Framingham planning subcommittee pauses changes to MBTA zoning pending state review

The Planning and Zoning Subcommittee of Framingham City paused local changes to its MBTA-related zoning until the state’s review is complete, and members previewed possible next steps including shrinking the Central Business (CB) district and asking the City Council to assume special-permit authority for large projects.

The subcommittee chair, speaking during the Jan. 31 virtual session, said the mayor had submitted a revised CB district to the state executive office overseeing MBTA-related compliance and that the committee should “wait until we see what the determination is.” The chair said the mayor’s submission appeared to remove some special-permit requirements and other restrictions and that even if the state finds the submission compliant, final changes would still require City Council approval.

Why it matters: The MBTA-related zoning changes are intended to satisfy state requirements tied to transit-adjacent housing policy; local decisions affect where and how much multiunit housing can be built, how approvals are processed, and the city’s commercial tax base. Committee members and public speakers repeatedly urged balancing housing growth with protections for existing neighborhoods and the city’s commercial revenue.

Committee discussion and proposed directions

Members described three technical options for responding to the submission: (1) do nothing and allow the mayor’s submission to proceed if the state finds it compliant; (2) if the state approves, propose targeted local amendments to shift some of the MBTA-designated unit count into other already-planned districts (for example, portions of the Shoppers World site, the B4 village district and a corporate mixed-use area referenced by the subcommittee); or (3) contest the submission if the state finds it noncompliant. The chair said the mayor’s version currently lists “about 6,000-something” MBTA units while the city needs 4,355 units under the relevant state benchmark and that the committee could reduce the CB allocation and create transition zones.

Several councilors and residents said they supported waiting for an official determination from the Executive Office (referred to repeatedly in the meeting as EOHLC/Executive Office of Livable Communities) before taking formal local action. Councilor Liam Bruno said the mayor’s submission “bought us some time” and encouraged using the pause to conduct neighborhood-level outreach and parcel-by-parcel review. Councilor Adbiani (spoke as “Artebayani/Adbiani” in the record) recommended tackling specific areas—Shoppers World, Route 9/90 corridor and Pine Fields—through a public process with neighbors.

Public comment reflected similar themes: Donna Orthofer (resident, 25 Appledore Road) said she was relieved the mayor submitted the plan but criticized the process for creating months of contention and said the city needed clearer data on public-safety, traffic and infrastructure impacts. A resident identified as John (commenter) urged the committee to prioritize preserving or expanding the city’s existing affordable-housing percentage (he cited the city’s roughly 10% affordable stock) rather than focusing solely on gross unit counts.

Policy and authority issues raised

Committee members discussed having the City Council become the special-permit granting authority for larger projects, rather than leaving final discretionary approvals solely with appointed boards. One member noted that Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 53G allows the municipality to require consultants at the applicant’s expense for project review and suggested using that authority to fund technical reviews if the council assumes special-permit responsibility.

No formal zoning change or motion about the MBTA submission itself was taken at the meeting; the subcommittee’s clear direction was to defer further action until the state’s compliance determination arrives and then, if needed, pursue targeted local amendments and broader public engagement.

Votes at a glance

- Approved minutes of Sept. 23, 2024 (as amended to add two councilors to the attendance list and to change the phrase “financial interest” to “alleged financial interest”): motion amended, seconded and approved (votes recorded: Council Ward — yes; Council Bridal — yes; Council William Bruno — yes; Councilor Eviani — yes; Councilor Long — yes). Outcome: approved as amended.

- Approved minutes of Oct. 9, 2024: approved (votes recorded: Council Ward — yes; Councilor Adbiani — yes; Councilor Lina Bruno — yes; Councilor Bryant — yes; Councilor Long — yes). Outcome: approved.

- Approved minutes of Oct. 21, 2024: approved with one abstention (votes recorded: Council Ward — yes; Councilor Adbiani — yes; Councilor Bryant — abstain; Councilor Long — yes; other attendance/votes noted as not present for adjournment). Outcome: approved (4 yes, 0 no, 1 abstain as recorded).

What the record shows (limits and next steps)

- The subcommittee did not adopt any text amendments to the city’s zoning at this meeting nor did it take a formal vote to modify the mayor’s submission. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the City Council, as the legislative body, will have the final say on any local amendments, even if the state finds the mayor’s submission compliant.

- Members asked staff and councilors to prepare for a next round of public engagement focused on parcels that already underwent prior comprehensive planning (Shoppers World, B4/village areas, corporate mixed-use) and to study proposals that would shrink the CB district and reallocate unit counts to other districts. One councilor said she will reintroduce a proposal to shift special-permit authority for large multifamily projects to the City Council and to set thresholds by project size.

- The subcommittee scheduled future handling of the item; committee members said they will reconvene after the Executive Office determination and that the Feb. 3 agenda will include commercial-space considerations if the state decision has not arrived.

Ending

Committee members and public commenters agreed on better neighborhood outreach and clearer technical data—traffic, infrastructure capacity, public safety and school impacts—before the subcommittee or the City Council adopts local changes. For now the group’s unanimous operational decision was procedural: wait for the state’s formal determination and prepare targeted local options for council review.

Quotes (selected and attributed to meeting speakers shown in the record)

“I think at this junction, we need to wait until we see what the determination is,” the subcommittee chair said.

“If it gets approved, then I’d like to see this committee… start tackling all the other concerns that we have in the city of Framingham,” Councilor Adbiani said.

“I was glad to see that the mayor submitted the plan,” resident Donna Orthofer said, while adding she was disappointed the submission’s existence was not made clearer earlier in the public process.

“That bought us some time,” Councilor Liam Bruno said of the mayor’s submission.

“Chapter 53G provides us consulting fees for doing review of projects at the expense of the applicant,” a councilor noted when describing a mechanism the city could use if the City Council assumes special-permit authority.

(See provenance for transcript excerpts supporting this article.)