The Marblehead Planning Board unanimously voted Tuesday night to favorably recommend Article 23, paving the way for Town Meeting voters to weigh in on proposed zoning changes that would bring the town into compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities Act.
The Planning Board’s vote came with very little public comment, a stark contrast to the Finance Committee’s 90-minute debate the night before, which drew sharp opinions and revealed deep divisions over how the zoning changes might affect Marblehead’s character, infrastructure and legal standing. The Finance Committee voted 8-1 to support the measure.
Under Massachusetts law, when a zoning article is defeated, any substantially similar proposal cannot be reconsidered within two years unless the Planning Board provides a favorable recommendation. Therefore, the Planning Board’s recent vote on Article 23 was essential to bring the proposal back to Town Meeting for another vote.
“Given that it’s a legal mandate, and could easily be changed from unfunded to funded based on the auditor’s own words, it would probably be a tough court case,” said Finance Committee Chair Alec Goolsby, who spoke with State Auditor Diana DiZoglio about her recent determination that the MBTA Communities Act constitutes an unfunded mandate.
Marblehead faces a July 14 deadline to adopt zoning changes allowing multifamily housing by right in designated areas or risk losing millions in state grants and potential legal action from the State Attorney General’s Office.
The lone dissenter
Finance Committee member Michael Janko cast the lone dissenting vote, expressing concern about permanent changes to the town’s character.
“This is a slippery slope, and once we open the door, then we can’t stop it,” Janko said. “The reason people move to Marblehead is because of the character of the town. And once this goes out, the character of the town is irreparably, permanently changed.”
Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer emphasized that non-compliance would jeopardize substantial grant funding.
“FY24 discretionary grants totaled $1.5 million. FY25 is ongoing at $475,000, and FY26 infrastructure grants could reach about $8 million,” Kezer said, referencing figures compiled by town staff.
Several committee members questioned whether opposing a state law was appropriate for their advisory role.
“From a financial impact standpoint, you have to sort of think about the short-term costs which would be legal costs, would be loss of grants,” said Finance Committee member Molly Teets. “From everything I’ve heard, purely from that standpoint, I believe the facts that make the cost outweigh a cost of not adopting or not recommending.”
The town’s proposed compliance model includes zoning for three districts: Tioga Way with 29.8 acres, Pleasant Street with 20.6 acres and Broughton Road with 8 acres. Officials noted that about 360 of the potential 897 units already exist as multifamily housing within these areas.
Attorney and resident John DiPiano urged the committee to consider seeking a compliance exemption based on the auditor’s unfunded mandate determination before Town Meeting.
“Under the statute regulating unfunded mandates, if this community voluntarily accepts 3A, it is then barred from seeking an injunction and would bear any of the costs associated with infrastructure developing the community,” DiPiano said, citing legal filings in similar cases that allege substantial municipal costs for infrastructure, schools, public safety and other services.
Select Board Chair Erin Noonan, participating remotely, strongly disagreed with DiPiano’s interpretation.
“By definition, this is a mandate, and a judge cannot determine that our acceptance was voluntary because this has been determined a mandate,” Noonan said. “His position that the door closes is because we have voluntarily accepted this just does not compute with the determination from the Supreme Judicial Court.”
Resident Phil Mancuso passionately advocated for preserving the town’s historic character.
“Do a favor for everybody that has a single family residence that has worked hard to get that single family residence,” Mancuso said. “Marblehead has 400-plus years of history. It is a beautiful town. It is a historic town.”
Finance Committee member Eric Knight acknowledged concerns about town character but supported compliance.
“I’m sympathetic to Michael’s point about the character of the town. It’s a valid point, but I want to underscore the fact the town zoning still controls,” Knight said. “From my perspective, I believe that the risks of non-compliance greatly outweigh the risks of compliance.”
Select Board members present indicated they are bringing the article forward to Town Meeting on May 5 but are also considering pursuing a compliance exemption through legal channels.
“We are not out of compliance on July 14. So we have the May 5, when our legislative body, which is the citizens, decides on this,” said Select Board member Dan Fox. “If it goes that we vote no, then I think that we will have, as Moses was saying, still that option. Our compliance This date is July 14.”
The Planning Board must make a favorable recommendation for the article to proceed to Town Meeting. Tonight’s meeting begins at 7 p.m. at Abbot Hall and virtually HERE.
