Acton boards back tiered inclusionary zoning approach after MAPC feasibility review

Emma Udelovich, a regional housing and land use planner at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, told a joint session of the Town of Acton Select Board, Planning Board and Acton Community Housing Corporation on Dec. 1 that inclusionary zoning can deliver affordable units but that the depth of affordability and the size of a project determine financial feasibility. "Inclusionary zoning is a policy tool that requires affordable units to be included in market rate developments," Udelovich said, noting municipalities commonly set a baseline but may need offsets such as density or height bonuses to make deeper requirements viable.

The MAPC economic feasibility analysis (EFA) presented a range of options. The baseline (Option A) is the existing MBTA-overlay requirement: 10% of units at 80% of area median income (AMI). Other options considered higher set-asides and lower AMI targets (for example, 10% at 60% AMI or 12% at 65% AMI) and several tiered mixes that apply different rules to small- and large-scale projects. Udelovich stressed that "the deeper you go, in terms of AMI and affordability requirements, the more help a developer needs" and recommended incentives or payment-in-lieu mechanisms to preserve project feasibility.

Select Board members and Planning Board/ACHC representatives focused on how to balance production versus depth. Alicia, a Select Board member, said she favored policies that yield deeper affordability for local workforce households and voiced support for a tiered approach combining deeper requirements for larger projects with a less burdensome baseline for small projects. "I really support the deeper affordability because that's workforce housing for people who work in our community," she said.

Members raised practical questions about implementation: what threshold defines "small" versus "large" projects (MAPC used 15 units as an analytical threshold), how to treat fractional affordable-unit calculations for very small projects (should a 0.3-unit obligation round up, round down, or trigger a fractional payment), and whether payment-in-lieu fees should be routed into an existing trust fund managed by the ACHC. MAPC told the boards it could model those alternatives; "we can go back and recalculate some of the things, especially the rounding down," Udelovich said.

Several board members suggested combining options to tailor trade-offs. Jim, a board member who emphasized protecting small-scale development, urged staff to model fractional fees and rounding-down approaches to see whether they would restore feasibility for smaller projects. "If we went with fractional payments or minimum amounts then the numbers would get a little better for the developers," he said.

After extended discussion, the Select Board signaled a majority preference to give the Planning Department and MAPC direction to advance a tiered inclusionary zoning proposal: maintain a baseline roughly equivalent to 10% at 80% AMI for small projects while pursuing deeper affordability (lower AMI levels and/or additional set-asides) for larger-scale developments where the EFA shows feasibility. Chair John asked staff to return with a narrower set of options and numerical scenarios in one to two months to inform public hearings and the town's compliance application.

What happens next: planning staff will use the EFA results and the board's guidance to draft formal zoning language, model rounding and payment-in-lieu approaches, and prepare materials for public hearings and the compliance application required for any change to the MBTA-overlay baseline. MAPC said it expects to provide recalculations and options at the request of the boards.