MBTA Communities Law and Missing Middle Housing
Prepared by Richard Rasala r.rasala@gmail.com
Updated October 5 2023
Among the community letters posted after the public hearing of September 26 is one that has a mass.gov link to the following slide presentation on the intentions of the MBTA Communities Law. This presentation explicitly references missing middle housing as the model for the intended type of housing for families with children.
Slide 7 of this presentation explicitly states:
“Missing middle” housing types represent what Section 3A zoning requires
Here is Slide 7 in full:
By stating that missing middle housing types represent the zoning that Section 3A (MBTA Communities Law) requires and by reproducing Daniel Parolek’s famous Missing Middle Housing graphic diagram, the state is saying that Missing Middle Housing is the primary way that they expect the MBTA Communities Law to be implemented.
There was a slight adjustment to this directive later in 2023. On August 17 2023, the state issued a revision to the Section 3A (MBTA Communities Law) compliance guidelines: Cover and Guidelines
The Cover letter summarizes the state’s decision to allow mixed-use developments to cover 25% of the MBTA housing goals:
Allow an MBTA community to “offset” the minimum multi-family unit capacity requirement in certain multi-family zoning district(s) by up to 25%, based on the unit capacity of a mixed-use zoning district that meets key requirements of Section 3A and the Guidelines, but for requiring a ground floor non-residential component. Such “offset” – only available where existing village-style or downtown development is essential to preserve pedestrian access to amenities – still requires a municipality to demonstrate the same total amount of unit capacity.
The 25% exception for housing in mixed-use developments does not override the expectation that Missing Middle Housing is the primary way to implement the MBTA Communities Law.
I wonder if any member of the City Council or any member of the Planning Dept has seen the March 18 2023 slide presentation.
This presentation is somewhat difficult to find. Start at:
Then locate the section “Resources” to get to:
Then locate the section “Webinars, Tutorials, and Slide Decks” to get to:
The situation with the current Newton zoning proposals is this:
The current Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) zoning not only does not use Missing Middle Housing as its primary way to implement the MBTA Communities Law the actual zoning code prevents the use of Missing Middle Housing even in the MRT zone.
Let me explain.
In my long web document:
I have promoted the use of Daniel Parolek’s Missing Middle Housing model for use in Newton and specifically in the 5 half mile circles centered at transit stops in Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, Eliot, Waban, and Woodland. See the section entitled:
As part of this study, I identified the Missing Middle Housing types that are compatible with the MRT restriction of 2.5 stories and with the MBTA restriction that each building on a lot must have at least 2 housing units. These Missing Middle Housing types are:
- The Traditional 2.5 Story House with Pitched Roof
- Fourplex houses
- A Pair of Stacked Duplex houses
- A Pair of Side-By-Side Duplex houses
-
- perhaps with one duplex in front and one duplex in back
- perhaps with the duplex buildings facing each other across an open courtyard
- A Courtyard Building, with 3 or 4 units
The reason that the current Village Center Overlay District (VCOD) zoning prevents the use of Missing Middle Housing in the MRT zone is the decision to set 1500 SF as the maximum footprint for new construction in MRT.
1500 SF is far too small a footprint to permit any of the other Missing Middle housing types to be built: Fourplex houses, Paired Stacked Duplex houses, Paired Side-By-Side Duplex hours, and Courtyard Buildings are all impossible.
To enable the other Missing Middle housing types on a lot and to permit the units in these houses to have the 2 or 3 bedrooms that are suitable for families with children requires 3000 SF to 3600 SF of footprint. Daniel Parolek recommends 3600 SF. This larger value may then also enable some units with 4 bedrooms for those families with children who also need to work from home.
I strongly urge Newton to set the maximum footprint for new construction in MRT to 3600 SF. To continue to insist on a 1500 SF maximum footprint for new construction in MRT is to send a strong message to the state government that Newton has no intention of supporting Missing Middle Housing in its residential areas.
I think that Newton should also be concerned about compliance with a key provision of the MBTA Communities Law:
“Housing suitable for families” means housing comprised of residential dwelling units that are not age-restricted housing, and for which there are no zoning restriction on the number of bedrooms, the size of bedrooms, or the number of occupants.
To insist on a 1500 SF maximum footprint for new construction in MRT has the direct consequences of restricting the number of bedrooms, the size of bedrooms, and the number of occupants in housing units in an MRT building. The state government may consider a 1500 SF footprint in MRT to be an attempt by Newton to circumvent one of the key provisions of the MBTA Communities Law.
Finally, the ZAP Meeting Slides of June 12 2023 provide “test fits” of possible MRT new construction with 3 units minimum and 4 units maximum. I was extremely puzzled how the Planning Dept imagined creating 4 units in a pitched roof building with a 1500 SF footprint for floors 1 and 2 and a third floor with at most 1000 SF footprint. Then I noticed two footnotes:
* Total Bldg Area includes Basement Area (assumed 50% of Bldg Ftprint)
** Net Residential Area assumes 85% efficiency
The Planning Dept is imagining that the 4th housing unit is a tiny basement apartment with a footprint of 750 SF.
I find it unbelievable that this is what the Planning Dept has come up with.
I find this “solution” to obtaining 4 units in a 1500 SF pitched roof building to be unacceptable.
It is clear why the Planning Dept hid its decision in footnotes rather than say basement apartment explicitly.
I hope that the members of the City Council will also find this situation unacceptable and will reject 1500 SF as the maximum footprint in MRT. Please follow the recommendation of a nationally recognized planner, Daniel Parolek, and set the maximum footprint in MRT to 3600 SF.
To set the maximum footprint for new construction in MRT to 3600 SF is the essential first step to opening Newton to Missing Middle housing.
The next step would be to explicitly list the housing forms that are acceptable in MRT. The list I gave above is a start. I would also mention that the state has made an explicit edit to Parolek’s graphic diagram in Slide 7. The state has called out a Triple Decker as a viable housing model. It might make sense to add Triple Decker to the MRT list even though it is 3 stories rather than 2.5 stories.
How is the proposed VCOD zoning enabling housing in Newton?
It will be very good if Newton will accept a 3600 SF maximum footprint in MRT so that Missing Middle housing is enabled. This does not however address the larger expectation of the state government:
Missing Middle Housing should be the primary way that the MBTA Communities Law is to be implemented.
The Planning Dept made it clear in the presentation of September 26 2023 that it plans to use the 25% exception to obtain 25% of the residential MBTA housing from mixed-use buildings with first floor business and with apartments on the upper floors.
To me, it is clear that the MRT zones on the city maps will not supply all that much housing. My guess is that at least 80% of the MBTA housing in VCOD is coming from apartment housing (25% from mixed use and 55% from pure apartments). This is far from what the state expects.
More data is needed from the Planning Dept to understand exactly how the proposed VCOD zoning is enabling housing in Newton and then to decide as a city how to move forward.
A Call for Complete Public Data
The only way to get apples-to-apples data is to use the MBTA Compliance Model calculations. There is no other model to choose from. Some councilors have said that the MBTA numbers are too high. So what. If we have the same model used across the entire city, we can make comparisons and make decisions. We may mentally adjust the MBTA numbers by whatever percentage we may think that the “MBTA numbers are too high”. But, we will start with the numbers computed in the same way for all areas.
What are the zoned areas to study?
The zoned areas are all distinct VCOD zoned areas in the city.
Note: Newton Centre, Newton Highlands, and Eliot are subsumed in the Required Contiguous Area
Note: Each name above is a link to its Version 3.0 VCOD Map
In addition to the 11 distinct zoned areas above, there must be summary totals computed for two areas:
For the 4 zoned areas currently selected to be submitted to the state for MBTA Compliance:
For Newton as a whole, that is, for all 11 distinct zoned areas.
What data should be obtained for the 11 zoned areas and for the two areas with summary totals?
There should be a table for each area examined, so, 13 tables in all.
Each table should have 6 data rows and 4 data columns as described below.
Let me name and define the labels for the 6 data rows of each table.
Entire Area: Includes all lots
MRT-zone: Includes lots zoned for MRT
VC2-zone-mixed: Includes lots zoned for VC2 with mixed-use
VC2-zone-no-mixed: Includes lots zoned for VC2 with no mixed-use
VC3-zone-mixed: Includes lots zoned for VC3 with mixed-use
VC3-zone-no-mixed: Includes lots zoned for VC3 with no mixed-use
The first row, Entire Area, gives the summary data for the area.
The remaining five rows give detailed granularity based on the type of zoning.
Let me name the labels for the 4 data columns of each table.
Number of Lots
Number of MBTA Housing Units
Acres
Density
Let me discuss the definitions for the 4 data columns of each table.
The Number of Lots should give the number of lots in each category.
The Number of MBTA Housing Units should provide the results of the MBTA Compliance calculation applied to the set of lots based on the lot zoning and, in some cases, on the lot area. These numbers may be computed even for sets of lots that are not planned for submission to the state.
The Acres value should be computed for the Entire Area based on MBTA Compliance calculation {which includes the area of intervening streets}.
The Acres values for the 5 subcategories should be done as best possible since it is understood that the lots in a subcategory may not be contiguous.
The Density value is the ratio (Number of MBTA Housing Units) / (Acres).
It is also important to know what computational rules are set by the Planning Dept that then determine MBTA Compliance calculations for housing units.
In MRT zones, presumably the computational rule is four housing units per lot. If this is not the case, please explain.
In VC2 and VC3 zones, the housing unit calculations presumably depend on:
- the zoning type {VC2 or VC3}
- whether or not mixed-use is required
- the lot size
Please state the computional rules being used in each case.
How should the data be delivered to the public?
- In 13 readable tables on a web page or in a slide presentation
- In an Excel spreadsheet so that citizens and city councilors may do follow-up computations
For too long, the Zoning and Planning Committee and the Planning Dept have worked behind closed doors and have presented only summary data saying: “This is the way things are. Trust us.”
It should not be a lot of work to produce the above data. The Planning Dept and Utile have all of the computational tools.
The public and the members of the City Council have every right to the above data. Decisions are being made that will affect Newton for years to come. The public and the members of the City Council should have the data to assess these decisions and suggest the tradeoffs that will need to be made.
In particular, the public and the members of the City Council should be able to make recommendations on:
- How much MRT?
- How much VC2 with mixed-use?
- How much VC2 with no mixed-use?
- How much VC3 with mixed-use?
- How much VC3 with no mixed-use?
- Are there villages that should have no VCOD zoning whatsoever?
Always keep in mind that the state goal is:
Missing Middle Housing should be the primary way that the MBTA Communities Law is to be implemented.
Newton should make a good faith effort to move its zoning in this direction.
Housing and Parking
Also keep in mind that the purpose of the MBTA Communities Law is to enable housing for families with children. I have spent hours on the analysis of transit in Newton and the result is that this transit is quite inadequate for the needs of families with children. It is essential that families with children in residential neighborhoods be able to own at least one car if they so choose.
Therefore I recommend:
Require a minimum of one parking space per residential unit in MRT.
The question of parking requirements in large apartment buildings is more subtle. There are two considerations that suggest a lower amount of parking than one parking space per residential unit.
- Studies have shown that if there is too much residential parking in large apartment buildings then that parking goes unused.
- The West Newton Armory Affordable Housing Project has 43 housing units but only 28 parking spaces. This suggests that (2/3) is a good ratio of parking spaces to housing units in a large apartment building.
Therefore I recommend:
Require a minimum of residential parking spaces in an apartment building context that is at least (2/3) of the number of residential units.
I hope that the Planning Dept will not give in to the temptation to omit parking requirements because there may be some small advantage in the MBTA Compliance calculations. Parking is too important to be left to the random decisions of developers.
Related Web Documents