<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks to everyone who has responded so far. My thinking is, it should b an overlay district, so the underlying commercial/industrial uses remain. Many of the allowed uses in the district would provide a number of services to the residents. For those who know Dennis, it is the land east of and south of Patriot’s Square. Basically bordered by the Bike Path and land fill. The land was subdivided decades ago, with paper streets on-file. Can easily be walkable to the commercial space on Route 134 and easy access to the bike path. I am assuming that we would specifically state multi-family in the overlay, which Housing Choice defines as three or more. But, we do not want simply three units on an acre of land. Would like to see something north of 10 units per acre, and ideally projects that are closer to the high end of what might be proposed for density. Maybe for this district we could define multi-family as being no less than 10 units per acre and no more than 40 units per acre. Just thinking out loud. We need to make special density provisions for the district as our current multi-family zoning, outside or our affordable housing or village center by-laws is not very good for promoting multi-family housing.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>As a side question, outside of Chapter 40A Section 9, or Chapter 40R are there provisions in the Zoning Act (I have not found a good citation) that will allow us to require 25% affordable in a by-right project?</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Dan Fortier</p><p class=MsoNormal>Retired</p><p class=MsoNormal>Interim Dennis Planner</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:eglenn@mit.edu">Ezra Haber Glenn</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, October 3, 2022 9:41 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:jrlevine@mit.edu">Jeffrey Robert Levine</a>; <a href="mailto:daniel.j.fortier@gmail.com">Daniel Fortier</a>; <a href="mailto:massplanners@masscptc.org">Listserv (massplanners@masscptc.org)</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Massplanners] Multi family housing</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm not aware of any rule against it, and you can pretty clearly work this through a table of allowed uses or dimensional requirements. In theory we do something similar to this all the time when we prohibit "less intense/lower" uses (storage, parking lots) but allow more intense/higher ones (biotech, office); your idea is just doing the same thing relative to housing density. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#212121'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#212121'>In theory I could imagine a property owner claiming that you've taken all their property value, if the market won't bear the higher density. (At the extreme, imagine the case where you required a minimum of 1,000 units per acre skyscrapers — this would essentially be the same as a development ban. But I suspect that is more an edge-case.)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#212121'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#212121'>The more problematic consideration is what if the market is not yet interested in building at that density? Instead of more housing, you may get none — but at least you'll maybe bank the land for future use? In general, this is a tricky aspect of zoning: it's reasonably good at preventing bad (or too much) development, but can't really compel good (or more) development. (For that, you really need to look at incentives, public partnerships, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#212121'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#212121'>Ezra<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div id=ms-outlook-mobile-signature><div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ezra Haber Glenn, AICP<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Department of Urban Studies and Planning<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Massachusetts Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>77 Massachusetts Ave., Room 7-346<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cambridge, MA 02139<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>eglenn@mit.edu<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>617.721.7131 (c)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> - on the web: <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal> <a href="http://dusp.mit.edu/peopl/ezra-glenn">http://dusp.mit.edu/people/ezra-glenn</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><img border=0 width=313 height=1 style='width:3.2592in;height:.0092in' id="Horizontal_x0020_Line_x0020_1" src="cid:image003.png@01D8D722.68783D40"><o:p></o:p></p><div id=divRplyFwdMsg><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='color:black'> MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces@masscptc.org> on behalf of Jeffrey Robert Levine via MassPlanners <massplanners@masscptc.org><br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 3, 2022 9:23:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> Daniel Fortier <daniel.j.fortier@gmail.com>; Listserv (massplanners@masscptc.org) <massplanners@masscptc.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Massplanners] Multi family housing</span> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=xmsonormal>I think if there is a sound and documented planning rationale, explaining the housing need and how it can only be met with minimum densities, it would be permissible. It should reference the LCP or HPP or similar document.</p><p class=xmsonormal> </p><p class=xmsonormal>Curious as to others’ takes on this.</p><p class=xmsonormal> </p><p class=xmsonormal>Jeff</p><p class=xmsonormal> </p><p class=xmsonormal>Jeff Levine, AICP (he/him)</p><p class=xmsonormal>Lecturer in Housing, Community & Economic Development</p><p class=xmsonormal>Department of Urban Studies & Planning</p><p class=xmsonormal>Room 9-511</p><p class=xmsonormal><a href="mailto:jrlevine@mit.edu"><span style='color:#0563C1'>jrlevine@mit.edu</span></a></p><p class=xmsonormal>Personal Zoom Room: <a href="https://mit.zoom.us/my/jeff.levine"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://mit.zoom.us/my/jeff.levine</span></a> </p><p class=xmsonormal>@JLevineDUSP</p><p class=xmsonormal>(617) 253-3964</p><p class=xmsonormal><img border=0 width=125 height=84 style='width:1.3009in;height:.875in' id="x_Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D8D709.C1E6B730" alt=MIT></p><p class=xmsonormal> </p><p class=xmsonormal> </p><p class=xmsonormal> </p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=xmsonormal><b>From:</b> MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces@masscptc.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Daniel Fortier via MassPlanners<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, October 2, 2022 11:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> Listserv (massplanners@masscptc.org) <massplanners@masscptc.org><br><b>Subject:</b> [Massplanners] Multi family housing</p></div><p class=xmsonormal> </p><div><p class=xmsonormal>Hope this is not going out more than once, but got two bounce backs...</p><div><p class=xmsonormal> </p></div><div><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Working on a Multifamily zoning overlay with a Select Board member, he wanted to know if we could actually establish a minimum number of units in a structure/project. We are thinking of a cap of 30 or 40 units per acre, but he would like to avoid someone coming in with tri-plex type projects and densities that are so low that we do not make a dent in our housing needs.</span></p><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'> </span></p><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Thoughts?</span></p><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'> </span></p><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Dan Fortier</span></p><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Retired</span></p><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Interim Dennis Planner</span></p></div></div></div></div><p><span style='font-size:9.5pt'> </span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>