There is fundamental disagreement among the members of the Marion Planning Board on the merits of town’s Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw (230-8.12), and the airing of those views extended Monday night’s public meeting at the Police Station to nearly two and a half hours.
More than half the meeting had already been dedicated to the Public Hearing for the Zoning bylaw changes that will ultimately appear on the 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 5 and the town’s General Bylaws.
Though the Public Hearing was a necessarily tedious exercise involving meticulous attention padded by time for community input, the subsequent discussion on the existing Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw focused an intense debate on one subject.
Planning Board member Jon Henry had introduced the subject for a relatively brief discussion on March 20, and Chairman Norm Hills saw fit to put the item on the April 3 agenda. At the last meeting, Hills sat back and heard each member’s take on the controversial bylaw, giving his viewpoint at the end. On Monday night, he went first.
Handing out a page-plus of prepared comments, Hills read his synopsis of the bylaw, summarizing its background, pertinent issues and finally, his conclusions.
Citing the fact the town has only “conditionally” exceeded the state’s 10% Subsidized Housing Inventory requirement (via Ken Steen’s 120-unit, rental project to be built off Route 6) and what he sees as a continuing need for affordable housing, Hills strongly recommended Marion keeping the Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw in place.
The Marion bylaw approved by voters in 2003 requires any residential project of six or more units to include specified, subsidized-housing units to achieve compliance with Massachusetts General Law 40B.
“We need to take care of the elderly who have been the backbone of this town. … Anything else is just segregating the economic pattern in the town,” said Planning Board member Eileen Marum, citing an underlying ideological issue.
Marum asserted that the affordable-housing problem stems from public policies that discriminate against minorities, women and single parents. She cited Residence C and D zoning allowing one house on 2 acres of land. “Marion right now is in violation of this law. It has exclusionary zoning,” she said.
Marum figures that 10 houses or town houses or condominiums would go a long way toward addressing the housing shortage. She cited recent words from Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll stating that Massachusetts needs 200,000 family units. “It needs to be focused on affordable housing because these people have been segregated,” said Marum.
Citing support for senior citizens in town, board member Alanna Nelson strongly threw her support behind an ongoing drive to build more rather than less affordable housing in Marion.
Nelson supported Hills’ contention that the Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw remain in place and repeatedly suggested that the town’s think tank go to work beyond the bylaw debate on new ideas to create housing solutions.
On the opposite side of the argument were Henry and fellow board member Andrew Daniel, who supported local developer Sherman Briggs’ long-held assertion that the Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw de-incentivizes the construction of market-rate housing that they insist is vital to the town’s future because it generates more tax revenue.
“There are other ways to do this,” said Daniel, who suggested zoning changes that would allow higher density of single-family homes. The debate got heated, as Marum challenged Daniel to provide an alternative scheme in writing.
Developers, Henry and Daniel insisted, find the bylaw too punitive to their business and cited the absence of a single, market-rate housing project over the 20-year life of the bylaw as proof. In their estimation, the giant rental project being built near the Wareham town line will not yield the necessary tax revenue to help Marion solve the economic challenges presented by infrastructural deterioration.
Hills argued against this point, saying that while the state Department of Housing and Community Development counts all the units in a (partially) subsidized project as affordable housing, “Any unit at market rate gets taxed at market rate, not anything less.”
Board member Chris Collings said that the 10% affordable-housing threshold means nothing if the town does not “sunset” it upon achieving 10%. “If that doesn’t have any meaning, then we’re just moving the goalposts,” he said. “How do we incentive developers to do other projects is another affair.”
Hills argued that since Steen has yet to pull a building permit in association with the 120-unit, low-income, rental project, Marion could, after a year has passed since the 2022 approval of his project, fall back under the 10% affordable-housing threshold and forfeit its right to reject a future 40B housing application.
Collings also sought to put a number to “market rate” housing, asserting that young families cannot afford to buy such homes in Marion.
Member Tucker Burr agreed.
“Whatever house you buy in Marion, you’re going to be able to buy twice the house in Wareham,” said Burr, who went further outside the box and told the membership he suspects the majority of Marion’s residents don’t want to see any more housing, period.
Hills considered that scenario unrealistic.
Seeking more definitive terms, Burr also took issue with language that says the town “might” apply the bylaw.
When the floor was opened to public comment, Briggs argued for elimination of the bylaw, thereby incentivizing developers to build market-rate housing that theoretically would add more tax revenue to Marion’s coffers.
If, with an updated census, Marion were to land at 12% affordable housing, Briggs told Hills he calculated it would take the addition of 680 more market-rate housing units in order for increased population to push the town back under 10% in affordable housing.
Open Space Acquisition Commission Chairman John Rockwell, attending via Zoom, explained that he was on the Planning Board in 2003 when the Inclusionary Housing Zoning Bylaw was brought to Town Meeting. Rockwell suggested that eliminating the bylaw would increase the burden on taxpayers.
Citing the impasse at 9:25 pm, Nelson, who was attending the meeting via Zoom, moved that the rest of the agenda be canceled and that the meeting be adjourned. All agreed.
The Public Hearing for the Zoning Bylaw changes for the 2023 Annual Town Meeting Warrant that preceded the affordable-housing discussion tackled a variety of subjects, the articles for which needed further editing per board and public comment and in some cases, were altogether scrapped.
An article that would have stipulated that citizens’ petitions for Annual or Special Town Meeting must be delivered to the Select Board office no later than 60 days prior to said meeting was considered excessive by Daniel, Burr and also by Select Board Chairman Randy Parker, who considered it basically unfair.
Burr suggested citizens should be afforded equal access via the timeline as elected officials and said he would leave it at 14 days. Parker says the article would take away the rights of the taxpayers. Daniel said a citizens’ petition should be able to come in any time prior to the closing of the warrant.
Another article approving the addition of accessory apartments above businesses of 5,000 square feet or less was debated by Rockwell, who considers the space to be “twice the size of most people’s houses” and could cause the Planning Board to “lose the ability to turn down something that doesn’t work for the town.”
Rockwell also suggested interviewing the business community for feedback on an article that would use 5,000 square feet as a point of demarcation to sidestep the Planning Board and allow smaller businesses less bureaucracy.
Hills said that Building Commissioner Bob Grillo has been extremely helpful in pointing out conflicts in potential warrant articles.
The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, at 7:00 pm.
Marion Planning Board
By Mick Colageo