Submitted by Paul Mortenson (Writing as an individual, not as a member of the Select Board)
The Massachusetts Housing Choice law requires eastern Massachusetts communities to change zoning to allow for denser housing. Thus, Bedford at its next Annual Town Meeting will be asked to approve a zoning by-law allowing for more dense residential housing, at 15 units per acre, for 50 acres (750 new units, Bedford’s current housing stock is approximately 5,500 units). Practically, this must happen or at a minimum the town will lose state funds.
The Housing Choice law is a reaction to the housing shortage in eastern Massachusetts. Requiring denser housing is certainly one way to somewhat ameliorate the shortage. There are certainly other possible “solutions”, but the state has chosen this path, and I write not to debate the merits of the Housing Choice law, but how Bedford might comply in a way most beneficial to Bedford.
My primary concern is traffic. If 750 new and densely co-located units are someday built, it could easily cause traffic to go from bad to almost unbearable. I think this is a fair hypothesis. I am skeptical of the Planning Board’s contention that the dense housing could someday ease traffic. I also truly laud their goal to make Bedford more walkable, but I support more sidewalks and walk signals over denser housing to further that goal.
Here’s what I suggest. Comply with the Housing Choice law in a way that might mitigate its potential impact on traffic. For example, consider rezoning only those areas where the units might be built later rather than sooner. The Planning Board has already rejected this pathway to compliance. For example, they will not even present as an option rezoning on Middlesex Turnpike, because some on that board believe that the units might never be built at that location. I respect the Planning Board’s desire to comply with the “spirit” of the law, but it is perfectly legitimate to balance that desire with a perfectly reasonable desire to, if possible, avoid traffic nightmares.
In short, I advocate for complying with the letter of the law, but rezoning in areas that might mitigate traffic, thus, giving the town breathing room to continue supporting affordable housing in a manner well thought out and advantageous to Bedford.
Thank you.
Loading ...
You assume that MBTA rezoning in areas SF homes would happen slowly. Where is your evidence? MBTA rezoning offers developers huge profits. Immediately, SF homes that go on the market may be ripped down and the maximum units may be planned.
How might 8 units fit onto a half acre lot? Will they rise 3 stories? More? Will the foundations go to the lot line? If so, would the developer be allowed to remove trees on the abutter’s property, just like 1 Railroad Avenue?
We should leverage our open or nearly open large lots for MBTA zoning. This would allow for good setbacks and less intrusion on neighbors, while achieving our housing goals.
It would also minimize the green house gas cost of ripping down perfectly good housing, which will either be incinerated, or put into a landfill. Landfills decompose anaerobically, generating methane, which is 85 times more potent a green house gas than CO2.
Respectfully, it doesn’t sound like you have familiarized yourself with the actual proposals on the table, Molly. Rezoning for by right density doesn’t mean we can’t have height or setback restrictions. All the standard environmental approvals are still required.
The Planning Board’s proposals have included large parking lots. I would argue they’re much worse environmentally than in-fill development, though, because they transform land that is currently supporting 0 people into a large building with hundreds of residents consuming more water, gas, and electricity.
In-fill development will happen more slowly because developers have to wait for individual lots to turn over. If we’re choosing between:
• 8 units on a half-acre, housing 8 individuals or families, maxing out at about 30 people
• 1 4500 sq ft house on a half-acre, housing 1 family with most likely 3-4 people
• 75 units in a complex on 5 acres, housing potentially 125 or more people
I feel pretty strongly that 8 units on a half-acre is more like the Bedford we have and love than the mega-one-family house or the large apartment building.
I sought information about setbacks before I went to the Forum yesterday. I found nothing definitive on the Town website. I ought not to be required to attend a meeting in order to view the slides I saw last night. I had reason to be concerned: Planning and Select Board have already approved one zero setback project, with unpopular results.
My goals are as legitimate as yours. I am a fan of cluster housing, which is what I describe. It requires larger lots. It meets important economic and social goals, while optimizing green environment.
Setbacks info is in the bylaws, but the code enforcement has a nice summary. Take your pick of the detail you need: https://www.bedfordma.gov/Search?searchPhrase=Setbacks
Is it outlandish to suggest that there could be other ways to address traffic in Bedford, ones that don’t add traffic lights to intersections and lower rather than increase the tax burden shouldered by residents?
No, because such measures have already been adopted by many municipalities. I am talking about congestion pricing, basically a tax on traffic.
This forces drivers to internalize the negative externalities they cause through increasing traffic and pollution.
This would reduce traffic for necessary or high value trips by reducing demand while generating revenue that could go towards town projects or as a tax refund to offset the cost.
Rather than traffic lights that are only tailored to specific times of the day and cause unneeded delays at all other points, this toll could be in effect at only the times when most needed.
Rather than shunting these changes off to the future with no plan to ever actually build the affordable housing that most people agree is needed, why not at least discuss other options.
That’s not something Bedford can decide on our own. Regardless, I can’t imagine the Commonwealth allowing such a plan, especially for Bedford. You may know that there are massive development plans underway for Hartwell Ave. in Lexington. The big building going up on Great Road is just the beginning. That kind of 8-10 story building will go all the way down to Hanscom. Tolls through Bedford would impede the massive tide of workers that come in from points north and west in the morning, and then go out again at evening. The new construction in Lexington will rely on that tide to bring in labor. We could not reasonably expect to be allowed to create a financial dam to divert them around Bedford. We could have even less expectation of keeping the money.
Massachusetts has some of the lowest tolls per mile for residents, while boasting some of the highest wages (even when accounting for the cost of living in the state). To suggest that using the opportunity provided by this gap and create that “financial dam” is unreasonable makes very little sense when considering how it addresses the issue at hand.
Although many of our largest and most travelled roads are indeed state highways, and the state has been hesitant to even explore this option, I wasn’t able to find anything prohibiting its implementation on roads operated by the town. This is especially true since the current administration for the state has indicated an openness towards evidence-backed incentive-based measures such as this.
I didn’t state an opinion on this idea, only the impediments. There is a reason you do not see town tolls in MA or anywhere else. Like all other states, the Commonwealth reserves to itself the right to set up toll roads and collect the fees. The only other city in the US to do so is New York, and only on Manhattan. That was done by NY state legislation. I can’t speak for Beacon Hill, but my hunch is that they have an interest in allowing the free flow of commuters through Bedford twice daily.
Last time I went to Beacon Hill, they had very few commuters on Acorn St…
As I stated above and as cursory research verifies, that is simply not true for roads that the state does not own. Towns are completely able to implement tolls as they wish, it just so happens that the majority of voters oppose them on principle, even in light of empirical evidence of their effectiveness.
Having been on a focus group, I don’t recall that whether the units will be built is high on the list of priorities. My takeaway in reviewing the information provide is that the amount of money from the state is enormous every year, and additionally the town would be sued and the state choose the acreage as a result. So hopefully Bedfordites can see the forest for the trees and choose to rezone whatever space the planning board feels will meet the most goals for Bedford now and in the future.
Rezoning any of the suggested parcels or any areas currently not considered, such as the Middlesex Turnpike, open the door for future development. Should a large parcel of under developed land become available that could result in large buildings containing hundreds of units. Should that happen on the Middlesex Turnpike it would have a far reaching impact on the town. Rezoning the parcels currently know as the North and South Center would achieve your goal. These parcels are primarily non-conforming lots with smaller houses. Conversion of these lots into multi-family units would be slow with many lots never converted.
Your comments are like a breath of fresh air . Mr. Mortenson are you hearing the voice in your head saying stop . Over developing in Bedford to try to meet some arbitrary number set by the state is absurd . The Carlisle Road proposal is a prime example . To think that Route 62 ,225, and 4 , nothing more than 500 year old game trails can handle this is stupid . Can we do without the state money ? Are the people making these decisions experts or did they just get elected ? I invite any town official to inform us about the state money , the route 4 construction , the flooding at Fern Way and how the Carlisle Road proposal , which may make 7 lights from Northside to the center necessary a good idea .
William I totally agree with you….
Barbara.