Town meeting clarifies rounding rules for MBTA bonus affordable‑unit calculations

Article 55 asked town meeting to clarify how fractional affordable‑unit counts should be handled when a developer seeks MBTA‑overlay bonus floors (22.5% for a one‑floor bonus; 25% for a two‑floor bonus). Proponents said the text needs to require that fractional results be rounded up so that the percentage threshold is met "at least" as stated in the bylaw. Opponents and some redevelopment board members urged caution, saying the bonus percentages are incentives and over‑rigid rounding could make some projects unbuildable.

Aaron Hollman (proponent) presented worked examples showing how ARB practice of rounding down in some cases produced results that failed to meet a plain reading of "at least 22.5%" or "at least 25%" when fractional units were left unrounded. Members of the redevelopment board and working‑group participants explained that the working group’s intent was not to change rounding rules town‑wide, and some members argued for a consistent standard.

Town meeting considered multiple substitute motions. The Macaluso substitute (which ties fractional rounding to section 8.2.3 methods and preserves consistent rounding rules) became the main motion. The Holman substitute (which would have explicitly required always rounding up) failed to replace the main motion. The Macaluso main motion was then adopted by the two‑thirds vote required for the zoning change (170–25–2).

Supporters said the adopted text clarifies how the ARB must calculate affordable units in the MBMF district and reduces the chance that bonus floors would be awarded when the actual affordable‑unit share is below the statutory threshold. Others warned that stricter rounding could alter feasibility for marginal projects; redevelopment board members urged monitoring to avoid unintended consequences for development and affordable‑housing supply.