To the Editor,
I am writing in support of Jon Keefe’s letter “Just Say No to Proposed MBTA Zoning Changes” which appeared in the 2/10 Cricket – what he says makes common sense.
The Select Board, (SB) Planning Board (PB) and Town Administrator (TA) have all come out in support of the State’s “mandate” to change our zoning regulations to dramatically increase the density of housing to 15 units per acre within a ½ mile radius of the train station. Their rationale is that “it is in the best interest of the community”. There are two issues at play here- one for zoning changes in the near term being pursued by the SB, PB, and TA- and one subsequently by the State for zoning changes at the end of 2024. Neither of the proposals have been fully thought out as to their potential consequences and effect on the Town.
These officials intend to put proposed zoning changes to increase the Town’s density on the ballot at this spring’s Town Meeting -- I ask them to “make haste slowly”-- and reconsider the impact of what they are proposing. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the town -- and its citizens -- yet despite this legal responsibility, there has been no analysis or research done concerning the actual impact that their -- and the State’s “mandate” that a massive proposed “by right” population increase (over 20 percent) -- would have on the town’s infrastructure and related services- schools, police, fire, water, sewer, traffic congestion, roads etc.
As specifically stated, five years ago in the town's Master Plan, described as “A Community Vision of the Future of MBTS” written by the Planning Board, “years of deferred maintenance have put our public infrastructure at risk, with over $45 million in public infrastructure and facilities needs over the next 15 years – 80 percent of water and sewer lines are 50 years -- or older” (Pages 5 and 8). Thus, clearly the Planning Board -- and the Select Board and the Town Administrator -- are aware that MBTS’ infrastructure is already stretched thin -- they said so -- so is now the time to burden it with significant additional usage? Yet they persist, ignoring residents’ requests to preserve the character of the Town, saying instead that increased density “is in the best interest of the community”? Is opening the floodgates to this proposed development upholding their primary obligation to demonstrate “fiduciary responsibility” in their actions and decisions -- who pays if the stressed infrastructure fails due to overload? The officials that allowed the failure on their watch?
Equally troubling -- and equally consequential -- is that eight years ago FEMA issued a report describing the exact location of this proposed State housing mandate -- and the PB’s focus -- as being “increasingly vulnerable” to flooding due to climate change. Has this report -- and its ramifications -- been considered by our elected officials -- or the State -- as they promote development in this area?
Town officials constantly caution the residents that we must adhere to the state’s housing “mandate” for fear of losing State grants, $600K over 10 years. To put that in perspective, the 2024 Town budget is $40 million -- and are we going to let an item that represents 0.1 percent of the TOTAL budget dictate the future character of the town? Put another way, $60,000 of annual State grants represents a $12 per citizen annual expenditure. Would the citizens of MBTS pay $1.00 a month to prevent their town from looking like Rantoul St in Beverly? The Town’s residents must make their voice heard and urge our elected officials- who have a stewardship responsibility for a nearly 400-year-old town, to be an advocate for the Town and vote against these costly and ill-conceived proposed zoning changes, as our neighboring towns’ officials are doing.
John Jay
Manchester
