M.G.L.ch.40A, Title VIII- 3A(a)(1) Zoning Law, the MBTA Communities Act, (“3A”) and its impact on Winthrop residents
Dear Editor,
My wife and I have continued to listen with great concern to the Winthrop Planning Board and Town Council Meeting arguments and read the various intra-government communication, in particular those from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) some of which incorrectly state interpretations of statutes and worse, promulgate directives that ignore the dictates of the statute and or overstep their intended charters. It also seems, following various arguments at the above referenced meetings and legal challenges, in particular the “Winthrop Says No to 3A” Committee’s excellent work and ostensible objective, which is to publicize the zoning impact of 3(a)and EOHLC directives’ on the Town, and vote it down is thwarted at every turn by the Council.
Without at least first putting the question to the voters, the decisions of the Town Council majority in acquiescing to the MBTA Communities Act and EOHLC mandate, if implemented, will create additional hardship and severely impact quality of life in Winthrop. Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, the Town Council seems to be doing just the opposite. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will be ruling the Attorney General’s case against the Town of Milton, which largely mirrors our own and could very well declare the MBTA Communities Act unconstitutional and strike it down. We need to at least wait for that decision.
It is not too late for those in elected position in this Town to show some leadership. If the recent Town Meetings are any indication of the absence of support for 3A, voters in this town “SAY No”. The initiative petition submitted by the Winthrop Says No Committee has met all the requirements to force a vote and should be honored. So, why does the Winthrop Town Council not simply get on board and comply with the obvious will of the people?
There is another question for all the residents and representatives of Winthrop to contemplate. While you may not live in a currently designated area for suspension of zoning and it’s unpredictable ramifications, do not take repose. Should the state government find undeterred implementation or tepid resistance to 3a, they may very well come back in a few years for additional concessions should their “need for additional housing” occur to them again.
Fred and Paula Bagley
REBUTTAL to
the PRO 3A
Zoning Law
Dear Editor,
Dear readers, please do not be misled by the PRO 3A Letter, which presented flagrant inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods regarding Section 3A of the Zoning Law, its requirements, and implications to town residents.
Here are some Facts to rebut and dispel their Misconceptions.
1. Misconception:
“…we have been able to reduce the number of new units required by the 3A zoning law from 882 to zero.”
1. Fact:
Per the MBTA Communities Act website and the Town Council President, Winthrop is still required to zone for a MINIMUM of 882 units. The state has not reduced Winthrop’s multi-family unit capacity.
2. Misconception:
“…proposed compliance with the 3A zoning law would not entail the building of a single new building in Winthrop.”
2. Fact:
The 3A zoning law only specifies under (i) “… minimum gross density of 15 units per acre…”, but it does not specify the maximum number of units per acre within each of the designated zones. This question has been asked to the Town Officials, but a reply has not been received.
3A does not prevent a developer/owner “as of right” to build additional units to the maximum allowed, beyond the minimum required by the state. More profitable for the developer/owner to do so.
Also, the Letter of Sept. 12 fails to acknowledge that the 3A law allows for the reconfiguration of existing units within a zone, without a limit to the size or number of bedrooms or the number of occupants. The very goal of 3A is to increase housing and density, and this will be accomplished if approved!
3. Misconception:
“The proposed plan would simply involve restructuring our current zoning map….” The only thing simple here is the inaccuracy of this statement.
3. Fact:
Under 3A, the State would take control of the zoning within the designated zones, thus usurping local zoning control. According to the EOHLC Guidelines, “ ‘As-of-Right’ means development that may proceed under a zoning ordinance or by-law without the need for a special permit, variance, zoning amendment, waiver, or other discretionary zoning approval.” Also, once zones are under State control, the State can change the zoning law and its requirements at its whim, without local control or input. Abutters, directly impacted by any development (new or existing changes) will be silenced.
There is nothing simple about stripping “zoned residents”of fair and equal treatment under the law. Depriving them of the same local zoning protections and rights afforded other town residents, is “simply” discriminatory!
4. Misconception:
“… the proposed rezoning plan would not have any negative impact on the current owners of condos at Seal Harbor or Governors Park.”
4. Fact:
This Letter fails to properly identify the three separate and distinct properties in the “designated zone of Seal Harbor.” It not only includes two condominium buildings, but also the Ft. Heath Apartment Building, with rental units under private single ownership. The impact of 3A is different and significant on each of these properties. Additional new and reconfigured unit development, to the maximum allowed, would be far easier to accomplish at Ft. Heath with a single owner/developer. The consequences on existing tenants and on the Seal Harbor abutters would be certainly significant, not only regarding increased density, but also lack of specified parking requirements to accommodate the increased occupants.
The letter also neglects to recognize that the Center Business District is designated as an overlay district to meet the 3A unit and density requirements. This designation would effectively convert our business district into a residential area. This approach would once again transfer control of our Center Business District to the state, allowing them to plan and manage it according to their preferences.
5. Misconception:
“… Town Counsel Jim Cipoletta…said he had been assured …that the proposed rezoning plan would not have any negative impact on the current owners of condos at Seal Harbor or Governors Park.”
5. Fact:
Anyone who understands Written Law knows that verbal assurances and confidences are meaningless! Unless there is a formally written, signed document, produced by the State specifying that condominiums and their documents are “exempt” from the application of 3A, then these statements are unsubstantiated.
6. Misconception:
“… obtaining more than $100 million in discretionary grants for Winthrop….”
6. Fact:
The law of 3A states that “An MBTA community that fails to comply with this section shall not be eligible for funds from…” only four grants specified, with only one being previously granted for 2.38 million dollars in 2017 for the Center’s Development. Under 3A, no grants nor one dime are guaranteed with compliance! Winthrop would need to compete with 350 communities for these grants from a State with very limited financial resources.
In conclusion, Town Council should protect Winthrop and its residents against this unjust and unfair law, and Say NO to 3A! Citizens should also have the Right to Vote on 3A.
Respectively submitted by, Vasili Mallios
& 800+ Winthrop residents