Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

The state wanted to turn this into a bus. They built the actual subway to the suburbs and neglected this. They need to cut the rhetoric (and the checks) and either sincerely work with the towns or implement state-wide zoning
 
Scott said:
The state wanted to turn this into a bus. They built the actual subway to the suburbs and neglected this. They need to cut the rhetoric (and the checks) and either sincerely work with the towns or implement state-wide zoning
Click to expand...

Alternative take - the MBTA Communities law has so many holes in it, it's insanely easy to implement it without actually allowing any measurable new housing. Just zone new development, or condos (where the developer would have to buy every owner out to redevelop it) for multi-family and voila, you have MBTA zoning without actually encouraging any housing. And at the end of the day, MIlton has to zone a grand total of 50 acres for multi-family. Milton has 8,448 acres, that is 0.5 percent of its land area. The MBTA Communities Law is unnecessarily complicated, but it is not especially effective at encouraging housing.

New Hampshire is considering simpler reforms - and overrides of local zoning - that I think would be more effective at building housing (and those efforts are led by Republicans!)

www.governing.com

New Hampshire Republicans’ Crusade Against 'Snob Zoning'

The New Hampshire legislature is considering dozens of policies aimed at making housing more affordable, a priority for first-year Gov. Kelly Ayotte. Some policies are gaining bipartisan support, but debates over local control still rage.
www.governing.com www.governing.com

Housing crisis sparks bipartisan interest in efforts to override local zoning codes​

 
Smuttynose said:
Alternative take - the MBTA Communities law has so many holes in it, it's insanely easy to implement it without actually allowing any measurable new housing. Just zone new development, or condos (where the developer would have to buy every owner out to redevelop it) for multi-family and voila, you have MBTA zoning without actually encouraging any housing. And at the end of the day, MIlton has to zone a grand total of 50 acres for multi-family. Milton has 8,448 acres, that is 0.5 percent of its land area. The MBTA Communities Law is unnecessarily complicated, but it is not especially effective at encouraging housing.

New Hampshire is considering simpler reforms - and overrides of local zoning - that I think would be more effective at building housing (and those efforts are led by Republicans!)

www.governing.com

New Hampshire Republicans’ Crusade Against 'Snob Zoning'

The New Hampshire legislature is considering dozens of policies aimed at making housing more affordable, a priority for first-year Gov. Kelly Ayotte. Some policies are gaining bipartisan support, but debates over local control still rage.
www.governing.com www.governing.com

Housing crisis sparks bipartisan interest in efforts to override local zoning codes​

Click to expand...
Yes! Shared this in a other thread. NH is lapping us.

Speaking personally for Quincy, what you described is exactly what happened here and there was no beating around the bush about it. The presently under construction MBTA bus garage is a massive chunk of the "new potential units" ffs
 
Last edited:
Smuttynose said:
Alternative take - the MBTA Communities law has so many holes in it, it's insanely easy to implement it without actually allowing any measurable new housing. Just zone new development, or condos (where the developer would have to buy every owner out to redevelop it) for multi-family and voila, you have MBTA zoning without actually encouraging any housing. And at the end of the day, MIlton has to zone a grand total of 50 acres for multi-family. Milton has 8,448 acres, that is 0.5 percent of its land area. The MBTA Communities Law is unnecessarily complicated, but it is not especially effective at encouraging housing.

New Hampshire is considering simpler reforms - and overrides of local zoning - that I think would be more effective at building housing (and those efforts are led by Republicans!)

www.governing.com

New Hampshire Republicans’ Crusade Against 'Snob Zoning'

The New Hampshire legislature is considering dozens of policies aimed at making housing more affordable, a priority for first-year Gov. Kelly Ayotte. Some policies are gaining bipartisan support, but debates over local control still rage.
www.governing.com www.governing.com

Housing crisis sparks bipartisan interest in efforts to override local zoning codes​

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, only a fraction of the 8,448 acres qualifies. Here's another alternative. Compromise. The town just needs to zone for the units required, and the state lets them do it on less land. They build a couple hi rises in Lower Mills and on Granite Ave near appropriate T service and the bike trail and everyone should be happy. Otherwise the state law essentially requires an auto-centric design in East Milton.
 
Scott said:
Granite Ave near appropriate T service
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any way under existing conditions to do non-auto centric building on Granite Ave (which...is East Milton?). The 215 isn't appropriate transit service, and don't get me started on the pedestrian experience there. It also has a really high barrier to improving it because of 93.
 
I mean Granite Ave on the river near Dorchester. There is a DPW yard on Granite Ave and a tired 80's office building right on the water, the bus line and right on the bike trail. Both are to be upzoned either way. There is also tired nursing home on the water right next to Mattapan Station that could be a major TOD.
 
Scott said:
I mean Granite Ave on the river near Dorchester. There is a DPW yard on Granite Ave and a tired 80's office building right on the water, the bus line and right on the bike trail. Both are to be upzoned either way. There is also tired nursing home on the water right next to Mattapan Station that could be a major TOD.
Click to expand...

Yeah we're talking about the same place. To get from the DPW yard to the trail you have to cross a bunch of highway ramps over half a mile with no sidewalk/bike infrastructure on a very high speed/volume road. There's nothing commercial for almost a mile in any direction. The 215 isn't enough transit to support anything that could be called TOD. Every single unit built would have to have a car.

No disagreement about the nursing home near Mattapan Square.
 
A lack of appropriate transit is exactly the point. Also, the building on the water is a short walk to Adams Village and you can cut across the cemetery to Cedar Grove Station or follow the bike trail to Butler. If Quincy would stop being Brookline with the dead end off Enterprise Street there is a direct connection to North Quincy Station from said DPW yard via Riverside Ave for a bus
 
If only he had some sort of power to fund upgrades to Milton transit.
 

Implementation of MBTA Communities Law Continues with Nearly 70 Communities Approved​

Permanent regulations now published for law that will increase production of reasonably priced housing near transit

1744729421687.jpg


“BOSTON — The Healey-Driscoll Administration announced today that 68 communities are now deemed compliant or conditionally compliant with the MBTA Communities Law, which requires communities served by the MBTA to have at least one district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right. A total of 119 communities have adopted multifamily zoning to comply with the law, which will increase the production of reasonably priced housing near public transit across the state. Already nearly 4,000 new housing units are in the pipeline because of the law.

Permanent regulations for the law have also now been published after the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the previous administration did not correctly advance the guidelines for the law’s implementation.

“The MBTA Communities Law is working,” said Governor Maura Healey. “Municipalities have stepped up to create more housing – housing we need for our workers who keep our communities running, for our young people starting out on their own and for our seniors looking to retire. Creating more housing is the single most important thing we can do to help bring down the cost of living for Massachusetts residents. Our administration remains committed to working with all communities to help them come into compliance with the law.”……”


https://www.mass.gov/news/implement...continues-with-nearly-70-communities-approved
 
This honestly looks less bad than I would have guessed based on all of the headlines on this topic. A lot of quiet compliance (actual or conditional).
 
Marshfield very suddenly fired and then replaced their town administrator over the past two weeks. Very interested to see if that influences their posture at all.

Justbuildit said:
This honestly looks less bad than I would have guessed based on all of the headlines on this topic. A lot of quiet compliance (actual or conditional).
Click to expand...

I think the vast majority of municipalities that may have been less than enthused about the idea of adding multi-family realized it was much easier to comply and produce a zoning plan that would allow significantly fewer units in practice than on paper than it is to actually fight the state head-on.
 
Last edited:
KCasiglio said:
Marshfield very suddenly fired and then replaced their town administrator over the past two weeks. Very interested to see if that influences their posture at all.



I think the vast majority of municipalities that may have been less than enthused about the idea of adding multi-family realized it was much easier to comply and produce a zoning plan that would allow significantly fewer units in practice than on paper than it is to actually fight the state head-on.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately yes.
 
Does anyone know why Avon isn't part of the MBTA forward funding district? Its exclusion has always been kinda baffling to me.
 
themissinglink said:
Does anyone know why Avon isn't part of the MBTA forward funding district? Its exclusion has always been kinda baffling to me.
Click to expand...
I believe this is an accident of legislative omission - the MBTA district from 1964 to 2000 was only 78 cities and towns, and expanded in 1999 to 175 in preparation for Forward Funding, but that 1999 list was exclusive, not inclusive - this was part of legislative fiat to cause those towns to pay MBTA assessments that they weren't up to 1999. That said, notably, of the house reps that introduced that particular language, 3/5 represented communities close enough to Avon that they really should have known about its existence.
1000038869.jpg

Since that date Avon has never voted to join the MBTA district, although I do believe the legislature has the ability to forcefully include it under the terms of "any special act to the area consistuting the authority" - they just have never bothered, but as the MBTA Communities act references this section... Avon gets left out. I rather doubt they'll ever vote to voluntarily join, but notably there were intermittent efforts to include it and the other CR communities back in the 70s and 80s.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250415_230558_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    Screenshot_20250415_230558_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 19
  • Screenshot_20250415_230521_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    Screenshot_20250415_230521_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 20
  • Screenshot_20250415_223515_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    Screenshot_20250415_223515_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    831 KB · Views: 19
  • House_Statewide.pdf
    6.4 MB · Views: 16
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top