EDITOR’S NOTE: In the article “Petition opposing MBTA zoning proposal surfaces,” there were two inaccuracies regarding the proposed overlay district in Marblehead. First, the correct maximum building height is 35 feet, even for multi-family buildings. Second, the correct minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the three proposed districts (Broughton Rd, Pleasant Street, and Tioga Way) would range from 2,200 to 2,500 square feet. The Marblehead Current regrets the error.
A Marblehead man has initiated an online effort to challenge the town’s proposal related to the MBTA zoning, arguing that the state-mandated measure could detrimentally alter the town’s character and overburden its infrastructure.
John DiPiano started the Change.org petition specifically targeting the 2024 Town Meeting warrant’s Article 36, a proposal designed to bring Marblehead into compliance with the 2021 MBTA Communities Act. The state law requires 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA to have at least one district where multifamily housing is allowed by right, meaning it can be built without special approval from the town.
“This law is currently being challenged in court for its constitutionality and its violation of the Massachusetts Home Rule Amendment — an amendment that guarantees our city’s right to shape its own community character through zoning regulations,” DiPiano wrote in the petition. “The adoption of [Article 36] would strip us of this right.”
The petition has sparked frustration among local officials who spent months crafting a plan to comply with the law, even as a related lawsuit involving the town of Milton heads to the state’s highest court.
“We’ve done our due diligence to create a targeted, sensible plan that brings us into compliance without harming Marblehead’s character,” Planning Board chair Robert Schaeffner told the Marblehead Current. “It’s disappointing to see opposition driven by knee-jerk aversion to change rather than engaging with the specifics of our proposal.”
The Marblehead proposal seeks to create zoning that would allow for approximately 900 units across three multifamily housing districts totaling 54.7 acres:
— Tioga Way: 28.3 acres, capacity for 483 units at 19.2 units per acre
— Pleasant Street: 20.2 acres, capacity for 297 units at 14.7 units per acre
— Broughton Road: 6.1 acres, capacity for 119 units at 19.5 units per acre
Together the districts allow 17.5 dwellings per acre on average. The state law requires Marblehead to rezone at least 27 acres at minimum densities of 15 units per acre.
In these districts, multifamily buildings up to 35 feet tall would be allowed by right, provided they undergo site plan review by the Planning Board. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit would range from 2,200 to 2,500 square feet, depending on the district. The zoning proposal also mandates that 10% of units be deed-restricted as affordable and establishes site plan approval procedures.
As of Wednesday, DiPiano’s petition had gathered 44 signatures towards a goal of 50 to take the petition to the next level on the online platform. He argues the zoning changes will “alter the character and charm that makes Marblehead unique” and strain municipal services, traffic, parking and property values.
In a February referendum, Milton rejected their own zoning plan under the MBTA Communities Act by an 800-vote margin. Supporters of Milton’s “No” campaign argued they didn’t want Beacon Hill dictating local zoning.
Now, the state attorney general’s lawsuit seeking to force Milton to comply with the 2021 housing law has reached the Supreme Judicial Court. Justice Serge Georges ruled March 18 that the case raises important and novel questions that should be settled, ordering arguments before the full seven-justice court in October.
In the meantime, the governor’s office has already begun penalizing Milton for non-compliance. Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Ed Augustus notified Milton officials that the town is disqualified from a $140,800 state grant.
Schaeffner warned that if Marblehead fails to adopt a compliant zoning district, it could face the same repercussions now hitting Milton.
“We’ve seen the attorney general sue Milton and the state revoke their grant funding. Those same consequences could come down on Marblehead if we don’t act,” he cautioned. “Regardless of how anyone feels about the law, we have to proceed in a way that protects the town.”
Schaeffner said the board worked diligently to craft a “benign” and “sensible” plan that complies with minimal impact.
“I’m sensing a reaction from people — I understand an American sort of urge to not be told what to do — this unbridled freedom thing,” Schaeffner said. “But when you look at the big picture, if you find there’s no harm to the town from a proposal that absolutely is benign, sensible and meets all the requirements.”
He added, “I don’t really understand why someone would tell us to turn it down.”
The Planning Board will hold a public hearing for Article 36 on April 9.
