Compliance is Required
Dear Editor,
Winthrop is not an island – neither literally nor figuratively. As the state’s Supreme Judicial Court has finally released its decision concerning Milton and the MBTA Communities Act (known as 3A) we must contend with the question of how we may isolate and alienate ourselves from the “mainland” by continuing to reject the Planning Board’s currently-proposed compliance plan.
The SJC’s ruling makes clear that the Attorney General does in fact have the power to enforce this particular law. The guidelines were deemed to have not followed proper process, thus the state has implemented emergency regulations, while the process is underway. Much is being made on the side of 3A opponents regarding the “un-enforceability” of these guidelines (which include, notably, the denial of a variety of state grants to noncompliant communities), with some confidence that the law will be un-enforcable in perpetuity. This will almost assuredly not be the case. Re-written guidelines will undoubtedly be adopted within the parameters set by the SJC, and though the timeline will be pushed back once for compliance, that deadline will soon loom large again. For now the emergency guidelines have given communities a chance to submit their action plan by February 13th and a deadline of July 14th to submit a District Compliance Application.
The legally-supported ability of the Attorney General to enforce 3A may well mean Winthrop is assigned a special master to ultimately decide our compliance plan for us. This would scrap the incredibly low-impact plan that the Planning Board put forth. The Planning Board recommended plan, which would upzone to match the already-built-up areas in Governor’s Park and Seal Harbor, would result in no new units being built under the 3A law. This plan is effectively an “opt-out” for our community, a plan created painstakingly by the Planning Board after weeks and weeks of public input. If we continue to refuse to acknowledge the writing on the wall, this plan may well be scrapped in favor of one that upzones entirely different areas of town.
The financial consequences will also be substantial. In 2024 Winthrop was denied a $1.2 million MVP grant for flood mitigation work on Morton Street. While Winthrop was technically not out-of-compliance with 3A at the time, the message seemed clear even to our council members. It is clear now that more grant denials are coming our way.
As our town struggles with funding its schools and ensuring proper facilities for our first responders in the form of a new fire station, one must ask: What is the public’s appetite to put forth debt exclusions for every public works project, big or small? Will those outside the Morton Street area be keen to pony up the nearly $20 million that will be required for proper flood resiliency along the Belle Isle Marsh? What of Pico, Tileston and Girdlestone, all incredibly vulnerable areas requiring immediate attention and millions upon millions to prevent further flooding?
What about any of the other $100 million in capital improvement projects we must undergo in the coming years? We quite literally cannot afford to go it alone. It is beyond crucial that we partner with the Commonwealth to secure our community and ensure a safe and prosperous future for all its residents.
Signed,
Michael Kinlin, Precinct 2
Brian Martyniwicz,
Precinct 3
Cassie Witthaus,
Precinct 6
On behalf of Winthrop Working Together
A Statement on the SJC Ruling Regarding 3A
Dear Editor,
The MBTA Communities Act, more commonly referred to as 3A, has been a hotly debated topic across the Commonwealth for much of the past year. It has been remarkably divisive for many communities, and Winthrop is no exception. What is clear is that regardless of one’s opinion on the law, its implementation, or the adoption of a compliance plan, our residents are deeply passionate about our community. This is something we should be proud of and work to move this passion into action to ensure a bright future for Winthrop.
Since my initial commentary on the topic, I have stated that I do not believe that Winthrop could withstand the Commonwealth’s prescribed additional 882 units (the number determined at the initial roll out of 3A), especially given Winthrop’s history of approving many multi-family homes over the past several decades. Winthrop has sustained a level of development and densification that the Commonwealth is seeking to establish in other transit adjacent communities through this law.
In my letter to the editor that appeared in the Winthrop Transcript in April 2024, I asked that we wait to make any decisions until the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), the agency charged with 3A compliance and regulation, consider the asks that Winthrop had made – primarily to be considered in compliance without additional zoning changes, given our density.
The result of the conversations with the EOHLC was a success in two primary ways. First, the EOHLC agreed to accept the Center Business District rezoning (completed in 2014), meaning that the Commonwealth was prepared to accept our zoning for roughly 220 units without an overlay district. Because prior Town Councils enacted modern zoning rules for the CBD, the EOHLC’s was able to afford us credit for units with no impact to the zoning adopted by the town. This is a prime example of how good public policy and smart technical work can pay dividends across generations. Instead of a lot of rancor, people on all sides of this issue agreed to work collaboratively to zone the CBD – a decision that continues to benefit the town.
Secondly, and thanks to the Planning Board as well as several committed community-oriented individuals, the Planning Board came to realize that Governor’s Park, Seal Harbor and Fort Heath condominium and apartment complexes were built via special permits, but the underlying zoning was never updated to reflect what now stands there. This provided a unique opportunity, as the underlying zoning was for single-family residential homes.
The Planning Board and the Council provided many opportunities for public comment, and we heard many concerns. These concerns raised some very valid questions, but unfortunately false information often circulated regarding the answers to these important questions by those pushing for additional voices to join their call for the Council to ‘vote no’ on 3A. Among those chief concerns were a) will 3A overlay overrule our condo documents? Attorney General Campbell’s Office emailed our town attorney to clearly answer that the condo docs were completely unaffected. The FAQ document on the AG’s website was also reflected to state this. and b) would the overlay districts allow for additional buildings to be constructed in those zones if adopted? The Planning Board’s final report confirms that the answer to that question is no.
EOHLC agreed to accept our proposal for these overlay districts. The clear result of months of inquiry, investigation, and research was that within the Planning Board’s proposed compliance plan there would not be a single new unit built in Winthrop because of 3A. This is not a debatable point; it is a fact based on our own zoning and building regulations as well as the extent of 3A.
With this compliance plan on the table, there was still a large unknown – the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Milton lawsuit. I noted several times in conversations regarding 3A that it would be irresponsible of anyone – the Town Council or the citizens – to vote on a compliance plan before this decision was reached. At the Town Council meeting on November 19, 2024, where the vote regarding the adoption of the compliance plan was taken, I made a motion to delay a vote until the court came back with their determination, but it did not receive enough support to pass. I ultimately abstained from the vote for this reason.
Now that the SJC has reached its determination on the Milton case, I am confident that waiting to vote would have been the most appropriate action. The court decision upholds the constitutionality of the law as well as the ability of the Attorney General’s office to enforce it but is requiring that the guidelines be revisited to ensure that proper procedures are followed that allow for public input during their development, per the Administrative Procedures Act.
I did not shy away from my thoughts that the law had been sloppily pulled together, having mentioned that several times in 3A conversations.
The question remains – where do we go from here as a community? While we do not have concrete answers as to our legal liabilities due to noncompliance, we know they are real and possibly substantial. It is unclear how our Planning Board’s original proposal will comply with the updated guidelines to come. There is some risk that the Board’s incredible work may need to be adjusted.
My sincere hope is that the Council is able to revisit the Planning Board’s recommendation under the lens of the revised guidelines when they are available.
There are several things I am proud of that I have worked with my fellow Councilors to achieve that help bring Winthrop towards a more robust understanding of our financial circumstances and allow for a clear commitment to limiting liabilities. One was to push for a five-year Capital Plan that follows what our Town Charter prescribed after many years of noncompliance. A second was to begin to make a formal inventory of our capital liabilities. Between public buildings and infrastructure and our water and sewer systems, we have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of liabilities. This of course does not indicate that these funds are needed immediately or that we are in a position of acute risk, but rather that over the next decade or so, we will need these millions to keep Winthrop running smoothly and safely.
A third recent initiative was to create the Climate Commission. Their first focus is seeking relief for three neighborhoods that experience major flooding during heavy rains and extreme tidal events. These neighborhoods experience flooding in their homes, sidewalks and streets on a regular basis, causing public health and safety risks to abound. To properly combat these issues and protect these vulnerable neighborhoods would cost upwards of $75 million.
These efforts by the Council to identify, highlight, and troubleshoot areas of financial liability make it very clear that we have costly work to do. We cannot rely solely on our citizens to fund these types of efforts through increased taxes, as those requests are very important to preserve for issues such as the school override and Fire House debt exclusion.
It becomes especially difficult to ask our community to pay for capital liabilities, infrastructure work, and environmental vulnerability preparedness when there is plenty of grant funding from the Commonwealth available. The potential loss of grant funding due to noncompliance with 3A is looming large.
The bottom line is that I hope the new guidelines allow for a resubmission of the Planning Board’s proposal as is. That Plan protects citizens’ property rights, results in ZERO new units being built because of 3A and allows us to develop a deeper and rewarding relationship with the Commonwealth. If the Planning Board is required to come up with a different option, I will review that carefully for community protections against overburdening our community in any way.
It is also important to remember that the adoption of a 3A compliance plan does not in any way prevent us from ensuring our other zoning districts are properly fit to our community. This conversation has brought up important concerns regarding special permitting, appeals processes, parking protections and other factors that should be addressed to ensure the continued health of our community.
While 3A has become a point of contention for a large portion of our community, I am hopeful that we can return to the cohesive community I know Winthrop to be. If we replace distrust with open mindedness and a willingness to listen, raised voices with calm, direct dialogue, and personal attacks with thoughtful suggestions for betterment, we will be able to better build the Winthrop that we want to leave to the generations to come.
The path Winthrop will take forward with 3A compliance is uncertain, but I can say with the utmost certainty that I will use my role to lead in a way that takes our community’s future as the central focus. I cannot promise that I will not misstep, but I can promise that I will not misstep without learning and adjusting going forward in all matters of the Council.
Hannah Belcher
Town Council Vice
President Precinct 3 Councilor
noncompliance with 3A is no longer an option
Dear Editor,
The SJC’s Milton decision demonstrates that noncompliance with 3A is no longer an option
A letter entitled “Pleased with SJC decision on 3A” in the Jan. 16th issue of the Transcript misrepresented the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision with respect to the town of Milton’s refusal to comply with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Communities Act (also known as “§ 3A” or simply “3A”). Milton lost this case whereas the letter in question suggests it won. The court’s ruling (see https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/01/08/h13580.pdf) specifically states: “We conclude that the [3A] act is constitutional and that the Attorney General has the power to enforce it.” The conclusion of the court’s ruling reiterates this point: “We further declare that the Attorney General has the power to bring suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce § 3A and its corresponding guidelines.”
It is true that the court also ruled that “because the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (HLC) did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), G. L. c. 30A, when promulgating the guidelines, they are ineffective.” This simply means that the guidelines related to the enforcement of the 3A must be rewritten. But they will have to be written in a way that reflects the court’s ruling that the Attorney General has the right to force towns to comply with 3A.
In the wake of this ruling, it is now clear that noncompliance with 3A is no longer an option. The real choice facing Winthrop is to comply on the basis of the excellent plan prepared by the town’s Planning Board (which does not require the building of a single new unit of housing) or face the possibility of having to comply with a far more onerous plan imposed on our town by the state. The sensible choice seems obvious.
Because the SJC has required the state to revise the 3A guidelines, the deadline for compliance has been extended. This gives the Winthrop Town Council time to reverse its earlier decision to refuse to comply and thereby avoid becoming ineligible to receive millions of dollars in desperately needed state grants. It is of course true that being eligible to apply for a grant does not mean that a town will actually get it. But being ineligible to apply does guarantee that it won’t.
I am confident that in the wake of the SJC’s Milton decision, most members of Winthrop’s Town Council will now realize that compliance with the 3A act on the basis of the excellent plan presented by the Planning Board in November is in our town’s best interest.
Henry Munson