Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

[Smuttynose]

Good for Marshfield. This law is awful and the one-size-fits-all urban planning it imposes is equally awful. If we're going to have to have zoning, I'd rather it be kept under local control rather than be dictated by an nonelected state commission, such as the EOHLC.

These are the parcels that Burlington is rezoning to comply with the MBTA Zoning requirement. Burlington has a similar mandate (to allow for as many units) as Marshfield. Of the five areas proposed for rezoning four of the five include apartments that were recently constructed. Only one, near the Burlington Mall, does not include new apartments where there is a reasonable likelihood that new multi-family housing will be built in the near term.

Burlington is one of the more developed suburbs in the Boston area - corridors adjacent to 128 and Route 3 are highly developed - so it's a bit disappointing that the community was not a bit more progressive in proposing something that would actually create reasonable opportunities for new housing. But at least they are making some modicum of an effort.

There is a collective freak-out over these requirements that is just not remotely proportional to the impacts.

 

[RandomWalk]

I do hope the legislature comes back with a clarification that legalizing what already exists doesn’t cut it.

 

[stick n move]

I do hope the legislature comes back with a clarification that legalizing what already exists doesn’t cut it.

Seriously that would be insane if they allow that to slip through.

 

[Java King]

I do hope the legislature comes back with a clarification that legalizing what already exists doesn’t cut it.

That would put a hardship on communities such as Scituate that zoned for denser development near their train stations years ago. When the Greenbush line was re-activated in 2007, Scituate did quite a bit of zoning work to encourage multi-family development around the town's two train stations. It's been a bit of a slog, but there has finally been quite a bit of development around the Greenbush train station over the last few years. We just voted some small tweaks to the zoning earlier this month to be fully compliant with the MBTA Communities Act. If the state comes back saying the existing housing isn't covered, then that's a HUGE deal for places like Scituate that had already been quite proactive about zoning.

 

[Java King]

This is from our Advisory Booklet at Town Meeting: It easily passed by 2/3rd vote which is what was required for a change to zoning.

The town had already done work to change zoning around the commuter rail stations to increase available housing in close proximity to public transportation. This means that the additional changes needed to make Scituate compliant with MGL(Massachusetts General Law) c. 40A §3A were minimal. To vote against the minor changes would make Scituate ineligible for state grants, and potentially open to legal action from the state. (The town of Milton voted against changing their zoning to be compliant, and since has lost grant funding for a seawall, and has been sued by the state attorney general.) It should be noted that regardless of how densely North Scituate is zoned, the lack of a sewer connection to the area currently limits development. Changes to zoning is the only thing required to be compliant with the state law, there is no requirement to increase available housing.

 

[Java King]

ARTICLE 16. Amend Zoning Map and Zoning Bylaws for Village Center and Neighborhood Districts – Greenbush/Driftway Gateway District and North Scituate Village District for Compliance with MGL Ch 40A Section 3A of the Zoning Act for Multi-Family Zoning as of right in MBTA Communities and minor housekeeping changes:

The changes went on for 10-12 pages, and I think average citizens are just confused by all the Planning and Zoning jargon. Most people just don't understand zoning. The questions raised at our town meeting were kind of crazy like: "Where am I going to park when I visit grandma in one of these developments?" and "Scituate is already ruined. We moved here from places like Braintree, Brockton, and Quincy; and we don't want to become those places!" That last comment was the definition of a NIMBY and so elitist. I can't believe they said that line in front of hundreds of people. LOL Thankfully, I think most Scituate residents don't think that way............but many "townies" feel like Scituate has been ruined by the train and too much multi-family development.

 

[Beantropolis]

These are the parcels that Burlington is rezoning to comply with the MBTA Zoning requirement. Burlington has a similar mandate (to allow for as many units) as Marshfield. Of the five areas proposed for rezoning four of the five include apartments that were recently constructed. Only one, near the Burlington Mall, does not include new apartments where there is a reasonable likelihood that new multi-family housing will be built in the near term.

Burlington is one of the more developed suburbs in the Boston area - corridors adjacent to 128 and Route 3 are highly developed - so it's a bit disappointing that the community was not a bit more progressive in proposing something that would actually create reasonable opportunities for new housing. But at least they are making some modicum of an effort.

There is a collective freak-out over these requirements that is just not remotely proportional to the impacts.

Something that no one seems to be acknowledging is the fact that each of these 177 municipalities already have, and have had, the power to implement this zoning at any time. They can even exceed the mandated 3a requirements if they want. In fact, they can implement any kind of zoning they wish.

If you live in Burlington, and you're really unhappy with the way that your town is zoned, my advice is you should get together with your Burlingtonian neighbors and elect people that will change the town's zoning in a way that satisfies you and your fellow townsfolk. You know, democracy and stuff.

 

[ritchiew]

That would put a hardship on communities such as Scituate that zoned for denser development near their train stations years ago

I really can't figure this out. What hardships would this cause for Scituate?

 

[393b40]

Something that no one seems to be acknowledging is the fact that each of these 177 municipalities already have, and have had, the power to implement this zoning at any time. They can even exceed the mandated 3a requirements if they want. In fact, they can implement any kind of zoning they wish.

If you live in Burlington, and you're really unhappy with the way that your town is zoned, my advice is you should get together with your Burlingtonian neighbors and elect people that will change the town's zoning in a way that satisfies you and your fellow townsfolk. You know, democracy and stuff.

Everyone acknowledges that. But these towns are doing nothing and yet reaping the benefit of both access to and proximity to Boston without doing anything to alleviate the housing crisis in the region.

It's more about people in Boston/Cambridge being fed up with being the only towns doing even close to remotely anything to build (and it's still not enough). Using the State to control these towns is the only viable approach.

The hyper-fucking-local politics of Massachusetts is the worst thing about this state. The sooner that can die the better. I would love to see a strong push to consolidate zoning as a state level power and eliminate all these corrupt little kingdoms each town has.

 

[Java King]

I really can't figure this out. What hardships would this cause for Scituate?

If Scituate could not include the current multi-family already created under previous zoning, and the MBTA Zoning ONLY applied to NEW/FUTURE multi-family as was suggested up thread, then Scituate would have to return to the table to increase the number of dwelling units. This would involve multiple Planning Board hearings and several town meeting votes. Plus, the existing zoning districts would need to be larger, I assume. I know the existing zoning districts around the train stations were pretty much maximized based on available land, so to find even MORE land would be a hardship. That's what I meant.

 

[Smuttynose]

That would put a hardship on communities such as Scituate that zoned for denser development near their train stations years ago. When the Greenbush line was re-activated in 2007, Scituate did quite a bit of zoning work to encourage multi-family development around the town's two train stations. It's been a bit of a slog, but there has finally been quite a bit of development around the Greenbush train station over the last few years. We just voted some small tweaks to the zoning earlier this month to be fully compliant with the MBTA Communities Act. If the state comes back saying the existing housing isn't covered, then that's a HUGE deal for places like Scituate that had already been quite proactive about zoning.

Good for Scituate. From the Google aerials/streetview, there is a nice new 4-story multi-family (maybe mixed-use?) development directly across the street from the train station. But there is also a fair amount of less transit-oriented development surrounding the train station - small shopping centers, a giant concrete plant, a self-storage facility, the town's transfer station, one story commercial buildings, etc. - that could potentially be better utilized. Even for the 'all new development is bad' crowd, a lot of this existing development could be redeveloped into more attractive/productive uses.

I think Randomwalk is saying that there are probably ways to recognize and account for the good work that towns like Scituate have done but also spur them to rezone a few additional areas for multi-family and mixed uses. I agree that we shouldn't totally discount progress that a lot of communities have made, but it also seems a bit regressive to slap a MBTA zoning designation on every new multi-family development built over the last 10 years - in areas where there is a general understanding that no new housing will be built in the short-term - and say our work on this is done!

 

[RandomWalk]

The malicious compliance of zoning areas that are already built or can never be built to comply is where I have a problem. It does nothing to solve the underlying issue, while allowing the municipality to claim compliance. There should be some mechanism for recognizing municipalities that did the work before the law was in effect, but it should not be a free pass.

Frankly, planning should not be done on a municipal basis, but instead on a regional one.

 

[DZH22]

Burlington is one of the more developed suburbs in the Boston area - corridors adjacent to 128 and Route 3 are highly developed - so it's a bit disappointing that the community was not a bit more progressive in proposing something that would actually create reasonable opportunities for new housing. But at least they are making some modicum of a

Burlington doesn't have a train station and everything there is car oriented. The traffic is already terrible and it has a massive commercial presence from a suburban perspective. I don't see how making busy suburban streets even busier is going to be an improvement.

The focus of the law should be areas that are walkable to Transit Stations, full stop. I applaud the suburbs that are pushing back on this government overreach.

It's more about people in Boston/Cambridge being fed up with being the only towns doing even close to remotely anything to build (and it's still not enough). Using the State to control these towns is the only viable approach.

Boston has not been doing its part satisfactorily whatsoever, considering all transit flows to Boston and the tallest possible buildings could be built there. How about the city planners start pushing back on 12 story labs and instead request 30 story residentials? Instead you can't go "too tall" which means residentials don't pencil out as well as the labs at the shorter heights.

We under-build right next to the busiest transit stations in New England, while simultaneously asking suburbs to overbuild, even when miles away from public transit options. The failure is not the suburbs being suburbs. The failure is Boston trying to pretend it's just a big town, and not the major global city that it actually is.

 

[ritchiew]

If Scituate could not include the current multi-family already created under previous zoning, and the MBTA Zoning ONLY applied to NEW/FUTURE multi-family as was suggested up thread, then Scituate would have to return to the table to increase the number of dwelling units. This would involve multiple Planning Board hearings and several town meeting votes. Plus, the existing zoning districts would need to be larger, I assume. I know the existing zoning districts around the train stations were pretty much maximized based on available land, so to find even MORE land would be a hardship. That's what I meant.

I see, thanks.
Well, I mostly agree with @Smuttynose here. I think that's great that Scituate has been more proactive with the zoning reforms, and the state should be rewarding that. I don't think the reward should be letting the town do less of the good thing we want it to do. That frustrates the whole purpose of the law. I'd much rather that the perks be something that actually gets us more housing. One example that comes to mind, you said upthread that one of the proposed sites is missing some required infrastructure. I'd much rather the reward be the state putting up money to fund the sewer line or whatever else is needed for homes to actually get built.

Also, I've said this in another thread, but there are a lot of downsides to start giving partial exemptions. Lots of towns will start demanding partial exemptions (of dubious merit) and could use any ambiguity to avoid compliance or drag out lawsuits. Giving exemptions makes sense if there is some extreme hardship, but what you're describing doesn't sound like an extreme hardship. Some government meetings is exactly what every town is being asked to do. Having to redo it would be a hassle, but totally worth it.

I can't tell, did the state already give an OK to Scituate's plan and counted the existing housing as new enough? If the state already said it would be fine, I guess that's another matter and this is all kind of moot. But I don't think they should have.

 

[ritchiew]

I applaud the suburbs that are pushing back on this government overreach.

I've heard this sentiment before, but I don't understand it.

Local governments have enacted mountains of regulations dictating exactly what people can and cannot do on their own land. Local governments set requirements for height, setbacks, number of garages, floor-area-ratio, minimum lot sizes, number of families that can live in the building, can't run a business or can only run a business, but not some business, especially if you're near a church, and on and on and on. It is ubiquitous, but I rarely hear this described as "government overreach."

With the MBTA law, the state is telling local governments to ease up on some of the restrictions to allow people to build more housing. This gets described as "government overreach." (I have also heard "authoritarianism" and "tyranny.")

What exactly is the logic there?

 

[Java King]

I see, thanks.
Well, I mostly agree with @Smuttynose here. I think that's great that Scituate has been more proactive with the zoning reforms, and the state should be rewarding that. I don't think the reward should be letting the town do less of the good thing we want it to do. That frustrates the whole purpose of the law. I'd much rather that the perks be something that actually gets us more housing. One example that comes to mind, you said upthread that one of the proposed sites is missing some required infrastructure. I'd much rather the reward be the state putting up money to fund the sewer line or whatever else is needed for homes to actually get built.

Also, I've said this in another thread, but there are a lot of downsides to start giving partial exemptions. Lots of towns will start demanding partial exemptions (of dubious merit) and could use any ambiguity to avoid compliance or drag out lawsuits. Giving exemptions makes sense if there is some extreme hardship, but what you're describing doesn't sound like an extreme hardship. Some government meetings is exactly what every town is being asked to do. Having to redo it would be a hassle, but totally worth it.

I can't tell, did the state already give an OK to Scituate's plan and counted the existing housing as new enough? If the state already said it would be fine, I guess that's another matter and this is all kind of moot. But I don't think they should have.

You have many excellent points. As far as I know, the state has given preliminary approval for Scituate being compliant with the MBTA Communities Law. As I mentioned, the tweaks to the Scituate zoning were just approved at Town Meeting in early April 2024, and I think those zoning changes need to be reviewed and approved by the state. Scituate hired planning consultants to help them wade through the state regulations and requirements. Everything that I've seen so far indicates that the state is onboard with the current Scituate zoning that conforms to the MBTA Communities Law. (This includes the dwelling units already created by previous increased zoning density.)

That being said, Sewer and Water demand is a HUGE issue in Scituate. I love the idea of the state giving towns more infrastructure funds if they meet the requirements, however at the present time the way the law is written, it only requires towns to zone for increased density, but not make it "actually buildable" with the necessary infrastructure. @Smuttynose mentions the Concrete Pipe location a stone's through from the train station. It's actually zoned for multi-family and increased density now, but there is NO indication that specific business would like to relocate. Towns can create zoning districts, but it's ultimately up to developers and landowners to actually produce the housing, and there are MANY financial factors limiting the creation of increased housing.

 

[DZH22]

I've heard this sentiment before, but I don't understand it.

You left out the first half of what I said, which should explain the second half:
"The focus of the law should be areas that are walkable to Transit Stations, full stop. I applaud the suburbs that are pushing back on this government overreach."

 

[Smuttynose]

Burlington doesn't have a train station and everything there is car oriented. The traffic is already terrible and it has a massive commercial presence from a suburban perspective. I don't see how making busy suburban streets even busier is going to be an improvement.

The focus of the law should be areas that are walkable to Transit Stations, full stop. I applaud the suburbs that are pushing back on this government overreach.

Burlington has a traffic problem because it decided to let developers build 10,000 offices without allowing any significant residential opportunities. Those workers have to come from somewhere and most of them aren’t coming from Burlington and as you noted they’re not taking transit.

So the only way to make any headway in addressing this is to allow denser residential close to employment centers within Burlington where residents can walk or bike to work and to work toward a larger critical mass that can support transit opportunities.

I don’t necessarily agree that Burlington let 10,000 offices be built in an area without transit, but if the state tried to have any say in that it would have quickly been branded “government overreach.”

 

[Beantropolis]

Everyone acknowledges that. But these towns are doing nothing and yet reaping the benefit of both access to and proximity to Boston without doing anything to alleviate the housing crisis in the region.

It's more about people in Boston/Cambridge being fed up with being the only towns doing even close to remotely anything to build (and it's still not enough). Using the State to control these towns is the only viable approach.

The hyper-fucking-local politics of Massachusetts is the worst thing about this state. The sooner that can die the better. I would love to see a strong push to consolidate zoning as a state level power and eliminate all these corrupt little kingdoms each town has.

Your argument has no basis in reality. Both Boston and Cambridge are still below their 1950 population numbers. In the same 75-year period up to today, Boston has lost a net 150,000 people, while the net Massachusetts population has expanded by 2.5 million. During the period when the Massachusetts Miracle was taking place in the suburbs of Route 128, "America's Technology Highway", Boston was a bombed-out backwater, with a steadily declining population. It's only begun to recover relatively recently and now, with the prospect of a catastrophic commercial real estate collapse looming on the horizon, that recovery may reverse -- especially if Beacon Hill can't get suburbanites back into all those half-empty towers in Boston's financial district. So who is reaping the benefit of whom?

Also, the hyper-fucking-local politics of Massachusetts is the only thing that has saved so many towns from the same fate as the West End, or Roxbury around Melnea Cass Boulevard, or the Wood Island neighborhood of East Boston, or the New York Streets of the South End, etc., etc.

 

[ritchiew]

You left out the first half of what I said, which should explain the second half:
"The focus of the law should be areas that are walkable to Transit Stations, full stop. I applaud the suburbs that are pushing back on this government overreach."

No, that doesn't really explain anything for me. What is the government overreach?