The Attorney General reviewed and substantially approved Marblehead’s 2025 ADU bylaw but requested further adjustments for consistency with the Massachusetts ADU law. This amendment implements those changes and adds site-plan review oversight for ADUs on preexisting non-conforming lots, which are prevalent in Marblehead. Planning board voted 5–0 to recommend. Electronic vote: 69 yes to 47 no.

The revised 3A plan was developed by a working group after a prior referendum failure. It removed the Tioga Way and Pleasant Street sub-districts and added a Tedesco sub-district while retaining Broughton Road.

Sub-districts:

• Tedesco: Two parcels (golf course + parking lot); capacity 780 units; 35-foot max height; mixed-use allowed; architectural guidelines for roof pitch, windows, clapboard siding, landscape plans.
• Broughton Road: All of Broughton Road; 120-unit capacity; 35-foot max height.
• Combined capacity of 900 units meets the state’s 897-unit requirement.

The plan received EOHLC preliminary approval in February 2026. Planning board voted 5–0 to recommend.

Key discussion points:

• Tedesco ownership: The golf course owner has been consulted and is understood to be comfortable; sale is not required and development is not mandated — it is a zoning overlay only.
• A resident (Nick Ward) argued the plan is designed to avoid actual development, noting that property taxes rose anyway despite no new housing.
• The AG has an active lawsuit on hold pending this vote; failure to pass would likely resume legal action.
• 3A compliance would restore eligibility for future grant rounds; ~$4M in previously applied-for grants are likely unrecoverable.

Electronic vote result: 81 yes to 82 no — article passed (two-thirds not required for this overlay).

Note: The vote result as read aloud was “81 to 82” — this appears to reflect the display as announced by the moderator; the article was declared passed.

The town administrator described technical amendments to Marblehead’s ADU bylaw required by subsequent changes in state law. The updates limit discretionary review, align parking and procedural requirements with current state law, and remove the two-bedroom cap per ADU (required by the state). The committee discussed potential new-growth revenue implications but concluded the financial impact was not material enough to warrant a formal recommendation. A resident commented that the Planning Board has worked to preserve local protections to the maximum extent allowed.

The town administrator presented the revised MBTA Communities (Chapter 40B/3A) multifamily overlay district zoning bylaw. The prior version had three zones (Tiger Way, Pleasant Street, Broughton Road); the new version replaces the first two with a single large zone at the Tedesco property on the Swampscott border, while retaining Broughton Road.

The committee was told that Marblehead has foregone nearly $4 million in grants due to non-compliance. The Massachusetts Attorney General is aware of the pending town meeting vote and is delaying enforcement action. The vote to recommend adoption passed 8 to 1.

Community Development Director Brenda Callahan provided an update on MBTA Communities Chapter 3A compliance. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) responded that adoption of the proposed district would put Marblehead in a good position for compliance.

Key details:

• The district must accommodate 897 units; the closest whole-number figure achievable given available acreage is 900 units
• The district comprises two sub-districts: the Broome Road District and the ESCO District
• The Glover property was removed from the district because it lacked frontage on Marblehead’s streets (its frontage is in Salem)
• Legal counsel is reviewing the near-final text; consultant Barrett Planning Group has already incorporated the one remaining comment
• Planning Board public hearing: March 10
• The article will be placed on the town meeting warrant
• One public informational session is planned, likely before or alongside a Planning Board meeting; a daytime session may also be held

The board indicated preference for a single, straightforward informational session rather than a multi-week engagement series.

Public comment from Nick Ward (remote).

Ward raised the list of infrastructure projects that the town may now have to find alternative funding for, due to Marblehead’s noncompliance with the MBTA 3A Bylaw that came into effect locally with a failed Town Meeting vote.

He asked the Town Administrator to:

• Track additional funding sources for those infrastructure projects
• Focus on potential cost increases due to delays and maintenance expenses during the wait for permanent repairs

No response or follow-up commitment was recorded in the minutes; this was public-comment-period only.

Town Administrator and Community Development Director Brenda Callahan reported that the town will become non-compliant with MBTA Communities Act Chapter 3A as of July 14, 2025, following the prior night’s referendum vote against Article 23.

Grants awarded but not yet contracted (~$1.28 million at risk):

Existing contracted grants potentially jeopardized (~$354,792):

• Mass Works Five Corners Redesign
• Community Planning Grant / Master Plan
• Municipal Private Network Phase 3 (fiber extension to the Neck)

Pending state grant applications at risk (over $3 million):

• Abbot Hall Attic and Accessibility project (~$1M)
• Rail Trail Improvements (~$866,000)
• State Street Land Resilience Design
• ADA and downtown planning initiatives

Federal grant match exposure: The state had agreed to cover a $1.125 million local match for an $11.6 million federal Port Infrastructure Development Program grant. That match may no longer be available, requiring the town to fund the match itself or forgo the federal grant.

The Village Street Bridge Reconstruction (~$2.98 million) is on the Transportation Improvement Program conveyor belt but not yet funded; the board discussed risk of removal from that queue.

Board members emphasized the need to continue pursuing project investments through debt capacity if state funding is lost, and to maintain community development staff. Staff indicated they would contact state agencies to clarify what can be preserved.

Staff explained that HOME funds flow from HUD through the City of Beverly as regional fiduciary to Marblehead. The funds are structured as loans to enforce affordability periods; once those periods expire, the loan is discharged. The board approved two such discharges:

Both votes were unanimous.

Following the warrant votes, multiple board members offered remarks on the tone of public debate surrounding Article 23.

“We have to remember — once Milton was decided, this was a state law. That’s where this angst needs to be directed.”

One member noted that 18 of 19 board and committee members who voted on Article 23 supported it, and expressed disappointment that two named board members — identified as Ms. Noon and Mr. Fox — had been personally attacked online. He urged residents to direct criticism at the issue or the board collectively rather than individuals, and recommended viewers watch a short video on the effects of political extremism.

Another member said ad hominem attacks had affected him as well and expressed full support for the referendum process, stating the entire board voted unanimously to advance the ballot question. A third member encouraged residents to use official email channels to ask questions and receive factual information before the vote.

Article 24 updated Marblehead’s accessory dwelling unit zoning bylaw to comply with the 2024 state Affordable Homes Act, which mandates ADUs be permitted by right in single-family districts. Key changes: maximum ADU size reduced from 1,000 to 900 sq ft; parking requirement reduced from two spaces to one (or none within a half-mile of a bus stop); owner-occupancy requirement removed as prohibited by state regulation; site plan review retained.

Two subsidiary amendments were offered by resident Yael McGinn (165 West Shore Dr) to allow short-term rentals (under 90 days) for owner-resident properties:

• Amendment 1 (primary dwelling only): failed 55–324
• Amendment 2 (primary and ADU): failed 59–322

Town Counsel Adam Costa cautioned that both amendments conditioned short-term rental permissions on owner occupancy, which the state ADU regulations specifically prohibit municipalities from requiring. Planning Board member Barton Height stated the planning board unanimously opposed the amendments and that short-term rentals for ADUs were not the intent of the state mandate, which targets long-term housing supply. The main Article 24 motion then passed 313–46 on a two-thirds vote.

Background

Planning Board Chair Brendan Callahan (500 Bill Road) reported that the planning board opened a public hearing on March 11, continued it twice, took public comment on April 8, and unanimously voted 5–0 to recommend adoption.

The moderator noted the Supreme Judicial Court had already upheld the statute, making the evening’s debate about where to place the zoning district rather than whether the law applies.

Town Planner Presentation (Alex Seiter)

Town Planner Alex Seiter explained that Marblehead, as an MBTA adjacent community, must zone for approximately 1% of its total land area and accommodate a capacity of 897 units of multifamily housing by right. The proposed plan identifies three sub-districts:

Key zoning restrictions retained: maximum height 35 feet (~3 stories); maximum density 20 units per acre; open space requirement (lawn must exceed building footprint); minimum 2 parking spaces. Of the 199 total parcels across all three districts, only 3 are vacant — all town-owned. Seiter argued the economics of redevelopment would be highly constrained.

First Subsidiary Motion: Indefinite Postponement

John Deano (6 Trager Road) moved indefinite postponement. His arguments included:

• The true amount of grants at risk from last year’s no-vote was $475,000 based on FOIA responses — not the millions cited by proponents.
• Three A is a market-rate, not affordable-housing, mandate; the 10% affordability threshold was set specifically to lower the required vote from two-thirds to a simple majority.
• Pleadings filed by Mead Tallman on behalf of towns including Middleton and Randolph estimated direct compliance costs of $15,058,988 for a 750-unit mandate (Marblehead’s requirement is 897 units), including police, fire, public works, and education impacts.
• Marblehead should file for a compliance exemption; the State Auditor’s Division of Local Mandates has determined 3A is an unfunded mandate.
• Deano announced he had pre-drafted a referendum petition for a ratification vote if the main article passes.

Select Board member Dan Fox opposed postponement, stating the SJC ruling settled the constitutional question and the evening’s vote is about local zoning compliance, not the law’s merits. He expressed regret that 3A had been divisive.

Multiple residents spoke for and against. Key points from the floor:

• Angus McQuilkin (39 Hobbs Lane): The July 14 compliance deadline triggers loss of state grant eligibility across all competitive grant programs; court-imposed financial penalties and litigation costs would follow non-compliance.
• Rick Meyers (30 Phillips Street): The plan draws lines around neighborhoods already containing multifamily housing; economics of redevelopment are challenging; existing Pleasant Street buildings do not meet open-space requirements, making demolition-and-rebuild financially unattractive.
• Yael McGinn (West Shore Drive), attorney: Argued 40B provides more affordable housing (25% requirement) than 3A (10% above 6 units); units of 5 or fewer would require zero affordable units under 3A.
• Cheryl Patton (25 Lee Street): The SJC has ruled; compliance preserves local zoning control; Marblehead has lost over 700 students in 10 years.

The motion for indefinite postponement failed (exact vote not announced).

Second Subsidiary Motion: Amendment to Vote Against Adoption

A second motion (also presented by McGinn with Deano) sought to amend Article 23 to read as a vote not to amend the zoning bylaw, and to request the Select Board file an exemption/extension with the state. The moderator noted the word “not” would reverse the original motion and the directive to the Select Board would be advisory only.

Fox again opposed on behalf of the Select Board, characterizing it as functionally equivalent to another indefinite postponement.

This amendment failed 673 yes to 1060 no.

Written Ballot Question

The moderator put to the meeting whether to use a written ballot for Article 23 (which would bar reconsideration). That motion failed 676 yes to 1029 no.

Final Vote on Article 23

The main motion to amend the zoning bylaw and create the multifamily overlay district passed 951 to 759.

A Select Board member reported that the Planning Board voted unanimously the prior evening to recommend adoption of Marblehead’s MBTA Communities Chapter 3A compliance plan. Planning Board member Mark Leman chaired the meeting. The recommendation now moves forward through the required adoption process. The member acknowledged the Planning Board’s approximately two years of work on the compliance effort.

The town planner explained that a new state law effective February 2025 requires ADUs to be permitted by right in single-family zoned parcels and removes the owner-occupancy requirement — meaning neither the principal dwelling owner nor the ADU occupant need reside on the property. The law also sets the ADU size limit at 900 square feet or half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is smaller, and eliminates parking requirements within half a mile of a transit stop.

The article updates the existing Marblehead ADU bylaw to be consistent with the state law rather than defaulting entirely to state regulations. The FinCom made no financial recommendation, noting that declining to adopt would simply default to the same state law requirements.

Background: Article 23 proposes a multifamily overlay zoning district in three sub-areas (Tioga Way, Pleasant Street, Broden Road) to comply with the MBTA Communities Act (Chapter 3A). Town meeting rejected the same article in 2024. The article requires a simple majority (50%) vote at town meeting due to its affordable housing classification.

Key facts presented:

• The three districts total roughly 1% of Marblehead’s land area
• State requires zoning capacity for ~10% of housing stock (~897 units)
• ~360 units already exist in the proposed districts; net theoretical maximum new units: ~537
• Developer economics: Town Planner Alex Ler stated that small parcel sizes, high land values, parking and open-space requirements, and the need for parcel assembly make significant development unlikely; no comparison community with similar characteristics shows significant 3A-driven development
• The Massachusetts SJC upheld the constitutionality of the MBTA Communities Act on January 8, 2025, closing the Milton case
• The town’s compliance deadline is July 14, 2025; the town is currently within a compliance window due to post-Milton emergency regulations
• Grants withheld or at risk: FY24 and before ~$1.5M (received), FY25 ongoing ~$475K, FY26 forward ~$8M — total approximately $10M at risk
• Town counsel’s rough litigation cost estimate if challenged by the Attorney General: ~$75,000 initial, with potential for significantly more

State Auditor’s unfunded mandate opinion: FinCom Chair Goolsby reported speaking directly with State Auditor Diana Dizoglio for approximately one hour. Key points:

• The auditor determined 3A is an unfunded mandate because the state created a discretionary grant program to cover design/implementation costs while simultaneously issuing a zero-financial-impact statement — the auditor found these two positions contradictory
• The auditor confirmed her opinion covers only direct implementation and design costs (planning studies, consultant fees), not indirect costs such as schools, water/sewer, or public safety
• The auditor indicated the opinion could be changed to “funded” if the state simply moved the grant funding into its operating budget and updated the financial impact statement — she described this as a straightforward fix
• Marblehead has received $40,000 in discretionary grant funding covering its direct compliance costs to date

Public testimony in opposition (John Dipano):

• Cited pleadings filed April 1, 2025 by the law firm Mead Talman (also Marblehead’s town counsel) on behalf of other communities in a pending case
• Middleton (pop. ~9,779): affidavits supporting direct costs of compliance including 12 new police officers ($1.4M), 8 new firefighters ($1.2M), transfer station costs up $200K/year, 150–375 new students; total costs claimed over $15M vs. ~$5.4M in projected new property tax revenue
• Argued the town should file a compliance exemption petition before the compliance deadline rather than risk foreclosing that option by voluntarily adopting 3A
• Select board member Dan Fox noted no ruling has yet issued from an April 2 hearing and the select board has not ruled out filing a compliance exemption

Public testimony in support (Aaron Nunan, online):

• Argued that because 3A is a mandate, town adoption cannot be characterized as voluntary acceptance, making compliance exemption arguments legally inconsistent
• Noted Marblehead’s student population is declining; Chapter 90 and Chapter 70 funding is formulaic based on enrollment and would not represent unfunded costs
• All three proposed districts are already served by water and sewer
• Milton spent ~$300,000 litigating and lost

Vote: 8 in favor, 1 opposed (Mr. Jenko).

The select board stated it is bringing Article 23 forward to the May town meeting and has not ruled out a parallel protective compliance exemption filing if the article fails.

Two select board members reported on a conversation with State Auditor Diana DiZoglio following her appearance at a conference with the state auditor’s office. Key takeaways discussed:

• The auditor’s determination that MBTA 3A is an unfunded mandate was triggered by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) submitting a financial impact statement claiming zero direct costs, while simultaneously distributing millions in discretionary grants to municipalities for compliance.
• The auditor considers grants discretionary and therefore not funded; she indicated the determination could be remedied if the legislature converted technical assistance funding to a budget line item.
• The auditor expressed the view that infrastructure costs (roads, water, sewer) resulting from future development constitute indirect costs, not direct costs, and fall outside the scope of her determination.
• It is EOHLC, not the state auditor, that determines what qualifies as a direct cost.
• An April 2 hearing on an injunction request was noted as the next relevant legal milestone; the SJC appeal process has already concluded.
• The board discussed Marblehead’s grant fully covering its compliance costs, leaving no out-of-pocket expense, and debated whether to explore a petition to the legislature.

Board members noted Salem recently received a $1 million infrastructure grant. Discussion concluded with general agreement to keep an open mind about potential petitions while awaiting court developments.

Legal Briefing by Jay Tellerman (Mead Erman Costa)

Attorney Jay Tellerman provided an overview of the Chapter 40A Section 3A litigation landscape:

• The SJC ruled 3A is a mandatory obligation, not a choice with penalties.
• The Division of Local Mandates (state auditor) found the act is an unfunded mandate for three petitioning towns (Rentham, Ewing, Middleborough); the Commonwealth has not yet provided the cost data the auditor needs to complete its analysis.
• Five towns have filed for injunctions; a consolidated hearing before one judge is scheduled for April 2, 2025.
• The injunction is not an outright exemption — it seeks a temporary reprieve while the funding question is resolved. Even if granted, towns will ultimately need to comply.
• Marblehead’s compliance deadline is July 14, 2025. A town could file for injunctive relief up to and even after that date.
• Voluntary compliance before seeking an exemption may complicate a town’s ability to later seek relief, though counsel noted this is more nuanced than a simple binary.

Public Comment Summary

Approximately 28 residents spoke. Key arguments:

In favor of seeking injunction/exemption:

• Attorney John Dip Pano argued voluntary acceptance at town meeting bars the town from later seeking an exemption and shifts infrastructure costs permanently to taxpayers.
• Several residents cited the town-meeting vote against 3A and urged the board to honor it.
• Residents raised concerns about traffic, school capacity, and infrastructure costs not being funded by the state.

Against seeking injunction; in favor of compliance:

• Residents argued litigation costs could reach hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars with low probability of success.
• Loss of state grants — both enumerated and discretionary — was cited as a major financial risk; one resident noted the state has already signaled it will attach 3A compliance to competitive grant scoring.
• The SJC has already ruled the law constitutional and enforceable; the Attorney General has stated she will aggressively enforce compliance.
• Several residents noted the Marblehead compliance plan is an overlay that preserves existing height, setback, parking, and open-space restrictions.

Board Discussion

All five board members indicated they were not prepared to vote at this meeting. Members cited the rapidly evolving legal situation, the need for a cost-benefit analysis, and the desire to continue receiving advice from counsel before acting. No motion regarding the injunction was made.

The board chair noted receipt of multiple resident emails regarding the state auditor’s determination on the MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A). The chair indicated plans to schedule the topic for the March 12 regular meeting with legal counsel present to explain the current legal landscape before any board decision on next steps.

During public comment responses, the Select Board chair addressed housing affordability and the upcoming MBTA Communities zoning article:

• The multifamily zoning map area designated through the planning department and Planning Board is expected to come before town meeting in 2025.
• The chair framed the vote as one piece of a larger housing diversity puzzle, noting Marblehead’s aging population is growing faster than peer communities and that seniors are often “upside down” in valuable homes with no affordable downsizing options.
• Two housing committees are active; the Housing Production Plan is also in progress.
• CFO Benjamin noted that the state withheld signing grant contracts until January pending the town’s zoning compliance status, and that future grant applications could be at risk if the zoning article does not pass.
• Separately, the town administrator noted a town meeting article in preparation with the Finance Committee, assessors, and Council on Aging for a senior tax relief measure to reduce the burden of tax increases on lower-income elderly residents.

Town Administrator summarized the SJC decision: the Attorney General retains enforcement authority against non-compliant communities, but the EOHLC’s method of issuing guidelines rather than formal regulations was found improper. The state must now promulgate enforceable regulations through the Administrative Procedure Act process, estimated to take approximately three months.

The town administrator stated that Marblehead went out of compliance on January 1st but is now effectively back in compliance during this interim period. He emphasized that the Planning Board is already advancing the zoning change process—required to follow a specific timeline of public hearings before Town Meeting—and that the plan produced in the prior year is being carried forward. He said the town should continue moving toward zoning compliance and adjust as final regulations emerge.

Two candidates were interviewed for the Select Board liaison seat on the MBTA Advisory Board. Judith Black, a transit user and former Sustainable Marblehead transportation chair, discussed lateral transit needs on the North Shore and electric bus conversion. Tracy Lawrence, who has worked for the Secretary of Transportation, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Mass Development Finance Agency, and DCR, gave an extensive overview of MBTA finances including an approximately $700 million annual operating deficit and a $3 billion infrastructure/maintenance deficit. Black withdrew in favor of Lawrence after the interview. Lawrence was appointed unanimously.

Sustainability Coordinator Logan Casey presented a review of Marblehead’s MBTA Communities Act compliance situation, including the three proposed overlay subdistricts (Tioga Way, Pleasant Street, and Bron Road), and the financial and legal consequences of non-compliance.

Key compliance parameters:

• Overlay must equal at least 1% of town land area (27 acres)
• Multifamily housing must be permitted as of right at minimum 15 units/acre
• At least 10% of total housing units (897 units based on 8,965 existing units) must be zoned for
• Compliance deadline: December 31, 2024

Consequences of non-compliance outlined:

• Loss of eligibility for 13 specific state grant programs
• Loss of competitiveness in other discretionary grants
• Potential Attorney General enforcement action; legal cost estimates of approximately $25,000 if the SJC resolves all issues, or $50,000–$75,000 in additional costs if it does not
• The Municipal Shipyards Resiliency Project carries an estimated construction cost of $15.8 million plus approximately $7.7 million in interest over 25 years if locally financed; the town has applied for $2 million from state and $2 million in federal earmarks toward that cost
• The Village Street Bridge Replacement Project is estimated at $3 million, with approximately $1.7 million in additional interest if locally financed
• A $240,000 coastal resilience grant application for State Street Landing cited MBTA compliance as a scoring factor
• $285,000 in pending FY25 MassWorks/livable communities grants are at risk

Board and staff updates from state conversations: Select Board members reported speaking with Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll’s office. A request for a compliance deadline extension was denied. The Lt. Governor’s office indicated non-compliant communities would not be allowed through grant application gates going forward. The board is following up with the Town of Topsfield, which reportedly negotiated its unit requirement down from 750 to 118, to understand the process.

Board discussion: All five board members expressed that they were not prepared to call a special town meeting at this time, citing respect for the town meeting vote, insufficient new information, and ongoing uncertainty pending the SJC ruling in the Milton case. Several members noted concern about the town’s structural deficit and long-term financial implications. The board agreed to continue gathering information.

Extended public comment followed with residents expressing views both for and against compliance.

The board held a lengthy discussion about whether to call a special town meeting to reconsider the MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A) multi-family zoning overlay, which failed at the May 2024 annual town meeting by approximately 33 votes.

Key points raised:

• Financial impact: CFO Alicia and Town Administrator Thatcher described an expanding list of state grants now requiring 3A compliance as a scoring criterion. The town has approximately $15 million in harbor/seawall projects at 75% design phase. Investment income grew from $66,232 in FY2022 to $1,349,592 in FY2023, underscoring the importance of external grant revenue to avoid tax increases.
• Grant competitiveness: Non-compliant communities receive lower scores in competitive discretionary grant programs. The town now has a sustainability coordinator, grant writer, and new town planner whose work is tied to grant eligibility.
• Milton case context: The SJC case concerns whether the Attorney General can compel compliance beyond withholding grants; the town of Milton’s town meeting passed 3A but a citizen petition subsequently repealed it after its deadline had already passed — a different posture than Marblehead’s.
• Board positions: The chair and member Fox expressed support for a special town meeting with clearer financial information. Member Singer expressed reluctance to override the town vote but acknowledged the financial stakes. Member Murray (Moses) asked to wait for more information and said he could see it coming before a regular town meeting instead.
• Process: To hit a November date, the warrant would need to be opened soon, though legal minimum notice is 14 days. Staff were asked to prepare a financial impact summary — including specific grant programs at risk, Village Street bridge cost scenarios, and harbor phase-1 funding — for the next meeting.
• Cemetery Commission: Separately, the board noted that two of three elected Cemetery Commission members (Pam Peterson and Janet Merrill) resigned citing departmental concerns, leaving the commission below quorum. Letters of interest for appointments are due September 20; a joint appointment meeting with the remaining commissioner is targeted for September 25.

The Town Administrator noted ongoing public confusion about MBTA Communities (Chapter 40A Section 3A) compliance following the Warren Arco zoning article’s failure at town meeting. Key clarifications:

• Marblehead is currently compliant and remains so until the end of December 2024.
• The Milton situation differs: Milton passed its zoning amendment before its December 2023 deadline, but a citizen petition under Milton’s charter repealed the town meeting vote in 2024, immediately creating non-compliance.
• Marblehead does not have the same charter provision, so the failed town meeting vote does not trigger immediate non-compliance.
• The town will attempt again to pass a qualifying zoning amendment before the end-of-year deadline.

The board held an extended discussion on Article 36, the MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A) zoning compliance article on the annual Town Meeting warrant. The article was not sponsored by the Select Board.

Financial stakes described:

• Approximately $12 million in seawall enhancement funding at risk
• A $3 million Water Main replacement on Atlantic Avenue pending state approval
• An $11 million Village Street Bridge project on the Transportation Improvement Program; the town would bear the full cost if state funding were withheld
• Governor Healey stated in a December radio interview that non-compliant communities would see state withholding for schools, roads, bridges, and other programs
• Milton lost seawall funding within a week of rejecting compliance

Key points raised:

• The 897-unit figure is a state-calculated threshold based on approximately 1% of Marblehead’s existing housing stock of roughly 8,000 units, used to set zoning parameters at a minimum of 15 units per acre; it is not a construction mandate
• The article creates a zoning overlay, not a building requirement; actual development would likely be a fraction of the theoretical maximum
• The planning board, led by town planner Becky Cutting, crafted three zone areas already suitable for redevelopment, including Broon Road (a Housing Authority site already pursuing development)
• Marblehead’s high existing density means fewer buildable parcels compared to less-developed communities
• The town’s housing stock is predominantly single-family; the zoning change could support options for downsizing seniors and returning young residents
• The Finance Committee voted to support the article given potential negative financial impact of non-compliance

Public comment:

• Claudette Mason (8 Susan Road) questioned the 897-unit figure, contending the Commonwealth’s documents describe it as a minimum rather than a maximum, and questioned the reliability of financial impact estimates given the Finance Committee’s earlier inability to itemize past grant receipts
• An unidentified caller (identified as a longtime resident) urged the board to take a formal vote and cited Marblehead’s relative advantage as a bus-only MBTA community compared to communities with subway access

Board positions (individual, not a formal vote):

• All five members stated personal support for Article 36, while several expressed reservations about the state mandate approach
• One member noted the town has historically not taken formal votes on non-sponsored articles, referencing the CPA vote as a limited prior precedent
• Members emphasized ongoing financial analysis by the finance department to quantify at-risk grant funding

Article 36 adopts a Chapter 40A Section 3A Multifamily Overlay District to comply with MBTA Communities zoning requirements. As an abutting community to a directly served MBTA community, Marblehead must adopt compliant zoning by end of calendar year 2024.

What the article does:

• Creates three overlay zones in areas already developed where redevelopment is economically unlikely
• Requires no construction; only creates zoning that permits by-right multifamily development
• Minimum density requirement of 15 units per acre within overlay areas
• Local setbacks, heights, and design standards remain under local control

Financial risk of non-compliance:

The CFO listed grants at risk:

• TIP funding: $3M (Atlantic Ave water main), $11M (Village Street Bridge)
• Village and Pleasant Street improvements: $1–2M (past TIP funding)
• MVP sewer grant application: $800,000
• MVP health department funding (ongoing)
• Logan sustainability grant applications ($2M+ submitted)
• Multiple state discretionary grant programs (list continues to grow)

Milton refused to adopt, then a citizen petition repealed it; state has since cut their grant funding. The town administrator noted that Marblehead’s existing density makes large-scale development economically unviable, distinguishing it from communities with open farmland. The FinCom chair stated FinCom defers to professional staff guidance given the financial implications. Voted 8-1 to recommend adoption.

Fox clarified that school properties returned to the town cannot yield revenue for the school budget; proceeds from any sale would revert to the town’s general or revolving fund, not the school department.

The committee is holding the Coffin School because a pending town meeting vote on MBTA Communities zoning compliance could add approximately 900 housing units, with the state bylaw language prioritizing family housing. Releasing property before knowing the enrollment implications of that vote was described as fiscally irresponsible.

The Elihu school property is also in limbo, currently used temporarily by the Marblehead Public Library during its renovation. A member suggested the district could explore expanding its preschool program—currently its largest revenue producer with waitlists at every town preschool—or developing an early intervention center using federal funding at one of these sites.

Planning Director Becky Cutting presented the MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 3A) compliance requirements and the town’s planning approach. Marblehead is classified as an adjacent community because it borders municipalities with MBTA rail stations, obligating it to zone for multifamily housing as of right.

Key requirements: | Requirement | Detail | |—|—| | Minimum district size | 27 acres (1% of town’s 2,771 acres) | | Minimum density | 15 units per acre | | Minimum unit capacity | 897 units (10% of existing ~8,965 units) | | No single sub-area | Less than 5 acres | | One area must be | At least 50% of total district | | Compliance deadline | December 2024 |

Consequences of non-compliance include loss of eligibility for state funding programs, potential civil enforcement action by the Attorney General, and potential federal fair housing liability. The state has confirmed communities cannot opt out by forgoing funding.

The presenter emphasized this is a zoning mandate, not a building mandate. She cited examples of zoning changes in Marblehead (Vinnin Square Smart Growth Zone adopted 2009, first application 2022; Incentive Zoning Bylaw adopted 1990, first application 2013) to illustrate that rezoning does not guarantee development.

Areas under consideration for the compliant district:

• Expansion of existing Vinnin Square Smart Growth District
• Broon Road (existing Housing Authority multifamily)
• Downtown/Village Plaza area
• JCC property (10 acres, owner expressed interest)
• Underutilized/largely vacant commercial buildings

The planning board is avoiding the historic district. A draft preferred alternative is expected to be presented at a public Zoom forum on February 16th. The zoning amendment will be submitted to the town warrant in late January, with a vote at the May 2024 town meeting.

Board members asked about traffic and school enrollment modeling; the presenter confirmed technical assistance through a state grant and a community engagement consultant are producing those analyses for the February 16th presentation.

Town Administrator Thatcher updated the board on the MBTA Communities zoning process. Town Planner Becky Curran has conducted online and in-person public input sessions and will soon launch an online open house portal. She is also convening focus groups, including a Fair Housing Committee session.

Key parameters under state requirements: a minimum of 27 acres must be zoned for multifamily use at a minimum density of 15 units per acre. Curran has illustrated what 15, 30, and 50 units per acre look like, noting that all those density levels already exist somewhere in Marblehead today.

The requirement is to create compliant zoning — not to build housing. A town meeting vote will ultimately be required to adopt whatever zoning is recommended.

The Town Administrator noted that a report from Dan Elbit, Marblehead’s representative on the MBTA Advisory Board, regarding MBTA electrification efforts was included in the board’s packet. A board member then reminded residents that the following evening (the day after the meeting) at 7:30 PM, the Planning Board was hosting an online Zoom presentation on MBTA Communities zoning. A subsequent in-person forum with maps and community input was also being planned by the town planner. The session was described as a precursor to what will be presented at Town Meeting.

A board member provided an update on the Coffin School property, identified in the Housing Production Plan as a potential site for affordable housing or open space. After outreach to the school committee chair, the facilities committee discussed demolition; the school committee subsequently voted 3–2 not to return the property to the town.

Key arguments raised by board members:

• The property belongs to taxpayers; the Select Board is the senior board entrusted with disposition of town assets
• The building is unlikely to ever be used as a school again: fire and police have condemned it, MSBA assistance is unlikely given the district’s broader school plan, and a debt exclusion override for Coffin is improbable
• A non-conforming use argument may apply under zoning bylaws if the building has been unused for more than two years without re-establishing its use

The board directed staff to consult town counsel on the non-conforming use question and the Select Board’s authority. A resident during public comment also urged action, noting vandalism, water damage, asbestos, and the loss of fire sprinkler protection after utilities were shut off.

The committee discussed a request, initiated by correspondence from the select board chair, to transfer the Coffin School property to the town as part of the housing production plan process. The facilities subcommittee had previously voted unanimously to recommend against transfer.

Key arguments for retaining the property:

• A pending MBTA Communities zoning overlay article could allow up to approximately 900 new housing units in Marblehead, potentially generating significant enrollment growth not reflected in prior MSBA projections.
• Once municipal property is transferred, it cannot be reclaimed.
• The Brown School was built with a planned expansion footprint (four classrooms, ~80 students) insufficient to serve large-scale enrollment growth.
• The committee should await the outcome of the zoning bylaw vote at town meeting before making irreversible decisions.

Key arguments raised for action:

• The building is deteriorating and constitutes a cost and liability with no current use plan.
• The committee has discussed the property for approximately two years without resolution.

Agreed next steps:

• The facilities subcommittee will engage local subject matter experts (contractors, abatement specialists) to present cost estimates for the building.
• Administration will produce an inventory of items stored in the building.
• The committee will seek a briefing from public safety on building conditions.
• The committee will pursue collaborative discussions with the town planner and housing production plan committee.

Vote: Motion to declare Coffin School necessary for potential future educational purposes and not sponsor a warrant article to transfer it to the town passed 3 to 2.

The board chair provided an update on the Coffin School property, decommissioned as an elementary school following a 2019 vote to build a new school at the Brown site. The Housing Production Plan identifies the property as one of fewer than a dozen town-owned sites that could support affordable housing goals.

Key statistics cited:

• Median home value in Marblehead: approximately $1.1 million
• 77% of housing stock is single-family owned
• 30% of households are low income, including approximately half of all single-person senior households
• Households led by residents age 55+ grew approximately 21% between 2010 and 2017
• Residents age 25–44 declined approximately 63% in the same period

The board is awaiting a formal determination from the School Committee that the property is no longer needed for educational purposes. Once received, the process would include issuing a request for information based on a prior Coffin visioning study, which emphasized preserving a large portion as public open space with potential for diverse housing units. The conversation was described as ongoing following a leadership transition at the school department.

Select Board member Erin reported that compliance with the MBTA Communities Act (Chapter 3A) requires Marblehead to designate at least 27 acres of as-of-right multifamily zoning. Marblehead is classified as an ‘adjacent’ community (not directly served by MBTA rail), placing it on a slightly later compliance timeline, but the designation must be in place by next town meeting to remain eligible for various state grants. Bowler Engineering has been retained as consultant and is preparing draft site recommendations. The historic district is being kept out of consideration. The Smith Street/post office/Pleasant Street-to-high-school corridor was identified as a candidate area. A public forum and planning board presentation are anticipated before a town meeting vote.