The state passed the Housing Choice bill at governor Baker’s behest last month. The new law promises to bring significant changes to how local Mass communities handle new development projects.
A key change under the new state rules are that communities will now only require a majority vote, rather than 2/3’s vote, for some housing-related proposed local zoning changes and Special Permits.
An additional element of the law is that “MBTA Communities (i.e. Newton) shall be required to “have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute:
- Minimum gross density of 15 units per acre
- Not more than ½ miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.
- No age restrictions
- Suitable for families with children.”
Here’s a memo from the City’s web site that spells out the details for Newton
What effects to you imagine this will bring for future development in Newton? Like it? Hate it? Big effect? Small effect?
“An additional element of the law is that “MBTA Communities (i.e. Newton) shall be required to “have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria set forth in the statute”
How is a “zoning district of reasonable size” defined?
How is an MBTA community defined?
How is suitable for families defined?
Does Riverside already fulfill these goals?
Here’s more detailed info Claire
Jonah Temple the City’s Asst Solicitor sent out the following memo about this law which says it applies to some zoning amendments and special permits.
https://files.constantcontact.com/86247818101/3c6ab088-32d1-42ee-b6f8-5ffd040dfce0.pdf
It seems like there us quite a bit of interpretation needed for this law.
Correction Jonah’s memo said certain not some zoning amendments and special permits.
Hi Jerry – I’m sorry, but what you are saying is not quite correct. The enacted bill (H.5250) RETAINS the 2/3 majority for zoning ordinance changes EXCEPT for some specific types of housing-related zoning amendments and special permits. And the bill also specifically states that “Any amendment that requires a simple majority vote shall not be combined with an amendment that requires a two-thirds majority vote.”
The enacted bill can be read directly by hitting “Download PDF” at https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H5250 with the section on the changes to the required majority vote for zoning changes starting at line 1328 of numbered lines in the PDF.
Eventually these changes to the majority vote in the enacted bill will be incorporated into Mass General Law 40A, Section 5 (Adoption or change of zoning ordinances or by-laws; procedure). That should happen soon, but as of today, the old version of Mass General Law 40A, Section 5 is still appearing on the malegislature.gov web site. Once the bill language becomes part of the 40A, Section 5, it will be more accessible to the public.
@D.L. Miller – Thanks for the clarifications/corrections.
I’ve added a link (above) to a memo from the City’s law department that spells out a lot more details.
@D. L. Miller – what does that mean for the Korff request to amend the Riverside project? Will the City Council need to approve by 2/3 vote or a simple majority?
Hopefully this will mean that private entities who own land can use and develop it with less burdensome interference from the city and its oh so NIMBYtastic residents.
Ding, ding, ding – V14 word of the week award goes to Elmo for “NIMBYtastic”.
Carry on.
Sounds great, except a lot of Newton’s T stations are in squares defined by historic architecture. I guess most have less developed land behind them, though. Otherwise, there’s nothing that would degrade the things that current residents payed a premium to live in the Garden City for.
Hi Jerry – Can you please change the wording in your article from “communities will now only require a majority vote, rather than 2/3’s vote for proposed local zoning changes and Special Permits,” to “communities will now only require a majority vote, rather than 2/3’s vote, for some housing-related proposed local zoning changes and Special Permits.”
What you have now is incorrect. You can verify that it is incorrect at the link to the actual enacted bill which is, again, https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H5250 with the relevant changes to the City Council majority vote appearing on the line numbered 1328. Also – my name is D.L. Waller, not D.L. Miller.
@D.L. Waller – Done. Thanks.
That’s what happens when I try to write about something that I know nothing about ;-)
Thanks Jerry – much appreciated.
H5250 sounds like it will fit in with Newton’s present zoning laws with some moderate adjustments. If you have been following the saga of the zoning rewrite sponsored by ZAP you will have noted they intend to look at changing our village zoning.
Since most of our villages are zoned B1 and a B1 zone allows housing, we have an almost natural fit. All we have to do is eliminate the special permit requirement in B1 zones and we will qualify as conforming to the new state requirement.
H2050 requires at least 15 units per acre. Our present zoning allows 36 units per acre in a B1 zone. (an acre is 43,560 square feet)
Of course the Discriminators (those that oppose overly large single family homes in their neighborhoods but support overly large residential buildings in other neighborhoods or villages) and the Urbanists (those that want to convert our villages to urban areas) will decry such a simple solution, it will satisfy most of Newton’s voters. It will answer those that want more housing for more people. It will go a long way towards keeping our villages at a traditional scale and will provide people to vitalize our walkable, vibrant business centers.
I admit that such a solution would limit developers’ profits, but I doubt that it will curtail development. In fact, it will most probably initiate a surge in rebuilding our village centers. Our biggest problem will be to prevent the construction of flat-roofed, box like buildings with sink and toilet vents rising from the roof like parade participants preparing to step off at the sound of the symbol.
For those that will claim such a proposal will bring in more 40B’s, I say, wonderful, welcome. We need more affordable housing. It’s not the 40B’s that people object to, it is the immensity of the projects and the limited number of affordable units.
Peter,
I think you are probably right in your assessment that the BU1 District, if the special permit requirement were lifted, might qualify to meet the 15 units/acre requirement. The current 2 parking stalls per residential unit requirement, however, complicates things, perhaps significantly.
I doubt that the current zoning map would pass muster, though. Newton Centre, for instance, has a little over 500K sf. ft. of BU1 lots, or about 11.5 acres. I think we’ll find that the state expects more when it gives guidance on how big “a zoning district of reasonable size” needs to be.
Our zoning code needs more than a tweak or two.