Mary Byrne
The Planning Board MBTA Communities Subcommittee is continuing to fine-tune the zoning map it will eventually send to the state for compliance review.
The subcommittee, which returned to the Planning Board this week with a zoning map similar to the iteration recommended to it by the MBTA Communities Advisory Committee, has also directed Town Planner and Director of the Office of Planning & Building Chris Ryan to share with Utile Architecture a few locations that could be used for conceptual designs of what the space would look like if redeveloped under new zoning. Additionally, Ryan has been asked to get clarification from the state on a few outstanding questions regarding compliance with the new state law – particularly how Belmont Housing Authority units can be zoned and whether consolidating lots was permissible.
“We really don’t have anywhere to go but up … and our town’s been chopped up into tiny parcels,” said subcommittee member Taylor Yates. “I’d be unsatisfied if the state said ‘No, you can’t think about consolidating parcels.”’
The new law, signed in 2021 by then-Gov. Charlie Baker requires towns served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, such as Belmont, to create at least one zoning district of reasonable size where multi-family housing is permitted and that meets other criteria, including:
- a minimum density of 15 units per acre;
- located not more than a half mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal, or bus station;
- no age restrictions, and suitable for families with children.
Belmont is required to zone for at least 1,632 new housing units. As a commuter rail community – a designation by the state – Belmont has until Dec. 31, 2024, to comply with the mandate [to create the zoning district]. The law does not require building the housing.
The map recommended to the Planning Board in April included parcels in Waverley Square, Belmont Center, Belmont Village, and Brighton Street. On Tuesday night, the Planning Board voted to instruct the subcommittee to continue working on a compliant map that takes into account lower Belmont (bottom of Belmont Street near the Cambridge line) and not the Hill Estate.
The map discussed at the most recent subcommittee meeting, which took place at the Homer Building last week, eliminated the mixed-use rezoning stretching along the railroad tracks on Brighton Street and includes a subdistrict along Pond Street, according to Select Board Chair Roy Epstein, who created the map eventually recommended to the Planning Board by the Advisory Committee. He also “shortened up the run” down Channing Road, bringing Belmont Center into compliance. These changes brought the total unit count to 1,770 units, offering a compliance buffer of about 8.5%, according to Epstein.
On Tuesday night, Planning Board member Thayer Donham expressed concern for the lower number of units on the current map compared to the map submitted by the Advisory Committee.
“I know you don’t want to rubber-stamp the committee work, but we tried to be equitable across town, and we tried to think about where good development could go,” said Donham.
She noted there were lots included on Agassiz Street “that will never be redeveloped.”
“They actually abut wetland, and I’m a little concerned they’ll be removed [by the state] for that reason,” she said.
Members of the public who commented said the zoning should be used to create more housing in Belmont, particularly affordable housing.
“I feel that the point of the MBTA Communities Act is not to create dense housing where it already exists, but rather to promote development that is friendly to walkers, to MBTA users, and that brings foot traffic to our businesses,” said Precinct 1 Town Meeting member Mary Lewis. “I think smart mixed-use in addition to dense housing, can be a really great thing for Belmont. We just saw the huge success of the Tate building, and we could see many more examples of that.”
Others said while they understood the housing crisis, Belmont also has economic development needs and a desire to expand commercial development.
“We are heavily residential … I feel like we’ve done our share for the region, and we could try to do more, but we can’t stretch ourselves too thin,” said Planning Board member Renee Guo.
The town is looking to submit its pre-compliance report by either June 13 or June 28, with one timeline allowing for a bit more room for public input. The state would then have 90 days to review the map before the zoning change can be brought to Town Meeting for a vote. Faced with tight deadlines, Carol Ann Berberian, a member of the subcommittee, asked last week whether additional options were being considered in the event the submitted map fails to meet compliance.
“My concern is we don’t have a lot of time left,” she said.
Other members of the subcommittee, however, felt it would be prudent to wait to hear back from the state. Yates said a list of potential switches could be made, but “otherwise you’re speculating.”
“You don’t know what problem you’re trying to solve,” said Epstein.
On Tuesday, Thayer reminded board members that while a “robust public process” is important, the map presented to the Planning Board was the result of nearly two years of public input. Major changes to the map would mean opening up the public process again.
“I just want to remind everyone that the reason there was a committee that represented a broad group of people in town was to kick off the public meetings. … We’ve had a pretty good public process that got us to the map that we presented to you,” she said. “I think we’re in a good position to keep moving unless the position by the board is to throw out the map and make huge modifications to it.”
[…] Story continues […]