|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposal to slash parking requirements for new buildings seems likely to pass the City Council next month, even though some North End residents oppose it.
The council took an unusual procedural step by scheduling a separate hearing to allow these residents to speak after the usual hearing process for the proposal had ended. Most councilors have already voted in favor of passing the ordinance. It needs only one more majority vote to become law.
The proposal would decrease the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required for new apartment buildings and many types of commercial developments. Current zoning requires two off-street parking spaces for every new housing unit. The new proposal would decrease that to one space for apartments with fewer than three bedrooms, while keeping the two-space minimum for other types of development.
More than a dozen people urged the council to pass the ordinance at a hearing in December. Supporters and city planners say the current parking minimums contribute to high housing costs, and they often require more spaces than developments really need, noting that the Planning Board often grants waivers to developers.
But some Ward 1 residents said they didn’t know about this proposal until after the December hearing. At the special hearing Wednesday night, the residents said the change was out of touch and would cause cars from apartments to overflow into single-family neighborhoods.
Five residents took the podium to speak against the ordinance. Nine more were formally recorded in opposition.
Michelle Pacheco said she understood the need to build more housing, but she didn’t think the city had a coherent plan to handle the potential impacts.
“I don’t see how you’re solving a problem by saying, ‘Let’s build more units because we have a housing crisis, but let’s ignore the fact that most people are going to be driving,’” she said.
City planners have said their proposal is based on a data-driven analysis. Census data shows about one quarter of renter households in the city have two cars, half have one car, and one quarter have no car.
It wasn’t this parking proposal alone that drove Ward 1 residents to speak up.
Some residents are worried about preliminary plans for a three-story apartment building on the site of the abandoned New York Chinese Buffet restaurant on Ashley Boulevard. Neighbors say the development is too large for their suburban neighborhood. No formal plans have been filed with the city yet.
The residents saw the parking proposal as a way to enable that project, but there is no evidence that the ordinance is related to any particular development plans. It has been in the works since at least March 2023, when Mayor Jon Mitchell included it in the city’s Building New Bedford housing plan. It’s part of a broader rollout of zoning reforms that city planners have spoken about publicly for more than a year.
On Wednesday, councilors said there was no connection between the New York Chinese Buffet and the ordinance. They said neighbors would have the opportunity to share concerns about the development through the Planning Board’s site plan review process after formal plans are filed.
Why the meeting was held
Most councilors support the parking proposal. They say it will address rising rents because developers must spend money on land and paving materials for parking spaces — costs that get passed onto tenants. Councilors said the proposal would also lower taxes by growing the city’s tax base through more development.
The ordinance committee voted 5-2 to advance the proposal to the full council after hearing overwhelmingly supportive testimony at its December meeting.
Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette opposed the proposal and tried unsuccessfully to amend it while it was still in committee. But his motions to keep the current minimums for residential development or to make more modest cuts failed.
The next steps in the ordinance process are normally procedural moves. But at the City Council meeting on Jan. 8, Choquette gestured to over a dozen people in the chamber who he said wanted to speak on the ordinance.
Choquette said the December committee meeting was “not very well advertised.” Other councilors forcefully rejected that claim, saying the committee followed the proper procedure for advertising upcoming meetings. The Light reported on the zoning proposals in November and shared on social media that the item had been delayed to December’s agenda.
The councilor’s motion to send the ordinance back to committee for more public input failed 3-7, then his motion to table it failed 4-6. Councilors Derek Baptiste and Brian Gomes joined Choquette in support of the first motion, and Naomi Carney joined their bloc on the motion to table.
Instead, the council passed the ordinance to a second reading, which means it only needs one more majority vote of the council to become law.
At its meeting on Jan. 22, the council passed Ward 3 Councilor Shawn Oliver’s motion to hold Wednesday’s separate hearing in the appointments and briefings committee, which would allow the Ward 1 residents an “alternative forum” without slowing down the approval of the ordinance.
What happens next
The proposal is likely to be passed by the full council, despite the pushback they heard on Wednesday.
The next meeting where the council could take its final vote is scheduled for Feb. 12. The mayor could try to veto it at that point, but that’s unlikely because his administration proposed the change. It will become law if he signs the ordinance.
Choquette, who has been the council’s most outspoken critic of lower parking minimums, said the ordinance wouldn’t change.
“The neighbors brought up excellent points,” he said. But, he added: “You can’t hold up the whole city just for one neighborhood.”
Email Grace Ferguson at gferguson@newbedfordlight.org.
Reduced parking for residential is a mistake…as the City gets more affluent residents the need for parking will certainly increase not decrease
Looking at current census is looking backward not forward.
Once this mistake us made there will be no way to turn it around.
Nothing in the proposed ordinance prevents developers from building more than the minimum. It just sets the floor lower. It does not impose a ceiling. If a developer wants to provide more parking as a “lure” for more affluent residents, they could do that.
Ward 1 residents and voters do not stand alone, there are many other residents and voters in other wards that do not support the proposed parking ordinance, especially when it comes to multi tenant / apartment buildings. These type of projects should be left out of this ordinance and still be reviewed on a one on one basis. The snow storm exposed the existing parking problems in the city and flooding neighborhoods with additional cars will just cause over crowding, reduce available parking, impact quality of life, affect home values, and most importantly will affect the ability of emergency vehicles to respond and navigate our city streets. This proposed ordinance will not make New Bedford a safer and better place to live.
Grace,
Is the Buffet building “abandoned” or vacant?
After reading the article, and a voter in precinct 1, I have not been well informed either by mail or news until I started subscribing to outlets such as the New Bedford Light. The ward 1 councilor has been very forthcoming on enlightening me about this subject. Now to review what I read I would like to make the following statement. Apartments and housing are critical toward creating affordable housing. But the discussion regarding affordability of housing based on the affordability of construction of said housing has no merit. The developer will plan the design to meet the local requirements but there is no proof that that an ordinance such as this will help keep housing costs lower. The only thing the developer is interested in is the ROI, return on investment so if they can lure others from outside the city who believe our rents are so cheap, IE, City of Boston, they will charge the higher rent raising the housing costs for the City. There is a disconnect in reasoning and planning. I fully understand that we need housing, but we need an aggressive committee who will partner with developers, find financing to reduce costs, this can be done, and guarantee up front that there will be affordable housing. By the way, didn’t this snow storm scream out about the lack of parking based on the snow levels in the street where many parking spots are in limbo until the snow melts. Now, forget the storm, would not the storm scenario be the same for the residents who will fight and clamor for parking near where they live. The City Council needs to have a professional committee who will explore and do a deep dive in the stats they claim to be relying on. I make this comment as a retired professional from Boston who worked and directed what was called the Labor Management Office partnering with organized labor and contractors associations, very much involved in construction including housing. It appears the most important premise is missing, pass this ordinance and the developers have what they want, but how about the citizens, your constituents who live in those communities that will be impacted
Nimby, Nimby, Nimby, what a complete joke, coming from the so called top vote getter, give me a break. No wonder only 10% of New Bedford is only voting, this city deserves so much better.
Reducing or eliminating parking minimums does not prohibit developers from planning and including as many parking spaces as they wish, since the city doesn’t currently have any parking maximums. To the contrary it merely reduces the overreach of government. Who here doesn’t want smaller government?
New Bedford streets are choked and overrun with private vehicles. It’s well studied that building more capacity increases demand, and this city certainly doesn’t need more cars.
Let developers build as few parking spaces as they choose on their properties. I wish the city council would stand firm and go one further by eliminating parking minimums altogether.
Also why are there two separate governments in New Bedford based on net worth or ward of residence? If people in ward 4 complained they hadn’t noticed a council meeting would the city council hold another just for them? I think the New Bedford Light needs to investigate this.
Smaller government is cutting all department s across the board by 5%. But throwing out parking restrictions and letting a 40 unit tenant building be built with the possibility of 48 plus cars (48 is a 60% break from 80 when most households do have two cars) does not make any sense and will impact any neighborhood, not just neighborhoods based on the net worth of any ward. Common Sense would be any housing project with mutiple units should be reviewed and need to provide at least 60% (as per the example above) of the required parking for that project. Packing neighborhoods with more cars does nothing to make the city a better place to live or make it safer (Emergency Vehicles already have a hard enough time maneuvering on our city streets).
Did you watch these meetings? Both the councilors and the planners said that an apartment building would still get reviewed by the planning board at a public hearing, it just would not need to provide the 2 spaces per unit or ask for a reduction.
I heard it all and it shopuld not be one size fits all. The parking ordinance should be passed without including Apartment / Tenant Buildings (these type of projects have a bigger impact on neighborhoods and need to receive a deeper review).
New Bedford should in fact impose parking maximums. What a wonderful idea.
Households own a car or multiple cars because the alternatives are inadequate. We should be a city for the people, not a city for cars. A destination, not a parking lot.
Bolster SRTA and need for cars dissipates.
I’m confused by your comment as it seems to complain about the proposal to eliminate or reduce parking minimums, while at the same time lamenting the sheer number of cars people have and need in the city.
Development for housing is crucial in New Bedford but reducing parking would be a mistake. There are many options for housing that don’t need a reduction in parking spots. Kempton school on Shawmut Avenue, the old nursing home on Rockdale Avenue between Durfee st and Nemaskest. And stop spending CPA tax dollars on projects like the 5 million dollars being spent on the old Fire station on Hillman and County Streets for 5 studio apartments. RIDICULOUS.
To be clear the ordinance wouldn’t prevent developers from including as many parking spaces as they want.
It merely would reduce the requirement for a certain number of spaces.
Developers can still choose to build as many spaces as they wish.