The Planning Board provided a comprehensive update on the town’s ongoing efforts to comply with the MBTA Communities (Section 3A) zoning requirements. This initiative, which requires eligible communities to create at least one zoning district allowing multifamily housing by right, continues to be a complex and sensitive issue for Marblehead.
Alex Eitler, town planner, emphasized that current work is focused on analysis, data modeling, and preliminary feasibility assessments not on any formal proposal at this stage.
Eitler said the town has recently engaged Barrett Planning Group, a Massachusetts-based consulting firm with extensive experience supporting communities across the MBTA region in developing 3A-compliant zoning frameworks.
Barrett Planning Group will assist the department in running technical models often referred to as “the mesh” to test the viability of potential zoning configurations within Marblehead, Eitler said. These exercises will help determine whether various parcels throughout town could realistically meet the requirements of the law without creating unintended impacts on community character, infrastructure, or traffic.
Importantly, Eitler said, the town itself will not directly expend funds for this consulting support. Technical assistance is funded through the Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP) and related state programs, which pay consultants directly.
“The town never touches the money it’s handled between the state and the consultant,” he said.
Marblehead has already presented two separate 3A zoning proposals to Town Meeting over the past two years. The second plan passed Town Meeting but was subsequently overturned by referendum, highlighting the community’s divisions over this issue.
Board members reflected on the reasons for opposition:
- Resistance to perceived state overreach as some residents opposed the notion that the town was being “told what to do” by the Commonwealth.
- Concerns about traffic and density particularly in areas like Pleasant Street and Village Street.
- Perceived threats to community character fears that the town’s historic or small-town feel could be altered.
While the Planning Board maintains that the previous plan was reasonable and would not have negatively impacted the town, there is consensus that a fresh look is necessary to rebuild trust and identify a plan that might be more broadly acceptable.
The department and consultants are taking a more proactive, data-driven approach this time. Instead of deferring to consultants for vision and structure, the Planning Department will:
- Develop potential compliance scenarios internally.
- Provide these to the consultants for modeling.
- Analyze the results to determine feasibility and necessary adjustments.
This “department-led” method contrasts with the previous process, which was more consultant-driven. It ensures that any future recommendations reflect local input, board oversight, and a clear connection to public sentiment.
As Planning Board members stressed, transparency will be critical. Any future proposal will return to the Planning Board and Select Board for discussion and refinement before public outreach and hearings begin.
To help facilitate coordination between boards and the public, Marc Liebman was formally designated as the Planning Board’s liaison for MBTA 3A zoning, working closely with the Planning Department and Select Board’s representative, Dan Fox.
The Planning Director also noted the financial stakes of remaining out of compliance. Marblehead has already forfeited approximately $2 million in state grants mainly through the Commonwealth’s “One Stop” program due to its current noncompliance status.
Complying with Section 3A would restore eligibility for several important grants related to infrastructure, economic development, and community planning, while also aligning Marblehead with the state’s broader housing goals.
- First Advisory Group Meeting: Scheduled for October 20th at 7:30 p.m. (virtual).
- Continued Planning Board Discussion: The MBTA 3A topic will remain on future agendas as modeling results and public outreach strategies evolve.
The Board reaffirmed that no final decisions are being made at this stage. The focus remains on data collection, scenario testing, and inter-board coordination, with a shared goal of producing a plan that meets state mandates without compromising Marblehead’s character or financial stability.
