Town Meeting article seeks mixed use, residential above retail in downtown
by Mark Sardella (Wakefield Daily Item)
One of the zoning measures that will go before the voters at next week’s Regular Town Meeting seeks to encourage a shift toward multifamily, mixed-use developments in Wakefield‘s downtown area.
Article 12 on the Nov. 16 Town Meeting warrant would make it easier for developers to propose projects in the business and industrial zones that would have retail on the ground floor and residential units on the upper floors. The proposed changes to Chapter 190 Section 32 of the Zoning Bylaw would apply only in districts covered by that part of the Zoning Bylaw: the Business District, Limited Business District, Industrial District and Limited Industrial District.
After a public hearing earlier this week, the Planning Board voted to recommend favorable action on Article 12.
The language in the proposed bylaw change describes the goal.
“It is the intent of this section to encourage the development (in appropriate locations) of attractive, functional MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS and mixed use projects that create street-level, sidewalk activity that responds to the social and economic characteristics and needs of the present and future Wakefield. Mixed-use developments including said dwellings in combination with other uses such as retail, outdoor and indoor dining, day care, educational and office uses that attract pedestrian activity and create walkable neighborhoods are desirable.”
At the hearing earlier this week, Town Planner Paul Reavis said that as written now, the land area requirements for the kinds of mixed-use, multifamily projects contemplated in Article 12 would be prohibitive in the downtown area.
Currently the minimum lot size for multifamily dwellings, where allowed, is 40,000 square feet. The proposal under Article 12 is to reduce that to 4,000 square feet.
In the current bylaw, a minimum of 1,200 square feet of land area is required per unit of multifamily housing proposed. Article 12 would reduce that requirement to 750 square feet of land area.
Under Article 12 as printed in the Town Meeting warrant, the proposed changes to the lot area requirements are spelled out, as well as the areas to which those changes would apply.
“Where housing, whether MID-RISE APARTMENTS, GARDEN APARTMENTS, ATTACHED DWELLINGS, or combinations of same are proposed within walking distance, 2,000 feet, of commuter rail stations or existing bus routes, a minimum of 750 square feet of lot area per unit is required. Othe1wise a minimum of 1,200 square feet of lot area per unit is required.” (The Planning Board recommended increasing the applicable area around public transit routes to 2,500 feet.)
Reavis stressed that, contrary to some misinformation that has been spread in the community, the changes would only apply where mixed-use, multifamily dwellings of the type contemplated are allowed under the bylaw; that is, in business and industrial zones. The changes proposed in Article 12 would not apply in any residential districts, Reavis emphasized, even those that are within 2,500 feet of a rail or bus line.
Reavis noted that the distance of 2,500 feet from a rail or bus line comes from studies showing that as the distance most people are willing to walk. He noted that communities designed in this way promote walking and healthier lifestyles. In addition, it was noted that multifamily housing within walking distance of public transportation means that those residents are likely to have fewer cars, which could be a benefit in terms of traffic and parking.
Speaking at the hearing, Brian McGrail of Outlook Road said that the proposed changes “will increase the value of downtown properties.”
Reavis pointed out that the provisions of Article 12 would also streamline the process for developers seeking to build projects of the type covered by the article. Currently, a developer would have to go to both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. The proposed amendment specifies that the ZBA will be the Special Permit-granting authority.
Bronwyn Della-Volpe of Cyrus Street asked where all the parking for these buildings would be.
“If you’re building housing, with no plan for parking, isn’t that a problem?” she asked.
“I think vacant buildings and what we have downtown is a problem,” Reavis replied. He said that parking requirements are not being waived in the proposed changes.
Planning Board member Matthew Lowry pointed out that a developer would need to provide a parking plan based on the number of units proposed.
Patrick Bruno of Mackenzie Lane argued that by allowing more density in multifamily dwellings the town was allowing downtown properties to become extremely valuable to developers. Consequently, he asserted, the town gives no consideration to taking a property by eminent domain to create an open parking lot.
Bruno suggested a reason why businesses are dying in the square.
“People think there’s no parking in downtown Wakefield,” he observed. “But nobody in Town Hall ever thinks about taking any property to develop an open parking lot. You make these properties so valuable that the town doesn’t have the opportunity to buy or take it by eminent domain.”
The Planning Board vote to recommend favorable Town Meeting action on Article 12 was unanimous.
Regular Town Meeting begins Monday, November 16 in Veterans Memorial Auditorium at the Galvin Middle School.
[This story originally appeared in the Nov. 13, 2015 Wakefield Daily Item.]
Filed under: Columns & Essays, Feature stories, News, Politics, Wakefield | Leave a Comment
Tags: Brian McGrail, Bronwyn Della-Volpe, business, business district, developer, downtown, Main Street, Mark Sardella, Matthew Lowry, mixed-use development, multi-family dwellings, Pat Bruno, Paul Reavis, Planning Board, public transportation, railroad, residential, retail, Town Meeting, Town Planner, village, Wakefield Daily Item, Wakefield MA, zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Bylaw
Search this site
Categories
Flickr Photos
Archives
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
Recent Comments
Mark Sardella on A very Special Town Meeti… John Breithaupt on A very Special Town Meeti… Mark Sardella on A very Special Town Meeti… John Breithaupt on A very Special Town Meeti… Dan Noren on A very Special Town Meeti… Blog Stats
- 368,034 hits
LINKS
No Responses Yet to “Town Meeting article seeks mixed use, residential above retail in downtown”