Complying without a train station: A look at the Adjacent Communities

Upzone Update offers analysis of MBTA-C compliance efforts, produced by zoning expert Amy Dain and the staff of Boston Indicators. Scroll to the bottom for a listing of news coverage and upcoming events.

BY LUCAS MUNSON

The MBTA Communities Law divides municipalities into four categories: 12 Rapid Transit Communities, 71 Commuter Rail Communities, 59 Adjacent Communities, and 35 Adjacent Small Towns. Most of the public discussion to date has focused on the first two categories, but notably, more than half of all MBTA Communities are in one of the adjacent categories. And Adjacent Communities alone make up 20 percent of the entire unit capacity requirement of the law. So, this week’s Upzone Update is zooming in on plans already approved in a few of the Adjacent Communities.

In creating two types of adjacent municipalities, the MBTA Communities Law drew distinctions based on population density: Adjacent Small Towns have either below 7,000 total residents or fewer than 500 residents per square mile. The 35 Adjacent Small Towns have until the end of 2025 to comply. The 59 Adjacent Communities must comply by the end of this December—just six weeks away. That’s why we’re going to focus only on the latter.

What’s expected of an Adjacent Community when there’s no train station nearby?

Compared to Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail Communities, Adjacent Communities have a little more flexibility and are required to do a little bit less to comply with the law.

Adjacent Communities are at liberty to put their MBTA-C districts anywhere they want. Technically, this depends on whether a municipality has more than 100 acres of developable land within a half mile of a train station. But none of the Adjacent Communities meet that threshold, so in practice their districts can be anywhere (provided they meet the other stipulations of the law).

Their districts also have a lower required unit capacity compared to communities with train stations (10 percent of their current housing stock compared to 15 percent for Commuter Rail and 25 percent for Rapid Transit Communities). This means that while Marlborough and Woburn have roughly the same number of existing housing units (17,547 and 17,540 respectively), Marlborough, as an Adjacent Community, is only required to provide a minimum multi-family unit capacity of 1,755 units while Woburn, as a Commuter Rail Community, has a requirement of 2,631 units.

With six weeks until their deadline, what have Adjacent Communities done so far?

To date, 23 of the 59 Adjacent Communities have submitted compliance plans to EOHLC, 12 of which have already been approved. Another 15 have adopted zoning plans, leaving just 21 adjacent communities that are on the clock to meet that 12/31 deadline. The 12 with approved compliance plans are:

•  Arlington
• Easton
• Grafton
• Hull
• Lexington
• Medfield
• Northbridge
• Rockland
• Stoneham
• Tyngsborough
• Wayland
• Westford

These include the early standouts like Lexington and Arlington, which were two of the first municipalities to have their MBTA Communities districts approved. Arlington, with its decent access and proximity to both rapid transit and Commuter Rail lines, created a set of overlay districts covering much of Mass Ave and Broadway. Lexington has also received plenty of attention for its rapid adoption of MBTA-C and the subsequent influx of proposals to develop within its new districts.

That being said, let’s shine a light on a few of the other communities that have received approval for their MBTA Compliance Plans.

Three different approaches: Wayland, Tyngsborough, and Westford

A few municipalities seem to have made a concerted effort to squeeze through technically compliant plans that would allow for as little new housing as possible.

For example, Wayland’s district is 50.1 acres, just above the minimum required of 50 acres. And virtually all this land is either unbuildable or already built out, and unlikely to be redeveloped for new housing any time soon. Wayland also meets the requirement of having at least one contiguous site of 25 acres by having one site of exactly 25 acres, which covers a gated community.

The other 25 acres comprise three districts along Route 20. In one of the districts, one included parcel is an unbuildable piece of narrow non-conforming land. EOHLC does correctly calculate that this lot has a buildable capacity of 0, and thus actually lowers the average allowable density of Wayland’s compliance plan, nonetheless the parcel’s inclusion helps Wayland get to that 50-acre threshold by the skin of its teeth.

Wayland is also including a recently completed mixed-income development and a significant portion of the Wayland Town Center shopping complex to help reach its compliance requirements. The upshot of all this is that it is unlikely that any new housing will be produced in Wayland from the MBTA Communities Law. The town likely isn’t the only one taking that route, although we don’t know for certain yet.

In contrast, Tyngsborough’s compliance plan seems to comprise a mix of already-built apartment complexes and currently unused or underutilized parcels that could attract new housing construction. Tyngsborough’s district is only 54.8 acres, but within that is a sizeable 11-acre parking lot adjacent to the Pheasant Lane Mall (itself technically in New Hampshire). There are also a few other parcels categorized as “Developable Commercial Land” and “Potentially Developable Industrial Land.” According to Town Planner and Economic Development Director Eric Salarno, the Pheasant Lane Mall parking lot is the most likely to be developed in the near future, the Lowell Sun reported.

Of course, none of these parcels are located anywhere near transit, let alone near Boston. Nonetheless, they are located near a major employment center in Nashua and have immediate access to a wide variety of services and shops. While the transit component is questionable, everything else about the sites chosen and their potential to produce housing do follow the original intent of the MBTA Communities Law. It remains to be seen whether a developer does follow up with a proposal.

Meanwhile, Westford has gone above and beyond with its compliance plan. With a minimum requirement of only 50 acres, Westford zoned for 331 acres. With a minimum multifamily unit capacity of 924 units, Westford allowed for 4,873 units. While these figures are impressive, it is important to note that many of the 31 parcels included are unlikely to be developed in the near future due to current active uses, such as offices, hotels, or recently built apartments. Don’t expect to see Westford, a town with 9,237 housing units, double its housing stock anytime soon.

Nonetheless, there are numerous plots that have redevelopment potential and seem to have been explicitly included because of this fact. Among these are a former Swimming & Tennis Club that was sold in 2023 and a current building materials site that is under contract to be acquired by a major developer. Also included is the Nashoba Valley Ski Resort, which according to the town “Seeks to expand their commercial recreation uses to be more year-round and construct a mixed-use development.” All in all, Westford stands out as one of the more ambitious municipalities thus far.

Adjacent Communities were not the top priority behind the creation of the MBTA Communities Law. But many do have decent access to transit and, as this analysis shows, some of them are using this new requirement as an opportunity to loosen their zoning restrictions while others are opting for a more "paper compliance" approach. And while overall the law will likely lead to new housing near transit stops, these communities demonstrate that that will not always be the case.

Lucas Munson is a Senior Research Analyst at Boston Indicators.

MILESTONE: 100 COMMUNITIES!

The count flew by the 100 mark this week. Now 105 cities and towns have passed MBTA Communities zoning. Recent additions include Ashland, Bellingham, Belmont, Foxboro, Hopkinton, Kingston, Manchester, Millis, Reading, Seekonk, Shirley, Shrewsbury, Wakefield, and Watertown.

Three of these communities, Foxboro, Hopkinton, and Wakefield had rejected proposals for rezoning last spring, but still accomplished reform before the deadline.

Four other communities, Dracut, Duxbury, Millbury, and Winthrop, rejected proposals to comply. Needham’s Town Clerk is reviewing signatures submitted on a petition that, if certified, would lead to a townwide vote on Needham’s recently approved MBTA Communities zoning.

MILTON CASE

So far there is no update on the case itself. The SJC has not yet issued a decision. As a reminder, the case did not bring into question the state’s housing shortage, the need for zoning reform, or state authority to lead on zoning policy. The case did raise questions, based on the language of the specific MBTA Communities statute, about enforcement of the statute and its associated compliance guidelines.

While many town meeting members and city councilors have debated whether to delay votes, to wait for the SJC decision, most cities and towns have been approving zoning reform. In many cases, the proposals have been winning on their merits; voters have been swayed that zoning reform is good. Opinion polls are showing popular support for the MBTA Communities zoning law. And several communities that could have opted for paper compliance, such as Reading and Needham, approved meaningful reform instead. (Although Needham’s compliance might now face a referendum.) In Watertown, supporters of the recent rezoning look forward to an improved market for businesses, and fewer vacancies, in Watertown Square.

But also, many public officials and voters have been arguing against risking the consequences of non-compliance, amid the uncertainty raised by the case. In Shrewsbury, Town Meeting Member Francis Mannella Jr. said at Town Meeting, “Anybody that thinks that you're going to extrapolate the [potential] victory for Milton into a victory for Shrewsbury is very sadly mistaken. If we don't do something, the AG will sue us, we're going to have to defend, and it's 500 bucks an hour for a good lawyer and I don't think this town needs to go through this.” In Shirley, Town Administrator Bryan Sawyer pointed to state grants that the town could lose access to.

NOTE TO CONDO OWNERS

Word is that some condo owners have been receiving messages from opponents to MBTA Communities that adoption of new zoning could lead to their displacement. This is entirely wrong information.

New zoning rules, under MBTA Communities, generally gives condo owners (within the new districts) additional development rights on their properties. Nobody but the owners themselves can exercise the rights.

Condo properties are often included in districts drawn by local boards and committees specifically for the reason that they will not be developed. Their inclusion is a form of paper compliance. Either the properties already have the number of units allowed by the zoning, or it would simply be too hard to get condo owners to all agree to redevelopment.

Some people have suggested at public meetings that the rezoning is a first step towards a government taking of their property. One person testified in Hopkinton that rezoning would be a slippery slope towards the government itself directly building the housing. There is no slippery slope here. No slope, no slip. Zoning delineates what property owners can do with their properties; it does not target properties for taking by eminent domain. The risk here is not real.

MEANINGFUL OR PAPER?

Watertown’s new zoning looks like meaningful reform. That is Banker & Tradesman’s assessment. Parts of Watertown Square will now by buildable, by right, as multi-family housing up to 4-, 5-, and 6-stories. James Sanna reports on the new approach to parking: “A centerpiece of the plan involves requiring developers to offer between 0.5 and one car parking spots per unit in their developments, rent parking spaces to tenants separately from their apartments – a policy known as ‘unbundling’ – and explore sharing parking between different businesses and other uses in the square. One of the largest parcels in Watertown Square would be set aside for a municipal garage to serve local businesses.”

Belmont’s new zoning included all three of the properties owned by the local housing authority; one project is ready to move forward under the new zoning, in the next year, to add 55 homes; another project with 100 homes may follow. Zoning districts covering many parcels will now allow triple deckers, townhomes, and possible small apartment buildings, in walkable neighborhoods. The new bylaw includes mandatory first-floor commercial use (“mixed use”) in retail centers.

Belmont Town Meeting debated whether the zoning reform should include maximum building footprint sizes, to limit straightforward (by right) permitting to modestly scaled structures. On big parcels, the maximum building footprint could mean that buildout yields multiple separate buildings.  Rachel Heller, head of CHAPA and Belmont Town Meeting member, argued that bigger structures enable homes to share mechanical systems, reduce redundant spaces such as stairs and lobbies, and cut energy costs. In the end, Belmont approved the footprint restrictions.

Greg Ryan of the Boston Business Journal offers a success story in Lexington. Permitting of a 32-unit condo project a half-mile from Downtown Lexington took the developer, Lexington-based Ben Finnegan, less than four months, even with a historic home on the property. Finnegan said, “It was very smooth. Thorough, I would say, but straightforward.”

Steve Adams of Banker & Tradesman explains that some communities are discouraging housing production by selecting properties to upzone that developers would find undesirable. Hopkinton officials, for example, picked areas considered to be tricky development sites, for example the 10-acre Carbone’s site not served by sewer or water.

In Wellesley Square’s new zoning district, Taylor Block is for sale. At first this looks like a success story, a likely redevelopment under new zoning, in a wonderful walkable historic center near a train station. But the Boston Globe points out that the as-of-right zoning allows 20 units, approximately the number of homes that are now on the property.

PAPERWORK REMINDER

Compliance involves not only the rezoning, but also submission to the state of an application for determination of compliance. Many municipalities are due to hand in the paperwork before December. Here’s your reminder.

So far the state has issued determinations of compliance for 35 municipalities. An additional three municipalities (Everett, Malden, and Newton) are conditionally compliant.

UPDATE ON ADU'S

The City of Boston’s Planning Department has issued an excellent guidebook on ADU construction that should be useful to anybody, across municipalities, considering construction of an ADU. Check it out!

Ari Kaufman has developed a mapping tool for municipal leaders to use when deliberating about options for their ADU regulations. Check it out!

EOHLC has brought on a dedicated ADU Housing Coordinator, Catherine Neill. EOHLC has published a PowerPoint presentation on the new ADU law.

OTHER UPDATES

Rowley’s Town Meeting will take up MBTA Communities on Monday.

The Boston Globe covered Cambridge’s effort to allow more multi-family housing. (Cambridge already complies with MBTA Communities.)

Framingham’s City Council continues its deliberations of MBTA Communities. Tune back in Monday night, November 25.

MassInc analyzes the housing situation in Gateway Cities, and suggests they should gain a lot more housing. 

The Lowell Sun has zoning updates for Billerica and Wilmington.

Contrarian Boston held a webinar on the state of housing, where Jay Doherty of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes said he expects a major slowdown in housing production.