MBTA Communities Act: The Big Picture

The Act is essentially a way for the state of Massachusetts to bypass local zoning rights and force density on the suburbs.

Your house—likely your biggest investment—is at risk of being devalued. Our infrastructure, schools, roads, and businesses are all at risk of being overwhelmed by NON-smart growth.

This Act is not popular. In a recent Boston.com poll, 83% of respondents said their town should NOT comply with it. And many towns are standing up against it.

Meanwhile in Reading, there is a small but powerful contingent of statists—those who favor centralized control by the state—advocating for over-compliance.

We are sleep-walking into unchecked growth.

Without loud and organized pushback, the committed activists will have their way.

Consider this email a plain-language guide to what’s going on and how we should respond. Please bookmark it, forward to a friend, and definitely let the powers that be know your feelings! (See the call to action section at the end and send an email TODAY.)

CPDC Meeting Update

Thanks to all who attended the June 12 CPDC meeting, where community planner Andrew MacNichol introduced six approaches to comply with the requirements of providing 1493 units on a minimum of 50 acres, at a minimum density of 15 units/acre, with at least 40% of the units within 0.5 miles of the Depot.

For an overview of the options see the presentation here. You can also interact with different zones using the Zoning Scenarios Explorer.

What was Presented

A brief explanation of each option:

• Option 1 – Which MacNichol said is “still on the table”—is the old approach from late 2023 that so many residents opposed, with all units falling within 0.5 mile radius of the depot, unit capacity 3323 units (more than double the state requirement), allowable density 22 units/acre. This one impacts single-family neighborhoods the most.
• Option 2 – Combines some kind of “unknown” downtown zone PLUS a narrow corridor north of town center extending up to Home Goods, along either side of Main St, unit capacity 2000 density 18 units/acre. This possibly still impacts residential near depot/downtown – the proposal did not include the unknown downtown zone.
• Option 3 – Rezones over our downtown 40R (Smart Growth Overlay district) plus other downtown commercial, unit capacity 1854 units, allowable density of 55 units/acre and 4 stories – but note this density basically matches most existing 40Rs built downtown anyway.
• Option 4 – Combines commercial downtown with a strip along either side of South Main (up to Route 95), unit capacity 1925 units, allowable density 25 units/acre and 3 stories (same commercial as option 3 but lower density and height)
• Option 5 – Industrial zones only (All of General Way area, along both sides of train track from downtown to Wakefield line, plus all of the Stop and Shop side of Walkers Brook drive up to Route 95) – Unit capacity 1545 units, allowable density 30 units/acre
• Option 6 – Commercial zones only (Downtown commercial, both sides South Main up to Summer Ave, all of General Way area along only Market Basket side of train track, plus all of the Stop and Shop side of  Walkers Brook Drive) – Unit capacity 1911 units, allowable density varies: 30 units acre downtown; 15 units/acre everywhere else.

Town Staff Bias

Although six options were presented, it is evident that the planners consider the overlay options more desirable—that is, options that primarily overlay over existing residential and do not impact commercial, such as options 1, 2, and 4.  

Town staff seem to believe these will deliver the so-called “missing middle” type of housing that includes small multifamily units of 8 units or less (which 85% of lots in option 1 would allow).

Both MacNichol and CPDC  have expressed concern with rezoning over downtown and over any commercial/industrial elsewhere, which they think could lead to losing commercial space.

As mentioned in our previous note, MacNichol and some town staffers do not hide their ideological leanings and desire to over-deliver on compliance; favoring personal preference over that of Reading residents who pay their salaries and have the most at stake!

The “missing middle” might sound promising, until one considers that smaller developments are unlikely to include 10% affordable units—thus increasing our 40B burden.

Residents have also expressed multiple concerns about turning small single family homes, on dense, narrow residential streets, into multifamily units at such high densities.

MacNichol has clearly stated previously that single family zoning  is “exclusionary,” that Reading ought to do more than the minimum compliance, and that zoning in ways that are unlikely to result in any building is in service of “insidious goals.”

Resident Feedback

Resident Marianne Downing spoke at the meeting and asked why the planners don’t rezone over large multi-unit housing complexes that are unlikely to get torn down and repurposed—similar to what Burlington, Winchester, Woburn, and other towns are doing. This provides “paper” compliance for at least 60% of the required units and helps lower required densities and heights everywhere else.

Downing stated that the planners can do this, and most residents want it, but it seems to fall on deaf ears with town employees, who believe such “paper” compliance is “gaming the system” (MacNichol’s words in his memo).  

Downing said that the town planners ultimately report to the Select Board and that the Board must take a stronger stance here.

Many other residents spoke at the meeting expressing similar feedback and asking that the town keep with the goal of minimal compliance and no single family zone impact.

Is There An Acceptable Solution?

Many residents—even in their opposition to these approaches—would like the town to explore ways in which we can increase affordable housing, but under the purview of the community and not based on a state mandate.

The compliance options that the town proposes that minimize residential impact the most are options 3 and 5 above, but there is a concern regarding losing commercial to housing with these options.  

One solution may be to parse out something acceptable from some of the options that the town proposed, in combination with approaches that provide paper compliance, to satisfy the state, minimize impact to residents, and also minimize commercial impact.

Preferably, any approaches that DO provide a potential for actual housing to get built, result in the kind of developments that  Reading already has allowed in some areas – modest size complexes having 20-25% affordable units, sufficient parking (1-2 spots per unit, onsite), with sufficient setbacks, green space, and fitting into surroundings.

For example, an option might include a combination of the following:

• Rezoning over 30 acres of existing multi-unit complexes to achieve 900 units buildable capacity – simply by doubling existing densities on large, newer complexes that already have this many acres but are extremely unlikely to be redeveloped –  like Reading Woods, Reading Commons. This  takes care of most of the 60% outside 0.5 miles that is allowed; plus
• To cover the remaining 600 or so units that must fall within 0.5 mile of Depot,  combine some of options 3 and 5 over 20 acres, e.g.:
  • Option 3: rezone over 10 acres of the 48 acres downtown, over existing 40R, at similar densities (55 units/acre) – this density already is possible in much of the 40R anyway, so not really much change; PLUS
  • Option 5: rezone over 10 acres or more of industrial areas that fall within 0.5 mile of depot at whatever density is needed to bring in remaining units.

Call to Action

The planning board only has a few weeks to change course before the next public meeting on July 10. Our options and time will narrow then—the Town wants to lock this down by the end of summer.

We agree that the Select Board should take action and direct the Town Manager to instruct the town planners to address concerns and work on solutions that align with overwhelming community feedback in favor of minimal compliance: NOT the idealistic fever dreams of an unelected and fairly inexperienced town planner.

Please contact the Select Board (selectboard@ci.reading.ma.us) and Town Manager Matt Kraunelis (mkraunelis@ci.reading.ma.us) and Assistant Town Manager Jayne Wellman (jwellman@ci.reading.ma.us) to ask them to ensure the planners incorporate feedback and show us minimal compliance plans that disrupt our Town the least.

Sincerely,

Reading Votes