The Marblehead Select Board meeting broke down Wednesday night as officials and residents clashed over whether to hold a special Town Meeting to reconsider compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities Act, a contentious housing law that voters narrowly rejected in May. Currrently, a special Town Meeting is planned for November, but no date has been set.
The meeting’s public comment period quickly became heated, with residents talking over one another and accusations flying. At one point, Select Board Chair Erin Noonan suggested adjourning the meeting due to the constant interruptions and lack of decorum.
John DiPiano, a local attorney who started an online petition with approximately 450 signatures (some from out of town, he has noted online) opposing a special Town Meeting, confronted Noonan about a personal email she sent out encouraging supporters to advocate for the housing law.
“I find what you’re doing personally appalling,” DiPiano said, questioning whether the email violated open meeting laws. “You’re advocating people advance this cause as chair of this Select Board. I don’t think that’s your job. I don’t think you’re here to be a lobbyist.”
Noonan defended her actions, stating that her support for addressing housing issues has been public knowledge since her campaign.
“People chose to like that about me, and that’s why I’m here,” said Noonan. “It’s not a secret that I am in favor of working around finding solutions to our town’s unmet housing needs.”
The MBTA Communities Act, signed into law in 2021, requires 177 communities served by the MBTA to zone for multifamily housing. Marblehead risks losing access to certain state grants if it fails to comply by Dec. 31.
In May, Marblehead Town Meeting voters rejected the Planning Board zoning proposal to create three, multifamily housing districts, falling short by just 33 votes out of nearly 800 cast.
This isn’t ‘Groundhogs Day’
Angus McQuilken, a founding member of the new Marblehead Housing Coalition, backed a special Town Meeting. However, a man repeatedly interrupted McQuilken, forcing him to pause and assert his right to speak.
“You do not have the floor, sir,” McQuilken said to the resident. “I’m talking.”
McQuilken continued: “I want to see this community be part of the solution. We have a well-documented shortage of houses. Every community in the state needs to do its part to help address that challenge.”
McQuilken, whose vote to reconsider the MBTA zoning on Town Meeting floor failed in May, addressed misinformation concerns, cited an anonymous postcard mailed to residents before the Town Meeting in May to partly justify a revote.
“It actually read that 54 acres of our town would be permanently handed over to the state to control,” McQuilken said. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The tension escalated further when one resident called McQuilken a “weasel” later in the meeting after he spoke, prompting admonishment from board members about maintaining civility during the discussion.
James Full opposed a revote, stressing Marblehead’s longstanding Town Meeting tradition.
“Marblehead’s Town Meeting has been touted as the purest form of democracy in this country,” Full said. “What’s settled at Town Meeting is settled. Shame on anyone that wants to push this agenda forward.”
William Keaney supported the zoning changes, noting potential community benefits.
“It’s good for Marblehead,” Keaney said. “If we develop a more diversified housing stock, it will help our seniors downsize and stay here. It’ll help our children, who grow up in this town and then have to leave the town, they will be able to stay in the town.”
The proposed zoning changes in Marblehead would create three, multifamily housing districts: Tioga Way with 29.8 acres allowing up to 483 units, Pleasant Street with 20.6 acres allowing up to 295 units, and Broughton Road with 8.0 acres allowing up to 119 units.
Planning Board Chair Bob Schaeffner previously noted that over 300 existing units would count toward the zoning requirement, reducing the potential for new construction.
Some people question whether the state can legally tie funding to zoning compliance, an issue at the heart of an ongoing lawsuit between the town of Milton and the Massachusetts Attorney General.
“The Supreme Judicial Court has on its docket the Milton lawsuit, which will determine the Attorney General’s ability to enforce the law contrary to the terms of 3A itself,” DiPiano said. “A meeting in November is premature. We should wait for the SJC’s decision, which could provide crucial guidance for all communities affected by the MBTA Communities Act.”
Noonan, on the other hand, noted the case’s oral argument is set for October, but the court may not hand down an opinion until months later.
“This lawsuit outcome is not the issue that people think it is,” Noonan said in a follow up. “It is not about the constitutionality of [the state law] only where the attorney general can compel compliance above and beyond withholding of funds.”
A frustrated Jonathan Klopman questioned the board’s legitimacy in reconsidering the previous decision.
“This isn’t ‘Groundhogs Day,’” Klopman said, referencing the Bill Murray comedy where the main character relives the same day repeatedly. “Is there a sliding scale for democracy in this town? … Why is the board deciding that we have to have a special meeting because they didn’t get their way?”
Town officials: Too much to lose
Taking public comment into consideration, Select Board members debated whether to hold another vote and the risks of non-compliance.
Town officials emphasized the potential financial consequences of non-compliance.
Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer explained that the state has expanded its enforcement to include so-called discretionary grants.
“You don’t get the points that the other communities who are complying [get],” Kezer said, adding that would put Marblehead at a disadvantage. “And we’re actually trying to pick up our game in … actively seeking competitive grants.”
He also raised concerns that noncompliance could derail tools in the newly established Planning and Community Development Department — which voters approved during the same Town Meeting in which the MBTA zoning was rejected — to secure, in part, external funding through grants and reduce the town’s reliance on taxpayer dollars for critical infrastructure projects.
“We have three full time staff positions —people on staff whose job it is to literally apply for grants will be really hand-tied,” Noonan added. “The town is paying for this.”
Noonan stressed the urgency of addressing the issue before the end of the year, citing potential impacts on crucial infrastructure projects like grant money in the millions of dollars for the Village Street Bridge and the harbor sewalls.
Noonan also stressed the board’s duty to ensure residents are fully informed.
“We have a fiduciary duty to the residents and taxpayers of this town to understand the enormous impact and consequences of this decision, whether we vote the plan yes or no,” Noonan said.
To blunt oppositional remarks that he could stand to benefit from the MBTA zoning, Select Board member Dan Fox stated he would file a disclosure, recusing himself and his real estate firm from any involvement in properties affected by the zoning changes.
In addressing arguments that Town Meeting couldn’t reconsider a vote, Fox drew parallels to other town decisions that required multiple votes, such as the Glover School project. He and Noonan also pointed out that in 2022 and 2023 Marblehead weighed in on back-to-back general overrides.
Fox reiterated that the zoning changes would not mandate new construction but rather create the opportunity for multifamily housing in specific areas.
“I look at this as the state is giving us our autonomy to choose where [zoning goes],” Fox said.
Select Board member Moses Grader acknowledged the need to not only respect the democratic process but also the financial risks of non-compliance, given the town’s precarious financial situation.
“I accept the outcome of the town vote as part of the democratic process,” Grader said. “Having said that, we ought to take seriously the problem of money in the future.”
“I’m very practically parochial on this,” Grader said. “If we are endangering a lot of money — having said that, I think the state has approached this with more stick than carrot, and I understand why people take umbrage.”
In the end, the Select Board did not make a final decision on the special Town Meeting date. Members emphasized the need for more comprehensive information before making a decision on setting that date.
Kezer did speak to the importance of a potential timeline for a November special Town Meeting, emphasizing that while only 14 days’ notice is legally required, officials in an ideal situation should allow around two months for public deliberation and information-sharing.
