I was disappointed by the majority of my co-councilors who chose not to engage in the discussion of adopting the zoning required by Section 3A in MGL chapter 40A, commonly known as the MBTA Communities Act in our public hearing on December 17. The move to punt a decision until February 4^th interrupts the discussion that was happening about rezoning in Framingham over most of the past year and I do not believe will produce a substantially different structure for a plan than we have now on the table.

Here is what I would have said, had we followed the process laid out by the Chair at the start of the meeting: first, public comments (he proposed 2 hours), then recommendations from the Planning Board (required by statute), and then Councilor deliberations. Per the advice from the city solicitor, who was in the room at the meeting, the council was not to vote on a plan prior to the public comments. The conversation that then happened prior to the public meeting about tabling was therefore chaotic, unfocused and confusing. As I said at the meeting, for those invested in passing this zoning, I don’t believe that we’re that far from a decision had we had the time and patience to deliberate.

You can find all the maps, recommendations, guidelines and presentations on the City’s website here.

MOD = MBTA Overlay District

MOD 1 & MOD 2 – Downtown Districts

I have repeatedly advocated for density in the downtown area and believe there are strong efficiencies and vibrancies that come from density. I appreciate that Framingham dove first head into the density journey downtown when it engaged in Transit Oriented Design work in 2016. I think that is a good thing. The allowances for the current Central Business District zoning are impactful. 6 story buildings! While the bylaws do not have a stated allowed density per acre, recent developments include:

All of the above units, plus the 697 units that have been permitted but not yet built in the Central Business District, are included in the MOD 1 & MOD 2 & MOD 8 districts. They will lower the number of units that need to be build, but these are not additional units to be built on top.

At 3 ½ stories (top half story has setback requirements), our proposed design guidelines include limits to façade length and usable open space requirements. In the downtown there are an array of architectural styles, and these design guidelines provide a “missing middle” between the older more historical buildings and recent CB District buildings.

We need to create zoning in the downtown that is a viable alternative to the current CB zoning. We have the opportunity here to be reflective on the work we have done, and amend it for moving forward with an overlay district. I believe the current map should reflect an increase in density of MOD 1 to 30 units/acre and MOD 2 to 25 units/acre.

MOD 1 – 67.8 acres – 30 units/acre = 2034

MOD 2 – 27.1 acres – 25 units/acre = 690

40% of units must be within 0.5 mile radius of Framingham Commuter Rail Station.

MOD 4 – Nobscot DistrictS

As discussed, (and proposed) at the city council meeting on Nov. 25, for discussion was either 4A or 4B (or neither). I choose 4B!

My concerns about the 4A map are two fold:

1. The blasting of rock. In my head only slab building would be appropriate here and I would love a large public open space requirement. I am not a geologist, a commercial builder, an environmental lawyer or a developer. I’m a tree hugger who cares deeply that people are not able to afford safe, convenient housing.
2. The virulence of the discussion about zoning changed dramatically when this Nobscot parcel was included in the conversation. While it was introduced later in the conversation, the level of assumed mistrust with the city was overwhelming. It appears that many neighbors weren’t paying attention to the City’s work on zoning compliance until it was proposed to be in Nobscot and that is problematic as a symptom of how we share and receive municipal information (or don’t). Framingham is a big city with a lot going on and we need to figure out how to engage beyond our neighborhoods, how we make information available, and how we respectfully disagree with each other. We have a long way to go. Power to the people for organizing, I just wish it was a bit more forward thinking and positive instead of adamantly oppositional, confrontational, and assumed corruption or ill intent.

Not including this parcel in the MBTA Communities Act zoning will not eliminate the quagmire of what to do with it and how it will be developed. We are only yet another bump in the long, contentious process of (re)zoning in Nobscot and as somebody newer to this conversation, I’m already exhausted by it.  

33 acres – 15 units/acre = 495 units

MOD 8 – Buckley District

In 2018 this area was redeveloped as a multi-family housing unit at 35 units/acre. I believe to overlay zoning is to consider that it might someday be developed. We know what 35 units/acre looks like, let’s make that the standard and continue to allow for the density that is already there.

6.1 acres – 35 units/acre = 213

MOD 3 – Saxonville District (Pinefield)

There is tremendous potential for redevelopment of this parcel, and for how it fits with the Saxonville neighborhood as a whole. Last election eve, the current councilor couldn’t even celebrate his victory in a local hangout in his district! As we have engaged in this process, this was not a parcel included in the discussions with the planning board, and I do not believe due diligence has been done here. I am also nervous to allow for by-right zoning on this parcel based on the city owned parcel adjacent. I believe the potential for collaboration best exists via the special permit process.  

Remove the units here and engage with the property owner and neighbors about development plans, opportunities and more!

MOD 6 – 9/90 District

While this was once seen as an area to be developed as part of a tech park, the pandemic has drastically altered the universe where that is a good idea. Our MBTA Communities Act regulations state: “Commercial space must be accessible within a quarter-mile radius of the property.  On-site commercial space must occupy a minimum of 10,000 SF.” The proposed density and reflective impact on this area make sense.

48 acres – 15/units/acre = 720 units

MOD 7 – Speen St District

This property largely abuts the Cochituate Rail Trail which will soon extend all the way to the Natick train station in Natick Center. That is a dream commute to many and complies with the spirit of the MBTA law – thinking about how to move people around the city and the region in a way that will “reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles, which helps in our larger effort to confront the climate crisis.”

Further, Natick has built multi-family housing along the trail in a way that is generally not overwhelming and we can continue that trend. (Also, come walk the CRT on New Years Eve from 4:30-7:30 pm and engage in family friendly activities with community groups! More information at Friends of Framingham Trails!)

16.1 acres – 15 units/acre = 242 units

MOD 5 – Shoppers World District

Building next to the MassPort Logan Express again makes a lot of sense. People from around Metrowest flock to it and the parking lot is often full. They are investing $45 million to increase garage capacity by 1000 over the next year. It’s arguably the most reliable commuter transit in Framingham and aligns with the spirit of the law.

Let’s build on all that by creating options to live close by. There are already places to shop. Further, a Shoppers World model of large box stores and large parking lots will continue to struggle as a viable commercial model. Let’s use the opportunity of this state mandate to rezone some of this area. This proposal also required a retail component does not remove any commercial property from our tax roles, but builds on top of it (literally). Residents further fuel economic development when they shop and eay close by. Building a walkable mixed use development here creates a sense of place and potential for engagement with local businesses.

I do not support this entire district of two parcels being included in the map. I don’t want to give the owners of the movie theater an option to redevelop as I don’t want to give even a hint of an option to loosing this asset.

10 acres – 20 units/acre = 200

IN ADDITION:

In the course of this discussion, we have had various conversations of the “stick” that the State is threatening – to pull or deny millions of dollars of funding. This hurts our infrastructure development the most and while the financial loss is significant, we ALSO jeopardize our relationships with state agencies AND create instability in our own city departments. As one example, we were just awarded a $2 million grant from the state MassWorks Infrastructure program for the intersection of Fountain Street and Dudley Road. There is not the will or capital priority within the current city’s budget to pay for this much needed, and advocated for, intersection upgrade.

There are also “carrots” as the state is hearing feedback from the municipalities. They recently created the MBTA Community Catalyst Fund which we would be eligible to apply for once we are in compliance. Through a combination of state and federal funding, in November Newton was granted $7 million for upgrades to the Newtonville MBTA station making it the first fully accessible MBTA Commuter Rail station in the City of Newton. I don’t want Framingham to get left behind and shut out of opportunities like this.

I LOVE that our Procedures and Regulations include:

“Recreation Area Component: Any development containing forty (40) or more dwelling units shall provide an outdoor play are or common space appropriate for use by families with children which may include features such as swings, jungle gyms, slides, tables, chairs, benches, and similar features. These areas shall incorporate universal design standards.”  

In addition to the previously mentioned design guidelines we have, I appreciate the responsiveness of our Planning Director to community feedback such that our Development and Design Standards now include:

Trees shall be planted along the property lines adjacent to streets planted approximately every 30 feet.

AND

Bicycle parking must be provided as specified below:

• One (1) bicycle space per five residential units are required in all MBTA Districts.
• Bicycle racks should be placed in covered and secured locations protected from the elements in safe, accessible areas that are visible and well-lit.  Racks should be securely anchored.

One piece that I would still like to discuss is item #3 of our Procedures & Regulations in order to better understand why this is a good idea:

“The Planning Board may waive the Development and Design Standards where it finds that the waiver will allow for better design, in consistent with the public good, and does not substantially derogate from the purposes of the MOD or the underlying zoning.”

As part of this conversation, there have been repeated calls for affordable housing. I agree and believe strongly that we should utilize our municipal Inclusionary Zoning of 13% total, including 2% at 60% AMI, as is currently included in our proposal. This is above the state’s mandated 10% AMI.

For those interested in getting involved in this issue, we have numerous vacancies on the Fair Housing Committee and could use your advocacy. Please reach out to our Citizen Participation Officer.

There are many communities that have used this state mandate to do some substantive development work and I encourage folks to check out a few:

• Watertown’s plan goes beyond the 1,700 units that was required in its “zoned capacity” and created a zoning framework that could allow for nearly 4,000 units of housing in and around Watertown Square.
• Lexington – Much has been written about the first to pass their 3A zoning. Here’s a historical perspective I enjoyed by Bill McKibben from April 2023
• Andover’s MBTA Community Journey, includes a timeline (and remember Framingham didn’t hire Mr. Sarkisian until May 2022).

In numerical summary, we are required to provide for 4335 units. Above I have laid out:

• MOD 1 – 67.8 acres – 30 units/acre = 2034 units
• MOD 2 – 27.1 acres – 25 units/acre = 690 units
• MOD 4- 33 acres – 15 units/acre = 495 units
• MOD 5 – 10 acres – 20 units/acre = 200 units
• MOD 6 – 48 acres – 15/units/acre = 720 units
• MOD 7 -16.1 acres – 15 units/acre = 242 units
• MOD 8 – 6.1 acres – 35 unites acre = 213 units

TOTAL = 4594 units

I appreciate the hard work of the Planning Board and City Planning & Economic Development Director.

In the summer the Planning Board Director spoke of their iterative process. I wish we on the council had the will to respectfully engage in these hard conversations. As many have said, the impact in the long term is tremendous, not just in the concrete buildings but in the relationships.

I believe that by not engaging in the public hearing as we advertised, and then not convening respectful deliberations about the proposed parcels, we squandered an opportunity. I look forward to the continued conversations in the new year.