MassHousing Alliance Summary on ZoningThis comprehensive report answers important new questions:
Where can new housing be built around the region?
How do we make decisions about development projects?
What we have we done to get to this point, and what can we do about it?
Here are Amy’s four principal findings, along with her takeaways.
1) Very little land is zoned for multi-family housing.
For the most part, local zoning keeps new multi-family housing out of existing residential neighborhoods, which cover the majority of the region’s land area.
In addition, cities and towns highly restrict the density of land that is zoned for multi-family use via height limitations, setbacks, and dwelling units per acre. Many of the multi-family
zones have already been built out to allowable densities, which mean that although multi-family housing is on the books, it does not exist in practice.
At least a third of the municipalities have no practical multi-family zoning that can accommodate growth.
Takeaway: We need to allow concentrated density in multi-family zoning districts that are in sensible locations and allow for incremental growth over a larger area.
2) We are moving to a system of project-by-project decision-making.
Unlike much of the rest of the country, Massachusetts does not require communities to update their zoning on a regular basis and make it consistent with local plans.
Instead, the research documents cities and towns moving away from predictable zoning districts and toward “floating districts,” project-by-project decision-making, and discretionary
permits. Dain found that 57% of multi-family units approved in the region from 2015-2017 were approved by special permit, 22% by 40B (including “friendly” 40B projects), 7% by use variance,
and only 14% by “as-of-right” zoning.
There also seems to be a trend toward politicizing development decisions by shifting special permit granting authority to City Council and town meeting. The system emphasizes ad hoc
negotiation, which occasionally offers more flexibility for some projects but results in a far slower, more expensive development process that produces a smaller number of units for
most. Approving projects like this also inhibits critical district-wide infrastructure planning and investments.
Takeaway: We would be better served by a system that retains the benefits of flexibility while offering more speed and predictability.
3) The most widespread trend in zoning for multi-family housing has been to adopt mixed-use zoning.
83 of out of 100 municipalities have adopted some form of mixed-use zoning, most in the last two decades. There is a growing understanding that many people, both old and young, prefer
to live in vibrant downtowns, town centers and villages, where they can easily walk to some of the amenities that they want. Malls, plazas and retail areas are increasingly incorporating housing and
becoming lifestyle centers.
Yet with few exceptions, the approach to allowing housing in these areas has been cautious and incremental. These projects are only meeting a small portion of the region’s need for housing and
often take many years of planning to realize. In addition, the challenges facing the retail sector can make a successful mixed-use strategy problematic. Despite the weak outlook for
storefront retail, commercial development tends to meet less opposition than residential development, contributing to the overbuilding of commercial space and under-building of multifamily.
Takeaway: We need more multi-family housing in and around mixed-use hubs, but not require every project to be mixed-use itself.
4) Despite their efforts, communities are building much more new housing on their outskirts rather than in their town centers and downtowns.
About half of the communities in the region have permitted some housing units in their historic centers, but Amy Dain's case studies show that these infill projects are modest in scale
and can take up to 15 years to plan and permit.
At the same time, many more units are getting built in less-developed areas with fewer abutters. This includes conversion of former industrial properties, office parks, and other parcels
disconnected from the rest of the community by highways, train tracks, waterways or other barriers. Even when built densely, this much-needed housing can be isolated and car-dependent
because of limited access to public transportation and poor design for walkability.
As Amy Dain says, “We permit tens of units in the centers, and hundreds on peripheries.”
Takeaway: We need to allow more housing in historic centers as well as incremental growth around those centers. Furthermore, we need to plan an integrated approach to important growth
districts so that they can be better connected to the community and the region.
Thank you for reading! On the report webpage, you can find:
Amy Dain’s PowerPoint presentation and notes that tell the story of her findings
An 11 page Executive Summary
The full 123 page report
Last year’s report on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)