MBTA-C and Dense Housing
Discussing 3 dense housing proposals put forward at ATM 2023 (new), ATM 2022 (new) and STM 2025-1 (revision)
Discussing 3 dense housing proposals put forward at ATM 2023 (new), ATM 2022 (new) and STM 2025-1 (revision)
ATM 2023: Article 34 (MBTA Communities rezoning) and the Substitute Motion
The purpose Article 34 was to comply with the directive from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC). MBTA served cities and towns, Lexington included, were required to zone for multi-family housing.
The Article 34 Substitute Motion was developed by a working group of Town Meeting Members in order to address a number of resident concerns with Article 34. The Substitute Motion, with less capacity for multi-family housing, still easily complied with the EOHLC directive but addressed resident concerns. I was the only Planning Board member to support the substitute motion with a YES vote.
The amendmended motion failed at Town Meeting. Please take a look at the 6 minute video of the substitute Motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUR09-bnPFQ
STM 2025-1: Article 2. MBTA Communities to Reduce the capacity of potential development under MBTA Communities zoning
I was one of three Planning Board members to support this Citizen's Petition with a YES vote. The article succeeded.
This included the removal of Lexington Center as defined in MBTA Communities zoning of ATM 2023.
ATM 2022: Article 35 (OSRD)
I was apprehensive about OSRD being By Right because we had no visual examples of an OSRD project.
For this reason I put considerable effort into an amendment that would make the OSRD dense housing zoning proposal by Special Permit instead of By Right.
My amendment failed and so I did not pursue anything similar the following year regarding another By Right, Dense Housing zoning proposal - ATM 2023: Article 33, SRD (described below).
This is a link to my ATM 2022 effort: Article 35: B. Creech presentation slides and video. I recommend that you look at the slides.
ATM 2023: Article 33 (SRD)
The purpose of this zoning change was to replace the existing Special Permit Residential Development (SPRD) bylaw
There were 2 big differences between the then existing SPRD and the proposed SRD
first, SPRD was by Special Permit and it did not require an affordable housing component - the Planning Board was not obliged to approve a proposal. Approval of a proposal required support from 4 of the 5 Planning Board members.
second, SRD was By Right and required an affordable housing component - the Planning Board was obliged to approve any proposal that met the requirements of the SRD bylaw. Support by 3 of the 5 Board members meant approval.
My take on this SRD proposal
I was generally in support of the SRD proposal because it was better than the existing SPRD bylaw in that an affordable housing component was a requirement - both my Planning Board, and my Town Meeting votes were YES
I was apprehensive about SRD being By Right because we had no visual examples of an SRD project