Committee continues public hearing on Klaskey Common transit‑oriented zoning after planning staff and attorneys respond to use‑table questions

The New Bedford City Council Committee on Ordinances continued a public hearing Tuesday on a proposed Klaskey Common Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) overlay district after city planning staff and the city attorney answered questions about parking, subdistricts and an accompanying replacement of the city's use table.

Jennifer Carlini, director of the Department of City Planning, told the committee the planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation. “The Class B Common TOD is very similar to the Kings Highway TOD,” Carlini said, and described the proposal as an overlay that leaves existing underlying zoning in place while adding TOD-specific standards for three subdistricts around the commuter rail station.

The ordinance would add a new section 4200C to chapter 9 and amend the zoning definitions and the tables of principal uses and dimensional regulations. Carlini said Subdistrict A (closest to the train station) has a parking minimum of 0.75 spaces per unit and greater allowable heights; Subdistrict B (Purchase Street east side) has a parking minimum of 1.0 and a 65‑foot maximum height with a 40‑foot buffer near residences; Subdistrict C is more restrictive and has a 40‑foot maximum height.

Why it matters: the change is intended to encourage mixed‑use development near New Bedford's commuter rail station and to comply with the MBTA Communities Act (Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 40A, §3). Councilors sought clarity on how the overlay will interact with existing residential neighborhoods, where parking spillover and site‑plan review were recurring concerns.

Councilors asked for specifics. Councilor Derek Baptiste pressed on spillover parking south of Willis Street and whether resident‑only parking is required; Carlini said resident‑only parking would require a neighborhood petition and action through traffic commission, not zoning. Councilor Linda Morad and others asked where future residents and visitors would park; Carlini said the city is advancing a planned parking structure at Maxfield and Purchase Street aimed at roughly 250 spaces and that existing properties often cannot meet current parking requirements without variances.

A separate line of questioning came from the city attorney, David Garatowski, and several councilors about the ordinance's implementation text. Garatowski noted the draft ordinance substitutes an updated table of use regulations and flagged a change that appears to allow two‑family dwellings in Residence A — a difference from the zoning table currently displayed on the city's online code. He told the committee the proposed replacement “adds two‑family houses into a Residence A district” and that members should confirm whether that change had been intentionally adopted earlier.

Carlini replied that the revised use table reflects amendments the council adopted in late 2024 (filed in September, second reading Nov. 26, approved by the mayor Dec. 5) and said the planning department included the whole table in the ordinance text to reduce errors that arise when only piecemeal edits are appended. She said the new Klaskey overlay column (the “blue” column) is the portion being added now and that any portion of the new column can be amended if councilors choose.

Action and next steps: the committee voted first to receive and place on file items 1A and 1B and to open the public hearing (motion made by Councilor Ian Abreu; second Shane Burgo; passed). After discussion and questions, the committee voted to continue the public hearing to May 28 at 7 p.m. in the City Council chambers to allow follow‑up and staff to provide additional materials (motion to continue made by Councilor Joel Lopes; seconded by Councilor Bridal Gomes; passed).

The planning department committed to provide detailed maps and the exact changes to the use table so councilors and the public can compare the current online code with the proposed replacement. The committee also asked the city attorney to advise whether any substantive amendments to the table would require reopening public comment; the attorneys advised that minor amendments are permitted based on the record but substantial new evidence would require additional public notice.

Councilors and staff indicated they will return with a redlined comparison of the existing use table versus the proposed table, clarification about the Residence A changes, and more precise inventories of vacant or underused parcels within the proposed TOD boundaries. The public hearing remains open and will resume May 28 at 7 p.m.