Late September, Waltham Inclusive Neighborhoods and the Waltham Community Leadership Group sent out a questionnaire to all 26 candidates for city council. It contains 12 questions relating to the current housing crisis in Waltham. Eleven candidates responded. You may click each candidate's photo to view a PDF of their response, or scroll further down to read all of their responses on this page.
The housing crisis is the biggest issue facing many Waltham residents, especially those who are low-income or renters. It is a great credit to these candidates who responded, and a great shame to those candidates (most of whom are incumbents!) who didn't consider housing policy worth their time to consider. Every single candidate for city council in Waltham received this questionnaire; please email and call those who didn't respond if you want them to fill it out!
Responses to the housing questionnaire (below)
1- Humane Temporary Shelter for Waltham's Unhoused Residents
Waltham currently has three facilities that provide temporary overnight shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness: the Bristol Lodge Women's and Men's Shelters (both operated by Middlesex Human Services Agency, Inc./MHSA), and the co-ed/all-gender Winter Overnight Shelter (operated by the Community Day Center of Waltham/CDCW). A number of concerns have been raised about these facilities. One relates to their overall capacity: callers are regularly told there is no bed available, leaving them no option but to "sleep rough," even in dangerous conditions. Another relates to shelter schedules: even though many shelter residents are employed and work long hours, including late or overnight shifts, the shelters require all residents to leave by 7:45 AM, seven days a week, leaving them exhausted and ill-prepared to navigate complex housing bureaucracies. Finally, numerous concerns have been raised about physical conditions at the two aging MHSA facilities, related to health and safety violations and a lack of accessibility. Please explain how you will be an advocate for addressing and resolving these issues.
Waltham currently has three facilities that provide temporary overnight shelter for individuals experiencing homelessness: the Bristol Lodge Women's and Men's Shelters (both operated by Middlesex Human Services Agency, Inc./MHSA), and the co-ed/all-gender Winter Overnight Shelter (operated by the Community Day Center of Waltham/CDCW). A number of concerns have been raised about these facilities. One relates to their overall capacity: callers are regularly told there is no bed available, leaving them no option but to "sleep rough," even in dangerous conditions. Another relates to shelter schedules: even though many shelter residents are employed and work long hours, including late or overnight shifts, the shelters require all residents to leave by 7:45 AM, seven days a week, leaving them exhausted and ill-prepared to navigate complex housing bureaucracies. Finally, numerous concerns have been raised about physical conditions at the two aging MHSA facilities, related to health and safety violations and a lack of accessibility. Please explain how you will be an advocate for addressing and resolving these issues.
EMma tzioumis (at large)
I support humane temporary shelter for Waltham’s unhoused residents and thank you for bringing these specific issues to attention. I am honestly less familiar with these particular concerns, and am wondering if city funding streams could be used to improve the physical conditions of the two MHSA facilities. The city could also work with interested parties to greenlight the creation of a new facility to increase capacity at a shelter with improved schedules. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
Since the spring of 2021 I’ve spent time with people at Chaplains on the Way, meeting with their Community Leadership Group and visiting & delivering meals to the Community Day Center. These are just a few groups in Waltham that take care of Waltham’s unhoused residents. What I’d like people to know is that there are gaps during the day & weekends where food, shelter, care, and other resources are simply not provided. There are groups in the city attempting to fill those gaps. Seeing firsthand, people who were strangers at first, now become close friends of mine, the complexities of what it means to be unhoused has opened my eyes to some facts: 1) We need to bring all the groups that serve these populations together. Including state & federal housing advocates, Waltham police & EMT’s & addiction specialists. 2) The temporary shelters need to be evaluated. Federal & state grants are not enough. 3) We need to look to other communities & community partners to build climate resilience for extreme weather shelters for both winter & summer shelter & safety. This work should align with social determinants of health standards. Our public health department should be another ally in this effort. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
It feels like we definitely need a city forum or workshop to quantify our homeless needs, review existing shelters capacity, and make short term and long term recommendations going forward. Attendees should include representatives of the Waltham Housing Department, Building Department, City Council, Mayor’s office and of course the homeless people in Waltham. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I would work with state agencies including Middlesex Health and Human services to enhance temporary housing. emily saperia (at large)
The City of Waltham must prioritize creating an overall housing plan that includes short, medium, and long-term housing solutions for individuals and families. City officials have made overtures through the Master Plan process - and by posting a job listing for a Director of Planning - to this end. But historically, we’re a City of band-aid solutions. We can’t do much more than add more bandages until we have a robust Planning Department. As a City Councillor I will hold my colleagues, including the executive branch, accountable to completing the Master Plan process started in 2022. If the Director of Planning job is not filled by year’s-end 2023, I will expect a written explanation from the hiring manager. Lastly, I will assess if and how our public health department investigates claims and/or evidence of unsatisfactory short-term housing. Failing to provide adequate housing at all levels not only puts individuals’ health at risk, but also has public health and financial consequences for the City. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
This is an issue that has appalled me for many years and for which I have volunteered from time to time to make food for the Winter Overnight Shelter, donate clothing, and provide much needed items when requested. I realize that this is only scratching the surface and does not address the horrible shelter conditions that we know exist. As a city councilor, I would want to do much more than addressing food and clothing shortages. Minimally, I would want to attend as many of the WCLG meetings as I am able, to hear directly from as many of the affected people as possible, and I would seek to engage with like-minded city councilors to try to form a coalition to have a stronger voice in city council chambers. I believe that improving conditions and providing clean and sanitary accommodation for the unhoused community is a basic human right and I will push for without compromise. bill hanley (ward 3)
MHSA and the City of Waltham have had a long-standing relationship serving our residents and others. This is unique when compared to the cities and towns around us, many of whom do nothing. I had first-hand experience as a college intern working for Project Pride, a grant-funded collaboration between MHSA and Waltham Community Policing. I will always advocate for this strong relationship, leased city resources, and the services that are provided to those with housing insecurity. I will also advocate for others to do their part in helping. The city cannot do this alone, but a consortium of public and private service organizations and towns around Waltham can do a lot to increase access to services and improve physical locations with financing and combined resources. John tracy (ward 4)
On a personal level, I’ve spent a significant amount of my volunteer time helping to support members of our underserved community (Food Drives for all of our Food Pantries with the Lions, working at Healthy Waltham mobile food pantries, and making resource donations to the Community Day Center, among other things). On the Council, I would be an advocate – creating space and opportunity for experts to bring issues to the forefront and elevating their voices, while also partnering with Middlesex Human Services, as they run the shelters within the city to discuss helpful options. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
We need to be able to reach out to neighboring towns and somehow offer transportation for temporary housing if we are full and unable to accommodate. Also we need to look at expanding our housing needs if possible with added help from the state. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
The unhoused are among the most vulnerable members of our Waltham community, and I have always supported efforts to provide them with support and assistance. I would support additional local funding for all three shelters, to expand capacity (if possible) and to make physical improvements to the facilities. As part of the funding the City should have a discussion with the providers to see what can be done to address the issues around the schedules. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
I have attended a Waltham Community Leadership Group meeting this year and will make it a habit to attend regularly as a City Councillor. I think the unhoused population is the best group to listen to for understanding how to address these issues. In general, being able to tie funding with addressing health and safety concerns in these shelters is important to make sure we are spending money on high quality facilities. During COVID, the city provided shelter on the Common which can certainly be replicated to provide a safe place to rest while shelters are closed. |
2- Fernald Affordable Housing
The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report identified the need for more permanent affordable housing in Waltham in the coming decade. Many of its recommendations include actions to rezone for and fund affordable housing projects on the city-owned Fernald property. Please describe your vision for the city’s use of the Fernald property as it pertains to the creation of affordable housing.
The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report identified the need for more permanent affordable housing in Waltham in the coming decade. Many of its recommendations include actions to rezone for and fund affordable housing projects on the city-owned Fernald property. Please describe your vision for the city’s use of the Fernald property as it pertains to the creation of affordable housing.
EMma tzioumis (at large)
I support using some of the space at the Fernald property for affordable housing. This would create affordable housing in an area of Waltham that does not currently have much in the way of affordable housing. Given the Fernald’s history with people with disabilities, one option could be to restrict some of the units to individuals with disabilities. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
This 200+ acre property and its buildings have unfortunately been part of willful neglect on the part of city leaders both at the executive level & on the council—for more than a decade. While there may be usable buildings, residents have proposed & met for years presenting plans & ideas, only to be ignored. I’ve maintained that with 200+ acres of land there should be enough space to plan things to satisfy many resident’s needs. Building two, TWO affordable units at the front of the property, in a transportation desert is definitely not going to cut it. We need a plan for affordable housing and open space at Fernald. We should also memorialize the atrocities and honor the subsequent skilled care that took place there. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
There are several buildings at the Fernald parcel which could be utilized as housing, including affordable housing and/or senior housing. FWIW the City Council recently voted for the Marquardt building to be used for veterans housing. The Tarbell building could also be renovated for housing. Tarbell is a four-story building (38,924 gross sq. ft.) that had previously been used by the Middlesex Human Services Agency, which had 72 beds in the facility. An added benefit is that Fernald is located one mile from Waverley Square which has both a relatively frequent MBTA Commuter Rail service to North Station in Boston as well as a very frequent MBTA Bus 73 service to Harvard Square in Cambridge. stephen L. duffy (at large)
Creating affordable housing at the Fernald is an idea that makes sense to me and I would support it. emily saperia (at large)
The former Fernald school is not an appropriate location to create affordable housing at this time. Residents need access to reliable public transportation, grocery stores, medical and social services. Beyond one medical office building on Waverly Oaks Road, this location does not offer these services. We cannot strand residents. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
This is a complex issue. Funding was partially from CPC money which came with conditions. Seemingly, the only affordable housing possibilities are to be eked out from existing buildings which the city has allowed to become dilapidated. Currently the Cardinal Cottage is being renovated and the 2 affordable units that will come out of that is woefully inadequate. Ideally, I would like to see a parcel of land carved out to become a tiny home community to become affordable housing. A problem with this is that there is not public transportation around this area so we would have to either revive the city local bus or work with the MBTA to provide transportation. This community of tiny and the cottages currently under renovation should all be outfitted with heat pumps and solar panels, which is both carbon-reducing and pocketbook friendly. bill hanley (ward 3)
Use of the Fernald property has been a politicized, contentious subject since it was purchased by the taxpayers. I would love to see affordable housing for veterans built there. Having seen the design the city has put forward, there is ample space for this and there is a significant need in Waltham, and statewide, for affordable housing for veterans. In the event there are not enough Waltham veterans who apply, this could be opened to other Waltham residents in need of affordable housing. John tracy (ward 4)
TBD – the entire Fernald property is a complex issue that needs to have a proper, open planning process that the community can be a part of. If allocating a portion or portions of the site for affordable housing makes sense within a broader plan, I would be all for it, that said, it’s a transit desert, so additional changes to other policies and services would need to be made in conjunction with a proposal like this, or else it would fail. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
I believe the Fernando school can be both an added perk for adding affordable housing as well as recreational benefits for the city. We have a great number of parks but could benefit from large open areas for other activities that the city could benefit from as well as drawing in surrounding cities to benefit. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
The lack of affordable housing is severe, and very difficult to solve. However, we have a golden opportunity to make some small gains through the adaptive reuse of portions of the former Fernald School. I believe affordable housing must be a significant part of the plan for that property. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
Firmly outside of Ward Nine, I do not believe the Fernald property is suited for housing. There is a lack of transit, bike infrastructure, and nearby amenities. New development will only increase traffic and congestion in that part of the city. While there are existing buildings on the Fernald, I would consider any development there greenfield development which should be avoided. There are underutilized parcels of land, closer to downtown which are much better candidates for housing. |
3- Municipal Housing Trust Fund
Waltham has a Municipal Housing Trust Fund (MHTF) whose purpose “is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the City of Waltham.” It has not been used to fund the creation of affordable housing since the Hardy School redevelopment was approved in 2014. The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report identified the need to more sufficiently fund the MHTF to provide for the creation of more affordable housing. Potential funding sources include allocating a certain percentage of building permit fees to the fund, the adoption of a Community Impact Fee on short term rentals (not hotels), and a home rule petition for a Real Estate Transfer Fee which would collect money from the sales of high end luxury housing. Would you support increasing funding for the Municipal Housing Trust Fund? And if so, how?
Waltham has a Municipal Housing Trust Fund (MHTF) whose purpose “is to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the City of Waltham.” It has not been used to fund the creation of affordable housing since the Hardy School redevelopment was approved in 2014. The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report identified the need to more sufficiently fund the MHTF to provide for the creation of more affordable housing. Potential funding sources include allocating a certain percentage of building permit fees to the fund, the adoption of a Community Impact Fee on short term rentals (not hotels), and a home rule petition for a Real Estate Transfer Fee which would collect money from the sales of high end luxury housing. Would you support increasing funding for the Municipal Housing Trust Fund? And if so, how?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
Yes, I support increasing funding for the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is a new concept for me, and I thank you for calling attention to it. In addition to the funding sources you listed, it appears that Community Preservation Act funds can be applied to MAHTFs and in practice are the most common MAHTF funding source. I don’t feel qualified at the moment to take a position on which of the funding sources should be used, but commit to further exploring and researching the topic. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
Yes. The amount in the Trust Fund is not enough to even keep up with basic maintenance of our city-owned housing. You can visibly see this by looking at any property. Leveraging more federal & state funds for repairs & maintenance will preserve some money. We need to step up our relationships with Community Development Corporations (CDC’s) to leverage their resources & property acquisition & management skills to make the most of our money. We cannot do this alone. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
I would entertain adding a percentage of building permit fees to the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund. stephen L. duffy (at large)
Yes, I support increasing the contribution to this Trust Fund. This could be done with additional fee on development in the city. emily saperia (at large)
I do not believe we should increase funding for any program that does not have a plan for assessment, delivery and ongoing evaluation. My understanding is that Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Funds have been a reasonable financial vehicle for creating affordable housing in other Massachusetts municipalities, but we stalled out somewhere with it in Waltham and we need to figure out why before we cross our fingers and throw more money at the project. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
Unfortunately, not with this current administration which is not transparent. Under a new administration this can be readdressed. bill hanley (ward 3)
Affordable housing trusts have been around long enough that we can now start to get innovative and creative with funding Waltham’s. Waltham has unique housing needs compared to our neighbors. I do not believe we should have $1m+ in funds in the trust, as we do. We should be spending money annually to create affordable housing. One thing that I would like to see increase affordable housing funding are PILOT payments from our large non-profits, especially Bentley and Brandeis. John tracy (ward 4)
TBD – In general, I am in support of funding for programming that helps our community. That said, increases should be made in response to specific requests and those requests should have an appropriate level of justification. This could be funding for the Housing Trust or other programming, depending on the specifics of the ask. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
I would but we really need to work out a number of what our capacity is now. We need a cut off number that we can understand where it is hurting the fund. Would be great to see the fund decrease over time as we be able to get people jobs and able to support themselves. Would be great to see the fund actually start to get a surplus for emergencies in the future as we try to get people to work with the e amount of Lab space popping up in the city jobs should be hopefully plentiful. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
No. Not because I am opposed to more funding for affordable housing, but because the Affordable Housing Trust Fund has historically been an ineffective vehicle for actually creating affordable housing. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
In Waltham, the MAHTF is currently ineffective at providing affordable housing. It does not do so often enough and with enough impact. I don’t think it is prudent to provide any additional funding until we as a city can show the MAHTF can provide meaningful affordable housing. Once we prove the efficacy of the MAHTF, then we can look towards sources of additional funding. I agree with the Ad-Hoc Committee’s assessment of allocating a percentage of building permits. Short-term rentals of residential buildings should also be taxed, as these take potential housing away from our neighbors. I would be interested in implementing an excise tax on the sale of the very largest mansions and luxury condos in the city. |
4- Inclusionary Zoning Exemptions
Waltham’s inclusionary zoning ordinance allows an exemption for developers who are willing to pay a fee to the Municipal Housing Trust Fund, and also exempts any developments which do not require a special permit. Do you believe these exemptions are well justified? If not, how would you propose altering our current inclusionary zoning ordinance?
Waltham’s inclusionary zoning ordinance allows an exemption for developers who are willing to pay a fee to the Municipal Housing Trust Fund, and also exempts any developments which do not require a special permit. Do you believe these exemptions are well justified? If not, how would you propose altering our current inclusionary zoning ordinance?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
I don’t feel fully qualified to take a firm stance on this at the moment, given my newness with MAHTFs. However, my naive perspective is that I support the exemption for developers willing to pay a fee to MAHTF, but do not support developments who do not require a special permit. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
Zoning in the City of Waltham is ripe for review from top to bottom. We know that organizations both locally and nationally, such as Strong Towns, have techniques to review and alter zoning to tailor them to Waltham’s unique needs. The Master Planning process is also an aspect, however, we can’t do this work solely in-house. There are planning & zoning experts we have yet to engage & utilize. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
I am generally opposed to developers paying fees instead of providing actual affordable units at their development. Units can be used right away after construction. Fees are just money deposited into an account. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I am open to revising the exemptions. emily saperia (at large)
Inclusionary zoning exemptions, as I understand them, are a payola. A pay-to-play-your-way. The housing equivalent of a carbon-offset scheme. On the other hand, inclusionary zoning itself is problematic: it cannot create the number of units we need to house residents, and units created are often actually quite expensive. I don’t have a solution for how to alter our current inclusionary zoning ordinance at this time. But when I talk to neighbors on the doors, I hear this over and over, from across the political spectrum: Waltham residents are really ****ing upset about all the luxury housing being built when so many people just need homes, and who the **** can afford these things?* I understand supply and demand. I understand well-paid professionals will move into the luxury apartments, and the rest of us will settle into what’s left. The scraps. Maybe the crumbling old apartments will cost a bit less after the well-paid professionals graduate to the luxury apartments. Maybe. Supply and demand. But I think it’s reasonable for everyone to expect to live in safe, clean, comfortable homes. Everyone. I don’t think we need to alter inclusionary zoning, I think we need to overhaul our City zoning completely to make this happen. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
With more transparency and more understanding of how the fees from the exemptions are used, i.e., if there was a paper trail easily available to directly link the fees to actual units being funded by the MAHTF, then exemptions are justifiable. As it stands right now, under this current administration, the fees appear to get absorbed into general expenses related to housing rather than to be earmarked for creating new AH units. Bottom line, under a new administration, I can support this concept, right now, I find that I am unable to. bill hanley (ward 3)
Inclusionary zoning payments are a popular funding source to MAHTs, seemingly behind CPA funds, on a statewide level. But this will not meet all of Waltham’s need. The exemptions work to continue the economic benefits of development. It has become popular in Waltham to demolish a single home and build two in its place. John tracy (ward 4)
I would like to see a comprehensive review of all portions of our zoning regulations – this is already effectively required given the MBTA Communities Act – so it would only make sense to address those issues and consider incremental changes beyond that scope. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
Our zoning is a mess. There is no real line on where residential and commercial zoning happens. We need to look at starting a planning board to help the future of the city grown as well as help with the zoning and really getting it figured out. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
No, I do not believe they are justified at all. If elected, I would introduce an amendment to the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance removing the option for developers to pay into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in lieu of providing units. First, as I stated in my answer to the previous question, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund has historically been an ineffective vehicle for actually creating affordable housing. Moreover, the payment amounts don’t come close to the value of the discounts on rents/sales price the developer would have to provide on actual units. This is a giant loophole for developers that must be closed. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
I believe the exemption for paying a fee to the MAHTF is appropriate. Based on Section 9.14 of our Zoning Code, “The applicant shall provide affordable housing by one or more of the following methods or any combination thereof, as directed by the City Council. The City Council, in deciding which method or methods shall be used to provide said affordable housing, shall give due consideration to the written recommendations, if any, of the City of Waltham Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund.” City Council has the ability to direct how affordable housing is provided and being able to offer both the dwelling units or the fee gives flexibility to the City. The Special Permit process needs to be reworked in general, we require it in too many scenarios which creates unnecessary roadblocks for housing. At the moment, this exception doesn’t have much teeth, because for a multi-family building to have 8 or more units at the by-right density of 6 units per acre is not economically feasible, so a special permit would always need to be required. With updated zoning, I do think that there should be a path forward where what can be newly considered “smaller” developments don’t need to contribute affordable housing through this method, much like how there is an 8-unit threshold today. |
5- Increased Housing Density
Are there areas of the city where you support increased housing density? If so, where?
Are there areas of the city where you support increased housing density? If so, where?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
At a minimum, we should be increasing housing density along our already dense corridors, like Main and Moody St. In addition to adding height to existing buildings, there is a surplus of parking lots in the downtown area and some of those could be converted to housing. The office parking lots around the Brandeis/Roberts commuter rail are underutilized. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
I look at my hometown of Beverly, MA and even Melrose & Medford as examples of identifying areas near transit & city centers as places to increase density. We don’t have enough data & information as to exactly where those areas of increased density should be in my opinion. When we do identify them and form a plan, anecdotal thinking and fears of growth need to be assuaged and put into perspective. Without increasing density we will not have enough housing. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
I think that any locus within one quarter mile of any of the Fitchburg/Wachusett MBTA Commuter Rail stations in Waltham (Waverley Oaks, Carter Street and Brandeis/Roberts) could be eligible for increased density. Obviously there are issues that need to be carefully analyzed beforehand, such as our utility infrastructure, storm water, traffic impacts and parking issues. stephen L. duffy (at large)
The MBTA Communities act will force the city to increase housing density. I don't know if there's an area of the city I support increasing housing density at this time. emily saperia (at large)
Yes. We need to increase housing density downtown, where people already live, public transportation runs, grocery stores are nearby, and other social services exist. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
South Street area already has apartment buildings that increase the housing density in that location, there is easy on and off the highway, bus access and train access right there. Utilizing some of the unused acreage in that area for mixed use housing makes sense. At the top of Main Street, near Avalon, as the inventory of office and commercial space decreases because of the changes to workforce arrangements, zoning changes to some of them to allow for building of residential units will make sense. There is a small office building on Totten Pond Road, across from the Naked Fish Site, that could be a good example of converting formerly commercial property usage to mixed use zoning. bill hanley (ward 3)
Increasing density is also a popular topic in this year’s Waltham election. I am supportive of increased density on the campuses of the universities in Waltham. This could help with the issues that are common with students living in neighborhoods and renting off-campus housing. John tracy (ward 4)
I think increased housing density can likely be achieved anywhere in the city, if only because increased density does NOT always mean large apartment complexes. We need to be more nuanced in our approach to housing solutions and thinking about them in holistic ways, while having open and clear dialogues about what we’re trying to achieve with any specific change. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
There are a few spots that would benefit from more housing and denser housing but waltham is a city that has always thrived with single family homes to help keep that small city feel. We are the connection between what Watertown is and what Weston is. Again we can benefit from some other complexes to house more people and to help the city grow. But with that the commercial lab building needs to stop immediately.. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
I support transit-oriented development. That is why I voted for Cronin’s Landing, The MERC, and The Edison. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
We should increase density throughout the city. In the more suburban areas of the city, this might mean just allowing ADUs by-right. In the more urban areas of the city this can mean 4-story, 30-40 units per acre by-right. For Ward Nine, I would want to see multi-family units allowed by-right in existing Residential B zoning with a density that would result in it being most economical to build units around 1200-1400 sqft. That is not appropriate housing for all people, seniors may want smaller apartments and some families may need more space. So allowing developers to include a combination of smaller and larger units to help balance out the types of housing available would be much better than most new development at the moment which is almost all north of 2500 or even 3000 sqft. By allowing more density, and requiring a target that allows the mixing of larger units with smaller ones, we can house more people in our neighborhoods and often in the same amount of built area. |
6- Mixed Use Development
In its 2023 Route 128/I-95 Land Use & Transportation Study, MassDOT asserts that Waltham’s lack of housing near its commercial job centers is a barrier to improving both housing affordability and traffic congestion. Two of its highest rated recommendations for Waltham are to encourage mixed-use development and to encourage workforce and affordable housing creation near our job centers. Do you support altering our zoning code to allow for mixed-use development on Industrial and Commercial land, where residential construction is currently illegal? More broadly, do you support allowing for more residential construction near our job centers to enable shorter commute times and reduced traffic congestion? If so, please describe what kind of changes you would support.
In its 2023 Route 128/I-95 Land Use & Transportation Study, MassDOT asserts that Waltham’s lack of housing near its commercial job centers is a barrier to improving both housing affordability and traffic congestion. Two of its highest rated recommendations for Waltham are to encourage mixed-use development and to encourage workforce and affordable housing creation near our job centers. Do you support altering our zoning code to allow for mixed-use development on Industrial and Commercial land, where residential construction is currently illegal? More broadly, do you support allowing for more residential construction near our job centers to enable shorter commute times and reduced traffic congestion? If so, please describe what kind of changes you would support.
EMma tzioumis (at large)
Yes, I support altering our zoning code to allow for mixed use development on Industrial and Commercial land. Yes, I support allowing for more residential construction near our job centers. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
We should look at areas in this city where mixed use development makes sense. Right now it’s happening without our citizens interests in mind. When we look to other cities and towns that have faced these challenges, in a way we’re not unique. We can innovate and leverage expertise to have residential growth that will reduce commute times and keep recent university graduates and entice those coming to the 128 corridor for work, to live here. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
I am open to changes to our zoning code to allow for mixed-use development with some amount of residential construction. Nearby Arsenal Yards in Watertown is a recent successful mixed-use development that includes retail, residential, hotel, restaurants, corporate and research buildings. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I think the MBTA Communities Act is going to force the city to allow residential construction near/on Industrial and Commercial Land. I think this needs to be looked at on an individual basis. emily saperia (at large)
Yes. Mixed use development benefits both residents and businesses. No one should have to haul over a mile to get to a grocery store in a City like Waltham, but many do, due to our zoning code. Thoughtful mixed-use development would allow residents to open small businesses near (or even in!) their homes, and offer goods and services to neighbors nearby. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
Yes, see the response to Q 5. With the density of hotels, development of Market Basket Plaza, 128 belt businesses and restaurants allowing the workforce to live closer to these areas makes a lot of sense. There is also open land there that would allow for building of residential units making the mixed-use zoning change a smart idea. There are units currently being built on Bear Hill Road behind Avalon, but that is a long walk if you work at the Embassy Suites or Westin hotel! bill hanley (ward 3)
The “128 belt” has always been a benefit to Waltham. It promotes commercial development and decreases the tax burden on homeowners. My office at Assembly Row in Somerville is currently undergoing what is described in this question. There are established mixed-use developments and some under construction. I-93 and the orange line are also adjacent to these properties. This could work near 128 and near our commuter rail stations, but planning would be key. Somerville had a large open space to develop, Waltham currently does not. john tracy (ward 4)
I do support mixed-use development, but this question is too broad to answer succinctly – I’m happy to answer more specific inquiries. Reducing traffic congestion is an obvious need across the city, and housing contributes significantly to that congestion, but traffic is a broader problem that will need multiple solutions. Similarly, it is unclear how our current tax code would be applied to this type of development, or if existing commercial areas are able to retrofit themselves to mixed use, what the impact would be. We need to examine the domino effect of this type of change to ensure we do not create unintended outcomes that adversely impact the city overall. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
Absolutely. But with that being said the traffic board needs to do a review of the last 5 years and include data before COVID hit because traffic has changed dramatically in the last 5 years and they are not seeing the commercial spaces that are empty and will put a huge impact on traffic in the next 5 years when they fill back up. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
Yes, but we must proceed with caution. Waltham is a very financially stable city. That stability is due in most part to our very strong commercial tax base. Under the tax classification system in effect in Waltham, commercial and industrial properties are taxed at a higher rate than residential properties. Therefore, any conversion of commercial or industrial properties to residential use could have a negative effect on tax revenues. However, since Covid-19 and the shift to working from home, office vacancy rates have soared. While the assessed values of residential properties are determined using the “sales comparison approach,” commercial properties values are set using the “income approach.” That means that owners of office buildings can apply for tax abatements based on reduced property value caused by vacancies. So, we should be able to allow some conversion of office space to residential, which would both preserve the property value and provide housing near the commercial jobs centers, providing additional housing and reducing traffic. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
Yes, mixed-use development should be allowed in these zoning districts. While there is merit to making sure heavy industry stays away from residences, that is not the type of industry and commercial activity we generally have in Waltham. Being able to build housing alongside office space and jobs, we provide the option for folks who want to live close to work. Much like how old mill buildings are now housing, remote work is leaving traditional office space empty and allowing for reuse of that land and those buildings for residential purposes would help keep the space from feeling empty or underused. This also allows for more variety of housing. While many want to live in a more traditional neighborhood. Some may want to live right off 128 for easy access across the region. Variety of location is an important tool to give residents appropriate housing for their needs. |
7- ADUs
Currently, our zoning code makes it infeasible to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) across the vast majority of Waltham. Also known as in-law apartments, the 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report specifically encouraged the legalization of ADUs in order to “expand the number of affordable apartments or rooms available to the general public.” Do you support allowing ADUs city-wide in Waltham? If you do support ADUs but not city-wide, where would you support them?
Currently, our zoning code makes it infeasible to build Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) across the vast majority of Waltham. Also known as in-law apartments, the 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report specifically encouraged the legalization of ADUs in order to “expand the number of affordable apartments or rooms available to the general public.” Do you support allowing ADUs city-wide in Waltham? If you do support ADUs but not city-wide, where would you support them?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
I support allowing ADUs city-wide. In addition to general benefits to our affordable housing stock by ADUs, they can play a critical role in helping seniors age in place. I have heard from many seniors in Waltham that they would like to build an ADU on their property for additional income from a long-term rental, for nursing and care workers, and to live closer to family members. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
Residents throughout the city told us during the master planning meetings in 2022 that they support Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). I am in support of them as well. I signed on to a resolution with two ward Councillor’s to get the review process started. This is the beginning of working towards more affordable housing and can allow seniors to age in place or even fill the childcare gap within families. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
I am generally supportive of ADUs. However, there are important related issues such as our utility infrastructure, storm water issues, traffic impacts and parking issues. These matters need to be carefully analyzed beforehand. I also think the residents of each neighborhood should be surveyed to quantify their support. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I do support ADUs were they would be necessary. emily saperia (at large)
I absolutely support allowing ADUs city-wide in Waltham. ADUs provide opportunities in some cases for families looking to find a way to stay in their homes longer-term, as well as to renters open to a creative space that may provide some community. There is no need for living space to go to waste in Waltham. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
I fully support this initiative, when I ran in 2019, this was one of my platform ideas and at the time did not gain traction. It is a win for the homeowners, their tenants and for the city as a whole. bill hanley (ward 3)
In 2021, my family built a legal in-law apartment in our basement for my mother-in-law. This worked well with our family. She has her own space, but no separate entrance. We signed an affidavit that we would never rent the space out or have non-family members as residents. I am in favor of this policy but would also be open to exploring other options citywide. John tracy (ward 4)
No. I DO support allowing more ADUs in Waltham, but again, broad brush solutions lack the nuance to address the needs and complexities of various neighborhoods in Waltham. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
I am in favor of ADU but only for owners who live in the house as well. Not for rental properties. We have a minor problem with college students living off campus that needs to be addressed and this wouldn’t help that situation. But for families that want their kids or parents to move back in with them then it would be a huge advantage for them . ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
I would be open to considering ADUs in some parts of the City, but not on the already congested residential neighborhoods in the Southern part of the City. On the South Side, we already have a severe problem with people parking right to the corner due to a lack of parking. The area was built-up in the 1800’s before the advent of the automobile, so no space was retained for off street parking. I would oppose anything that would exacerbate that situation by increasing parking demand in the neighborhood. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
Yes, city-wide. This is an easy way to give flexibility to homeowners as families age and grow. It allows for adult children to stay at home with their own space or seniors to live with their families while still having the independence of their own household. |
8- Legalizing apartments which are not up to building code standards
According to the Ad-Hoc Affordable Housing Report, “many apartments in the city are illegal because they do not conform to restriction ordinances. They are unsafe because they are not inspected up to building code standards.” The report recommends that city council “legalize currently illegal apartments within residences and bring them up to building and safety code requirements. This would give amnesty to current residential apartment owners who bring their properties up to code.” Such legalization would require upzoning many of Waltham’s neighborhoods, which are often denser than what is legally allowed. How do you believe our existing restrictions should be altered and/or enforced to address these homes?
According to the Ad-Hoc Affordable Housing Report, “many apartments in the city are illegal because they do not conform to restriction ordinances. They are unsafe because they are not inspected up to building code standards.” The report recommends that city council “legalize currently illegal apartments within residences and bring them up to building and safety code requirements. This would give amnesty to current residential apartment owners who bring their properties up to code.” Such legalization would require upzoning many of Waltham’s neighborhoods, which are often denser than what is legally allowed. How do you believe our existing restrictions should be altered and/or enforced to address these homes?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
In theory I support upzoning to legalize apartments not up to building code. In practice, I’d want to see what those buildings looked like and if/where they are clustered in the city. By adopting gentle density, we’d upzone our single family zones to up to three family units, which in theory would address and legalize many of these units. This is an area I’d like to learn more about. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
This complex issue is best served to be in coalition with our city departments touching these ordinances and working with nonprofits to understand the impact these restrictions have on residents and if there are non-confirming units, how can we increase safety while keeping a roof over families. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
I would first like to discuss this issue with our Waltham Building Inspector to get better educated on this issue. stephen L. duffy (at large)
Bottomline, the law needs to be enforced according to the ordinance. emily saperia (at large)
I agree that apartments not currently up to building code must be brought up to building code, first and foremost for safety reasons. This is a huge undertaking. When it comes to conforming to density, we need to again address our zoning and determine if the apartment itself is the problem or whether we have once again over-zoned ourselves. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
Since this is not a subject that I fully understand, I would be disingenuous providing an answer to this question. I will be happy to discuss this with you once I am elected. bill hanley (ward 3)
As mentioned in the previous question, my family followed the existing building and zoning process for building an in-law apartment in our single-family home. My parents also went through the same process at my sister’s home. All apartments in Waltham should be made legal and safe. But I realize they are not. I am in favor of amnesty for owners who bring their apartments up to code but would not favor density increases or zoning changes just for that reason. I would want to take a broader, well-planned, citywide approach to any density and zoning changes. john tracy (ward 4)
This is shades of grey – there is not a simple, one size fits all solution to this issue, as these structures were built over the course of decades and have been maintained and upgraded in various ways at various points, so it’s impossible to apply an overly simplified amnesty program (this approach would lead to adverse selection, where apartments that have the least to do to get up to code would be addressed, but the units that are the worst offenders would remain unchanged because it may be cost-prohibitive to make the improvements). ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
This is really a case by case area to address. We need to let the building department really enforce the building code as it is to protect the occupants. Section 8 housing requires annual inspections on properties to make sure they are up to a specific code. Any place that is being rented out should be up to code. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
I would be willing to consider a one-time amnesty for illegal apartments provided that the owners register with the building department, bring the unit(s) up to current building, health, and safety codes, and agree to maintain the unit(s) as affordable housing for a certain period of time. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
My apartment in Ward Nine was built in the 19th century. There are many zoning codes it does not follow as a result of being 130 years old. Our zoning code should be altered to reflect the reality of what is in our neighborhoods. This allows for a smoother process to get building permits and allows for more of our existing housing stock to stick around instead of developers doing teardowns. |
9- Racially and economically diverse neighborhoods
The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report identified a lack of racially and economically diverse neighborhoods as a challenge facing Waltham today. We have large racial disparities in homeownership, and the lack of affordable multifamily housing in most of our single family neighborhoods creates significant barriers for low-income residents to become a part of these communities. How do you intend to address these disparities as city councilor?
The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report identified a lack of racially and economically diverse neighborhoods as a challenge facing Waltham today. We have large racial disparities in homeownership, and the lack of affordable multifamily housing in most of our single family neighborhoods creates significant barriers for low-income residents to become a part of these communities. How do you intend to address these disparities as city councilor?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
I acknowledge that Waltham is racially and economically segregated and believe we need to take proactive steps to remedy this. This is a complex and multifaceted issue, and housing can be one part of the solution. I believe a healthy community has a mix of housing options available everywhere, not just in one corner. The zoning reform that comes with the MBTA Communities Act predominantly applies in the parts of Waltham that are currently more racially and economically diverse, so compliance with the Act won’t do much to improve segregation. However, that zoning reform does not have to be the same zoning reform that happens across all of Waltham. In addition we should adapt our zoning code to allow for gentle density in the Waltham neighborhoods that are outside the ½ mile radius of transit. For example, one approach to gentle density is to allow up to three-family homes to be built in residential neighborhoods by right. There are ways to introduce gentle density into the Waltham neighborhoods that are outside the ½ mile radius of transit (re: MBTA Communities Act) that are in line with the character of the neighborhood. As I have canvassed across all of Waltham, I have been struck (and appreciate) the different neighborhood identities. The community in which I lived in North Carolina prior to moving back to Massachusetts was similar to our neighborhood that abuts Beaverbrook Conservation. There are ways to do gentle density there with townhomes that will preserve being closer to nature that draws people to that area. Gentle density allows for buildings to be of a similar height and mass to existing single family homes, keeping new buildings at scale in the neighborhood. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
To address them, we first need to acknowledge that they exist. Then coalition-building with various community groups to address inequities head on. Auditing our housing services for racial, economic, AND health status disparities exist so we can provide services where they are most needed. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
If you look at the surrounding communities (Lexington, Lincoln, Weston, Newton, Watertown), Waltham is by far the most diverse community. We have many new residents from Guatemala, Uganda, Haiti, Russia, India, China, Brazil, etc… That being said, I am open to exploring new ideas to improve diversity and mobility for newcomers, wherever they may be from. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I would be interested in see data on racial and economic disparities with housing in Waltham. emily saperia (at large)
We need to empower historically underserved and marginalized communities by providing resources towards home ownership that have been previously systemically denied. The City of Worcester recently announced two new programs funded through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds: the “Down Payment Assistance Program” and the “Affordable Housing Preservation Program.” We can learn from cities like Worcester, which in many ways are not so unlike ours, and adapt their tools to better serve our residents. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
This is not something that can be “fixed” as a housing issue. It is a greater issue nationwide. Having said that, it is imperative for city councilors to ensure that all conversations, debates, resolutions, and other communications are discussed with the equity and inclusion benchmark as a standard. bill hanley (ward 3)
One area that I think needs work in Waltham is an easier path to home ownership for those who are on the bubble. Many mortgage payments in Waltham are lower than monthly rent. Waltham lacks a good inventory of starter homes and as small homes are torn down and million-dollar homes are built in their place, this gets worse year over year. We lack resources to help people afford starter homes. Grants from the MAHT could be explored to help with this, so can stronger relationships with private non-profits who administer similar programs. john tracy (ward 4)
I intend to invite experts and advocates that can educate the Council on the complexities of the challenges different groups face. The best thing I can do is create space, listen, ask questions and elevate or amplify voices that are otherwise kept out of the discussion – then with those insights, we can craft programs and proposals that can help bridge these divides. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
The market is what controls housing. It is hard anywhere for any race to break through this housing market. But job fares and post-grad school fairs to help anyone look ahead in their own future to grow would be great. Having the city host more of these as well as having local businesses to be apart of would also help so we can see people achieve a better lifestyle. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
I believe in the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I would push to make sure that these principles are applied to all city departments, programs, and services. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
Racial diversity requires appropriate housing. Ward Nine allows for more types of housing than other parts of the city, but housing and our systems around it need to be culturally appropriate. This comes in all forms. It can be a rooming house to give a family member low cost housing as they work to send money back home. It can be ADUs for multi-generational families. It can be zoning that allows for unrelated persons to live together as cultures have different norms of guests and hospitality. It can even be having open space on a parcel if space is needed to garden for culturally appropriate foods. Diversity also comes in language. When so many of our municipal resources are only in English, it adds another barrier to those looking for housing. We need to be providing resources in the languages our neighbors speak and work to advertise in the media channels of their native language. |
10- Housing Rights Notification Ordinance
The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report recommends that Waltham “require landlords to provide tenant’s rights information before evicting,” and there currently exists in city council a Housing Rights Notification Ordinance which would guarantee exactly this, in addition to information about local resources which can help renters and homeowners make their housing payments prior to losing their home. What steps would you take as city councilor to help Waltham residents avoid unnecessary evictions and foreclosures?
The 2020 Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing Report recommends that Waltham “require landlords to provide tenant’s rights information before evicting,” and there currently exists in city council a Housing Rights Notification Ordinance which would guarantee exactly this, in addition to information about local resources which can help renters and homeowners make their housing payments prior to losing their home. What steps would you take as city councilor to help Waltham residents avoid unnecessary evictions and foreclosures?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
I support the Housing Rights Notification Ordinance, and spoke in favor at the public hearing this year. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
I’ve co-sponsored a bill to address this issue regarding tenants & landlords rights. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
This matter is currently before the Waltham City Council, so I do not want to violate open meeting law by discussing this issue with a majority of Councillors and potentially jeopardize my vote. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I will do what I can to support families that are unnecessarily evicted emily saperia (at large)
Waltham City Council should immediately pass the Housing Rights Notification Ordinance, which would mandate that tenants are provided with crucial information prior to eviction that would prevent them from becoming homeless. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
I would make the case that the provision of the tenant’s bill of rights be provided to all tenants upon the signing and renewal of a lease whether it is in a large multi-unit complex or individual landlords that are providing single units for rent. Both parties should be required to sign and date the acknowledgement that this has been provided and received. This negates the need to provide it when the relationship between the parties has potentially soured. By having this document executed, it protects both partiers throughout the term of the lease. bill hanley (ward 3)
To my knowledge, there are no current issues with unnecessary evictions in Waltham. I do not doubt they have happened, but I do not know it to be a chronic problem. Since this is currently before the current city council. the questions I ask are who will administer it and how will it be funded? I have not heard these answers given by the supporters or opponents of the notification ordinance. When and if they are, I will form my final opinion. John tracy (ward 4)
The use of the word “unnecessary” makes this question unanswerable given it is undefined. The idea behind the Housing Rights Notification Ordinance is fundamentally correct – if there are real, rationale, justifiable reasons to not adopt it, the Council needs to articulate and put forward an alternative solution that remedies those reasons and still serves the general purpose of ensuring people understand their rights and resources. This subject has been treated as rent control under a different name (it isn’t as I understand it) and as the absolute bare minimum (maybe, maybe not – the timing of these communications and resource notifications could be in question). ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
Again having these businesses that are coming into waltham post jobs that would help cut down commute for locals as well as hopefully job growth. Better pay with little to no commute to help on reducing other bills could hopefully help residents afford to buy or having a comfortable lifestyle while living in waltham. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
I would advocate for the City of Waltham to find funding for an ongoing rental assistance program, along the lines of the “CARES Rental Assistance” program that was funded through the Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. I would also support additional funding to local nonprofits like WATCH, that are providing assistance to individuals and families facing eviction, perhaps using CDBG funds. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
For guidance on available resources, the Housing Rights Notification Ordinance is a wonderful step to take. Once people are facing eviction or foreclosure, it can often be too late. It’s always easier to prevent problems than to fix them once they’ve happened and making sure we can get information in front of people sooner is always going to be better in the long run. |
11- MBTA Communities Act
Due to the MBTA Communities Act, Waltham must soon modify its zoning code to allow for 3,982 units of housing by-right at a density of at least 15 units per acre. At least 50% of this new zoning must be within a half mile of our commuter rail stations. This new zoning is allowed to be subject to affordability requirements as high as 20% so long as it can be proven to be economically feasible. How do you believe Waltham should respond to the MBTA Communities Act?
Due to the MBTA Communities Act, Waltham must soon modify its zoning code to allow for 3,982 units of housing by-right at a density of at least 15 units per acre. At least 50% of this new zoning must be within a half mile of our commuter rail stations. This new zoning is allowed to be subject to affordability requirements as high as 20% so long as it can be proven to be economically feasible. How do you believe Waltham should respond to the MBTA Communities Act?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
The MBTA Communities Act is an opportunity to address housing affordability that removes one of the largest barriers in Waltham - political will. We must comply, or risk losing state funding. I support complying with the MBTA Communities Act, and complying thoughtfully and intentionally instead of submitting documents at the last possible moment. To be successful, we must increase our planning capacity by funding and staffing a robust planning department, and consulting with external consulting planning firms as needed. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
By only acknowledging what we’ve done in the past regarding housing density near transit and failing to provide a roadmap to accomplish the goal of affordable housing PRODUCTION…then we’re stuck with the status quo. That said, the MBTA & the state need to up their service and service considerations of this is to succeed. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
This first thing that needs to be done is to compute whether or not Waltham currently meets the required minimum under the new MBTA Communities Act. The Waltham Business C zoning district allows 30 dwelling units per acre "by right" - which is double the requirement of the MBTA Communities Act of 15. stephen L. duffy (at large)
This Act is a horrible overreach of authority by the state. The provision of the act are terrible. I believe that we need to look at this further as a community. The city needs more time to develop a plan that satisfies the state. In short, the city should respond the way they have been by meeting benchmarks of the act. However, I believe this is an area to use our law department. emily saperia (at large)
The City of Waltham must comply with the MBTA Communities Act. The City has submitted a plan, but not yet made the zoning modifications required to allow for the 3,982 units of housing by-right. It is unethical to wait. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
Unfortunately, I don’t have sufficient understanding of issue. I do, however, agree that housing proximity to transportation is important for economic and environmental reasons. bill hanley (ward 3)
The MBTA communities act is coming to Waltham, and it is my hope that we have a fair amount of time to plan for it and implement it. As mentioned above when talking about Assembly Row, Waltham lacks available, large spaces for development near our commuter rail stations. This summer, the state gave some flexibility to communities in how implement it. Waltham is currently in an approved status. Multi-family housing will be able to be built by right and I would have loved to have seen The Merc and Edison on the Charles built differently. John tracy (ward 4)
I think the city should make the alterations to zoning codes required to meet the Act. Failure to do so will result in State funding cuts to our Housing Authority, which is the opposite of what we need. The Act doesn’t require investment and development – only the alteration of Zoning code to allow the market to meet demand. ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
I believe this could be achieved but looking to have our citizens have a job within the city would be great. Cutting down on the commute and traffic is beneficial not only for the city but the state. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
The City of Waltham must comply with the MBTA Communities Act, and should do so in good faith and without unnecessary delay. I’ve always been an advocate of increasing our housing stock in order to produce affordable housing, and a believer in Transit Oriented Development. However, in implementing the MBTA Communities Act we must be careful to do so in a way that does not displace or negatively affect low-income and working individuals and families in the downtown area. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
We should be enthusiastic to support this as it gives us a great opportunity to update our zoning code. We have 5,500 units of multi-family housing within a ½ of a Commuter Rail station and we only need to have ~4,000 by-right so the solution will come from making more of our existing housing stock legal. I think Waltham should update the zoning in its Residence B and C districts to allow for a by-right density around 20-30 units per acre. This would in effect legalize much of the housing on the South Side as well as the Charlesbank Apartments on South St. Additionally the office buildings on South St should be converted to a Business district which would allow for housing to be built there. There are many students at Brandeis who live off-campus and being able to give them more housing options closer to campus will make sure that they have plenty of appropriate housing choices. |
12- Parking Minimums
Waltham currently requires that at least two off-street parking spaces be built per unit for most new residential development, and occasionally allows new developments to go as low as 1.5. However, 48% of Waltham households only use one or zero cars, and excess parking can add tens of thousands of dollars to a unit’s construction cost per space. This is especially noticeable for households that live in multifamily housing and are thus less likely to own multiple cars- the Metropolitan Area Planning Council recently did a regional parking study of the Boston area where two apartment developments (one affordable, one luxury) in Waltham were analyzed. These apartments’ residents were found to only utilize .38 and 1.2 parking lots per unit, respectively. This is a demand far below what our city currently requires, causing a widespread overbuilding of parking. How do you believe Waltham’s parking minimums should be changed in our zoning code, if at all?
Waltham currently requires that at least two off-street parking spaces be built per unit for most new residential development, and occasionally allows new developments to go as low as 1.5. However, 48% of Waltham households only use one or zero cars, and excess parking can add tens of thousands of dollars to a unit’s construction cost per space. This is especially noticeable for households that live in multifamily housing and are thus less likely to own multiple cars- the Metropolitan Area Planning Council recently did a regional parking study of the Boston area where two apartment developments (one affordable, one luxury) in Waltham were analyzed. These apartments’ residents were found to only utilize .38 and 1.2 parking lots per unit, respectively. This is a demand far below what our city currently requires, causing a widespread overbuilding of parking. How do you believe Waltham’s parking minimums should be changed in our zoning code, if at all?
EMma tzioumis (at large)
In theory, I support removing parking minimums from our zoning code. In practice, I support a graduated approach. The first step would be to remove parking minimums from affordable housing projects. This would go a long way to removing barriers to get much needed affordable housing developments off the ground in Waltham. Another step would be to remove parking minimums in zones included in the MBTA Communities Act, as they are by definition proximal to public transit and parking demand is lower. A city-wide removal of parking minimums could be planned in conjunction to substantial improvements to Waltham’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and an increase in public transit (ie.: municipal bus system). We have to give residents safe and reliable transportation options at the same time as removing parking minimums. colleen bradley-macarthur (at large)
Yes. George a. darcy, iii (at large)
This first thing that needs to be done is to analyze current parking statistics from 5 recently built residential developments in Waltham (Edison on the Charles, The Merc at Moody & Main, etc..). This data will provide us valuable insight as to what the current parking needs are here in Waltham. In addition I know for the Edison development the Council for the first time allowed the developer to construct tandem parking (2 cars in one spot) in order to reduce the overall height of the parking garage. In summary, I would like to thank both groups, Waltham Inclusive Neighborhoods and the Waltham Community Leadership Group, for taking the time and interest to create this well written questionnaire for all candidates to opine on. stephen L. duffy (at large)
I do not believe the parking minimums should be changed. emily saperia (at large)
Parking minimums should be eliminated. New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently rolled out a robust housing plan, which included an end to zoning laws which required creating parking with every new development. That City has declared that space should be reserved for homes, not cars. So should we. |
lizzie gelles (ward 1)
Far more importantly, Waltham needs to address the lack of sufficient, safe and reliable public transportation, thus reducing the need for as much private vehicle usage and enabling the reduction of provision of parking. If we re-established the intra-city bus routes that would enable people to use busses that would ferry them from their residential neighborhood to the established MBTA routes. bill hanley (ward 3)
Allowing changes to zoning code related to parking should be explored. Multi-unit construction near the train stations is one good example. Like the affidavit I signed when building an in-law apartment, I would be in favor of a similar process and requirement being put on a development with reduced parking minimums. If a building or unit owner and/or occupants would be willing to sign a legal document stating they only own X number of cars, we could have a reasonable solution. john tracy (ward 4)
Parking minimums should be altered and made more nuanced to support the type of development taking place, in the area that it is taking place (per the prior question – development within appropriate distance of a rail station likely has different needs than development away from a rail station). That said, removing parking requirements entirely city-wide would again be too broad a brush stroke – as with every part of this survey, nuance is the key and each solution must be proposed within a broader context of interdependencies ROBERT B. DAVIS (WARD 7)
As of now I believe it should stay the way it is and absolutely not decrease. We still have a large amount of residents that commute as well as have older children that have cars that live with them. The city during the winter has a hard time with parking as it is. ROBERT G. LOGAN (WARD 9)
Waltham’s parking minimums thoroughly reviewed. I am certain the parking requirements for all large residential developments can be reduced, and even more so for those that are served by public transportation. EAMON DAWES (WARD 9)
Yes, we have too much parking in our city that is underutilized. Whenever I walk by I see so much of the lot at 260 Charles St unused, I think about what could be there instead. Parks, shops, housing, anything would be better than pavement that goes unused most of the time. Parking makes housing more expensive and is a roadblock for new development. Allowing the market to decide how much parking to provide will allow for more efficiencies of space |