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

Thu May 1 15:48:28 EDT 2025

I will just add that while *missing middle* housing is often if not usually
less expensive than single family housing in the same market, technically
missing middle refers to the housing type (small multifamily units that fit
into residential neighborhoods) not the price range, so missing middle
units can include multi-million dollar condos affordable to few.

I am a very strong advocate for missing middle and in many situations it
makes sense for communities to add missing middle units by right, subject
to height and bulk controls and design standards, in many if not most areas
within a mile or so of urban and village centers. I just want to make sure
that we are all using the same terms.

*Wayne Feiden FAICP*

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 4:42 PM Daniel Fortier via MassPlanners <
massplanners at masscptc.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
>    2. Any health care-related development that results in a net increase
>    of six (6) or more independent living units.
>
>
>
>    3. 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> 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> *On Behalf Of *Ryan,
> Christopher via MassPlanners
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2025 2:42 PM
> *To:* Mass Planners <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
>
> 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
> http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org
>
> --
> MassPlanners mailing list
> 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/20250501/fe487d9e/attachment.htm>