Public officials and members of the public expressed trepidation this week on the prospect of sending a second zoning map to Town Meeting for consideration, advocating instead for finding a compromise between the two.
Previous coverage
The two-map proposal was first discussed last week at a hybrid meeting hosted by Select Board Chair Roy Epstein and Town Planner Chris Ryan. The first map, which the Planning board recently voted 4-1 to proceed with, could potentially accompany a second map, submitted as a private citizen by Epstein as the MBTA Advisory Committee map.
“I certainly respect your authority as Planning Board chair to entertain what comes before you, but I am troubled by the process here. … [Epstein] clearly had access to public resources that he used to create and publicize his preferred map,” Select Board Vice Chair Elizabeth Dionne said at a Planning Board meeting on Wednesday. “As a fellow Select Board member, I am publicly stating my disagreement with how this process has played out in recent weeks.”
The MBTA Communities law, signed in 2021 by then-Gov. Charlie Baker requires towns served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), 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.
Dionne expressed concerns with Epstein’s map, namely the restriction it places on two major commercial properties and the focus it places on areas already heavy on multi-family housing rather than single-family homes.
“We’re much better off reaching a genuine compromise so that the Planning Board and Select Board present a united front to Town Meeting in November,” she said. “The good news is, I think we can reach a compromise that will protect our tiny amount of current commercial zoning while engaging in good planning that will create more housing in Belmont.”
Avoiding Confusion
Last week, Epstein said the rationale for proceeding with two maps would hopefully mitigate the confusion of multiple potential amendments submitted before Town Meeting in the fall.
“To [amend] three days before Town Meeting is not a good process, but I think people may feel strongly enough about this that they will try to, and the result will be a Town Meeting that will be very hard to keep productive and end up with a result that people will be happy with and that state might find acceptable,” Epstein said.
In Belmont, the deadline to file amendments to motions for Town Meeting sessions is the close of business on the third business day before the session of Town Meeting.
According to Epstein, maps would need to be submitted to the state Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities by the end of June to allow time for the state’s 90-day review window. Provided they meet compliance, Town Meeting would then be asked in the fall to accept or reject the maps to meet the Dec. 31 deadline.
“I felt the map adopted by the Planning Board deviated pretty substantially from what the [MBTA Advisory] committee had done,” Epstein said last week.
Epstein said the essential difference between the Planning Board map and the Advisory Committee’s map is the elimination of the Brighton Street district, which was replaced with a district at the bottom of Belmont Street at the Cambridge line.
Following Needham
According to Ryan and Epstein, the town would be following the lead of Needham, which also submitted two maps.
“There were two broad schools of thought among the residents in Needham,” he said. “Some people wanted a very minimalist, very narrowly compliant strategy, and others wanted something that was more likely to generate more housing in different ways.”
The difference between those groups in Needham, he said, “has some analogies to what’s going on in Belmont.”
Ryan previously recommended that the maps be presented as two separate articles at Town Meeting in the fall. The Planning Board map, which he described as a “baseline map” of minimum compliance, would be the first article. Assuming the first one passes, the Town Meeting would then have the opportunity to accept or reject a map that offers more development opportunities.
Strong Reaction
“The two-map approach is frankly ludicrous, and it undermines [the Planning Board] legitimacy,” said Paul Joy, chair of the Economic Development Committee and a member of the now-defunct MBTA Advisory Committee, who argued it would be wrong to assume the board would ‘rubber stamp’ the committee’s map, without revision. “It’s a disservice to the community, it’s an insult to the hard work and expertise of your hardworking board members and would result in complete and utter chaos on the floor of Town Meeting.”
Warrant Committee Chair Geoffrey Lubien, too, feared that putting two maps ahead of the members in the fall would make a difficult decision even more difficult. He also emphasized the importance of finding opportunities to increase commercial development. Lubien joined Planning Board member Taylor Yates in advocating, instead, for finding a way to compromise between the two maps.
“I support increasing housing opportunities, just not in these commercial spaces,” Lubien said last week. “Let’s find other areas. … I think we are too pressed with the commercial challenges we face.”
Rachel Heller, member of the Housing Trust and co-chair of the now defunct Advisory Committee said there was a lot that advocates for both maps could agree on. She said the committee considered affordability, economic development and how to increase foot traffic for business, and diversity when working on the map ultimately put forth by Epstein.
“Anyone who knows me knows that map was a huge compromise,” she said. “But I do think it delivers on a lot.”
She said she supports either the two-map approach or finding a compromise.
“Let’s just make sure we’re creating real opportunities for people to live here and for our businesses to thrive,” she said.
Planning Board members emphasized to Ryan that in proceeding forward, town resources need to focus on the map it accepted earlier this spring.
“We need to continue to make progress if we have a fighting chance, one, of compliance and two, of having a fully vetted zoning bylaw narrative for Town Meeting, in addition to a pre-review,” said Chair Jeffrey B. ” Should there be a secondary map that somebody wants to bring to the board, I think maybe whoever may be interested in doing that in an unofficial capacity put the folks together and work on that. If they got to a point they felt it would be good for the board, then I, as the chair, would certainly be open to putting it on the agenda so it can be up for discussion.”