The Wellesley Planning Board this week voted 3-1 to approve revised motion language for an Annual Town Meeting article that aims to modify the Residential Incentive Overlay (RIO) zoning bylaw that has been such a hot housing-related topic in recent years (see Wellesley Media recording of the Feb. 23 meeting at about the 2-hour, 15-minute mark for this discussion and vote).
The motion, which proposes eliminating single residence districts from the RIO bylaw, is set to be presented under Article 32 at Town Meeting, slated to begin on March 30.
The Select Board earlier this month heard and discussed recommendations from the Planning Board’s RIO Task Force, a group formed in the wake of last spring’s Annual Town Meeting. That segment of the Feb. 10 Select Board meeting (see Wellesley Media recording) grew tense at times, as the Board pushed back on a recommendation regarding the proposed addition of a development agreement requirement to the project approval section of the RIO bylaw.
The RIO Task Force reconvened on Feb. 23 as part of a public hearing and joint meeting with the Planning Board to reconsider its Article 32 motion language, with the development agreement piece clearly off the table at this point.
Doing something about RIO
Opposition to proposed uses of the RIO bylaw, which went on the books in 1998, came to a head in October, 2024, when a pair of proposed multifamily housing developments got shot down at Special Town Meeting. RIOs were also front and center at Annual Town Meeting last April because of a citizen petition that sought to return the RIO bylaw to its original state. As the proponent explained during presentations, the focus of RIOs would again be on allowing multi-unit residential development in commercial areas but not in single residence and general residence districts.
The RIO Task Force was then formed, and has held or been involved in more than a dozen meetings since its first in June.
The Task Force on Feb. 23 over the span of about two hours mulled how to approach the motion language for Article 32 after receiving the Select Board’s feedback. The Task Force members considered removing all zones from the RIO bylaw, essentially making the already infrequently used bylaw no longer an option. They also considered limiting their recommendation to removing only single residence and a few other districts from the bylaw. And finally, they weighed whether to just scrap the whole thing, and go back to work on a proposal that might stand a better chance of passing Select Board and Town Meeting approvals.
Among those supporting the approach of not moving forward with an article at Town Meeting at this time was Peter Welburn, the resident whose citizen petition at Annual Town Meeting last year recommended returning the RIO bylaw to its original state. Welburn said he felt more time was needed to discuss issues with the Select Board, the Planning Board, other stakeholders, and amongst themselves. He said the Task Force might be better off getting something ready for a Special Town Meeting in the fall.
Task Force member Paul Criswell said he’s supportive of doing away with RIOs in single family residence zones. He could come around to getting ridding of RIOs, but would want to know more first about alternatives, such as single-site zoning options.
Task Force member and Precinct D (Lower Falls) representative Kara Reinhardt Block, who was active in discussions about the proposed RIO projects that met their fate at Special Town Meeting in 2024, shared a few number-filled slides during the Feb. 23 meeting to help illustrate her thoughts regarding the Article 32 decision. She’s a proponent of getting rid of the RIO bylaw altogether. She showed that just removing RIO from single residence districts might open Precinct D, with its ample commercially-zoned property abutting single-family homes, to a disproportionate amount of RIO development (especially with many commercial properties changing hands). “There’s a profound inequity in that,” she said, citing the municipal infrastructure and other impacts of new development.
Most members supported either removing all districts or at least single residence districts from the bylaw.
Overall, Task Force members said they’ve learned a lot through the process, which has brought together a group of people with many different views on the subject.
When the Planning Board reconvened, it voted 3-1 on Article 32 motion language that would eliminate single residence zones from the RIO bylaw. Patty Mallett said she wanted to keep the RIO itself around for now, just in case a developer of senior housing might want to use it, so voted in favor of just eliminating the single residence zone from it. Tom Taylor said he saw that option as a straightforward one that would improve the bylaw, so voted that way, too. Outgoing Planning Board member Kathleen Woodward too supported just eliminating single residence from the bylaw, to relieve some resident stress, but keeping the bylaw on the books as an available tool. Planning Chair Marc Charney wasn’t necessarily opposed to that approach, but voted “no,” to express his preference for removing all zones from the RIO bylaw. That, he said, would keep the bylaw on the books but neuter it. Charney said he just doesn’t see the RIO bylaw getting used as it is in part because there has been so much negative discussion surrounding RIOs in recent years.
Sign up for Swellesley’s free weekday email newsletter
I’m glad the development agreement mandate is no longer on the table. But disallowing RIOs from single-family zoning districts is a bad idea. Making it impossible for multifamily housing to even be proposed in the vast majority of town would shut down debate over how we meet Wellesley’s complex and evolving housing needs. That might “relieve some resident stress,” but providing folks with sufficient housing options is simply more important.
Also, if concentrating RIOs in Precinct D is inequitable, then let’s just keep allowing them in SF districts. Or better yet, allow incremental development everywhere, rather than treat equal outcomes as ideal. We could lower the density of RIOs in SF districts in exchange for making the process to approve them easier. If that’s still a bridge too far, we could also restrict RIO developments in SF districts to townhomes and duplexes.
We need more proactive leadership on housing issues in this town. The actions we’ve taken have been defensive – complying with MBTA Communities, reaching 40B safe harbor, etc. And now MassBay. What’s next? It’s a battle between 20th century politics and 21st century economics. If Wellesley wants a say in how this plays out, we need to recognize that 21st century economics will win. Gutting the RIO bylaw just allows (some) residents to ignore how out-of-step their politics are with the economics of building new housing.