Planning board debates 55-plus bylaw changes, PIL options and density caps to boost affordability
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board discussed proposed updates to the town's 55-plus housing bylaw, including state enforcement risks for exclusionary provisions, payment-in-lieu options, and density and affordability targets (proposals around 12.5% affordable at 80% AMI and 4—6 units/acre were debated).
On Dec. 8 the Southborough Planning Board and members of the Affordable Housing Trust discussed proposed updates to the town's over-55 housing bylaw and how to avoid language that the state has flagged as exclusionary.
"There have certainly been cases where cities or towns focused exclusively on 55-plus with the goal explicit or implicit to prevent lower income families from moving in," Ellen, a planning committee member, told the board, summarizing recent state scrutiny of bylaws elsewhere. She recommended careful drafting so the town's provisions do not include indirect restrictions such as bedroom limits that can exclude families.
Board deliberations focused on three linked questions: the required share of affordable units within developments, enforceability of payment-in-lieu (PIL) mechanisms, and density limits for 55-plus projects. Committee members proposed a baseline of 12.5% affordable units at 80% of area median income (AMI) as a compromise aligned with recently adopted downtown language; others warned some municipalities that imposed very high requirements (e.g., 20%) subsequently saw sharply reduced production.
Public commenters urged caution on subjective PIL language, saying past local practice has sometimes produced little actual affordable housing, and asked that the code favor firm, objective delivery requirements when a developer chooses payment in lieu of on-site units.
Density and definitions: Planning-board members and staff discussed a density cap in the range of 4—6 units per acre, with several members favoring 6 units per acre as a workable middle ground. The board also agreed to revisit definitions (for example, occupancy limits and references to nonprofit ownership) to ensure the bylaw is consistent and implementable.
What's next: Staff and committee members said they will continue drafting and aim to circulate a revised draft after the new year for planning-board feedback and public outreach; a possible town-meeting article will depend on timing and further public education.