Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Incentive Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board’s RIO amendment draws pushback; development agreement language expected to be removed
Summary
Advisory members questioned the Residential Incentive Overlay (RIO) amendment’s timing and scope; a Planning Board Task Force recommended prohibiting RIO in single-family districts and requiring development agreements, but legal limits and Select Board caution mean Section O (development-agreement language) is likely to be stricken.
Article 32, an amendment to the Residential Incentive Overlay (RIO) district, prompted extended debate at the Advisory Committee meeting on Feb. 18 after the Planning Board summarized Task Force findings and legal constraints.
The RIO Task Force recommended three main changes: prohibit RIO in single-family districts, prohibit RIO in four other districts judged inappropriate, and require development agreements that would lock in density, unit counts, amenities and design commitments. The Task Force history was reviewed: RIO map changes in Spring 2024 passed with high support for some locations, while other individual proposals at 2024 ATM were denied. A 2025 citizen petition to expand eligible districts fell short of the two-thirds threshold.
Planning presenters cautioned that development agreements have legal limits: they can be imposed as conditions for a RIO special permit but cannot be required as part of a zoning map change, cannot be forced to be signed prior to Town Meeting, and cannot be compelled upon the Select Board to execute. Planning staff said counsel and the Select Board advised caution and that Section O (development agreements) would likely be removed from the Planning Board’s motion.
Jim Roberti, participating remotely, criticized the Task Force process and timeline, saying the group lacked sufficient time and expertise and urging the committee to defer the article for six to 10 months and possibly align it with a master plan update. "They did not have the necessary talent to do the massive amount of work required in the short time," Roberti said. He warned that restricting options rather than enlarging them could prompt state intervention under home-rule limits.
Advisory members raised equity concerns: because more than 70% of land is single-residence districts, prohibiting RIO in those areas could limit options for senior or elevator-served housing and squeeze where multifamily projects might be sited. Members also questioned whether prohibiting RIO is a practical fix given other zoning tools that can produce multifamily housing without RIO.
Planning Board members and staff said other tools remain available and that site-specific RIOs or adjusted district lists could provide calibrated approaches; they acknowledged the proposal is not settled and anticipated further Planning Board deliberation. The meeting record shows a range of opinions and no final Advisory recommendation recorded at this session.
The Advisory meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
