At least 130 people attended Wednesday’s Select Board meeting to engage in discourse about 3A zoning, which will be back on the ballot in just a couple of months.
This meeting was held at the high school library rather than at Abbot Hall to account for the sheer number of people that were anticipated to attend. What the Select Board did not account for was that even the library did not have adequate seating. There were roughly 65 people seated and at least another 65 densely packed, standing in the back of the room throughout the meeting.
The intention of Article 23 of the 2025 Town Warrant is “to see if the Town will vote to amend the zoning bylaw and map to adopt a 3A multi-family overlay district by adding a new provision.”
To put it simply, many are against 3A zoning, but many are in favor of it as well. About 48% voted in favor of 3A last Town Meeting, and 52% of voters were against it. Those against it have pushed for the Town to fight the 3A mandates in court like some other towns in Massachusetts, while those in favor of 3A worry about the consequences of not becoming compliant by the July 14 deadline.
The Town’s attorney, Jay Talerman of Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC, began the conversation by explaining what the mandate is and options the Town can consider on how to tackle a legal battle against 3A if it so chooses. But he was clear in mentioning that taking legal action against 3A would be very costly and may not result in a win, per se.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty,” Talerman said. “I do this for a living. I’ve seen a lot of municipal cases. I litigate all the time. I’ve never seen a case like this. I’m not going to predict success on any particular item. I’m not going to talk about strategy with respect to it.
“These are difficult issues, and they’re really hard for towns to weigh. There are pluses and minuses of proceeding in any way, shape or form. Some of our towns have chosen to file. Some of our towns have chosen to wait and see. All are legitimate strategies that have their pluses and minuses.”
Those Against 3A
John DiPiano, an attorney and community member, was the first of 30 speakers to make public comment, and he expressed concerns about what would happen if 3A is passed this May.
“Under the statute, the local mandate law, 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, police, fire, deficits with the school system and so forth would fall, potentially, to the taxpayers of this community forever,” DiPiano said.
Talerman responded, “I know exactly what you’re saying, and it’s one of the various factors that communities that are trying to decide what to do are weighing. I don’t think, ultimately, it’s as binary as that, and there’s a number of reasons I’m not going to get into that that are pretty technical, but I think you’re, in part, correct that voluntary compliance is one thing. There are other nuances to that that we can save for another forum.”
Many are also concerned that — although the Marblehead community will only be voting on the zoning change, and there is no development planned at the moment — zoning will quickly lead to building. One even said it was “naive to think that developers won’t build once the zoning changes.”
Some also expressed environmental concerns regarding the development of those areas that may be zoned for 3A.
“My understanding is that (MBTA zoning) was supposed to decrease reliance on cars, yet the plan constructed here in Marblehead (would be) bringing two cars for (each of) these 600 units to be built, which is an additional 1,200 cars to town,” one speaker said during public comment. “I’m a lifelong Democrat, and this is not about trying to keep immigrants out of the community at all. My concern is about the increase in cars.”
Those in favor of 3A
Angus McQuilken argued that those against 3A, specifically DiPiano, are urging Marblehead taxpayers to spend their money on litigation rather than services needed for the Town.
“He wants to spend those dollars in a very expensive wild goose chase on a legal case that, frankly, has no chance of success,” he said.
McQuilken added that there are a few reasons why this is “a wild goose chase.” First, he pointed out that 3A is not an unfunded mandate since towns across the state have received grant funding, when requested, to assist in the implementation of 3A.
“Every single community that has sought funding from the state for implementation of the zoning changes required by 3A has received funding from the State, totaling $7.8 million, so it’s not an unfunded mandate across the state — and it’s not an unfunded mandate here in Marblehead because we have received two grants from the State to fund our implementation of this law.”
Further, he mentioned that the attorney general will require compliance and that the Supreme Judicial Court has already ruled that 3A is constitutional and enforceable. He added that not complying with 3A will result in the State pulling certain grant funding as well as make it more difficult for Marblehead to seek out State grants in the future.
“If we do not comply with the law by the deadline, we will be squandering, and I’m not exaggerating here, millions of taxpayer dollars that could be put to good use here in Marblehead,” McQuilken said.
Many other community members shared similar sentiments that there is no need for the Town to pursue legal action against 3A as they are in favor of the Town’s compliance plan.
Select Board Conclusion
Ultimately, the Town did not take any action at Wednesday’s meeting. Every Select Board member expressed that they needed some time to digest all the information brought to them in order to make the best decision possible on how to proceed.
“We obviously have further deliberation to do on it, and that’s how we’re going to leave it tonight,” Chair Erin Noonan said.
