Lynnfield MBTA committee reviews Route One compliance scenarios, seeks Finance Committee input as residents raise traffic concerns

The Town of Lynnfield’s MBTA Communities Zoning Compliance Committee on Aug. 19 reviewed consultant modeling that narrows how two large Route One candidate sites could meet the state’s 40R requirements and agreed to seek Finance Committee review before narrowing candidates.

Chair Page Wilkins opened the discussion and staff member Emilie Cademartori summarized slides prepared by consultant Sarah Maren of Barrett Planning Group, saying the consultant had “tightened up” variables such as lot size and lot coverage to demonstrate compliance under reduced heights and footprints. Cademartori said the consultant wants to “highlight the fact that the Town can have a very reasonable small‑scale building, and still meet the letter of the law.”

Why it matters: Lynnfield must show it can provide the required housing yield in an MBTA Communities (Chapter 40R) district to secure state designation and associated incentives. The committee is weighing whether to count already built dense developments or to combine smaller parcels to reach acreage and unit requirements, a choice that affects potential tax revenue, traffic, and school impacts.

Committee members asked the consultant to model multiple scenarios. The discussion addressed two large Route One candidate areas identified as Sites #3 and #4. Cademartori said Site #3’s minimum lot size is now three acres with five owners and that Maren can run visuals showing, for example, a 1,000‑square‑foot footprint at three stories on selected parcels. For Site #4 staff noted the underlying zoning minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, with 20 percent lot coverage yielding a 4,000‑square‑foot footprint; staff said smaller single‑family parcels could, in theory, be combined to form a larger project.

Cademartori provided revenue context: the #3 candidate parcel produces about $950,000 in annual tax revenue today; the northbound side currently yields about $1.2 million and was modeled up to roughly $3.5 million if fully converted. She cited existing complexes to illustrate the point: Michael’s Landing (68 units) contributes nearly $250,000 in taxes and Lynnfield Commons about $475,000 and is valued at about $45 million, making those properties unlikely to be razed for redevelopment.

Several members suggested the committee examine whether already‑built dense parcels could be included in the overlay to reduce the amount of new acreage that must be rezoned. Chair Wilkins pointed to MarketStreet/Arbor Point (about 180 units at four stories) as an example that could “take a big bite out of the rest of the requirement” if the State would permit counting the existing density within the 40R overlay; staff cautioned that the State’s permission may be required for that approach.

Committee member Richard O’Neill requested information on how other towns have achieved compliance and noted that showing steady progress could be viewed favorably by state reviewers. Robert Dolan asked whether the State would grant an extension if a town fell short by a narrow margin; no definitive answer was available at the meeting.

Public commenters expressed concerns. Resident Anthony Leone commended the committee’s work but warned that adding parcels — including MarketStreet — could worsen traffic and strain local schools, noting Route One handles traffic but nearby Walnut and Salem Streets do not. Resident Mike Gannon said he was troubled by the State’s authority to withhold grant funding for noncompliance and asked whether a submission that technically met the 51‑acre requirement could still be denied; Cademartori replied that the consultant’s modeling is intended to meet State requirements and that Maren believes the selected areas can comply.

Next steps: Members asked the consultant to run additional scenarios and renderings (including options that exclude existing developments from visual renderings but still account for unit totals), and Kate Flaws urged that the Finance Committee review the revenue assumptions before the MBTA committee narrows candidates. Committee staff will contact the Finance Committee to arrange a joint meeting and will confirm upcoming meeting dates; the committee penciled meetings for Sept. 5, Sept. 18 or 19, and Oct. 3 at the Merritt Center. Flaws also requested a press release with the timeline and meeting schedule to facilitate public engagement.

Administrative actions: the committee approved the Aug. 5, 2024 minutes (motion by Richard Dalton, seconded by Anthony Moccia, 5‑0) and adjourned at 8:31 p.m. on a motion by Dalton, seconded by Richard O’Neill (5‑0).