At a June 5 special meeting of the Waltham City Council, residents and local advocates told councilors they want a comprehensive rewrite of the city's zoning code to allow more housing, reduce parking mandates and create dependable funding for affordable units.

Speakers said the current code prevents rebuilding of existing homes and blocks smaller, more affordable units. "Up to 72% of the city's homes don't conform with the present zoning code," said Mitchell DePani, summarizing a point many speakers repeated. Genevieve Tavera, who said she has worked with Waltham families for more than a decade, called the figure "a shocking number" and said the city has produced no affordable units under the current zoning since 2020.

Why it matters: residents and some local planners argue the rules shape who can live in Waltham and how the city grows. Several speakers urged a shift from strict Euclidean zoning toward form-based or neighborhood-focused rules, and asked the council to use tools such as linkage fees, density bonuses and targeted subsidies to unlock affordable housing production.

Residents described concrete proposals and examples. Zach Bower Diaz noted that "Cambridge and several other communities like Chelsea, Watertown, Somerville use" linkage fees to raise money for affordable-housing production from commercial development and urged Waltham to consider the same. He also cited transit opportunities on Main Street, saying the MBTA redesign has made the 70 bus a "priority bus route" with service "no less than every 15" minutes, a fact he said the city could leverage for higher-density zoning near transit.

Speakers repeatedly asked the council to relax parking minimums. Urban designer Matthew Frederick told the council: "The city should have total responsibility for parking. Stop requiring anybody to put parking on-site." Tim Riley and others urged removal of parking mandates or shifting parking to city-managed facilities and fees. Advocates said large mandated parking footprints raise building costs, reduce units that can be built on a lot and encourage driving.

Several speakers urged legalizing the city's existing housing patterns. Tom Benavides and others asked the council to permit smaller lots, modest setbacks and more small multi-unit buildings, including townhomes and fourplexes, to restore the kinds of starter homes that once predominated. Mitchell DePani and Tom Benavides recommended adopting a form-based code and eliminating unit/density maximums so small, lower-cost units "pencil out." DePani said that without change, "you get very large duplexes... priced at about a million dollars."

Speakers also raised funding and policy design questions. Genevieve Tavera urged fixing inclusionary zoning requirements and guaranteeing funding via the Community Preservation Act and the Waltham Housing Trust; she said a $6,000,000 city investment at Leland Homes had converted units to deeper affordability. Multiple commenters asked the council to commission or use an economic feasibility study to ensure proposed inclusionary and affordability requirements are financially viable.

Public-comment attendees voiced broader planning concerns as well: tree canopy and green space distribution, preservation of starter homes, and form and design controls to prevent new buildings "towering" over older houses. Diana Young recommended greater emphasis on tree canopy in the zoning or a tree ordinance to address heat islands, saying, "Waltham has plenty of open space, but it is not evenly distributed."

What the council did: the meeting was a public-input hearing for the comprehensive zoning study; the council did not vote on zoning changes. Council President John McLaughlin opened the session and asked residents to sign in; several councilors indicated they would forward correspondence to the consultant. Councilor Harris moved to adjourn at the close of the hearing; the motion carried by voice vote.

Next steps noted during the meeting included distribution of written comments to the hired zoning consultants and continued work by the consultants and staff. No formal directives, votes or ordinance drafts were adopted at the session.