“Monster” apartment project pushback exposes housing challenges in Greater Boston

Chalk up another win for NIMBYs.

A proposed apartment project by a national housing developer in Braintree, Massachusetts, became the epicenter of a contentious eight-month saga, illustrating the challenges of addressing the housing crisis in Greater Boston, the Boston Globe reported.

Developer ZOM Living’s plan involved constructing two large buildings with a total of 495 units on underused parking lots near the South Shore Plaza.. 

But the project was met with significant opposition from residents, spurred on by Mayor Charles Kokoros’s vocal disapproval.

Residents raised concerns about density, traffic, water and sewer infrastructure, and crime, with some likening the proposed apartments to arsenic. 

Signs opposing the “monster project” appeared in yards across town, and public meetings were marked by shouting and contentious exchanges. ZOM faced a formidable challenge in navigating the opposition.

The developer aimed to revitalize the South Shore Plaza by building housing adjacent to it, a move supported by the mall’s owner, Simon Property Group. The project was expected to generate $800,000 in new yearly tax revenue for Braintree and help address the local housing shortage, as the South Shore needed to add 44,000 units between 2010 and 2030 to meet demand.

While some town councilors supported the project, Mayor Kokoros opposed it, arguing that it exceeded the area’s original zoning for housing, had unrealistic unit numbers, and raised concerns about traffic and infrastructure. Kokoros even indicated he would veto the project if the Town Council approved it.

Braintree’s zoning and approval process, similar to those in other localities, allowed residents and officials to exert significant influence over proposed developments. The Planning Board’s negative recommendation and the mayor’s stance weighed heavily on the project’s fate.

Despite the housing crisis in Greater Boston, Braintree had been slow to approve new housing developments. Even as the population grew, the town added relatively few homes. 

Previous housing efforts had also faced opposition, including a project under the state’s 40B law, which allows developers to bypass local zoning rules, and an attempt to simplify land-use rules that sparked controversy.

The North Braintree Civic Association, composed mostly of single-family homeowners, played a prominent role in opposing housing efforts in the town. While some residents argued that the proposed apartments would burden schools and infrastructure, supporters noted that most units were smaller and unlikely to attract large families.

Housing projects around the country have been rejected for a variety of reasons. Over the summer, a Colorado judge sided with the town of Vail in a longstanding legal battle against Vail Resorts, allowing the town to take possession of the site.

Eagle County District Court Chief Judge Paul Dunkelman ruled that the town had the authority to condemn the 23-acre site, which Vail Resorts had planned to develop for workplace housing.

But the town expressed concerns about the land’s significance as a winter habitat for the local bighorn sheep herd. 

Last May, the town voted to condemn the site, citing the need to protect wildlife. Unable to reach an agreement or purchase the property, the town filed a motion for immediate possession in October.

— Ted Glanzer