Tewksbury Town Meeting Night 2: MBTA-C Zoning Loses Decisively

Voters sign off on all STM articles but defeat Main A zone

Moderator Dustin Weir kicked off Tewksbury’s Spring 2024 Special Town Meeting on Monday at 7:00 p.m. At the peak, there were 742 voters and 17 guests in attendance.

All Special Town Meeting articles passed unanimously, allocating funds for one-time capital expenditures, including maintenance on Town Hall and supplies for TPD, replenishing the snow and ice removal budget and paying of some outstanding bills

Watch STM here

After reconvening, a standing vote was required to allow Tewksbury Rep. David Robertson to speak, a first in recent Town Meeting history. That count was 185 no and 363 yes.

After thanking voters, Robertson attempted to provide some context to the passage of what has become known as the MBTA Communities Act.

“I know the MBTA Communities Act has a lot of valid criticism from folks,” he said. “That being said, I was worried at the time that if the MBTA Communities Act or something less intrusive was not passed, bureaucrats in Boston would take a look at our map and remove our ability for us to stand here tonight and debate the heights, the setbacks.” 

He also called out an increase in Chapter 90 and Chapter 70 formulas and a recent tax decrease passed at the state level and said he believed the zone designated by the Select Board — Main A — was the best option for the town.

After Robertson, Planning Board Chair Stephen Johnson, a practicing attorney with expertise in zoning, land use and development, rose to introduce Article 41. As the chair of the presenting board, he had additional speaking time.

“The planning board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of Article 41,” said Johnson. “Further as part of its recommendation, the planning board voted unanimously to recommend the article be adopted without amendments.”

He went on to make a few main points:

The MBTA law upon which this article is based does not include a requirement and/or mandate that any units be built. The law only requires Tewksbury to designate a zone large enough to accommodate 1,214 units, if all existing businesses, including Tree House and Market Basket,  were leveled and replaced.

In terms of water, sewer and traffic, the effect on the town’s infrastructure is not the addition of 1,214 units, it’s the net difference between the usage of the over 50 businesses in the Main A zone and any units built.

Neither the law nor the article removes the planning board from the approval process. That board would have the authority to review and evaluate any proposed project’s potential impact on infrastructure and seek needed improvements from the developer as part of the approval process. In the event that a developer is either unable or unwilling to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements, the Planning Board would have the ability to reduce in the size of the proposed development 

In addition, neither the law nor the article removes conservation restrictions or regulations, unlike a 40B project.

Any development that is proposed must include 10% affordable units, which allows the town to continue to maintain its 10% affordable housing goal and avoid facing a 40B project.

“Should the town at some point lose control of determining where and how best to comply with the law, any guarantees or wishes made by or to the town residents, boards or elected officials as to when this zone should or shouldn’t go and what will be included in the ultimate bylaw may be removed from our control,” he said. “I cannot guarantee that this will happen any more than anyone else can guarantee you that it will not. The only guarantee that anyone can make is that right now, tonight, we do have control over the process.”

He advised that voters take advantage of the ability to ask questions of town counsel Kevin Feeley. 

“There have also been many quasi-zoning, slash quasi-legal opinions that have cropped up in various mediums,” he said. “I would caution town meeting members from placing too much faith in these kitchen table zoning opinions or legal opinions that may be based on something somebody maybe thinks they remember from a class they took many years ago.”

 He concluded by noting that regardless of the outcome of the vote, any decision issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will apply to Tewksbury, as it will to any and all communities that fall under the MBTA-C act.

At this point, Weir opened the floor to debate.

Besides Johnson, elected officials on the yes side were Planning Board member Jim Duffy and Select Board member James Mackey. Eric Ryder and Mark Kratman from the Select Board, School Committee member Rich Russo and George Ferdinand from the Board of Health spoke against the articles, as did several residents. We’ll summarize the key points and quotes but recommend that interested residents watch the full debate here.

First up was Kratman.

There’s no money on any plan to do any mitigation in the next five or 10 years, including no TIP (transportation improvement project). Kratman is a MassDoT employee with visibility into planned work on state roadways.

“Threats from the state that they’re going to withhold our tax dollars that we sent to the state are absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “All those businesses that are there, they’re there for a reason. Because we are a small town. There’s no giant corporations down there. There’s small local businesses. I love the small local businesses. And I like the small town feeling of this town. I don’t want to turn into a city.”

Russo took the mic next.

“First and foremost, let us not forget the fundamental principle of local governance and autonomy,” he said. “We must not overlook the potential disruptions to our community’s character and quality of life.” 

He added: “Lastly, while some may feel that the intentions behind the MBTA Act may be noble, and that we must comply or the town will be sued, and the state will take away grant eligibility, I say we must stand up and tell the state that you are overreaching.”

Duffy struck a different tone.

“I can’t think of one Planning Board meeting with a proposal to develop a commercial or residential project when traffic isn’t raised as a reason to deny or modify a project,” he said. “Traffic is not a Tewksbury problem. It’s an Eastern Massachusetts problem. The MBTA Communities Act is an attempt to mitigate the very traffic concerns we all complain about by making it possible for residents to use public transportation now and in the future.”

He also called out the need for housing suitable for seniors looking to downsize as well as young professionals and families to stem the “brain drain” and said that, according to DESE, between the 2010/11 school year and the current school year the number of students has decreased by 701 despite the addition of 1,291 dwelling units over that time period.

Ryder rose in opposition.

Ryder stated that the 13 grants that the town will be ineligible for if it is noncompliant totaled $423,000 over seven years, roughly $60,000 a year. 

“Is that worth the impact of 1200 units?” he asked. “No.”

He reiterated Kratman’s point about infrastructure and urged residents to vote no.

“We all know Tewksbury faces an infrastructure crisis — we’re voting every year to increase spending on water mains, sewer mains, pump stations,” he said. “This will increase significantly if these structures are built.”

Mackey spoke in support of the article.

“We cannot impose impact fees — they are not a thing in Massachusetts,” he said. “However, we did hear from Mr. Johnson, the chairman of our planning board, and confirmed by town counsel, if something wants to be built that exceeds what the infrastructure can support, the developer would need to pay for that.” 

He also noted that there are many laws we don’t like, but that we don’t get to pick and choose — and that attorney fees are expensive. 

“If you don’t like the law, we need to reach out to our state reps, our state senators,” he said. “I think it is wholly irresponsible to just say we’re going to disobey the law.”

Ciampa echoed that sentiment.

“My opinion has always been if you don’t like the laws, take it to the ballot box,” he said, calling out the extensive planning process that started in January 2022. “We’ve had community outreach meetings, many, many of them. Ms. Lowder’s phone has been ringing, her emails, people asking questions and getting information. We’ve had vision sessions at the library. We’ve had planning board meetings where we’ve invited the public to come and speak. This didn’t just pop up at this meeting. There’s been a lot of opportunity and a lot of public input.”

He pointed out that we are not going to stop development in Tewksbury. “The best we can do is try to have intelligent, thoughtful guidance as to how our town moves forward”

“Look around — we have a lot of grandparents here whose kids or grandkids cannot afford to live in this town,” he said. “A lot of them are our teachers, firefighters, police officers, and even with two salaries, they can’t afford to get a house in this town without help.”

Ferdinand, above, recounted difficulties his parents had affording housing themselves.

“I stand in opposition to this article on many reasons, but the first one is on the premise of it,” he said. “The premise to me is not that the state of Massachusetts has a housing crisis. It actually has what I call a housing affordability crisis.”

He said beneficiaries will be builders, property owners and bond issuers.

“I hope the best for all young people and the seniors who are trying to downsize and eventually afford, but it’s a no vote for me,” he said.

At that point, with no one else rising to speak, Weir moved the question. 

“With a vote of 142 yeas to 565 nays, Article 41 is not adopted,” he said.

Because Article 42 is a companion to 41, it was withdrawn and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.