2025 TOWN MEETING SLIDES VOTE NO! Article 31 See Slide Show below

  • The slides on this page detail concerns about Article 31 Cluster Zoning. Use the arrows on the right of the slides to advance the slides. VOTE NO! on Article 31!
  • The first major concern is about transparency. The Town is saying that Article 31 will result in cottage style homes as shown in the green block below. This is practically impossble because the developer will build what makes the most money and the cottage style homes are not fiscally viable. The cottage style homes that the town says will be built, like the River Walk inn Concord and Audubon Hill in Acton were built decades ago when materials and land were much cheaper. VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • These are the numbers for the number of homes allowed PER ACRE. This is called "density". The Town has said there will be NO CHANGE in the density allowed by zoning. This is false. You can see that in the R-8/4 district and R-10/8 districts that there is significant change proposed. Hundreds of parcels, hundreds of additional homes allowed. None of them affordable. Worse yet, unless you want every piece of land built up, if you add "cluster" zoning [Section 5.6 of the proposed bylaw] more houses will be able to be "clustered" on the upland [non-wetlands]. See more on this in the next slides. More land used. Bad for the environment. The Town says that "cluster zoning" has saved land. That's true BUT because it's been BY SPECIAL PERMIT. So the Town has been able to NEGOTIATE. The proposal is to make cluster housing BY RIGHT, which means we can't stop it. It's BY RIGHT. The Town would lose all its negotiating power. VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • The Town has said that design requirements are "not allowed" (like porches or shapes of buildings). BUT when the Town is offering an incentive [more density allowed] adding design requirements is perfectly lawful. You can see it's true because the Town did it for the MBTA zoning. See the drawing below (source: Town Zoning Bylaw). The proposed Article 31 has NO DESIGN REQUIREMENTS on porches or building shape/size. So you could see big concrete blocks of unaffordable condos in every neighborhood. VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • Article 31 would allow more building, much more building, in about 2/3 of the Town. The red circles below are approximate areas that will allow more building if Article 31 passes. VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • Article 31 would allow more building, much more building, in about 2/3 of the Town. Here is an example of why that will be possible. Wetlands count in terms of how many houses are allowed but currently because clustering is not allowed by-right, a developer is limited as to the number of houses that will FIT, on a site given wetlands and septic limitations. BUT when the developer can cluster the houses, and stick them together, then MUCH MORE building is allowed on a site. VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • On the next series of slides, we should you an example of a site and what is allowed currently and what would be allowed under Article 31 VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • This is an example of what the current zoning allows by-right at the 22 Elm Street site.3 houses VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • This is what got built at 22 Elm under the current zoning for special-permit cluster zoning, 6 houses VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • This is what could have happened by-right at 22 Elm if Article 31 was in effect when 22 Elm project was built VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • This is a summary of three scenarios at the 22 Elm Street lot. - left is the current zoning for by-right subdivision, 3 houses - middle is the current zoning for special-permit cluster zoning, 6 houses [that got permitted and built] - right is the proposed Article 31 and what would have been allowed if Article 31 had been in effect when 22 Elm project was built. 12 million dollar condos Before, by-right = 3 houses After, by-right = 12 houses with groups stuck together VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • More examples of layouts Article 31 would allow. On the left on the slide below is the Town's presentation. They present a worst case for the current situation "before" and a best case for "after. On the right are other possibilities Article 31 would allow VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • The Town is using fiscal impact studies from other towns to demonstrate the Article 31 would be a net fiscal positive. This approach is flawed, because the studies rely on statewide aveages for the number of School-Aged-Children per Household [SAC/HH]. SAC/HH is the single most important factor in determining zoning fiscal impact. The higher the number the bigger a loss to the town. The studies the Town cies uses 0.37 SAC/HH. Acton is 0.64 SAC/HH; a net fiscal loss VOTE NO! on Article 31
  • We don't know how extensive the damage will be. The affordability would be low or non-existent. There is no hurry. VOTE NO! on Article 31