[Massplanners] [EXTERNAL]Re: Inclusionary Housing Bylaw Question

Wed Apr 30 16:42:09 EDT 2025

Not as much a critique as a clarification. I have qualms about IZ unless it is tied to a Special Permit under Chapter 40A Section 9, a this for that arrangement. So, working from this, I am assuming that the relief requested under 6.10a is for density that is not a by-right increase in units. In that case, if 6.10c modifies projects under 6.10a, then I think it is a workable, and defensible proposal. Defensible within the parameters of Chapter 40A Section 9 allowing increases in density for, among other things, affordable housing. You probably want to be sure that you address what affordable may mean in this specific instance, not necessarily units at 80% of median, such as units restricted to 100% or 120% of median income, the so called missing middle that is overlooked by Chapter 40B. I would direct you to look at the two Davenport v Dennisport Partners (v. (2010) | FindLaw<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ma-court-of-appeals/1506097.html> ) cases, Walsh on the Veterans Home ( WALSH v. PLANNING BOARD OF DENNIS (2019) | FindLaw<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ma-court-of-appeals/1994005.html>) and more recent Mariani v Planning Board of Dennis (MARIO MARIANI v. PLANNING BOARD OF DENNIS (2023) | FindLaw<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ma-court-of-appeals/114979970.html>).

While Walsh and Mariani both swung on standing, in both cases the judges also discussed the validity under 40A Section 9 to do this zoning. Davenport I (linked above) might need to look to the Superior Court decision as the Appeals Court sent it back to us to make some revisions to items they felt was unclear.

Dan Fortier, AICP
Retired Planner
________________________________
From: Ryan, Christopher <cryan at belmont-ma.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 9:44 AM
To: Daniel Fortier <daniel.j.fortier at gmail.com>
Cc: Mass Planners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: [Massplanners] Inclusionary Housing Bylaw Question

Thanks Dan

I suppose it would have been more helpful to share the impetus for this question and I appreciate your seeking more clarity.

We have a large older apartment complex with market rate affordable units and long time residents that is currently undergoing a sale due to the passing of a long time owner. Guessing that the property will be sold to a hedge fund or some other investor that will try to extract maximum value from the purchase, thus putting at risk the market rate affordability of the units.

Belmont is looking to add language to our inclusionary housing bylaw that covers rehabilitation in addition to new construction and we do not expect new units to be added. I have found some good language here and there from places such as Provincetown (thank you Thaddeus), Somerville, and Worcester, but are still poking around.

Addressing sections like Definitions, Applicability, and Incentives are the primary focus. The proposed new language in Applicability is worded as:

Applicability

This Section 6.10 shall apply in all zoning districts to the following uses:

  1.  Any development that results in a net increase of four (4) or more dwelling units, whether by new construction, alteration, expansion, reconstruction, or change of existing residential or non-residential space or use, or to any division of land for the development of six (6) or more dwelling units, except as identified under b) below.

  1.  Any health care-related development that results in a net increase of six (6) or more independent living units.

  1.  Substantial rehabilitation may vary in degree from gutting and extensive reconstruction to the cure of substantial accumulation of deferred maintenance. Cosmetic improvements alone do not qualify as substantial rehabilitation under this definition.

Note that this applies to projects that intend to alter, expand, reconstruct, or change the use of at least 50% of all units in a Development simultaneously or phased over no more than five (5) year period.

Critiques are welcome…

Thanks again Dan

Chris

From: Daniel Fortier <daniel.j.fortier at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 10:23 AM
To: Ryan, Christopher <cryan at belmont-ma.gov>
Cc: Mass Planners <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: [Massplanners] Inclusionary Housing Bylaw Question

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Chris,

Not sure exactly what you are looking for. Substantial Rehabilitation without a density change would not seem to trigger any additional zoning relief. Thinking the rehab is entirely within the existing building envelope a d just brings the building back to what it was before falling into disrepair.

Beyond that, a couple examples with my thoughts on how I might approach revisions.

The Dennis Affordable Housing Bylaw allows increases in density on lots under 2.5 acres as Municipally Sponsored Projects.  We set a high bar, modified once already, with 50% affordable to households under 80% of median and (after amendment) 25% affordable to households under 120% of median. The Bylaw could be used to convert an historic sprawling farmhouse into a multi family structure if endorsed by the Select Board. Only two takers, one got dragged out in court and was never built as even in victory it became too expensive. Same person replaced an abandoned burned out structure with a four unit three bedroom rental project.  I would probably push to reduce the affordability components if I had it to do over, probably 15% @ 80% of median and 10% at 120% of median. This lower requirement would make historic preservation projects more profitable.

In West Dennis Village Center Zoning we allowed multi family housing. Working, for years, with realtors, developers and our historic preservation community, we accomplished the restoration of the Captain Baker house, better known as The Dennis Columns. The project created 5 for sale units in the restoration project and will add 11 units in historically appropriate buildings on the site (original developer was going to use federal historic preservation funding and got National Park Service sign off on the design and location of these buildings).

Also, under the Affordable Housing Bylaw we have approved several conversions of vacant commercial space to residential, some with expanded building envelopes.

Daniel Fortier, AICP Retired Planner

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:21 PM Ryan, Christopher via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org<mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org>> wrote:

Hi all

Just following up on this question asked last week. Looking for anyone applying IZ to substantial rehab.

Thanks

Chris

From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org<mailto:massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org>> On Behalf Of Ryan, Christopher via MassPlanners
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 2:42 PM
To: Mass Planners <massplanners at masscptc.org<mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL][Massplanners] Inclusionary Housing Bylaw Question

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon planners

Our Housing Trust is interested in adding provisions for substantial rehabilitations/renovations to comply with the inclusionary housing bylaw. Do you know of any good examples of communities that have done this?

They also are interested in the preferred definition of “substantial rehabilitation”

Thanks in advance.

Chris R.

==========================================

Christopher J. Ryan, AICP

Director of Planning & Building

Town of Belmont, MA

19 Moore Street<https://www.google.com/maps/search/19+Moore+Street?entry=gmail&source=g>

Belmont, MA  02478-0900

617.993-2650

cryan at belmont-ma.gov<mailto:cryan at belmont-ma.gov>

https://www.belmont-ma.gov/1451/Planning-Board<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.belmont-ma.gov%2f1451%2fPlanning-Board&c=E,1,o8b2XHhMCs0FFeFPD8_B3TFG-aMCOSECZ5O_sHv9-Ya7HHb3TQPEIs27R50SHoKJmA2OcUPLCsvz0WJg4o-YnM61hwPQZZre8ZCQimVYZdGC&typo=1>

===========================================

--
MassPlanners mailing list
MassPlanners at masscptc.org<mailto:MassPlanners at masscptc.org>
http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20250430/0985a053/attachment.htm>