Medford committee reviews draft neighborhood and urban residential zoning

The Medford City Council Planning and Permitting Committee on Feb. 12, 2025 reviewed a new draft of zoning ordinance updates (paper 20433) from Ennis Associates that would create five new residential subdistricts and recategorize parts of the city to better reflect building types, topography and transit access.

The proposal would divide residential areas into neighborhood residential (NR1, NR2, NR3) and urban residential (UR1, UR2) subdistricts, set a three‑story maximum for the residential subdistricts and map those categories over existing building types to identify where the rules would change. Consultants said the draft is intended to align zoning with the city’s Plan 2025 priorities and to concentrate greater density near transit and job centers.

Ennis Associates planner Paola Ramos Martinez said the team used “proximity to high frequent and efficient public transit, proximity to higher job density areas, lot sizes and topography, existing residential types, [and] transition between low and medium density areas” to place new subdistrict boundaries. She and Emily Ennis walked the committee through version changes; the third draft incorporates requests from earlier meetings and shows the first detailed urban residential maps.

Under the consultants’ definitions, NR1 would generally allow single‑unit dwellings with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and limited historic conversions; NR2 and NR3 allow progressively more units and townhouse/multiplex types. UR1 would allow two‑unit dwellings, townhouses and small multiplexes (roughly 2–5 units by historic conversion) and UR2 would allow townhouses and multiplexes up to roughly six units, generally capped at three stories. Ennis said taller, denser buildings should generally be designated mixed‑use rather than an exclusive residential district.

Councilors and staff described several map adjustments already made: parts of West Medford were reduced in density, a portion north of Medford Square was scaled back from NR3 to NR2, and other small boundary moves were made to reflect existing house types. President Bares thanked the consultants for incorporating council comments from prior meetings.

Several councilors and residents pressed for clearer protections for existing single‑family homes that would fall inside new UR districts. During public comment Judith Weinstock asked for clarification: “...new single family homes would not be permitted in that area. Is that correct?” Ennis confirmed UR1 and UR2 would not allow single‑family dwellings as a by‑right use and said the team is “looking at language that would prevent [homeowners] having to go for waivers for common adjustments to single family homes so that they would not be... disrupted by the change.”

Committee members and consultants discussed options that would allow routine renovations, porches or ADUs without sending homeowners to the Zoning Board of Appeal while still changing the allowable new‑construction use on those lots. Emily Ennis said one approach used elsewhere is an exemption for routine work on preexisting nonconforming homes so an owner “would be able to do it as of right.” The committee asked staff and the consultants to draft suggested nonconforming protections and sample language for the next meeting.

The committee also debated how state ADU law interacts with the proposed districts. A city staffer noted that the state’s ADU rules treat ADUs as a protected use in districts where single‑family homes are allowed, and that if a district does not allow single‑family dwellings as a right, ADU entitlement under the state statute may not apply automatically. Councilor Callahan asked whether the zoning could explicitly allow ADUs on existing single‑family homes that become nonconforming; staff said that is an option to draft into the proposal.

Councilors signaled continued attention to dimensional standards: President Bares and others asked for the committee to see numeric setbacks, lot coverage and roof‑slope/design guidance at the next meeting so the board can evaluate how the new categories would work with existing lots and topography. Ennis said dimensional standards will be the next major step and that consultants will compare existing nonconformities to proposed standards before firming up requirements.

The committee set follow‑ups: consultants will circulate updated maps reflecting tonight’s boundary requests, prepare draft nonconforming/waiver language to protect ordinary homeowner projects, and bring initial dimensional standards at the next meeting (the committee expects to meet on the topic again in two weeks). Consultants also reiterated the timeline for Plan 2025 tasks and public meetings leading to referral to the Community Development Board (CDB).