| Plan | Nobscot Total | Nobscot Density | Saxonville Parcel | Saxonville Total | Saxonville Density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning Board Original | 1104 | 30 | Saxonville Lumber | 162 | 30 |
| Planning Board Updated | 552 | 15 | Saxonville Lumber | 81 | 15 |
| Administration Current | 620 | 20 | Pinefield | 133 | 20 |
| Christine Long Current* | * | * | Pinefield | 99 | 14 |
| Noval Alexander Current | 552 | 15 | Pinefield | 133 | 20 |
The Framingham City Council will continue its public hearing on MBTA Communities Law tomorrow, and then expects to review more maps and parcels as it weighs how the city should comply with the law. The Council may also vote on “inclusion of additional maps/parcels, submission to the Planning Board for report and recommendation, and request for a joint public hearing with the Planning Board,” according to the updated meeting agenda.
The meeting begins Monday at 7 pm in the Memorial Building’s Blumer Room (150 Concord St.) or on Zoom (info in the Council agenda).
Here’s a look various plans’ proposed total units and unit density per acre in Nobscot and Saxonville:
* Councilor Long’s plan removes the Edmands Road parcel in Nobscot but adds Nobscot Village zoning to get “credit” for newly allowed apartments under construction.
Plan details
The latest Planning Board recommendation would allow 4,953 total units to be built under Framingham’s MBTA Communities zoning compliance. Only 4,355 are required. That includes 552 units in Nobscot and 81 at the now vacant Saxonville parcel at Concord, School, and A streets (the old Saxonville Lumber site), both at a density of 15 units per acre. The Planning Board had originally proposed 30 units/acre at both sites.
The City Council had talked about changing the Saxonville site to Pinefield, since traffic around the Concord/School/‘A’ street area is particularly terrible. However, the new Planning Board proposal doesn’t do that.
The Sisitsky Administration has now proposed density of 20 units/acre in north Framingham – higher than the Planning Board’s current recommendation but lower than the Board’s first iteration – along with changing the Saxonville parcel to Pinefield and requiring retail on the ground floor there. The administration’s plan calls for allowing 620 units in Nobscot and 133 units in Pinefield.
“The Mayor and Planning Dept. seem hellbent on developing this triangular piece of land [in Nobscot], using the flawed MBTA Communities Act as cover. This despite massive public outcry & a more appropriate site just to the East,” District 3 Councilor Adam Steiner posted on Bluesky along with the image below. “The laser focus on this area seems to be a favor to the developer J&Company which owns most of the parcels in it. The problem with this site is that the neighborhood of small ranch homes beside it is already a cut-through for commuters avoiding the intersection and it sits on a monolith of ledge.”
District 1 City Councilor Christine Long submitted a proposal that would remove the Edmands Road Nobscot parcel but add Nobscot Village, so the city would essentially get “credit” for the new units coming online; and allow 99 units in Pinefield, among other changes.
And, District 5 Councilor Noval Alexander has proposed keeping 15 units per acre in the Nobscot parcel but 20 units/acre in Pinefield, along with some other changes to plans elsewhere around the city.
Note that other neighborhoods of the city are definitely affected by the MBTA Communities Law too, but I’m only covering areas in or immediately next to District 2 since that’s the focus of this blog.
My thoughts:
500-600+ units in Nobscot is insane, especially given the new units coming online soon next to CVS and the heavy traffic on single-lane roads already there.
As it is, I already dislike driving to or through Nobscot. I try biking when I can, but the painted bike lanes on Water Street a) end before the Edgell Road intersection and b) are becoming increasingly unpleasant to use since there is no separation between the narrow lane and vehicle traffic whizzing by. And that traffic is becoming heavier and heavier.
100 units at 15 units/acre in Pinefield seems reasonable – something is likely to be built eventually in that wide expanse of asphalt. 133 is a bit much, though. I appreciate the need for more housing, but Framingham is already doing substantially more than most communities in the area. And it’s also a worthwhile goal not to choke every single intersection in the city with as much traffic as possible. There simply aren’t realistic alternatives to driving most places in north Framingham, and let’s please remember that one of the goals of the MBTA Communities Law in addition to more housing is to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Whatever might get built in Pinefield, I’d like to make sure we:
- don’t lose neighborhood retail there (which the administration’s plan includes)
- get a design that’s pedestrian-friendly
- build usable protected bike paths from Pinefield to the start of the Cochituate Rail Trail, and
- get usable MWRTA service to the neighborhood, preferably synced up with MBTA commuter rail schedules, since this development is all is supposed to be MBTA-related.
As for the Saxonville Lumber site, something is likely to be built there, unless the city would agree to an idea expressed at one of the public hearings: turn it into a park across from the start of the Cochituate Rail Trail. But the city needs to do whatever possible to minimize traffic impact in that immediate area. That intersection is a nightmare because of the added complexity of the traffic light at ‘A’ street so close to the School/Concord light. No matter how the signals are adjusted, traffic gets gridlocked and backed up somewhere. ‘A’ Street is handling Framingham High School traffic for the entire city.
Sign up for the District 2 email-list.