning
ordinance as follows:
A. Amend Section 5. 1 Table of Uses subsection j . Apartment Houses by
substituting the letter "Y" for "SP" and further by adding a
footnote (the number 11211) to said designation and placing an
explanation of footnote 112" in Section 5. 21 as follows:
2. Multi-family uses are allowed in the CB district as of
right, in all instances at least the first floor of the
structure in which they are located, must be used for
retail or service business purposes. However, not more
than the first two floors may be used for retail or service
related purposes in a mixed use project.
B. Amend Section 5. 31 by deleting footnote "d" (formerly "j") , in
its entirely and replacing it with the following:
d. For projects in the CB district that are mixed use in
character, all floors used for residential purposes shall
be setback at least ten feet from any portion of the
building line used for commercial purposes. Further, all
residential and commercial entrances shall be separate and
distinct; in no instance may commercial uses share the same
floor as residential uses, nor may any commercial use be
located on a floor above residential uses.
For mixed use projects that are horizontal mixed use, i.e.
separate commercial and residential structures on the same
lot the above criteria shall not apply. For horizontal
mixed use projects no part of any structure used for
commercial purposes shall be within fifty feet of any
structures used for residential purposes. All other
dimensional and intensity of use criteria shall apply.
C. Amend Section 5.30 by adding a footnote "m" to the column
entitled "Open Space" as it pertains to the "CB" district and
place footnote "m. " in Section 5.31 as follows:
m. For mixed use projects of any type (Residential and
Commercial) the minimum open space requirement shall be
20%.
D. Amend Section 5. 30 by adding a footnote "n" to the column
entitled "Maximum Floor Area Ratio" as it pertains to the "CB"
district and place footnote "n" in Section 5.31 as follows:
n. For mixed use projects of any type (Residential and
Commercial) the Maximum Floor Area Ratio shall be 3.0
A-26
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 11
REVITALIZATION OVERLAY
To see if the Watertown Town Council will vote to amend the
zoning ordinance by adding the following section:
(or as amended by recent actions)
5.5 Revitalization Overlay Special Permit (RO)
(a) Intent and Purpose: To assist in accomplishing the
purposes of this Zoning ordinance the Town Council may
from time to time apply a Revitalization Overlay
District to specific portions of the zoning map in order
to guide the redevelopment of certain tracts of land in
a manner that is beneficial to the community.
(b) Objectives: The establishment and application of the
revitalization overlay special permit is intended to
accomplish the following objectives.
(1) To -permit by special permit the orderly
redevelopment of a specific area regardless of the
various underlying zoning districts.
(2) To provide for greater flexibility in planning and
design.
(3) To provide the opportunity for mixed use
developments, that will allow for more efficient and
sensitive use of land.
(4) To promote compatibility between adjoining areas and
the proposed development site.
(5) To promote redevelopment of specific portions of the
community consistent with adopted land use plans and
policies.
(c) Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted within
a revitalization overlay special permit.
(1) Any residential use permitted in the S-10, S-61 T,
R.75 and R1.2 districts, given the site plan
requirements of subsection (e)2 of this section.
(2) Retail establishments, business offices, consumer
services, excluding drive-in retail and service
facilities.
A-27
APPENDIX. 705
(3) Any use permitted by right or special permit in any
of the underlying zones.
(d) Dimensional Criteria
The uses noted in subsection (c) above shall be subject
to the following criteria:
(1) Maximum Floor Area Ratio: No project developed by a
Revitalization overlay special permit shall exceed a
floor area ratio of 2.0
(2) Maximum Height: No structure built or reconstructed
as a result of revitalization overlay special permit
shall be more than 40 feet or three stories.
(3) Lot Coverage: The structure or structures of any
development within a revitalization overlay shall
not exceed a total lot coverage of 65%, excluding
parking areas and parking garages, recreation
facilities such as swimming pools and tennis courts,
and internal roadways or walkways.
(4) Setbacks: No structures of any type shall be
constructed within 5 feet of the boundary of the
Revitalization overlay District or within 5 feet of
any public right-of-way within said overlay
district. Further, any structures built within the
Revitalization Overlay District that abut existing
residential uses shall be setback at a minimum 25
feet from the aforementioned residential use.
The Board of Appeals shall require that a landscape
plan for screening and buffering purposes be
prepared for some or all the required setback areas.
(5) Minimum Lot Size: 10,000 square feet
(6) Minimum Frontage: 50 feet
(7) Minimum Open Space: All projects within the
Revitalization Overlay District shall have at least
20% of the total site area devoted to open space;
required setbacks shall be considered as part of the
total area required for open space. The required
open space shall not be used for parking or loading
purposes and shall be open and unobstructed to the
sky, items such as benches, walkways, planters,
landscaping, swimming pools, kiosks, gazebos, and
similar structures shall not be considered as
obstructions.
A-28
APPENDIX.705
(e) Minimum Site Plan Requirements
(1) Commercial Developments: Developments that are
exclusively commercial in character may be permitted
by special permit given the conditions of the above
subsection (d) Dimensional Criteria.
(2) Residential Projects: No developments that are
exclusively residential in character shall be
allowed except as provided below. Residential uses
shall only be allowed as part of a mixed use project
and shall be subject to the following conditions:
o Residential uses shall be allowed only on the
second through fourth stories, the total number of
stories devoted to residential use shall not be
less than three stories.
o No floor shall have both residential and
commercial uses.
, o Entrances and exits for residential uses shall be
separate and distinct from commercial entrances
and exists.
o Residential uses located above commercial uses
shall be required to be setback an additional 10
feet from the exterior building line of the
structure used for commercial purposes.
o The Council may grant a special permit for
entirely residential structures in the instance
where the proposed mixed use development would
create both wholly but separate residential and
commercial structures on one lot given the
following conditions; structures used wholly for
residential purposes shall be at least 5o feet
from structures (within the same lot) used for
wholly commercial purposes and the open space
between the residential and commercial structures
shall be consistent with the open space
requirements of the section; and that the total
PAR for all structures on the lot does not exceed
2.0; and further, that all other dimensional
requirements are met in accordance with the
standards of this section.
(f) Parking Requirements: The parking requirements for
development within the Revitalization overlay District
shall conform to the parking requirements for each
individual use set forth in section 6.12 of this
ordinance.
A-29
APPENDIX.705
(g) Signs: A plan for signs shall be submitted to the
Planning Board and the Board of Appeals for approval.
The Board of Appeals shall grant approval of the plan
for signs only after it is satisfied that said plan for
signs will not derogate the quality of a residential
environment in the mixed use projects. For guidance,
the Board of Appeals shall use Section 7.5 of this
ordinance for signs in mixed use projects. For
developments that are exclusively commercial Section 7.6
of this ordinance shall apply.
(h) Procedure: consistent with the procedural requirements
provided in Section 9.10 of this ordinance the Board of
Appeals may grant a special permit for development
within a Revitalization Overlay District if it finds
that the conditions for approval for special permits set
forth in Section 9.11(b) of this ordinance have been
met.
A-3 0
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 11A
REVITALIZATION OVERLAY - MAP CHANGE
To see if the Watertown Town Council will vote to amend the
zoning map by adding a designation for a Revitalization Overlay
District for the area described below:
Proceeding from the southwest corner of the Galen
Street and Watertown Street intersection westerly 300
feet along Watertown Street; then southerly at a right
angle to a point intersecting the south side of Aldrich
Road; then following along the south side of Aldrich
Road to a point intersecting with the west side of
Nonantum Road; then along the west side of Nonantum
Road in a northwesterly direction towards and across
Galen Street back to the southwest corner of Galen
Street and Watertown Street; and as indicated on a map
dated May 12, 1988 and titled Proposed Revitalization,
Overlav District.,
f
A 31
i
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 11B
To see if the Watertown Town Council will vote to amend the
zoning map by adding the following:
(1) Amend Section 5. 1 and 5.2 by adding a new column
entitled "R.O." (Revitalization Overlay) after the
column entitled "OSC" and place the term "Sec. 5.5"
after all uses listed.
(2) Add the term "RO" Revitalization Overlay District after
the term 11I-3" in Section 3 .10C.
(3) Amend the Table of Dimensional Regulations 5.30 as
follows: after the term "OSC" under the column entitled
"Districts", add the term "Roll and the term " (see
Section 5.5) ".
A-32
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 12
RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL SETBACKS
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning
ordinance by adding the following:
A. Add a footnote "o." to the term "Maximum Height" in
Section 5.30 Table of Dimensional Regulations and place
footnote "o. " in Section 5. 31 as follows:
o. For all uses allowed by special permit in the I-1,
I-2 and I-3 districts no part of any structure when
abutting a residential zoning district shall be
closer than 25 feet to the property line of said
residential district and structures between 25 and
35 feet of said property line shall not exceed a
height of 25 feet and two stories, structures
between 35 and 50 feet of said property line shall
not exceed thirty-six feet and three stories, and
structures beyond 50 feet of said property line
shall be allowed 50 feet and 5 stories. Further,
in the required 25 foot setback for all structures
at least 15 feet of said area shall be landscaped
to serve as a year round visual buffer where the
proposed project abut a residential zoning
3 district.
A-33
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 13
OPEN SPACE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend the zoning ordinance
by adding a new zoning district as follows:
A. Amend Section 3 . 10 by adding a new subsection " (E) " as follows:
(E) OSC - Open Space and Conservancy
B. Amend Section 5. 1 and 5.2 by adding a new column entitled "OSC"
and designate the letter "N" for all uses except those listed
below:
desianation
5. 12 a. Religious or educational uses: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'iY"
5. 12 b. Country club, tennis club, swimming club, . . . . . . . . . "SP"
non-profit club
5. 12 c. Licensed day nursery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "SP"
5. 12 d.2 Agricultural use more than 5 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Y;'
5. 12 h. Recreation Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Y"
C. Amend Section 5.30 Table of Dimensional Regulations as follows:
Add a term "OSC" under the word "District" to follow the term
"MA"; and designate the following dimensional regulations for the
OSC district:
D. Add a footnote "p. " to the Dimensional Table section 5. 31 as
follows*,
p. No residential structure shall be allowed within 25 feet of
any OSC district boundary and no industrial or commercial use
within 5o feet of an OSC district boundary if it is located on
a parcel grater than 25,000 square feet; if less than 25,000
square feet the required district setbacks shall apply.
Further, no accessory recreational structure such as a
basketball court, tennis court or similar court games shall be
allowed within five (5) feet of any lot line.
Maximum
Minimum Min. Yard (in feet) % of Lot
Lot Size Maximum Heiaht. Front Side Rear Coveraae
p• P. P.
OSC none 30 feet/2.5 stories 50 25 50 15%
Maximum Floor Minimum Minimum
Area Ratio Frontaae/Width Open Space
OSC 0. 1 50 75%
A-34
APPENDIX.705
E. Add a footnote 103" to Section 5.21 Footnotes, Table of Use
Regulations to read as follows:
3. For the purposes of this ordinance, any public property in the
OSC District sold to private owners shall be deemed to be in
the Cluster Residential District.
A-35
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 14
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO THE DIMENSIONAL TABLE
To see if the Town Council will vote to amend Section 5. 30 the
Dimensional Table as follows:
A. For the R.75 District substitute the following in place of the
existing terms:
Minimum Front Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 feet
Minimum Side Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 feet
Minimum Rear Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 feet
For the R1. 2 District substitute the following in place of the
existing terms:
Minimum Front Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 feet
Minimum Side Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 feet
For the I-11 I-21 I-3 Districts substitute the following in
place of the existing terms:
Minimum Front Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 feet
Minimum Side Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 feet
Minimum Rear Yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 feet
B. Delete the terms "Minimum Recreational Open Space per D. U. ",
"Minimum Landscaped Open Space", and "Landscaped Open Space" and
all references related to these terms in their entirety and
substitute the following:
District Minimum Open Space
S-10 --
S--6
T --
CR 65
R.75 20
R1.2 20
NB 10
LB 10
CB Section 5.31 M
I-1 10
I-2 10
I-3 10
I-3 residential 40
A--3 6
APPENDIX.705
District Minimum Open space
I-2 10
I-3 10
OSC 75
RO 20
C. Delete the column Figure Reference t
D. Add the term "Maximum Fence Height" to Section 5. 30 Table of
Dimensional Regulations as follows"
Districts Max. Fence Height (ft)
S-10 6
S--6 6
T 6
CR 6
R.75 6
R1.2 6
NB 6
LB 6
CB 6
I-1 g
I--2 g
I-3 g
OSC 6
RO 6
E. Delete in Section 2.30 the definition of "Open Space
Recreational"
F. Delete in Section 5.30 the column "min. lot area per DU" in its
entirety.
A--3 7
APPENDIX.705
APPENDIX 15
To see if the Town Council will vote to adopt the following reorganized
Dimensional Table (Section 5.30) and footnote (Section 5.31)
SECTION 5.30 TABLE OF DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS
MIN. MIN YARD SETBACK MAX a. MIN
MIN S.F. IN FEET p. LOT MAXIMUM MAX OPEN
q. LOT MIN. PER b. c. c. COV HEIGHT FAR SPACE
DISTRICT S.F. FRT. D.U. FRONT SIDES REAR FT/STORY BY-RIGHT
e,, -
S-10 10,000 80 -- 25 15/10 20 20 30/2.5
e.
S--6 61000 65 -- 25 10/5 20 25 30/2.5 -_-
f. e.
T 5, 000 50 -- 15 10/5 20 30 30/2.5 ---- ---
j .
R.75 51, 000 50 1500 15 20 25 35 35 ..75 20
k.
R1.2 51000 50 900 15 25 30 70 45 1.2 20
d.
NB ---- 50 -- 10 l5 50 30/2.5 0.5 10
d.
LB --- .40 15 20 80 4 0/4 1.0 10
n. m.
CB ___ __ .._ __ __ __ 55/5 3 . 0
d. o. g.
I--1 --- 50 -- 20 25 30 50 50/5 1.0 10
d. o. g.
I-2 ---- 50 _-- 20 25 30 50 50/5 1.0 10
I--3 : d
1 f NON-RES. ------ 50 --- 20 25 30 50 50/5 1.0 10
1--3 : o./h. g. h.
RES. ---- 50 600 20 25 30 50 50/5 1. 0 40
p• p. P.
OSC --- 50 _- 50 25 50 15 30/2.5 0. 1 75
CR 40, 000 100 10,000 50 30 50 15 30/2.5 65
RO 10,_000 50 --- 15 - 15 15 50 48/4 2 . 0 20
APPENDIX.705
SECTION 5.31 FOOTNOTES
a. Exempt religious and educational institutions may not be more
than three stories and 40 feet high.
b. A dwelling to be erected between two existing dwellings
adjacent to the lot need not have a front yard greater than
the average of the yards in front of the two existing
dwelling. For new construction of three or four family
dwelling structures or rowhouses, side yards shall be required
at the side lot as at the end of each row of attached
dwelling. When the row of dwellings is facing the street, no
single side yard shall be less than 10 feet wide. When the
row is facing the side yard, no single side yard shall be
less than fifteen feet wide. No row shall consist of more
than 8 dwellings, and each dwelling shall be a minimum of
twenty feet, measured between the common walls.
c. A rear yard or side yard may contain accessory buildings not
over one story high and covering not more than 30 percent of
the required yard area.
d. Side yards between buildings without dwelling units may be
omitted by Special Permit provided than (1) the side yard does
not adjoin a Residence district, (2) that the access of
emergency equipment to the rear parking is not rendered
inaccessible.
e. Except as provided in Section 4 .43 , Exemptions to Yard
Regulations.
f. The minimum frontage of the lot shall be 100 feet for new
construction of three or four family dwelling structures,
townhouses, and rowhouses.
g. No use in the Industrial 1 or 2 Districts shall exceed an FAR
of 1. 0 without receiving a special permit consistent with
Section 9. 1, 9.11 and 9. 12 and in no instance shall the
increased intensity of use allowed by the special permit
exceed an FAR of 2.0.
Further, no residential use in the I--3 district shall be
allowed without receiving a special permit consistent with the
above noted sections and section 9. 13, and in no instance
shall the increased intensity of use exceed an FAR of 2. 0.
h. In the Industrial 3 District when applying for a Special
Permit for residential uses the maximum height may be
increased to six stories and 65 feet, if the boundaries of the
I-3 parcel are at least 500 feet from any residential district
boundary, if the maximum lot coverage does not exceed 35%, and
A-39
APPENDIX.705
if the minimum open space provided is 50% of the total lot
size, of which no more than 50% is a wetland.
i. In the Industrial-3 District when applying for a special
permit the minimum lot size shall be 10, 000 square feet.
However, development shall be allowed on any sized lot greater
than 5, 000 sq. ft. without a special permit and without
affordable housing requirements if the total amount of
dwelling units is five or less.
j . In the R.75 district, development shall be allowed by right to
a 0.75 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) without a special permit and
without affordable housing requirements if the total amount of
dwelling units in said development is five or less.
k. In the R1.2 district development may be allowed by right to an
FAR of 1. 2 without a special permit and without affordable
housing requirements if the total amount of dwelling units is
five or less.
1. In no instance shall an 'y structure in the CR zone be within 50
feet of any other structure, except structures that are used
for allowed accessory purposes.
m. For mixed use projects of any type (Residential and
Commercial) the minimum open space requirement shall be 20%
n. For mixed use projects of any type (Residential and
Commercial) the Maximum Floor Area Ratio shall be 3 . 0.
o. For all uses allowed by special permit in the I-1, I-2 and I-3
districts no part of any structure when abutting a residential
zoning district shall be closer than 25 feet to the property
line of said residential district and structures between 25
and 35 feet of said property line shall not exceed a height of
25 feet and two stories, structures between 35 and 50 feet of
said property line shall not exceed thirty-six feet and three
stories, and structures beyond 50 feet of said property line
shall be allowed 50 feet and 5 stories. Further, in the
required 25 foot setback for all structures at least 15 feet
of said area shall be landscaped to serve as a year round
visual buffer where the proposed project abut a residential
zoning district.
p. No residential structure shall be allowed within 25 feet of
any OSC district boundary and no industrial or commercial use
within 50 feet of an OSC district boundary if it is located on
a parcel grater than25, 000 square feet; if less than 25, 000
square feet the required district setbacks shall apply.
Further, no accessory recreational structure such as a
basketball court, tennis court or similar court games shall be
allowed within five (5) feet of any lot line.
A-40
APPENDIX.705
q. Fence Height: All fences in the I-1, I-2 and I-3 shall have a
maximum allowable height of eight feet; the maximum allowable
height for all other districts shall be six feet.
A-41