Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

rocketwidget said:
Hahaha. Gotta make sure the definition of a "trolley station" is based on 4 arbitrary stops forever and not if the line actually has trolley cars or not, because soon enough the Mattapan line will have the same cars currently in service on the Green Line subway.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the SL3 does not serve any of these stations and does not have exclusive right-of-way. But Chelsea is a rapid transit community and we're not. For...reasons.

Maybe Milton would prefer their service "upgraded" to silver line service.
 

Hanson has reversed course and passed rules to put it in compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.

Reluctant resignation was the overall mood of the discussion at the Monday, Oct. 6, special town meeting held. But town officials and residents placed emphasis on the possibility of legal action and the staggering amount of grants on which it had already lost out.

To comply with the 2021 law, the town and 176 others were required to create at least one zoning district near public transportation that allowed multifamily housing by right. Hanson was required to zone for at least 750 apartments and it chose land on either side of Route 27 between Phillips and High streets for its district. The law was created as an effort to increase housing units and address affordability, but doesn’t require that the units are built.
Click to expand...
 

Another South Shore town rejects MBTA zoning rules. Where the law is being disputed​

Carver voters overwhelmingly rejected its proposed zoning rules to comply with the MBTA Communities Act by a vote of 394 to 26.
It was the first time the town was voting on the issue, as it had until the end of this year to pass rules.
Click to expand...
 

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development​

“The Town of Weston has approved plans to establish four multifamily zoning overlays, including a key district at 133 Boston Post Road, a 74-acre site owned by Boston Properties (BXP). The proposed redevelopment of the property, currently home to a 350,000-square-foot office building, calls for 100 townhomes, 280 multifamily units, and 100 age-restricted residences, creating a phased, multigenerational neighborhood. Three additional overlay districts, Merriam Village, 751 Boston Post Road, and 75/99 Norumbega Road, were also approved as long-term zoning areas with limited near-term development potential.”

1760672147921.png

1760672271033.png

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development
www.bldup.com www.bldup.com

I wasnt sure if this was a part of the mbta communities law but according to the town website it is.

3A MBTA Multifamily Zoning | Weston, MA

Information on 3A Zoning and the Town's outreach efforts
www.westonma.gov www.westonma.gov
 
stick n move said:

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development​

“The Town of Weston has approved plans to establish four multifamily zoning overlays, including a key district at 133 Boston Post Road, a 74-acre site owned by Boston Properties (BXP). The proposed redevelopment of the property, currently home to a 350,000-square-foot office building, calls for 100 townhomes, 280 multifamily units, and 100 age-restricted residences, creating a phased, multigenerational neighborhood. Three additional overlay districts, Merriam Village, 751 Boston Post Road, and 75/99 Norumbega Road, were also approved as long-term zoning areas with limited near-term development potential.”

View attachment 67811
View attachment 67812

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development
www.bldup.com www.bldup.com

I wasnt sure if this was a part of the mbta communities law but according to the town website it is.

3A MBTA Multifamily Zoning | Weston, MA

Information on 3A Zoning and the Town's outreach efforts
www.westonma.gov www.westonma.gov
Click to expand...
That's abutting where they want to site the Weston/128 Commuter Rail station as replacement for Kendal Green. Exactly where you want to be building TOD.
 
stick n move said:

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development​

“The Town of Weston has approved plans to establish four multifamily zoning overlays, including a key district at 133 Boston Post Road, a 74-acre site owned by Boston Properties (BXP). The proposed redevelopment of the property, currently home to a 350,000-square-foot office building, calls for 100 townhomes, 280 multifamily units, and 100 age-restricted residences, creating a phased, multigenerational neighborhood. Three additional overlay districts, Merriam Village, 751 Boston Post Road, and 75/99 Norumbega Road, were also approved as long-term zoning areas with limited near-term development potential.”

View attachment 67811
View attachment 67812

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development

Weston Approves Zoning Overlays, Paving Way for 480 Unit Development
www.bldup.com www.bldup.com

I wasnt sure if this was a part of the mbta communities law but according to the town website it is.

3A MBTA Multifamily Zoning | Weston, MA

Information on 3A Zoning and the Town's outreach efforts
www.westonma.gov www.westonma.gov
Click to expand...

Is this the famed Weston Whopper??
 
This is the key line from the Wrentham story and sums up the flaws with the MBTA Communities Act succinctly:

“We don’t think any [housing units] will get built,” planning board Chairman Thomas Maloney said of additional housing units. “We just think this is the best plan for Wrentham.”

I think we now have to acknowledge and publicly discuss, for all the acrimony this law brought, it is very ineffective at creating more housing.

That doesn’t mean the state should stop pushing communities to build more housing and perhaps requiring it - but it has to learn the lessons of this debacle and pursue it in a way that will actually create housing.
 
Smuttynose said:
I think we now have to acknowledge and publicly discuss, for all the acrimony this law brought, it is very ineffective at creating more housing.

That doesn’t mean the state should stop pushing communities to build more housing and perhaps requiring it - but it has to learn the lessons of this debacle and pursue it in a way that will actually create housing.
Click to expand...
"You can comply with the law just by zoning a bunch of well-developed property" has been both the key selling point and the fatal weakness of the law. Very little housing is going to be generated in the short run. I'd argue it's been a massive waste of political capital given the minimal impact.
 
Agreed, if they were going to have this battle then it should have been fought over something actually transformative. After all of this how could they come back in a few years and say “Sooo I know we kinda tried this before but come to find out we actually do need to develop housing around transit really bad, so were for real this time”… The nimbys will flip their lid. You really only get 1 shot at this per generation.

The fact that wrentham can just designate a gravel pit and some existing buildings as the mbta multi family zone is a joke. This idea of this bill is exactly what mass needs for the future housing needs, the reality of it is not. We were so close, but ended up so far.
 
stick n move said:
The fact that wrentham can just designate a gravel pit and some existing buildings as the mbta multi family zone is a joke. This idea of this bill is exactly what mass needs for the future housing needs, the reality of it is not. We were so close, but ended up so far
Click to expand...
Quincy was able to zone the new MBTA bus depot for about a third of its total obligation. Then it threw in the existing BJs and Home Depot (very unlikely to go away now that the Lowes is being turned into said bus garage). I don't want to totally dismiss it, because we're getting a few developments in south quincy, but the zoning plan was clearly submitted with the intent of minimizing housing
 
KCasiglio said:
"You can comply with the law just by zoning a bunch of well-developed property" has been both the key selling point and the fatal weakness of the law. Very little housing is going to be generated in the short run. I'd argue it's been a massive waste of political capital given the minimal impact.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Has this been a waste of political capital? It seems like this was a non-issue when it was actually passed, so no political capital wasted there. Most of the fighting has been with a faceless state board that determines compliance, so politicians generally don't have to stick their neck out. In a lot of cases, it seems like the people wasting political capital have been NIMBYs. They're the ones who have to waste a lot of time and effort. They've been the ones mostly losing and beating their heads against the wall. And a bunch of NIMBY groups are probably coming out of all this looking worse than they did before. Zoning is suddenly a more popular issue, more people are paying attention, and a lot of reporting I've seen will cover some of the craziest shit said by NIMBY groups.

And I agree this one law won't generate a ton a new housing on it's own. But I'm not sure what one law would. There are hundreds of regulations holding back housing development. Fixing any one of those regulations would only help a little, because there are so many road blocks. Really fixing this problem is a long-term game of whack-a-mole. I guess with that in mind, the MBTA Communities Act seems like not a bad first step. Most towns simply complied with the law. A bunch did a decent job. It will generate new housing. A bunch of housing advocates seem to be moving on to the next fight.

I agree, this law has too many loopholes. I guess I'm a bit more optimistic about it generally.
 
RandomWalk said:
The real fix involves shifting zoning from the municipal level to the regional level. However, that will require a level of political capital that no politician currently possesses.
Click to expand...
The zoning categories should be defined at the state level. The localities should have by-laws which create the maps and special zoning statutes for Boston, central Boston cities on the subway, and gateway cities for strategic development purposes.
 
I mean... that is kinda what Ch40A and 40B are for? 40A contains the restrictions on what towns are and aren't allowed to restrict via zoning, and is what the MBTA Communities Act amended to create the MBTA districts, and while it by itself didn't do much, it at least settled the question that the state can dictate affirmatively what towns must zone for, instead of permitting or restricting. Now that that legal question was settled via Milton, I wonder if further amendments would be better received.

Additionally while 40B is best known for its affordable housing section, but it is also the regional planning law - it lacks mechanisms to induce towns to give up individual powers, but the regional planning commissions are usually deeply involved whenever there is a major zoning change - they do a lot of the master planning rewriting and providing maps and language to the towns and cities that will actually implement it.
 
40B only applies when a municipality is under a certain threshold. Plenty of municipalities get to the threshold in letter, but not spirit of the law.

What I meant was that it should not be possible for individual municipalities to opt out of the necessary participation in providing housing for residents of the commonwealth.
 
ritchiew said:
I don't know. Has this been a waste of political capital? It seems like this was a non-issue when it was actually passed, so no political capital wasted there. Most of the fighting has been with a faceless state board that determines compliance, so politicians generally don't have to stick their neck out. In a lot of cases, it seems like the people wasting political capital have been NIMBYs. They're the ones who have to waste a lot of time and effort. They've been the ones mostly losing and beating their heads against the wall. And a bunch of NIMBY groups are probably coming out of all this looking worse than they did before. Zoning is suddenly a more popular issue, more people are paying attention, and a lot of reporting I've seen will cover some of the craziest shit said by NIMBY groups.

And I agree this one law won't generate a ton a new housing on it's own. But I'm not sure what one law would. There are hundreds of regulations holding back housing development. Fixing any one of those regulations would only help a little, because there are so many road blocks. Really fixing this problem is a long-term game of whack-a-mole. I guess with that in mind, the MBTA Communities Act seems like not a bad first step. Most towns simply complied with the law. A bunch did a decent job. It will generate new housing. A bunch of housing advocates seem to be moving on to the next fight.

I agree, this law has too many loopholes. I guess I'm a bit more optimistic about it generally.
Click to expand...
I think you make a really good point about awareness. Quite a few people I know have asked me about this subject because they know it interests me. It seems like there are many more people who view building housing as a complete necessity because of this law. My biggest beef with the law is that it is justified because, you know... MBTA, but it will actually put many more people in cars. It seems like 200,000 units would create at least 200,000 parking spaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top