PLANNING BOARD: Controversial MBTA zoning changes head to Town Meeting

Division among residents over a state mandate that the town zone pockets of Marblehead for multifamily housing came through loud and clear during a Planning Board public hearing on April 9.

The hearing came nearly a month before the Town Meeting will vote on the matter under Article 36, exposing the community’s concerns and differing perspectives on the zoning plan, which seeks to bring Marblehead into compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.

The Planning Board voted 4-1 to recommend the proposed zoning changes at Town Meeting. Board members Andrew Christensen, Barton Hyte, Edward O. Nilsson and Chair Robert J. Schaeffner voted favorably. Member Marc Liebman voted no and stressed his “desire for every Marblehead resident to vote how they feel best” in a follow-up interview.

“I’m indifferent. I want people to do what they want to do. I don’t have a recommendation,” he said. “I think people should make whatever decision they want to make.”

The MBTA Communities Act

Passed in 2021, the MBTA Communities Act mandates that towns like Marblehead, which are adjacent to communities with MBTA commuter rail stations, establish zoning districts that allow for multifamily housing at a minimum density of 15 units per acre. The public hearing served as a microcosm of the broader debate unfolding in Bay State communities as they grapple with the implications of the MBTA Communities Act.

The Planning Board introduced a zoning compliance model that they argue aims to meet the state’s requirements. The proposal seeks to create zoning that would allow for approximately 897 units across three districts:

— Tioga Way (29.8 acres, 483 units at 17.3 units per acre).

— Pleasant Street (20.6 acres, 295 units at 14.3 units per acre).

— Broughton Road (8.0 acres, 119 units at 14.9 units per acre).

Together, the districts total 58.4 acres and allow 15.9 dwellings per acre on average, surpassing the state law’s requirement for Marblehead to rezone at least 27 acres.

In a follow-up interview, Nilsson explained that the board decided to zone for roughly 58 acres rather than the minimum required because spreading future housing development over a wider area would create a less noticeable impact and allow development to blend more easily into the existing neighborhoods.

While proponents argue that the plan is a reasonable approach to ensure compliance and provide housing opportunities, opponents fear the potential strain on town resources and the erosion of Marblehead’s character, calling for studies to determine the impact on traffic, utilities and the schools. Opponents like resident Claudette Mason voiced their apprehension.

“You keep mentioning minimal impact — no impact on our town,” Mason told the Planning Board. “But we’re talking about another 3,000-plus people in town. Those streets are already parking lots, so there is an impact on our streets.”

Other concerns, like losing local control, have fueled passionate resistance to the zoning plan. Resident John DiPiano articulated his firm stance against Article 36.

“I am unapologetically and totally committed to defeating this proposal,” he told the Planning Board. “I began a petition two weeks ago, and that petition in two weeks has garnered … 265 signatures as of right now.”

Marblehead’s housing needs

A study conducted as part of developing the Marblehead Housing Production Plan shows that the percentage of the town’s household led by older adults is on the rise. The number of households led by someone 55 or older increased by 21% in seven years, from 6,597 households in 2010 to 7,978 households in 2017. Meanwhile, the number of residents between the ages of 25 to 44 shrunk by 63% during the same period, the study found.

These demographic shifts conflict with Marblehead’s current housing stock, which is predominantly composed of single-family homes. Single-family homes account for 77% of the housing stock here, a higher percentage than in the rest of Essex County, the North Shore and Massachusetts.

More than three-quarters of Marblehead’s housing stock consists of single-family homes, with very few multi-family units permitted in the last decade, according to the housing production plan. This, coupled with Marblehead’s geographical and regulatory constraints, limits opportunities for new housing development.

Supporter Nick Ward viewed the proposal as a balanced approach that ensures Marblehead’s compliance with the law while providing opportunities for young families.

“This is an eminently reasonable plan that ensures that Marblehead is both in compliance with the law but also is giving young families in this town and in this state a fair shake  — to be able to find a home, to be able to find a place to live, to be able to find a place to raise their children,” Ward said.

A diverse range of housing options will be necessary to allow aging residents looking to downsize to remain in Marblehead and attract young professionals and families, which the housing production plan says is crucial to Marblehead’s future.

Multifamily housing developments could be built in these districts by right, without special permits. However, they would need site plan approval from the Planning Board examining issues like parking and traffic flow. The zoning proposal requires 10% of the units to be deed-restricted as affordable housing for any new developments in MBTA zones .

Christy Staples strongly supported the plan, emphasizing what she saw as the significance of affordable housing fostering economic vitality and maintaining a thriving community.

“Doing affordable housing work across the country, I know how important it is,” she said, noting the town’s desire to foster economic vitality. “I really, really appreciate your thoughtfulness.”

Nilsson said the housing production plan, which was shaped by extensive community input, sets forth goals to create senior housing, expand affordable options for various households and strengthen community ties, with strategies including leveraging public assets for mixed-income housing.

“This plan is in accordance with the goals and strategies of the Marblehead Housing Production Plan, which was adopted by the Select Board and the Planning Board,” said Nilsson. “The Housing Production Plan was created in large part by the people of Marblehead.”

Zoning of this caliber, he noted, is “not a sudden development.”

“This has been in the works in principle for quite some time,” he said.

Noncompliance consequences

Many town leaders emphasize that this zoning proposal does not equate to a development project.

“This proposal — it’s not imperative to build; it’s to permit the barriers of multifamily housing to be lowered,” Nilsson said. “That’s basically its purpose.”

Officials further argue changes would not lead to unchecked development. But not everyone is persuaded.

“I just have this basic idea that once you let the state trample all over town laws — I don’t know where it stops,” said resident Jonathan Klopman. “It comes down to [the Planning Board saying], ‘Trust us,’ and I don’t have any reason to trust anybody about this.”

A point of contention is whether the state would really take away discretionary grants if Marblehead doesn’t comply. Hyte, who also serves on the Water and Sewer Commission, highlighted that Marblehead could lose millions in state grants. He noted that Marblehead is vying for two major grants: a MassWorks grant for $3 million for a water pipe replacement and $11 million or more to replace the Village Street bridge.

Marblehead is not alone in wrestling with the MBTA Communities Act. In February, Milton rejected its zoning plan, arguing against state interference in local matters. The Attorney General’s lawsuit to enforce compliance has reached the state Supreme Judicial Court, with arguments set for October. Meanwhile, Milton faces penalties, including disqualification from a $140,800 state grant.

The Kolackovsky et al. v. Town of Rockport et al. case, currently pending in Essex County Superior Court, is another example of ongoing litigation related to the MBTA Communities Act. In this case, the plaintiffs have filed a complaint against the town of Rockport, challenging its compliance with the act. The Attorney General’s Office has filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that they lack standing and have failed to state a claim for relief.

The decision ultimately lies in the hands of Marblehead’s residents after months of public meetings and input.

“The town gets to decide. It’s not for the Planning Board to make this decision,” Schaeffner said. “However, we are asked to support it and vote in favor of it to get to Town Meeting — and then to present it to the town.”