Big news friends,

Last night Watertown became what we believe is 90th municipality in the state to pass an MBTA Communities Law compliance plan.

Watertown’s plan is among the most ambitious -- perhaps most ambitious -- of the plans approved to date since it unlocks more than twice the opportunities for the gradual creation of housing than required by state law.

These zoning changes will make way for multifamily and mixed-use development in Watertown Square. It’s part of the city’s ambitious  Watertown Square Area Plan, which not only allows for more multi-family housing but envisions realigning streets, improving bike, pedestrian and bus access, adds open space and opens access to the Charles River.

The Watertown City Council vote (video) to approve was unanimous last night, as was the vote the week before by the Planning Board.

The newly approved multifamily district allows for a “by-right” unit capacity of over 4000 units, more than double the state’s minimum of 1,701. Watertown now joins other communities, such as Lexington and Needham, that have exceeded the state’s mandate. (A NIMBY group in Needham is hoping to repeal that plan, the deadline is this afternoon for them to submit signatures calling for a referendum.)

The council considered minor density tweaks, open space requirements, and parking restrictions in the past month.  Some town-wide changes were included, including language to comply with the state’s mandate to allow ADU’s by-right.

But there was one notable change to earlier drafts added last night we’ll be watching closely. That’s the addition of an amendment that would require new developments to be LEED Gold certifiable.

While we understand and support the council’s desire to support both housing growth and the environment, we’re concerned that the additional requirement (the original draft called for LEED Silver) might stymie development or increase rents.

State guidelines do not allow these strict standards (or the high inclusionary zoning the city also included) over fears that municipalities would use these restrictions to make development infeasible. Councilors are hoping the state will waive these restrictions because Watertown has a track record of embracing development, and these strict standards align with the city’s current laws.

Ultimately it will be up to the state’s Office of Housing and Livable Communities to decide if these standards are allowable or if the city will need to revise those elements of the plan.

But for now, the chamber congratulates the Watertown City Council, Planning Board, city officials, Housing for All Watertown, and the many residents and businesses that have been fully engaged in this ambitious yet thoughtful process.  

This is very good news.

My colleague Max Woolf contributed to this report.