Case Studies

Community Input on the Development of an Urban Industrial Site

City officials in Somerville, MA, held off submission of development plans opposed by community members. Instead, they asked the potential developer to fund a community input process and, over the course of five months, held meetings to explore issues of community concern. The meetings led to the creation of design guidelines for the parcel and the establishment of a Development and Design Committee for future development.

Location: Somerville, MA
Objective: Gather community input to inform future development of a site.
Duration: 5 months (2004-2005)
Parties: Developers, the City of Somerville, Neighbors

The Issue
In 2003, developers in the dense city of Somerville, MA presented a development plan for a site with shuttered industrial buildings. Neighbors did not like the plan, which included more units than they wanted to see, and they were concerned about additional traffic in an area already troubled by congestion and air pollution. The resistance of the community to the development plan stimulated the interest of the City, inspiring municipal officials to take steps to learn more about the community’s concerns related to the site.

History
The MaxPak site is a 5.3-acre industrial site in the City of Somerville, in the Boston metropolitan area. It is a triangular piece of formerly industrial land, bounded on one side by a commuter rail line and on the other sides by a residential neighborhood. A community bike path ends nearby and will in the future be extended past the MaxPak site. The neighborhood, unusual in its odd shaped lots and one-way streets, includes both families that have lived in the same homes for decades and newcomers who have decided to buy homes in the increasingly expensive Boston-area housing market.

The site itself has hosted many types of industrial production, from light bulbs to root beer, as well as a charter school that both opened and closed in the 1990s. While several individuals own the property, one landowner controlled the site from the 1970s through the 1990s. A new interest controls the site now. Over the years, excessive noise and air pollution, as well as soil contamination, have troubled neighbors of the site.

Due to problems with the industrial use, and in order to bring the zoning of the site into alignment with surrounding lots, the zoning board rezoned the lot for two- and three-family residential development, Somerville’s traditional residential development form.

Vehicular traffic is a problem for Somerville, where several main arteries are clogged with traffic twice a day. Asthma rates and air pollution have both increased in the past decade, and community members are hesitant to support any changes in their neighborhoods that will increase traffic. As of February 2005, studies on the possibility of building a subway line to this area are underway and the extension to the community bike path is being planned.

The City of Somerville wanted to see the MaxPak site cleaned up and redeveloped. The City needs the additional tax revenue that would follow the creation of new housing. The City supports the creation of new housing and the preservation of existing housing stock. In addition, the site is currently contaminated. City planners agreed that industrial and significant commercial use was wrong for the MaxPak site, which is otherwise surrounded by residential development. In addition, city planners wanted to encourage smart growth development in Somerville and new investment with appropriate densities. The cost of developing the MaxPak site was of particular concern due to site contamination and access via a closed bridge still awaiting transportation funds for construction. Market factors combined with contamination issues and community traffic concerns created a situation where developers need to build at a certain density to make the project feasible, which raised intense community concern over neighborhood character and traffic.

In 2002, a development company bought the parcel and, in 2003, proposed siting 250-350 housing units on it. The developer showed plans for the site to the community, which included a new driveway abutting the land proposed for the bike path extension, and the community responded negatively to both the density and the site plan. The developer contemplated asking the City for a change in zoning to make it possible to build according to the plan.

The Process
In response to community hostility towards the developer’s plans, the Mayor of Somerville met with the developers, community members, and the Aldermen to choose a course of action. In response, the mayor asked the developer to stop. A subsequent community meeting resulted in the City asking the development company for financial support for a community input process. The Mayor argued that such a process would be in everyone’s best interest, and let the developer know that city officials were also hoping for transit-oriented residential development, while promising nothing in terms of outcome. City staff reassured the developer that they felt positively about development and that this project had potential if designed correctly. With these reassurances, but no guarantees, the developer funded the cost of the process without any direct control. The City used the lump sum payment to hire independent consultants and provide materials and refreshments for the community meetings.

In September of 2004, the Community Development Office announced the public process. It then established an internal team to manage the process, with outside expert assistance on facilitation, land use and zoning, design and architecture, and transportation. City officials anticipated potential agreement, since many people appeared to have the same hopes for the site. City officials decided to facilitate the process themselves, in the hopes that it would give them insight into community opinions and help foster trust in the process. The city then did outreach to potential participants through internet listings, mailings, and neighborhood drops.

In September of 2004, the City held a forum, which was attended by 80 people. Neighborhood associations helped spread the word to interested individuals. The purpose of the forum was to announce that the development plans were being put on hold and that there would be a planning process. The forum was followed by a visioning session, at which the city tried to capture the primary interests and concerns of the 50-60 participants. What did they want for that neighborhood? What should transit look like? What ideals were most important for them? This led to the design of five workshops around concerns voiced by the participants.

The workshops were held between October 2004 and January 2005, with attendance ranging between 30-60 people per meeting. The meetings included question and answer sessions, small group discussions, and presentations on environmental issues, real estate finance, transportation and traffic, zoning and land use, and site design. The final workshop was a presentation of findings from the previous meetings.

Discussion during the workshops focused on issues of how much to build, when to build, and under what zoning new development should happen. Many residents were in favor of phased development. The city wanted transit and new residential development to help preserve existing housing stock so that long-term homeowners wouldn’t be forced out of their neighborhoods due to increasing housing prices and real estate taxes.

The primary concerns of nearby residents were traffic and quality of life. While some community members wanted the existing residential zoning to continue, others were hoping to avoid having new residential neighbors, and still others where primarily concerned with seeing a quality development on the site which would not negatively effect their property values. Other concerns where increased open space, safety, and connection to the proposed bicycle path. Many neighbors who originally wanted the development to include a maximum of 72 housing units (the maximum allowed without a special permit under existing zoning) learned that this wasn’t financially feasible for any developer, as developers would have to pay site contamination clean-up costs in addition to construction and community benefit costs.

Results
From information gathered during the community meetings, the planning office is writing a report on the process with development guidelines for the site. In addition, a development and review committee of community members is being formed to work with developers who come forward once the guidelines have been adopted.

The development guidelines for the site will include neighbors’ hopes for development that is dense to ensure some open space and is oriented toward the bike path. The parties involved in the process collaboratively developed recommendations that would make any MaxPak development unique in its transit-oriented nature.

Major Lessons
(1) Timing and funding: The City of Somerville took preemptive action and harnessed private interests to do a public planning process. The timing of the public process prior to planning and zoning board hearings meant that insights from the community could shape the development early on. While some were skeptical about the process because of its private funding, city officials see the process as one of leveraging private interests for public goals.

(2) Information Gathering: Because it was managing the public process, the city heard and came to understand a wide range of citizens’ concerns. Citizens and city officials agreed that the process was a valuable tool for them to jointly learn about and articulate concerns about the site and its potential development before those concerns threaten a project much closer to development.

(3) Process management: Because the planning office was in charge of the process, all parties knew that, unlike with an outside facilitator, the people involved were intimately tied to the outcome and wanted the best result. In addition, because the head of the planning office himself wasn’t facilitating, he could weigh in and answer questions rather than trying to manage the process. Having several expert facilitators as advisors present at the community events ensured that those facilitating had support in identifying issues of concern and that the facilitators strengthened their own skills for future facilitation.

For more information, contact Stuart O'Brien, Senior Project Manager, Mayor's Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development, Somerville, MA, 617-625-6600 x2526, SOBrien@ci.somerville.ma.us.