By Adam Swift
For the second time in less than a year, the town council failed to accept an MBTA 3A compliance plan.
The council voted 4-4 last week to accept the planning board’s recommended compliance plan, which was essentially the same as the one the council failed to accept from the planning board last year. The recommendation needed five votes for acceptance.
Councilors Joseph Aiello, John DaRos, Max Tassinari, and Hannah Belcher voted to accept the compliance plan, while Council President Jim Letterie and Councilors Rob DeMarco, Pat Costigan, and Suzanne Swope cast votes against the compliance plan.
Thanks to a State Supreme Judicial Court ruling earlier this year, the town council had additional time to reconsider a compliance plan, with the town being in compliance until the middle of July. The 3A act requires communities to establish zones for multi-family housing in communities with or adjacent to MBTA transportation.
In January the state court ruled that communities act is constitutional, but that the current housing guidelines are unenforceable. The new state ruling establishes that 3A is now a state regulation, rather than guidelines.
The plan recommended by the planning board called for the creation of overlay districts at Seal Harbor and Governor’s Park that the planning board stated would create no new units in the town, as well as acceptance by the state of 221 units in the Central Business District as credit for off-site units.
As has been the case in past debate over 3A compliance, residents and councilors in support of the compliance plan noted that it would create no new units in the town. In addition, they stated that the town would be at risk of losing out on grant funding, especially funding that could be used to help with flooding issues, from the state and be open to possible legal action from the attorney general’s office.
Several residents also noted that if the council did not vote to uphold state law, they would be violating their oath of office, while others countered that if they voted for the compliance plan, they would be opposing the will of the majority of the public.
Opponents pointed to the law as an overreach by the state, and said that there are no guarantees that the compliance plan will result in no new development in Winthrop.
Letterie also noted that no matter the outcome of the council vote, those not happy with the outcome had the opportunity to file a citizen’s petition and put the issue before Winthrop voters as a ballot question, either this fall or in a special election.
“I’ve heard discussions about oaths … I took an oath 20 years ago to myself and my family to never let politics interfere with my integrity or the decisions I make, and I stand by that oath,” said Letterie. “There were no guarantees on grants, we all know that, and it’s been said by yes and no people in here, we know it’s not a guarantee, yet we continue to talk about it.”
Letterie said he believed residents on both sides of the issue care about the town, but for him, he said it came down to the intention of the 3A law.
“The intent of the law is not about flooding, it’s not about affordability, it’s about creating more units,” said Letterie. “That’s the intent of the law, so if we all think that we are going to make a plan that has potentially zero units, and we think that the state is going to love us for that and give us tens of millions of dollars in grants, something is wrong with that picture.”