City Council Passes original Salem Street zoning
- mcc021557
- Mar 15
- 4 min read
Please plan to attend this city sponsored Public Q&A
At the Tuesday March 11, 2025 City Council meeting, after four hours of public comment, the city council ultimately dismissed feedback and findings from the community engagement session, Community Development Board (CDB) Hearing, and subsequent recommendations from CDB and the Planning Department. With a single motion, introduced by Councilor Matt Lemming, City Council rolled back the reported-out recommendations of the CDB Hearing - despite Emily Innes, the consultant, saying that 6 story buildings were not feasible on 3k SF lots.
Additionally, Councilor Lemming took the opportunity to chastise the public, dismiss their concerns collectively, and calling for more density, he motioned to upzone the intersection of Park and Salem back to 6 stories- including all of the uses that had been deemed inappropriate for the area. With a wagging finger from Councilor Emily Lazarro, medical uses were added back and with it the possibility of a methadone dispensary. The Councilor feels strongly that (on the corridor furthest from her small home on a large lot) Salem Street is a great location to cite this type of business. Councilor Kit Collins piped in to lecture the public that studies don’t happen before zoning is written but are completed on a project-by-project basis.
Despite their assertions being wrong, and despite the bulk of the buildings even with 80% lot coverage being impossible to build, the zoning passed quite easily. The only thought for the current residents was distain at them asking for any concessions. Residents were left to believe that all future zoning meetings would be conducted in a way that dismissed quality of life for the residents thrust into their new aggressive upzones.
Less than 24 hours later, the city council planning and permitting committee proved that some neighborhoods are more important than others.
On Wednesday March 12, 2025, the city council planning permitting committee convened to discuss West Medford Square and Medford Square. The most glaring difference between the plans for those areas compared to Salem St was how few lots were slated to be upzoned. The lots were carefully selected and heights proposed to “protect the neighbors.” Kit Collins called for feasibility studies and shadow studies to not “bother the neighbors.”
What? The Glenwood area was told that to even slightly change the plans was based on hate. That they were trying to prevent other people from moving to the neighborhood. Why the glaring difference? Why are studies suddenly needed when Salem Street was zoned without any scrutiny and just mantras and ideology?
The opening density proposed in West Medford was for a max of 4 stories in most of the currently approximately 20 lots (for contrast, Salem saw approximately 140 lots upzoned). Many of the councilors called for the MX2 max of 6 stories but wanted to be careful and do studies before upping it that much.
What we have here is West Medford Square with a commuter rail station just one stop from North Station being zoned less than Salem St with one bus. The councilors each repeated that studies were needed before more could be placed there. They all spoke passionately that the lots were so small and couldn’t bear much more density.
So how small are the lots? As small as the 3k SF lots on much of Salem St?
Check the tables below.
These lots are not small by comparison to Salem Street, so why the high level of concern? The first meeting on the Salem St corridor opened with 3k SF lots and projected heights of 8 stories with no transit. But somehow the West Medford Square opened with majority 4 story maximums. Medford Square, as also touted as having small lots and the middle of the square was slated for max 4 story buildings as well. These squares will likely develop very slowly, but Salem Street Corridor already has flippers and LLCs just waiting for the parking minimums to be dropped so they can max out their luxury builds.
What will be the results of these studies? Where will the zoning end up? Why were no studies conducted on Salem Street? What rationale is there that Salem should be zoned denser than West Medford, with a T station?
If the goal is increased density near transit, then why are such a small number of lots in the squares the only ones looking to be upzoned for mixed use? Why didn’t it extend as a corridor down the entirety of High Street?
We have a lot of questions that will likely not be answered. The councilors will say they all suggested more density in West Medford Square, but don’t forget it was in conjunction with calls for study. Is it politics? Is it a desire to protect the largest lots from development that might impact neighbors? How was this square selected for a very precise and small number of lots?
The double standard lives on and we are watching very closely. Please follow along.
We will have some discussion of the disparity in the neighborhood zones that have already been passed to CDB as well. It isn’t over.
Reach out to the mayor and ask her to overturn the Salem Street zoning.
Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn
Phone: 781-393-2408
Alternate Phone: 781-393-2409
Email: mayor@medford-ma.gov
We just want the studies and care for the neighbors that West Medford Square and Medford Square are receiving. There should be no hierarchy. No T starved neighbors being told to grin and bear it while extreme caution is exercised near the commuter rail. Even if the city council overrides the mayor, it still shows that this zoning was not agreed on.
Activists who didn’t even understand the zoning should not have been the only voices listened to in the meeting. As Councilor Matt Lemming said, "if you give them something it will never be enough", we will want more. That was followed swiftly by his vote to undo the suggestions placed in the zoning to make the neighbors more comfortable. He is right, it wasn’t enough, we just want to be treated with respect and care too. A single bus doesn’t justify zoning the area higher than the areas near the transit that the bus may eventually take us to.
As Councilor Kit Collins has said "we have to be concerned with parity". Yes, Councilor; Glenwood demands parity, studies and care. We too deserve quality of life.
Comments