|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A City Council committee on Tuesday unanimously advanced a proposal that would make it possible to fill in empty lots with housing, possibly unlocking more than 500 lots for new development.
New Bedford’s current zoning requires large lots with suburban-style front yards, but most lots in the city don’t actually meet those requirements. The buildings on those lots were grandfathered in and would be illegal to build today. Even on lots that are large enough, the city’s dimensional requirements restrict the size of any new building to the point that projects don’t make sense to build.
This is one reason why many streets around the city are missing a home or two, giving a “broken teeth” effect, city planners say.
The proposal that planners presented to the ordinance committee on Tuesday is designed to bring requirements in line with the development patterns that exist in the city today. It also carves out a new Planning Board approval process for lots that are even smaller than the newer minimums, so long as the proposed building matches the density of existing ones around it.
The changes target multifamily zoning districts, leaving the single-family restrictions in place.
One member of the public attended the hearing. Building designer Armando Pereira said he supports the ordinance and suggested a subtle change to the way buildings stories are defined in the ordinance so that parking levels wouldn’t be counted, though the committee didn’t act on his suggestion.
Councilors didn’t have many questions for planners. Councilor Leo Choquette, a former member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, expressed some concerns about that board’s role in approving small lot developments. But he joined the committee in unanimously passing the ordinance to the full council with a favorable recommendation.
This proposal is the final one in a series of changes New Bedford has made to its zoning code over the past two years, part of the city’s plan to make it easier and less expensive to build new housing. Most recently, the city council reduced the minimum number of parking spaces required for some types of development.
The only remaining plans in the rollout are for pilot districts to test out “form-based code,” a newer zoning framework that aims to promote development matching the look of surrounding buildings.
Rolling back restrictions
The proposed ordinance is aimed at promoting “infill” development, making use of empty space around the city.
City planners said the zoning changes to lot size and dimensional requirements would allow builders to add more of what’s called “missing middle” housing, often defined as buildings with three to eight apartments.
“Modern zoning has made it pretty much illegal to do this,” Assistant City Planner Michael McCarthy said. “This is New Bedford’s housing stock and you cannot build it today.”
Planners showed a historic map of a block between Holly and Sawyer Street where buildings used to be closely packed together, next to satellite imagery of modern drugstores that now occupy the block, set far back from the street and other buildings — unlike the older surrounding homes.
“Everything complies, but you get this completely different development pattern on these infill developments,” McCarthy said.
In zoning districts that allow for multifamily homes, between 75% and 94% of lots are too small to build new homes on them, according to planners’ analysis. The vast majority also don’t have the front setback required by current zoning.
Even in single-family areas, 58% of lots are too small for new homes, the analysis found.
The updates will probably unlock more than 500 lots for new development, McCarthy said. He estimated “generously” that the number of impacted lots could be higher than 1,000.
The city currently requires lot sizes between at least 10,000 and 15,000 square feet for multifamily buildings, depending on their location. The new zoning would cut that to 3,000 to 4,500 square feet. The city’s 8,000 square foot minimum in single-family districts would stay in place.
For lots under 3,000 square feet, developers can go to the Planning Board for a special permit. Buildings with up to three units can be approved as long as the project doesn’t have more units than any of the abutting properties — a three-family can’t be built between a single-family and duplex. In other words, McCarthy said, builders can get their projects approved “as long as you can demonstrate you’re not going to build something that outscales your neighborhood.”
These specially permitted projects must conform to front setback requirements, unless surrounding properties have lower setbacks, in which case the new building may have a setback matching the average of the surrounding buildings’ setbacks. Side setbacks have to be at least five feet.
The proposal changes dimensional requirements that dictate the size, shape, and position of a building within a lot.
It reduces the minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to five feet for multifamily buildings in residential zones. In the mixed use business zone, it sets a minimum setback of zero feet and a maximum of 20 feet. Side yard setbacks for multifamily buildings would be reduced from 10 to 12 feet down to eight feet on both sides.
Maximum building heights would increase from 45 feet to 60 feet for multifamily buildings in residential districts, and from 60 feet to 75 feet in mixed-use districts.
The proposal also lifts a prohibition against multiple buildings on a single lot.
A few developers have approached the Planning Department with ideas for clusters of buildings on the same lot but the city’s zoning made it too difficult to pull off, McCarthy said. He added that one developer was confused that he could do a similar project in Fall River, but not New Bedford.
McCarthy said planners consulted with Building Commissioner Danny Romanowicz, who told them that he didn’t know why the city had such a law on the books. It may have been a fire prevention measure that predates current fire safety codes, planners said.
The Planning Board sent the council a favorable recommendation of the ordinance.
Next, the ordinance will go before the full council twice for the two votes needed to pass it into law.
Email Grace Ferguson at gferguson@newbedfordlight.org
“gap tooth” not “broken teeth”
meaning there is a gap (empty lot) on the street scape
I do not believe the majority of city residents are on board with all these changes (Parking previously reduced and now lot size requirements, frontage, and space between lots being reduced etc. etc, etc.), there is no doubt this will impact neighborhoods. But what is more disturbing is that with only a few months into 2026 it’s looking like this city council is going to be nothing more than a door mat for the Mayor’s agenda (they just can’t say no). So if this is the case New Bedford residents better get ready because this city council will be approving a new $600 Million Dollar Budget (if not more) and providing city residents with another year of Higher Taxes. The real question has to be, if everything is just going to be passed, why bother having a city council at all?