FRAMINGHAM - Following the submission of a new zoning plan in an attempt to comply with the MBTA Communities Act, the Framingham City Council is setting the stage to propose their own zoning district ideas to meet the state law’s requirements.

The City Council met on Tuesday, November 19, to continue discussions related to the legislation, which requires all Massachusetts communities with MBTA service to provide at least one multi-family housing district as of right within its zoning. Nothing specifically is required to be built through the law, though Mayor Charlie Sisitsky and his administration have noted that Framingham could risk missing out on state sources of funding for a variety of local projects if the city is not compliant with the act by the start of 2025.

Prior to Tuesday’s meeting, the City Council voted on November 4 to continue the public hearing regarding the zoning plan that the Framingham Planning Board initially recommended in September and later reassessed in October. That public hearing is set to resume on Monday, November 25. In the meantime, councilors called on Sisitsky’s administration to work on an alternative zoning proposal based on feedback that residents have voiced in recent weeks.

The City Council discussed two possible zoning plans during their most recent meeting on Tuesday: the original plan that had been under review for weeks, along with the proposal that was outlined in a memo dated November 15 by Framingham’s Director of Planning and Community Development Sarkis Sarkisian.

In that memo, Sarkisian wrote that the most recent pitch to reach compliance with the MBTA Communities Act was created with public input in mind.

The new overlay districts account for a total of 4,634 potential new units in Framingham. The city is required by the law to zone for 4,355 units; multiple residents had previously advocated for local officials to draft zoning plans that do not exceed that minimum. The most recent plan brought forth features more units than the 4,506 total units featured in the September proposal.

A pair of downtown overlay districts account for a total of 95.7 acres of zoning, with density ranging between 20 and 25 units per acre. They result in 2,253 possible units in the new proposal.

Meanwhile, 6.7 acres at 20 units per acre in Saxonville would result in 133 potential units. The new suggestions remove the State Lumber site from the zoning district while simultaneously adding the Pinefield Shopping Center and requiring a retail component. The Nobscot zoning district—a point of contention among both residents and elected officials throughout this MBTA Communities Act process in Framingham—would account for 31 acres at 20 units per acre for a possibility for 620 units.

The overlay districts in Saxonville and Nobscot were both at 15 units per acre in the Planning Board’s previous recommendations from October.

Within the proposed district at Shoppers World, the parcel at Cochituate Road was removed and a parcel at Flutie Pass was added. In total, that portion of the new plan features 30.4 acres of zoning at 20 units per acre, for a total of 608 possible units.

The overlay district at 9-90 accounts for 48 acres at 15 units per acre, for a possible total of 720 units. Following the removal of part of the Speen Street district, that portion of the most recent proposal features 15 acres at 20 units per acre, amounting to 300 potential units.

Sarkisian requested that the City Council refer the alternate proposal to the Planning Board so that a report could be created and recommendations on the new ideas could be sent back to the City Council prior to the end of 2024. A joint public hearing between both the Planning Board and the City Council was also suggested.

City Solicitor Kate Fallon Manupelli explained to councilors on Tuesday that in the interest of transparency with Framingham residents, the new districts being mapped out calls for re-advertising; she legally recommended referring the new proposals back to the Planning Board so that report could be developed and issued publicly prior to any additional public comments being provided and any amendments being made by the City Council.

“Because (Sarkisian) went back to the drawing board based on the input at that public hearing,” Fallon Manupelli said on Tuesday, “you’ve gotten something different…If you take (the most recent proposal) up and you engage in the process with this one, and you implement this one or some version of this one, obviously (the prior version) dies; you don’t need to address the previous proposal. But right now, you have that previous proposal scheduled for a continued public hearing for you to act.”

A joint meeting with the Planning Board in the future could result in approval from the City Council, but Fallon Manupelli reiterated that Framingham’s charter dictates that a second public meeting would also have to be held.

District 4 City Councilor Michael Cannon said that local leaders should be open to the idea that the December 31 deadline to reach compliance with the MBTA Communities Act might not be met, adding that they should take their time if the matter of by-right zoning is being considered. Christine Long of District 1 agreed, as she asked her colleagues to consider the potential long-term impact when reaching their final decision.

“I don’t think we should be rushing through a process that’s going to permanently transform Framingham forever,” Long said.

“I think that we need to be able to re-advertise this with the pieces that everybody in here opts to, and the City Council should be discussing this. And yes: it does have to go to the Planning Board for a recommendation, but I don’t see that either plan one or plan two are options right at this point—from what I’m hearing here and what I’m hearing from the public.”

Cannon went on to request a specific assessment of what money Framingham could stand to lose if the city is not compliant with the MBTA law by the start of 2025.

At-Large City Council member George King proposed that on November 25—when the legislative body is set to continue the public hearing on the originally-recommended zoning plan—he and his colleagues would take votes on their own to add, remove, or amend parcels of land. From there, those proposals from City Councilors would be referred back to the Planning Board. King mentioned that the City Council will let the public know about their intent to reject the older zoning plan prior to any public comments and any deliberation on new ideas brought up by local legislators.

The City Council eventually voted to reject the referral of the newer zoning plan to the Planning Board, priming the group to provide their own ideas for MBTA law compliance on November 25. The City Council has the ultimate authority to approve or reject any zoning plan that could comply with the state legislation.