April 2, 2026

Items Referred to Committee

Affordable Housing Overlay Amendment (Section 8.1) – Kept in Committee

The committee continued its review of a proposed amendment to the Affordable Housing Overlay that would allow larger buildings, more dimensional flexibility, and fewer use restrictions for 100% affordable housing projects. This item had a public hearing two weeks prior and is now in the committee discussion phase.

Key proposed changes include:

• Height: Maximum increased from 7 to 8 stories (minimum stays at 4)

• Lot coverage: 100% permitted across all overlay districts (previously only in MR6)

• Upper story step backs: Eliminated entirely, as developers reported they cost units and bedrooms

• Massing controls removed: Building width, facade build out, floor plate size, ground story elevation, and individual story height would no longer be regulated for affordable housing projects

• Commercial space: Minimum of one ground-floor commercial space required (no size specification), with no arts/creative enterprise set-aside

• Fenestration: Simplified to a single standard (15–50%) across floors

• Mechanical screening height limits: Removed, though screening itself is still required

Director Bartman explained the rationale: affordable housing developers face different financial incentives than market-rate developers and historically do not engage in the cost-cutting behaviors (lower ceilings for affordable units, value-engineering design features out) that many of these regulations were designed to prevent.

Committee Discussion

Parking Setbacks Drew the Most Concern

The proposed 30-foot parking setback from front lot lines—carried over from the MR6 district model—drew questions from multiple committee members. Councilor Davis noted that MR3 and MR4 base districts allow structured parking as close as 2 feet from the lot line for market-rate buildings, meaning the affordable housing overlay would paradoxically be more restrictive for parking placement than the underlying zoning. Director Bartman acknowledged this was a byproduct of using MR6 standards as the template and said the committee could adjust or zero out this dimension.

Chair Ewen-Campen said this was the only element where the proposal made it harder to build affordable housing rather than easier, and announced he would prepare an amendment on the parking setback for the next meeting. Councilor Clingan raised the intersection with ADA accessibility, asking how accessible parking could be accommodated on smaller lots under the 30-foot setback requirement.

Removal of Massing Controls Questioned

Councilor Davis pressed on why minimum story height requirements were being removed, noting that nothing would prevent a developer from building to bare building-code minimums. Director Bartman responded that affordable housing financing programs demand quality standards that exceed building code minimums, and that the city has never seen an affordable housing developer engage in the ceiling-height discrepancies that market-rate developers have used for inclusionary units. Councilor Davis said he remained uncomfortable with this rationale.

Arts and Creative Enterprise In-Lieu Payment

Chair Ewen-Campen raised the status of in-lieu payments for the arts and creative enterprise space requirement—a topic raised by multiple public commenters at the prior hearing. Director Bartman explained that creating an in-lieu payment mechanism is legally complex under Massachusetts law, which restricts local impact fees and taxes. PPZ has completed a financial analysis of potential dollar amounts and is now in legal review to ensure the mechanism doesn't require a home rule petition. Bartman expressed optimism that they can get there. The department is also considering whether the arts space requirement should apply to all districts that produce commercial space, which would likely result in smaller developments buying out.

Ground Floor Commercial Space

Councilor Clingan asked why a commercial space was required at all. Director Bartman explained that many affordable housing overlay sites fall along pedestrian streets, which prohibit apartment buildings from fronting the street—requiring a general building with ground-floor commercial. The minimum of one space (no size requirement) gives developers flexibility while meeting the building-type definition. Bartman noted that developers have expressed interest in tenants like financial education services that would benefit building residents and the neighborhood.

Revised Document Submitted

Director Bartman noted that PPZ submitted a cleaner version of the amendment for the committee's use, with a red-lined table and more specific language in section A.2 about which base zoning standards are being superseded. Chair Ewen-Campen confirmed the substance is identical but the formatting is clearer.

What's Next

• The item remains in committee. The next Land Use meeting will be a hybrid public hearing (in-person at City Hall with virtual option) on other items; this amendment may be taken up at the end if time permits, otherwise at a subsequent meeting.

• Chair Ewen-Campen asked committee members to prepare any amendments they wish to propose, particularly around parking setbacks.

• PPZ will continue work on the arts/creative enterprise in-lieu payment mechanism.

• Minutes from December 4, 2025 were approved and the meeting adjourned at 7:03 PM on a 4-0 vote (McLaughlin absent).