A member of the Manchester-By-The-Sea Planning Board accused the MBTA Zoning Task Force of not providing data it has, of overstepping its bounds, of violating the Municipal Finance Law, and questioned the actions of the interim town planner.
Planning Board member Christine Delisio made the charges after the Task Force updated the Planning Board about its recent actions at Monday night’s meeting.
After saying she was “not a fan of this task force,” Delisio said, “We have been asking for data for months. We have received no data. I reached out … I still don’t have any data.”
Sandy Bodmer-Turner, an at-large member of the Task Force, who was attending Monday’s meeting, said the data is available as the task force receives it, not just to Delisio but to the Planning Board and anyone else.
“If you’re interested in data … then the data is readily available to any citizen who wants to download it and analyze it (from the town’s website).”
Delisio said that the Task Force overstepped its bounds when it applied for a grant for a consultant, who will be looking at zoning issues. Delisio said that zoning issues were purely the responsibility of the Planning Board.
“I do have a problem with the subcommittee applying for a grant or the town applying for a grant with the language of zoning,” said Delisio. “The Planning Board never saw this grant application and we have no part in choosing this consultant.”
The Task Force, which works with the support of Interim Town Planner Betsy Ware and is comprised of representatives of several town boards and at-large residents, has said in its meetings that hiring the consultant is needed to collect the data required for residents to make an informed state-mandated decision about the MBTA multi-family zoning overlay district within a half mile of the commuter rail station. That’s appropriate, said Planning Board member Sarah Creighton, adding that the Planning Board voted to create the Task Force at the request of Town Administrator Greg Federspiel.
“We voted to accept the town administrator’s recommendation,” said Creighton. “This is not just a Planning Board issue, this is a town-wide issue…. Certainly, Christine can disagree with the task force as a method, but it was voted by this board.”
Delisio admitted that the Planning Board did vote to create the Task Force, but “we did not vote on a charge,” said Delisio. “They just created their own charge.”
Delisio said that the Task Force used “inappropriate language” when it discussed whether it would change the zoning in single-family home districts in town.
“I was horrified,” said Delisio. “I actually couldn’t believe what I heard. One person on the board started the conversation and said you know we are trying to keep this zoning in downtown and away from single-family districts.”
Delisio said the Task Force was using “NIMBY (‘Not In My Back Yard’) language,” when it mentioned Smith’s Point and Spy Rock Hill, all wealthier sections of town within a half mile of the commuter rail station as examples of neighborhoods to avoid. (Task Force member Gar Morse had mentioned these in an offhand remark as Sarah Mellish described a first pass assessment of potential areas, saying they were noting they were avoiding “single family residential areas.”)
But during their meetings, members of the Task Force have mentioned many sections of town that they hoped would not be affected by any zoning plan they produce. Also, one of the potential lands ID’d by the task force is on Masconomo Street, between Beach Street and Old Neck Road and technically on Smith’s Point.
“I’m asking that town counsel review (the Task Force’s Sept. 21 meeting) at 48 minutes and give us a recommendation of what to do with this,” said Delisio. “This language is inappropriate.”
Task Force chairman Chris Olney, also a member of the Planning Board, called on Delisio to stop making misstatements—that the board was using NIMBY language.
Task Force member Sarah Mellish (who is also chair of both the Finance Committee and the Zoning Board of Appeals) responded that she was insulted by Delisio’s comments.
“We are working as a board as a task force in a free-form manner to discuss the issues and try to come up with possible solutions,” said Mellish. “This is not black and white. ... I am absolutely totally insulted.”
At this point, Delisio focused more on Ware, who was attending the meeting via Zoom.
“The Town Planner said she was going to have this data for us months ago,” said Delisio. “We pay someone a lot of money to analyze this data... . It still has not been provided, which we were told was going to be available months ago. … My expectation is if we pay someone to do it we should receive the information.”
Creighton called for a point of order and said that if Delisio was going to question the ability of a town employee, it should be done in executive session.
Delisio denied she was questioning a town employee’s “confidence.”
“You are insinuating things about a town employee,” said Creighton. “It should be done in executive session.”
Delisio again denied that suggestion, but Mastrogiacomo said that clearly several members of the board felt she had suggested that.
With order returned to the meeting, Ware says that she can’t make up data and the state software program designed to help municipalities with the mandate has had some glitches.
“We are trying to get the most accurate data possible,” said Ware.
Officials from Cell Signaling Technology discussed the need for a variance from the height limitations in the town’s zoning as part of their proposed research and development laboratory project off Atwater Avenue, next to the Manchester Health Club. Because they had decided to connect the employee parking
garage to the lab building, the officials said it threw off the original height calculations so that the building would be a couple of feet over the limit.
The officials said a second option would be to change the bylaw to count only the height of the front of the building. However town officials felt it would be too rushed to get a zoning bylaw change in time for the November Town Meeting.
The CST officials said they would apply for the variance at the Zoning Board of Appeals’ second meeting in October.
Eric Carlson provided the Planning Board with an update on the town’s floodplain changes. While the state was to provide updated floodplain maps by the summer of 2024, Carlson said that won’t happen until the summer of 2025. Carlson also said the only changes would be to the non-coastal floodplain.
Carlson also reviewed changes to the information the town requested to provide to the state concerning floodplains. Since the town would need to provide a floodplain administrator, the Planning Board suggested that the building inspector would be the logical person for the job.
The Planning Board voted 4-2 to hold a public hearing on draft language for the possible Town Meeting accessory dwelling unit article on allowing family members to live in structures that are separate from main houses, such as garages, stables or cottages. The current bylaw allows employees, such as servants, gardeners, etc., to live in those buildings. But many people want to create housing for elderly parents or grown children still living at home.
The current bylaw limits this to structures that existed when the bylaw was created in 1985. But many of these units have become rental units over the years rather than for employees or family members.
The public hearing will allow the board to receive input from the public about what they would prefer on this issue.
Rosemary Costello of the Historic District Commission made a presentation suggesting that the board create a demolition delay bylaw. This would allow the town to require a certain amount of time to pass before a historically or architecturally significant building owner would be allowed to demolish the building. The hope is to use that time to convince the owner not to tear down the building or to sell it to someone else who will maintain the building.
