Date:    December 5, 2007

Place:         Bradford Public Library           
Project:       City of Bradford Master Plan
Client:         City of Bradford
Time:          7:30 am – 9:00 am           
MCF No.:    44506002

Attendees:    
*Full List Coming*
Simon Tripp, Impact Economics
Roberta Sarraf, Zoning/Planning Consultant
Albert Filoni, MacLachlan, Cornelius & Filoni, Inc.
Ken Lee, MacLachlan, Cornelius & Filoni, Inc.
Amy Maceyko, MacLachlan, Cornelius & Filoni, Inc.

Purpose:    To review socio-economic data and zoning code information.

Items Discussed:

1. Ms. Sarraf distributed a summary of the City of Bradford zoning code.  The group began by discussing the commercial districts – C1 and C2.  The C1 district doesn't specifically allow for upper floor apartments and some of the uses allowed are questionable for downtown.  Some examples of uses that are allowed and are less conducive to an urban downtown are cemetery, mortuary, newspaper plant, nursing/convalescent home, wholesale sales/distribution, drive-in bank and accessory swimming pool.  It’s possible that some of these uses were included to describe uses that already existed in the district when the zoning code was enacted.

2. If the master plan lists the encouragement of downtown apartments as one of its goals, the parking situation will have to be carefully considered to allow for resident parking, daytime parking and transient parking.

3. Mr. Peterson commented on the fact that the zoning code is a pyramid approach, as this is one of the things about it that he doesn't like.  It allows additional uses in each subsequent district, so the least restrictive district (industrial) allows all of the uses in the more restrictive districts above it (residential, commercial, etc). Ms. Sarraf commented that this is an old way of structuring a zoning code and this committee could consider recommending a more prescriptive code that does not allow these kinds of mixtures.  Although she mentions that even if the boundaries of the zoning map are altered and the descriptions of the districts are changed, any existing uses will be grandfathered in.  

4. There is a lot of confusion about East Main Street.  It is a residential use, but lots of commercial uses are grandfathered in.  Realtors tend to think that it is commercial, so it will be important to educate realtors when the new zoning code is established.

5.  There are a few regulations that stuck out for Ms. Sarraf as items that should be considered in this process depending on what the goals are for downtown and the commercial districts.
    a. The requirements for mixed use call for 400 s.f. per dwelling unit of usable outdoor space.  This doesn’t work on Main Street but may be feasible
        elsewhere.
    b. There is a requirement for a 10’ front yard setback in the commercial district C-1.
    c. There are side yard requirements for dwelling units and setback requirements between commercial and residential districts.  How this affects mixed
        use needs to be considered.
    d. The requirements for C-2 aren’t that much different than C-1.  The group should consider how the acceptable uses should differ, and also how the
        character of the two should be different.  Requirements for setbacks, parking, screening, signage, etc can alter the character of a place.

6. It was mentioned that very few zoning variances have been denied.  Mr. Peterson estimated that only 2-3 variances have been denied in the 12 years that he has worked for the city.  Approximately 120 variance applications have been made in that timeframe.  Education of the members of the zoning board is an item to be addressed.  If the board is going to ignore zoning code standards for fear of losing potential development then all the work to revise the code will be fruitless.  The urban fabric has been lost at Main Street and Davis Street because of the development there, new zoning will only prevent this if the regulations are upheld.  Mr. Filoni also spoke about the fact that cars have changed everything.  Parking is a constant request and the parking downtown is already fragmenting the density of town.

7. It was mentioned that the rewriting of the zoning code is an opportunity to strengthen design standards and continue the landscaping standards established on Boyleston Street.

8. Ms. Sarraf next reviewed the charts of socio-economic data that she collected.  There were a variety of comments.
    a. Mr. Urban finds it interesting that only 17% of local families are below the poverty line but 50% of students are on free and reduced lunches.
    b. The number of households receiving public assistance is 6%.  Not anywhere near the 35-40% that has been quoted to the planning team.  Ms.
        Andrews commented that there is probably a skewed perception because some are probably thinking of people receiving SSA disability.  These
        individuals would not be counted in the number for public assistance.  The population with disabilities is 24% and only 45% of that population is
        employed.  This means that 12 ½% of Bradford’s population is unemployed and receiving disability.  There are stringent requirements to receive SSA,
        so the individuals in question are not just casually getting assistance.
    c. Ms. Sarraf will translate these percentages into actual numbers since this information will help guide some of the plans that will be made for new and
        existing housing.  How will the low-income population be affected by housing improvements and the increasing rents that will likely follow?  Everyone
        in Bradford deserves safe, affordable, healthy and sanitary housing.
    d. There are a high number of rental properties.  Out of town and absentee landlords are concerns, especially since poorly maintained rental properties
        are a bigger eyesore than Bradford’s public housing.  But it can also be difficult to rent a nice property if the rest of the block is a mess.

9. The conversation turned to a discussion about how to deal with derelict and poorly maintained properties.
    a. It is not yet clear if the new leaders taking their positions in January have the political will to blitz the housing.  The planning team has also asked the
        code officials to list what they need to blitz the housing and deal with derelict properties.
    b. Ms. Sarraf mentioned that maybe a housing court could be established to resolve problems that landlords have with renters and vice-versa.  In some
        cases rent can be held in escrow until problems are resolved.
    c. An inventory of housing has been done in the Elm Street neighborhood, but not in the rest of the city.  Maybe the next area in need of major help can
        be identified in the plan.

10. Ms. Sarraf commented on the fact that there are 5 residential districts in the zoning code and there could be fewer.  She also commented that the zoning code as written doesn’t really describe what Bradford is like since it sounds like it was mostly copied from another municipality.

11. Next time the group will start establishing goals and objectives for the residential and commercial districts.

With no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned. The foregoing constitutes the major items accepted by the attendees.  If there are any additions or corrections to these minutes, please notify the Architect.

Respectfully submitted,

MacLachlan, Cornelius & Filoni, Inc.

Amy P. Maceyko, AIA, LEED AP