By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — The Planning Board’s third and final public forum on the town’s plan to comply with the state’s mandated multi-family zoning district drew more criticism along with some support from local residents.
In 2020, the Massachusetts Zoning Act (Section 3A of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A) was amended to promote the production of multi-family housing within walking distance of public transportation to address a “severe regional housing shortage.” The state claims that there is a shortage of up to 200,000 housing units.
The new Zoning Act requires all MBTA communities, including Wakefield, to create at least one multi-family zoning district of reasonable size near public transit in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right. “As of right” means that a developer may proceed without obtaining a Special Permit, variance, zoning amendment, waiver, or other zoning approval. In the proposed district, the plan would allow up to four units in a three-story building with a height of up to 35 feet on a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet.
But the compliance plan devised by Wakefield’s “MBTA Communities Working Group” has been criticized for allowing even more new multifamily housing density than what is required by the state. The district created by the Working Group is centered around the North Avenue commuter rail station, extending about a half-mile to the west and east of downtown to Pleasant Street.
For Wakefield, the minimum size required for this new multi-family zoning district would be 114 acres, but the Working Group is proposing a multi-family zoning district of 145.5 acres – far exceeding state requirements. The Working Group’s plan would also allow considerably more housing units to be created than what is being required by the state.
At the public forum held at the Planning Board’s December meeting, Central Street resident Julie Scott reiterated her support for the minimum compliance district. She said that adding more residential density in town will impact the response time for first responders. She noted that streets are already clogged during school drop-off and pickup times.
Stacey Constas of Wave Avenue said that she favored the plan put forth by the Working Group.
“People need housing,” she said. Just saying “no,” she added, would be “short sighted.”
Cyrus Street resident Bronwyn Della-Volpe spoke in favor of the minimum compliance plan. She asked if the Working Group would continue to push for more than the minimum.
Planning Board member and Working Group chairman Jim Hogan said that the Working Group would consider the public feedback at its next meeting.
Don Valerio of Frank Street also questioned why the Working Group was proposing more housing density in a larger district than required.
Hogan said that the Working group saw the state mandate as an opportunity to be proactive and create more housing near the downtown.
Michael McLane of Fairmount Avenue also advocated going with the minimum district and looking more seriously at including the Greenwood area as part of the plan as a way to shrink the area around the North Avenue commuter rail station.
McLane added that because Wakefield will get no affordable units out of the proposed plan, there was no reason to go beyond the minimum.
Tiana Veldwisch of West Water Street said that she favored more housing development around the train station. She said that she moved to Wakefield to be on the commuter rail line, calling it “a major draw for young families.”
But Eleanor Axelrod of Sheffield Road was concerned about the proposed district being too dense, fearing that whole streets could be turned over to 4-unit buildings.
Axelrod also asked about a smaller district with larger buildings to satisfy the spirit of the law.
Hogan said that the Working Group felt that such a district would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhoods, opting to propose a “gentler” increase in density.
Glenn Daly of Aborn Avenue said that he was generally in favor of the Working Group’s recommendation of a larger district than required but worried that the plan could result in some tightly packed lots. He also expressed concern that the parking requirement could result in “podium” style structures on tight lots, with parking below and residential units above.
Brian McGrail of Outlook Road warned that communities could circumvent the state law by imposing parking requirements that are impossible to meet.
Hogan said that the state is mindful of that and will be alert to such attempts to use parking to avoid compliance.
McGrail also echoed Daly’s concern that parking could drive architecture and result on a proliferation of flat-roofed, podium style structures to meet the parking requirements.
Judy Green of Maple Avenue said that she was opposed to the idea of including Greenwood in the plan due to the amount of ledge, streams and wetlands along Greenwood Street. Flooding is already a problem in these areas, she said.