Housing worries dominate MBTA Communities Act public hearing
By AUBREY HAWKE
Waltham Times Contributing Writer
Some 30 residents addressed the City Council at last Monday’s hearing on Waltham’s two proposed zoning plans to comply with the state’s MBTA Communities Act, with nearly all of the speakers supporting the second of the two options.
The city’s Ordinances and Rules Committee, however, voted in favor of option one.
The MBTA Communities Act requires Waltham and other communities served by the transit system to create zoning that allows for multifamily housing within a certain distance of MBTA rapid transit services.
In Waltham, the law impacts zoning for 55 acres near the Brandeis/Roberts MBTA Commuter Rail Station in Ward 7 and 25 acres in Ward 4 near the Waverly station in Belmont.
Waltham city officials had drafted two zoning proposals; each zoning proposal set the exact parameters of what developers could build by right in those two areas.
The first option proposed having a setback of 10 feet around four-unit buildings.
The second option would allow developers to construct eight-unit buildings, essentially just pushing two four-unit buildings together, and would allow for setbacks of 12 feet.
Both proposals set a maximum height of four stories and represent the maximum size a developer could choose to build each building. They do not mandate that any new buildings be four or eight units but rather set those as the maximum a developer could build under each of the proposed zoning plans. The Ordinances and Rules Committee on Nov. 18 had voted to move forward with the second option.
However, after input from Mayor Jeannette McCarthy and the city’s Law Department at a Nov. 25 City Council meeting, city officials decided to present both options for discussion at last Monday’s public hearing.
Affordability a key concern
Residents at last Monday’s hearing overwhelmingly supported the second option.
Of the 27 people who spoke in front of the assembled City Council and Board of Survey and Planning, 25 spoke in favor of option two.
Only one resident spoke in favor of the first option, and one neutral petitioner asked about the possibility of a parcel of land they are associated with to be added to the zoning area for development.
Many speakers focused on issues of housing affordability and availability, noting that option two would allow for up to 266 more units to be potentially built than option one.
Many speakers also asked the city to ensure that potential units built in these new zoning districts to be more affordable.
Some speakers shared that they believe a local housing shortage has negatively impacted families and young adults.
“I have four kids between the ages of 28 and 38, not one of them has given me a grandchild. They either can afford rent or children. Or, if they can afford a mortgage, they can’t find a starter home. People that age are moving out of this area in droves, it is a housing crisis,” said resident Debra Herman
She asked city officials to “please help by passing option two. It is the family-friendly option.”
Emma Tzioumis shared a similar sentiment.
“When I see the number of units up there, I see families,” Tzioumis said. “My husband is a dentist out in Maynard. Every day he sees patients who have family in Waltham, they were born and raised in Waltham and now they live in Stow, they live in Hudson, they live in Bolton, they live in Maynard. They want to stay in Waltham, but they can’t. It’s too expensive. Please, for the future families of Waltham, let’s join our neighboring communities and get behind the MBTA Communities Act and support option two.”
Resident Kara Huselton, a social worker, made similar comments.
“In my professional work every single day I talk to families. I talk to parents of young children, I talk to older adults who have trouble affording their rent. They can’t find apartments, and they are facing homelessness. The commonwealth is facing an unprecedented housing crisis with the lowest unit vacancy rate in the country and with families with children sleeping on the streets for the first time since the 1980s. The housing crisis is complex, and the solutions will not be simple. But what is clear is that we need more housing stock. The MBTA Communities Act is an incredible opportunity, please do not let it pass,” she said.
Massachusetts does have the lowest rental vacancy rate of any state in the country. Massachusetts has a rental vacancy rate of 2.5. The country-wide rental vacancy rate is 6.5.
Waltham resident Carl Cincotta spoke in favor of option one, saying “Waltham residents need to ask themselves what kind of city they want us to be and what they want it to look like. This particular option that’s before you is supported by the mayor and the ward councilors whose wards are directly affected. They deserve your support.”
Cincotta also voiced his dissatisfaction with the MBTA Communities Act as a whole, saying it is not focused on supporting individual suburban towns but rather providing more housing to Boston commuters. He also made a rebuttal to residents’ claim that increasing the amount of housing in Waltham will result in more affordable housing.
Zoning change Impact on affordability
City officials acknowledged concerns about the affordability of housing in Waltham but said the issue of housing costs is a regional issue that may be difficult to solve on the local level.
“The state has set us up to fail. This isn’t about housing for Waltham; it’s about housing for Boston,” said Ward 1 Councilor Anthony LaFauci.
Furthermore, LaFauci said he doesn’t believe that any new housing built in the new MBTA zoning districts would help housing prices. He said it’s likely that new units would gradually come on the market, and therefore not create a sudden surplus of apartments that could ease demand and, thus, rental prices.
LaFauci also said he does not believe the new units will achieve the affordability that the speakers want to see.
Ward 6 Councilor Sean T. Durkee said he does not expect an increased number of units to lower unit prices.
He also responded to young residents who voiced their concerns about housing availability and affordability.
“I don’t want to be insulting and say people need to live in the real world, but the reality is the East Coast is an expensive place to live,” said Durkee.
Committee goes with the first option
The Ordinances and Rules Committee convened to deliberate directly after the public hearing concluded in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The meeting started directly after the public hearing concluded, and continued until almost 2 a.m.
The initial vote by the Ordinances and Rules Committee in November had been 3-2 in favor of supporting option two. Councilors Cathyann Harris, Caren Dunn and Robert Logan had supported option two. Councilors Randall LeBlanc and John McLaughlin had supported option one.
This vote last Monday saw Dunn flip to support option one, leaving Logan the sole supporter of option two.
Dunn said McLaughlin’s and Katz’s support of option one prompted her to change her mind; McLaughlin and Katz represent wards 4 and 7, respectively, where the proposed zoning change will be implemented.
“I am choosing to vote with the ward councilors on this because there were times when I wished people had voted with me when I thought to protect my ward. I consider myself the expert in my ward and I am going to look to my colleagues in Ward 4 and 7 as the experts of their wards,” Dunn said.
Harris, who serves as chair of the committee, did not speak or vote on the matter.
The City Council must have its first reading of the proposed zoning by Dec. 31 for Waltham to be compliant with the MBTA Communities Act. That first reading is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Monday, Dec. 23.
This article was updated Dec. 23, 2024, to correct a reporting error that stated Councilor Cathyann Harris had supported option one at the Dec. 16 Ordinances and Rules Committee meeting. Harris did not vote on the matter, which this updated article now includes.
Thanks for reading! We are a reader-supported nonprofit newspaper. If you value our reporting, please support The Waltham Times through a tax-deductible gift.