After months of campaigning, a heated debate over a state-mandated plan that would have made it easier to build multifamily housing in parts of Needham came to a head Tuesday when voters soundly rejected the new zoning.
It was not particularly close. The “No” campaign, won with 58 percent of the 11,800 votes cast.
So what happens now?
In latest pushback to key state housing law, Needham voters say no to town’s plan
The vote leaves Needham without a plan to comply with the state’s MBTA Communities law, which mandates cities and towns served by the T write new zoning to ease the construction of multifamily housing. The town was supposed to pass a plan by the end of 2024. But unlike Milton, where voters similarly overturned a town-approved plan last year, drawing a swift lawsuit from Attorney General Andrea Campbell, Needham may not be in the crosshairs of the state just yet.
That’s because of a decision this week by Governor Maura Healey’s administration to give cities and towns that did not meet their deadline to pass zoning under the law until July to get something on the books, following a Supreme Judicial Court ruling last week ordering the state to put the law’s guidelines, which shape how it is applied in each town, through a formal regulatory process.
That leaves Needham time to land on a new plan, but after a divisive referendum, reaching an agreement could prove challenging. First step: Needham’s planning board must craft a new zoning plan, then send it back to Town Meeting.
Still, both sides said Wednesday they were eager to work together to draft a plan everyone can agree on.
The group that led the opposition to Needham’s plan, Needham Residents for Thoughtful Zoning, said Wednesday that residents rejected it because they believed it was not good for the town. The new zoning would have allowed multifamily housing development up to 4 1/2 stories in key commercial and industrial areas near commuter rail stations and made room for 3,296 units, well over the 1,784 required by state law, though town leaders say that number is likely an overestimate.
Given another shot, Needham officials should listen to concerns that adding too much new housing too fast will strain the town’s infrastructure, the “No” campaign said.
“We believed that if the people understood this zoning they would see, as we did, that it was not thoughtful and could be so much better for Needham,” the group said in a statement Wednesday. “Our work doesn’t stop here. The fight to be heard goes on. We need a seat at the table as we create better zoning TOGETHER.”
Meanwhile the Yes for Needham campaign, which supported the plan voters rejected Tuesday, said in a statement that they “look forward to seeing the vision that the Planning Board and Select Board lay out over the coming weeks and months regarding the future of multi-family housing in Needham.”
Heidi Frail, a Select Board member who helped craft the zoning, said town officials would work toward a plan with broad support among residents.
“While the outcome was not what we hoped for… we look forward to working together as a town to formulate a new plan for multi-family housing that will appeal broadly to residents and address Needham’s long term housing needs,” Frail said in a statement. “We are grateful to the many residents who worked tirelessly toward a prosperous vision of Needham’s future.”
One approach could be to simply adopt the less ambitious of two proposals Needham’s Town Meeting considered last year, known as the “base compliance plan,” which would fulfill Needham’s requirements under MBTA Communities without going much further.
Some residents who said Tuesday that they voted against the more ambitious plan said they would support the base compliance plan. An analysis of that plan last year found that it might generate about 400 new units over the next several decades.
Leaders of the “No” campaign did not answer a question from the Globe last week about whether they would support that reduced plan, but previously wrote on their website that the town could pass that plan if voters rejected Tuesday’s ballot question.
At least until July, though, the town can stay in compliance while figuring out the next steps.
Tuesday’s vote was the latest sign that there are pockets of fierce opposition to the law in communities that state housing officials are hoping will open their doors to more multifamily housing. While more than 100 cities and towns have passed MBTA Communities plans, roughly three dozen that were due to have zoning on the books by the end of 2024 did not.
Despite high-profile losses, most towns passed their MBTA Communities plans this spring
Those communities have an additional six months to pass a plan under the new emergency regulations filed this week, but how, exactly, to compel resistant cities and towns to pass more permissive land-use rules remains a lingering question for state housing officials.
It’s also a political blow to the Healey administration, which sees MBTA Communities as a way to dig out of Massachusetts’ deep housing shortage. Healey and Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll’s nonprofit advocacy group that supports local housing initiatives, One Commonwealth Inc., donated $10,000 to the Yes for Needham campaign.
The Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, which has been aiding local housing advocacy groups to help speed the implementation of the law, said Wednesday that it would work with Needham to help chart a path forward.
“As disappointing as the vote in Needham is, the overwhelming trend in Massachusetts is unchanged: cities and towns are consistently giving the green light to more housing because voters know that the future of our commonwealth depends on investing in housing,” Rachel Heller, the group’s chief executive, said in a statement.
Take it from a Milton resident: Needham should vote ‘yes’ on the controversial housing planSJC supports controversial housing law, but says details must be rewrittenIn Lexington, the state’s housing law is on track to produce nearly 1,000 new homesMap: Nearly 200 towns must rezone under the MBTA Communities law. Has your town complied?
Comment count: