Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Commencement and Agenda Overview (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:02:00)
The Select Board meeting in the town of Marblehead was called to order by Erin Noonan, the Chair, at the beginning of the transcript. The meeting took place on March 12, 2023. Noonan apologized for the delay due to an extended executive session and explained the meeting’s agenda. The agenda included public comments unrelated to MBTA zoning, a public briefing from attorneys on the legal landscape concerning MBTA communities, and further board discussion. Noonan clarified that the executive session involved discussions on non-public daily changes in litigation and matters concerning other client towns.
Public Comments and Meeting Control (Link: 00:02:00 – 00:03:00)
Erin Noonan invited public comments unrelated to MBTA zoning. However, seeing no such comments, she moved on to the next agenda item, emphasizing the importance of the MBTA zoning topic, which had generated significant public interest, as evidenced by 35 emails received on the subject. Noonan maintained control over the meeting, ensuring that the discussion remained focused and orderly.
Legal Briefing on MBTA Zoning (Link: 00:02:00 – 00:14:00)
The legal briefing was conducted by Jay Tallerman from the law firm Mead, Tallerman & Costa, accompanied by his partner Lisa Mead. Tallerman provided an overview of the MBTA zoning statute, General Law Chapter 40A, Section 3A, which mandates towns to pass specific zoning laws. He explained the penalties for non-compliance, primarily the loss of potential grant funds. Tallerman detailed the controversy surrounding the statute, highlighting the case of Milton, which rejected zoning through a referendum, leading to litigation that reached the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. He also discussed the involvement of other towns like Wrentham, Methuen, and Middleborough, which petitioned the state auditor’s office under the unfunded mandate statute.
Legal Proceedings and Towns’ Options (Link: 00:14:00 – 00:20:00)
Tallerman elaborated on the legal proceedings, noting that the state auditor’s office had determined the statute to be an unfunded mandate, as it imposed obligations on towns without providing funding. He explained that five towns, represented by three different law firms, had filed for injunctions against the statute. The purpose of the litigation was to seek a temporary reprieve while determining if the commonwealth must fund the mandate. Tallerman emphasized that the litigation was not about the wisdom of the statute but about the financial implications for towns. He noted that the outcome of the injunctions would not exempt towns from compliance but could provide temporary relief.
Questions from the Board and Legal Clarifications (Link: 00:20:00 – 00:26:00)
Board members, including Moses Grader and Alexa Singer, posed questions to Tallerman regarding the implications of the injunctions and the potential impact on Marblehead. Tallerman clarified that if the injunctions were granted, Marblehead could benefit by filing its own injunction. He explained that the timeline for additional towns joining the litigation could be expedited if a legal precedent was set. Tallerman also provided information on the scheduled hearing date for the injunctions, which was set for April 2, and noted that the timeline could change if more towns joined the litigation.
Public Comments and Legal Discussion (Link: 00:26:00 – 00:32:00)
The meeting was opened to public comments, with John Depiano, an attorney from Marblehead, raising questions about the burden of proof in the injunction process and the implications of voluntary compliance with the statute. Tallerman responded by explaining the complexities of the legal process and the potential financial impacts on towns. He acknowledged the challenges of proving the financial burden imposed by the statute and reiterated the importance of gathering evidence to support the case. Depiano expressed concerns about the long-term financial implications for the town if it voluntarily complied with the statute.
Public Comments and Legal Discussion Continued (Link: 00:32:00 – 00:36:00)
The meeting continued with public comments, including a statement from John Depiano, an attorney from Marblehead, who expressed concerns about the board’s reluctance to protect taxpayers by not seeking a local mandate determination. Depiano highlighted the importance of the Select Board taking a stand on the MBTA zoning issue, noting that the statute affects 77 communities, not 76 as previously mentioned. He emphasized the financial implications for the town if it voluntarily complied with the statute without seeking an injunction. Moses Grader, a member of the board, responded to Depiano’s comments, explaining that the board’s approach was not one of resistance but rather a cautious evaluation of the situation to avoid unnecessary penalties.
Civility and Bipartisan Support for MBTA Zoning (Link: 00:36:00 – 00:41:00)
Angus McCoolkin, a resident of Marblehead, echoed Depiano’s call for civility in the discussion. McCoolkin reminded attendees that the MBTA zoning law was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by a Republican governor. He argued against using taxpayer dollars for litigation, stating that the auditor’s finding of an unfunded mandate was incorrect. McCoolkin emphasized that the state had provided funding for communities to implement the zoning changes and warned against the financial consequences of non-compliance, including potential penalties and loss of grant eligibility.
Support for Middle-Class Housing and Legal Considerations (Link: 00:41:00 – 00:52:00)
Nick Ward, a resident of Marblehead, addressed the board, urging them to consider the merits of the MBTA zoning issue rather than focusing on litigation. Ward advocated for the construction of multifamily housing to support the middle class, emphasizing that the zoning changes were intended to address the housing needs of people with good jobs and families. He argued that legal resistance to multifamily housing would always be an option but encouraged the board to focus on the substantive issue of supporting housing development.
Concerns About State Mandates and Local Impact (Link: 00:52:00 – 01:02:00)
Francis Ruggieri, another Marblehead resident, raised concerns about the state’s ability to mandate zoning changes without providing funding. Ruggieri questioned the legality of imposing such mandates on communities and suggested filing a lawsuit to challenge the statute. Cheryl Patton, also a resident, countered that the state was not mandating construction but merely requesting zoning changes to allow for potential housing development. Patton highlighted the importance of being open to new residents and the potential financial benefits of complying with the mandate.
Call for Respect and Further Public Comments (Link: 01:02:00 – 01:03:00)
The meeting continued with Erin Noonan, the Chair, reminding attendees to respect each speaker’s right to comment. Noonan emphasized the importance of maintaining order and civility during the discussion. The meeting proceeded with additional public comments, including those from residents participating online.
Continued Public Comments and Concerns (Link: 01:03:00 – 01:14:00)
The meeting continued with public comments, beginning with a resident questioning the status of zoning changes previously voted on and the potential financial implications for Marblehead. The resident expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the MBTA zoning changes in addressing housing issues and criticized the state of public housing in the town. Another resident, Emily DeJoy, raised concerns about misinformation regarding the financial impact of the zoning project and urged the Select Board to apply for a waiver to protect taxpayers. Mekhi Campbell, a resident of Elm Street, thanked the board for addressing the MBTA issue and expressed concerns about losing leverage with developers if high-density housing was allowed by right. Campbell suggested waiting to file for a compliance exemption.
Environmental and Traffic Concerns (Link: 01:14:00 – 01:22:00)
Alicia Hart, a resident of Pond Street, voiced concerns about the potential increase in cars and environmental stress resulting from the proposed housing units. Hart questioned whether there could be an exemption based on environmental grounds. An unidentified speaker responded, explaining that the issue of car reliance falls under zoning bylaws and site plan reviews, separate from the unfunded mandates discussion. The speaker noted that the anticipated impact on infrastructure would need to be assessed to determine if it qualifies as an unfunded mandate. Hart also inquired about the source of state funding, given the federal government’s stance on environmental issues.
Financial Implications and Legal Considerations (Link: 01:22:00 – 01:33:00)
Jack Bubba, a resident of Palmer Road, emphasized the importance of adhering to the town meeting’s decision against the zoning changes and urged the board to seek an exemption. Renee Ramirez Keeney, a resident of Beverly Avenue, expressed skepticism about the unfunded costs and highlighted the planning efforts already undertaken by the town. Keeney urged the board to comply with the law and avoid costly litigation. Claudette Mason, speaking online, criticized the dissemination of inaccurate information and stressed the potential costs of infrastructure and services if the zoning changes were implemented. Caroline Corzine, another online participant, advocated for a more mixed population and opposed spending taxpayer dollars on litigation. Cheryl Brusket, a business owner on Tioga Way, inquired about the impact of zoning changes on underutilized properties. The board directed her to available resources for more information. Allison Fuller, speaking online, raised concerns about the strain on schools and transportation from additional housing units. Jimmy Ful, a resident of Cheever Avenue, questioned the financial impact of grant money lost or gained due to non-compliance. An unidentified speaker clarified that non-compliance could jeopardize discretionary grants and lead to enforcement actions by the Attorney General.
Advocacy for Marblehead Compliance Plan (Link: 01:33:00 – 01:38:00)
Bill Keeney of Beverly Avenue expressed his support for the Marblehead compliance plan, emphasizing its importance in addressing the housing crisis. Keeney highlighted that the plan involves a modest increase in zoning capacity for multifamily housing, which he argued is more environmentally responsible and cost-effective than single-family housing. He reassured attendees that the plan allows for appropriate control over development, ensuring that infrastructure and community character are preserved. Keeney also warned against pursuing legal claims for exemptions, citing potential financial losses and increased tax burdens if the town fails to comply with state requirements. He urged the community to unite and support the rezoning plan to secure grants for infrastructure and other needs.
Debate on Legal Strategy and Zoning Changes (Link: 01:38:00 – 01:42:00)
Carrie Laffin of Clipper Way voiced confusion over the ongoing discussions, noting that a previous town meeting had voted against the zoning changes. Laffin, who works in commercial real estate, stressed the importance of preparing for potential development following zoning changes. She advocated for filing an injunction to preserve the town’s options and potentially secure funding. Laffin emphasized that the Select Board should focus on the next steps, specifically whether to pursue legal action or comply with the state’s mandate.
Population and Revenue Considerations (Link: 01:43:00 – 01:46:00)
David Patton of Lee Street highlighted the town’s declining population, noting a 10% decrease over the past 55 years. Patton argued that the potential development of 600 new housing units could generate significant property tax revenue, estimated at over $4 million annually. He suggested that this revenue could offset infrastructure costs and contribute to the town’s budget. Patton also addressed concerns about increased traffic, stating that smaller homes would not necessarily lead to more cars. He expressed support for the zoning changes and opposed seeking an exemption.
Call for Town Meeting Decision (Link: 01:46:00 – 01:49:00)
Susan Petoskey of Brookhouse Drive called for the decision on the zoning changes to be made at a town meeting, emphasizing the importance of open discussion and community involvement. Petoskey noted that previous votes on the issue were narrow and influenced by pending litigation. She argued that new information and legal implications warrant another town meeting vote. Petoskey also highlighted the need for the Finance Committee to address the financial implications of the zoning changes.
Concerns About Housing Density and Compliance (Link: 01:50:00 – 01:56:00)
David Reed of Front Street raised concerns about the potential density of new housing developments, questioning the limits on the number of units that could be built. Reed expressed skepticism about the town’s ability to control development and the impact on infrastructure and schools. An unidentified speaker clarified that zoning regulations, including height and parking restrictions, would still apply, limiting the density of new developments. The speaker also addressed misconceptions about affordable housing, noting that the town has not met its 10% affordable housing requirement.
Support for Multifamily Housing and Smart Growth (Link: 01:56:00 – 02:00:00)
Kirk James of Norman Street, a member of the Housing Production Committee, spoke in favor of the zoning changes, citing the town’s master housing plan, which recommends more flexible zoning for multifamily housing. James noted that similar zoning has been in place since 2009, with little development occurring on designated parcels. He argued that the zoning changes would not drastically alter the town’s character but would provide more housing opportunities and help repopulate schools. James emphasized the need for multifamily housing to support the town’s future growth and sustainability.
Concerns About State Requirements and Future Changes (Link: 02:00:00 – 02:02:00)
Susan McGinnis of Bayview Road expressed concerns about the potential for state requirements to change in the future, leading to increased land use mandates. McGinnis described the zoning changes as a “Trojan horse,” suggesting that they could lead to unintended consequences. She urged the Select Board to seek an exemption based on the state auditor’s findings and to carefully consider the long-term implications of the zoning changes.
Financial Implications of Housing Development (Link: 02:02:00 – 02:03:00)
John Prindiville of Stanley Road raised concerns about the financial impact of new housing developments on the town’s school system. He estimated that the cost of educating additional students could exceed the revenue generated by property taxes from new housing units. Prindiville argued that the potential for increased costs supports the case for joining other towns in seeking legal action against the state’s mandate.
Public Commentary on Legal and Zoning Issues (Link: 02:03:00 – 02:09:00)
Jean Lampkin, a resident of Devereaux Street, addressed the board, expressing her concerns about the complexity of joining a lawsuit for an injunction. Lampkin emphasized the need for careful deliberation and suggested that the board should not make a hasty decision late at night. She urged the board to consider the costs and implications of pursuing legal action and to ensure that any decision is made with full awareness of the potential consequences. Lampkin also highlighted the importance of vocabulary in the discussion, noting that terms like “waiver” and “exemption” may not accurately reflect the challenges involved. She advocated for continued public information sessions to allow residents to engage in the discussion and make informed decisions.
Clarification on Public Information Sessions (Link: 02:09:00 – 02:13:00)
An unidentified speaker clarified that three public information sessions had been held, with two more scheduled. The speaker encouraged residents to attend these sessions to gain a better understanding of the zoning issues and to ask questions. Britney Mazaras, a resident of Jersey Street, raised concerns about the potential for developers to purchase single-family homes and convert them into multi-unit properties. An unidentified speaker responded, explaining that zoning regulations, including height, acreage, and parking restrictions, would limit such developments. The speaker encouraged Mazaras to attend the planning board’s open meetings for more information.
Concerns About Eminent Domain and Development (Link: 02:13:00 – 02:17:00)
Peter Hammond of Washington Street expressed concerns about the possibility of eminent domain being used to facilitate development. An unidentified speaker clarified that the zoning changes involved private land purchases and did not include eminent domain by the town or state. Joelle Lyden of Cedar Street urged the board to file for a compliance exemption, citing concerns about the impact of development on infrastructure and public services. Lyden emphasized that the community had already voted against the zoning changes twice and questioned the long-term financial impact on homeowners.
Board Deliberation and Next Steps (Link: 02:17:00 – 02:31:00)
Christine Cousineau of Hillside Avenue addressed the board, discussing the challenges of zoning changes and the potential costs involved. Cousineau noted that technical assistance and grants had been provided by the state, suggesting that the unfunded mandate argument may not hold. She emphasized the importance of considering the economic impact of compliance and urged the board to consult fiscal impact analyses from other towns. Following public comments, the board members, including an unidentified speaker, discussed the need for further deliberation and analysis before making a decision on filing for an injunction. The board acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the importance of considering all available information. They agreed to take more time to evaluate the situation and consult with legal counsel before proceeding.
Licensing Hearings for Local Businesses (Link: 02:31:00 – 02:39:00)
The Select Board meeting continued with a public hearing regarding the licensing of Soul Bistro. An unidentified speaker opened the hearing for a change of location on the liquor license from 10 Besson Street to a new location. The representative from Soul Bistro explained that the lease at the previous location was ending, prompting the move to a new space. The board asked if there were any objections or support for the application, and with no opposition, the hearing was closed. The board then approved the application for a common victualler license and the change of location for the wine and malt beverage license, subject to the receipt of required fees and approvals.
Cafe Italia Licensing and Relocation (Link: 02:39:00 – 02:45:00)
The meeting proceeded with a public hearing for Cafe Italia, which was also seeking a change of location for its liquor license from 10 School Street to 10 Besson Street, Units 9 through 10. Donna Olivero, representing Cafe Italia, explained that the property had been sold, and she found a new space in Marblehead. The board closed the hearing after confirming there were no objections and approved the application for a common victualler license and the change of location for the all-alcoholic beverage license. The board members expressed their support and best wishes for the business’s continued success.
Provisional Captain Appointment in Police Department (Link: 02:45:00 – 02:47:00)
Chief King addressed the board to request the appointment of Lieutenant Jonathan Lund as a provisional captain in the Marblehead Police Department. King explained that the appointment was necessary due to an unexpected retirement and highlighted Lund’s extensive experience and commendable service record. The board members expressed their appreciation for Lund’s service and unanimously approved the appointment, effective March 17, 2020.
Dangerous Dog Hearing Request (Link: 02:47:00 – 02:50:00)
Chief King also presented a request from the animal control officer for a dangerous dog hearing. The case involved a dog that had bitten a human, resulting in a hospital stay, and had previously bitten a postal worker. The board approved the appointment of the town administrator as the hearing officer to conduct the hearing and report the findings back to the board.
Consent Agenda and Contract Approvals (Link: 02:50:00 – 02:51:00)
The board moved on to approve several items on the consent agenda, including meeting minutes, a request from the Marblehead School of Music, and a revised date for the Marblehead Youth Baseball opening day parade. The board also approved contracts related to the Gary School Playground project and accepted a community planning grant from the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission. Additionally, the board approved a grant application for the preservation of a firehouse.
Compensation Committee Annual Report and Classification Study (Link: 02:51:00 – 02:55:00)
An unidentified speaker provided an update on the Compensation Committee’s annual report, which is required under Chapter 43 of the town’s bylaws. The committee, consisting of the town administrator, the chief financial officer, and Andrew Petty, the health director, is responsible for managing the classification plan and salary schedules for town employees. The speaker explained that the report includes all actions taken in the calendar year 2024 and will be supplemented with any additional personnel actions before the town meeting. The committee also conducted a bid opening for consultants to perform a classification study, which is required every three years. The study will assess how the town’s salary scales compare with other municipalities. The process is expected to take 16 weeks, with the results likely to be presented at the next year’s town meeting.
Community Planning Grant and Comprehensive Plan Update (Link: 02:55:00 – 02:58:00)
The unidentified speaker continued with an update on the community planning grant, which will be used to update Marblehead’s comprehensive land use plan. The town received a $130,000 grant to ensure the plan is current, a requirement for eligibility for other grants. The speaker noted that the grant was previously delayed due to noncompliance issues but has now been secured. A committee will be formed to guide the process, which will cover various areas, including housing, economic development, and transportation. The speaker also provided updates on the Mary Alley rug replacement project, which was delayed due to other projects, and the town website, which is undergoing updates with the vendor Revised.
Tribute to Carl Siegel and Meeting Adjournment (Link: 02:58:00 – 03:00:00)
An unidentified speaker expressed condolences for the passing of Carl Siegel, a devoted community member and veteran. The speaker highlighted Siegel’s contributions and suggested sending a letter of condolence to his family. Another speaker confirmed that the matter had been addressed at the previous meeting. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved by the board members.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.