A Crosswalk
Dear Editor,
Hallelujah, thank you. We finally have a cross walk at Plummer and Pleasant St. After months and years of pleading and cajoling with messers. Calla, Letterie and other, we have success. Two cross walks would have been good, but we will settle for one. Due to various pipe and road work over the years the cross walks disappeared. They are very badly needed since this is a very busy corner.Thanks to all who were responsible for the return of one.
Ken Avery
Clarity on Zoning in Town
Dear Editor,
Since there is a lack of clarity on how zoning will impact our community, here is how it works.
Zoning dictates the MAXIMUM number of units allowed per acre without extra permitting processes being required. There is still a site plan review required for all developments.
Seal Harbor and Governors Park are currently zoned Residential C and Residential B with a light manufacturing parcel adjacent respectively. You can view the town zoning map here. https://tinyurl.com/Winthropmap
Our Zoning code says many things, but starts off under the dimensional regulations section with: “17.16.020 General Regulations A.Number of One-or Two-Family Residential Buildings on a Lot. Any one lot in a residential A district shall not contain more than one single-family or two-family dwelling.” The whole code can be found here. https://tinyurl.com/Winthropzoning
Specifically in the residential designations B and C, a single lot cannot have more than one home with up to two residences in it. This means our zoning does not recognize what is currently built at these locations. They either received a special permit or were built prior to the existing zoning limiting these locations in this way. This is why our magic number for the state is 882. Per our existing zoning there can only be 6 units in 3 homes at Seal Harbor and many more homes could be built here.
By updating our zoning to include these locations’ true existing number of homes, we show an increase in housing without building any more. I’ve included both locations plans, so that folks can see the compared existing units with the number allowed under the proposed updated maximum per acre side by side. https://tinyurl.com/propgovspk https://tinyurl.com/propSealH These slides are from RKG’s presentation to the planning board on 8/27/24, which is on the town’s website. The question of what is the maximum has been asked repeatedly at town council meetings and it is easily answered here. The maximum per acre proposed is less than the existing homes on all lots aside from the parcel currently identified as “Light Manufacturing”.
The only location that shows more potential units than are already at that location is the current site of RPM fitness and is also owner occupied commercial. Technically 23 units are allowed there, but it is a very difficult and expensive location to build. The location is in a floodplain designated AE with EL of 12 and 11 per the attached map which is from the town’s website: https://tinyurl.com/RPMflood A developer would have to follow the flood mitigation requirements stated from FEMA for a 100 year flood event and state building code requirements in floodplains in order to build here through an Order of Conditions with the Conservation Commission. These requirements include: requiring residential structures including basement or cellar elevated to or above the one hundred year elevation; or in the case of nonresidential structures be floodproofed watertight to one hundred year level¹.
For an area designated EL 12, that base flood elevation for a 100 year flood event is 12 ft. If you look at the proposed zoning for Gov’s Park, the maximum height allowed is 3 stories. This means that the reality is that only two stories of housing could actually be built here above that 12 ft starting point. To me, this is a smart choice of location to address people’s concerns about more building, while still updating our zoning to comply with the law. The site would be incredibly difficult to build on. Others may feel differently, but I think the consultant took people’s feedback to heart and came up with a smart plan to address concerns around future development.
I’m happy to discuss with folks.
Kind Regards,
Cassie Witthaus, Member of Winthrop Working Together
Precinct 6
Regarding letter on 3A
Dear Editor,
I find the letter submitted by Julia Wallerce and her co-signees relating to a potential 3A submission by the Town of Winthrop to the EOHLC to be misleading.
To begin, the letter states that “the proposed compliance with 3A zoning law would not entail the building of a single building in Winthrop.” Of course it does not. Rather the submission is part of a process to turn over Winthrop’s zoning rights “by right” for three Winthrop districts to future developers. It goes on to say that: “It would therefore not entail population growth that would place a further burden on our already overcrowded schools or aggravate the rush-hour traffic that is already a serious problem.”
It seems that Ms. Wallerce and her co-signees are clairvoyant. They seem to know that future developers, as yet unknown and unempowered by Winthrop’s required submission and its acceptance by the EOHLC will not build anything using their new zoning authority.
Furthermore, the letter states that Winthrop’s Town Counsel “had been assured by the State Attorney General’s office that the proposed rezoning plan would not have any negative impact on the current owners of condos at Seal Harbor or Governors Park.” It further states that “a formal written statement from the State Attorney General’s office” confirming this has been requested by a member of the Town Council indicating that is the case. And the letter writers “are confident that the Town Counsel can obtain such a statement.”
I am not so confident. For any such statement would probably set a standard for 3A compliance across 177 MBTA Communities Act affected towns.
The remainder of the letter praises past assistance from the state for over $100 million in past discretionary grants. But penalties for non-compliance for 3A cover four grant types for which Winthrop has received less than $2.5 million over the last decade. And if we permit growth equal to that proposed by the 3A guideline allotment, Winthrop will probably have new capital expenses – exceeding $50 million just for a new school alone. (Recent research on new schools scheduled to start construction this year for Middle High Schools in Massachusetts range in estimated cost from $52 million to $146 million.)
From what little I have heard from Winthrop’s Planning Board, the Board intends to submit a recommended plan to the Winthrop Town Council for its approval without a cost/benefit analysis. If that is the case the recommendation should be rejected out of hand.
As for the quoted positive 3A opinion of Mr. Delehanty, who stood up two Town Meeting ago and suggested that the rich people of Seal Harbor could hire their own attorney to contest the anticipated plan, I suggest that he prepare to open his own wallet with the rest of us to cover the cost of this unfunded mandate.
In conclusion, the MBTA Communities Act is a bad law. 3A takes away our rights to control our town and forces us to cover the ancillary capital costs of development – not to mention the inconvenience that another 3,000 plus automobiles – parking not required by developers – will add to our current difficulties.
We should join the fight to repeal 3A. We must be complicit in its implementation. So, we must not comply.
Carl Eckstein, Precinct 6