Concord Planning Board opens review of mixed‑use bylaw to see if it can meet MBTA Communities rules

The Town of Concord Planning Board on March 4 opened a review of its combined business‑residence bylaw (section 4.2.0.3) to determine whether local zoning could be changed to qualify as a mandatory mixed‑use district under the MBTA Communities regulations and thus count toward the town’s unit‑capacity requirement.

Emily Ennis of Ennis Associates presented a memorandum evaluating section 4.2.0.3 against the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) regulations implementing the MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A). "This memorandum and the first task was to evaluate, section 4.2 0.3 with regard to the regulations and see what, if any, changes would need to be made," Ennis said.

Ennis told the board that section 4.2.0.3 as written would not meet the state regulations and that several specific changes would be required. Key differences she flagged include the town’s current affordability rule, an atypical open‑space requirement, a ground‑floor nonresidential percentage, and parking rules. She said the regulations allow a mandatory mixed‑use district to count toward required unit capacity only if it meets a set of requirements in the state rules (Table 1 of the EOHLC guidance), and that Concord’s bylaw would need to be altered to match those rules.

Why it matters: qualifying a local mixed‑use district under the MBTA rules can reduce the multifamily district’s unit‑capacity obligation, but the offset is not 1:1 and comes with trade‑offs. Ennis said the offset the town could claim is capped (her team’s model produced a maximum offset of 274 units under one test run) and that some local requirements would likely need to be relaxed to achieve compliance.

Specific items discussed • Affordability: Concord’s current bylaw includes a 20% affordability requirement with a provision that, at small project sizes, effectively produces a higher percentage (for a four‑unit project the bylaw’s minimum yields 25%). Ennis said that would need recalibration to match state thresholds. • Open space: The bylaw requires open space measured against residential gross floor area in a way Ennis called unusual and "onerous," and one that would likely not be accepted by EOHLC without change. • Ground‑floor nonresidential uses: State rules limit how much ground‑floor area can be required for nonresidential uses; Concord’s existing percentage would need adjustment in some districts (Ennis noted the state requirement that no more than 33% of the ground floor be dedicated to nonresidential uses in the relevant calculation). • Parking: The state regulation limits parking requirements for nonresidential uses in a mandatory mixed‑use district; Ennis said some communities accept that and some do not, and that local transit access and district context would drive the decision.

Board members and staff discussed trade‑offs in two directions: (1) alter 4.2.0.3 to meet MBTA compliance so the town could claim an offset, or (2) set aside the MBTA compliance question and instead revise 4.2.0.3 to make mixed‑use development more practicable locally (for example, adjusting height limits, parking standards, open‑space metrics and floor‑plate requirements). Several board members urged mapping the existing business and mixed‑use districts and testing the changes across districts before directing staff to proceed.

Ennis said her team had run an initial test on several limited business districts and that excluding certain small or spot zoning districts (for example, West Concord Village) from an MBTA‑compliant mixed‑use change would have little effect on the offset calculation. She recommended further modeling across more districts only if the board wanted to pursue MBTA compliance.

Public comment: Carol Savoy of 61 Belknap Street urged caution, saying the town already has many large projects either approved or pending and asked the board to "pause any action on mixed use zoning and focus instead on ensuring Concord is prepared for the development already in motion." She listed projects the town has approved or is reviewing, and told the board the town should first assess impacts on water, sewer, schools and taxes before incentivizing still more housing.

What happens next: Ennis and staff proposed two public meetings to gather community input (initially proposed dates were June 17 and a second meeting proposed for Sept. 9). The consultant will prepare draft recommendations on how to tweak 4.2.0.3 (either to pursue MBTA compliance or to make local adjustments) and return to the board for additional direction and a public hearing schedule.

The board did not take formal regulatory action at this meeting; members directed staff and the consultant to prepare mapping, additional modeling and draft bylaw language for future discussion and public hearings.