MBTA Communities Act: Attempted Bait-And-Switch 2.0
At the November 9, 2024, Special Town Meeting, a bait-and-switch occurred regarding the warrant article for the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendments. Specifically, the zoning map presented at Town Meeting differed from the version shared with the public during the legally required public hearing process.
This year, a similar issue arose. Town Planner Conor McCormack proposed last-minute changes to Articles 28 and 29—also related to the MBTA Communities Act—based on feedback from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC). He suggested that the Millbury Planning Board could simply adopt the revised language through a new vote.
However, this proposal came after the public hearing had been closed, the Planning Board had already voted on the articles, and the town warrant had been finalized, published, and mailed to registered voters. The proposed changes were not listed on any public agenda, no notice was given to residents, and no opportunity for public input was provided. In effect, the amendment was introduced quietly, with almost no public visibility or oversight.
This approach raises serious legal concerns under MGL Chapter 40A, the Massachusetts Zoning Act, which mandates a public hearing and a Planning Board recommendation on the exact version of a zoning amendment to be considered. It also undermines the transparency and accountability required by the Open Meeting Law (MGL Chapter 30A, Sections 18–25), which ensures that public bodies deliberate and act openly, with adequate notice.
Encouraging the Planning Board to adopt an amendment outside the proper legal process not only erodes public trust but also exposes the Town to legal risk if the vote is challenged on procedural grounds.
Steve Stearns, a vocal opponent of the MBTA Communities Act, objected to what he viewed as yet another bait-and-switch and questioned the legality of the maneuver. Following discussion, the Planning Board agreed with his position, concluding that any proposed change—no matter how minor—should be presented transparently on the floor of Town Meeting, where residents can hear it, ask questions, and vote accordingly.
Even if such a change might be legally permissible, it is neither ethical nor transparent to proceed in this manner. Making substantive revisions without proper public notice or input damages the trust between residents and the Town’s governing bodies. Ethical governance requires openness, accountability, and public participation in the decision-making process.
Prior to the meeting, when asked why the MBTA Communities Act was back on the agenda despite the public hearing being closed and all required votes already taken, McCormack responded: “Town counsel advised that the votes that were made in the negative at the last meeting were not sufficient for the purposes of a zoning bylaw recommendation. Counsel advised the Board to revote in the affirmative for the sake of clarity.” Notably, he made no mention of any proposed changes to Articles 28 or 29—leaving the public unaware that substantive revisions were being considered.
Given the highly contentious nature of the MBTA Communities Act, why not be forthcoming and transparent?
Proposed Amendment to Articles 28 and 29
30.6 Inclusionary Housing.
Residential development in the MHOD shall provide affordable dwelling units in accordance with this Section 30.6
In any multi-family development under Section 30 resulting in a net increase of ten or more dwelling units on any parcel or contiguous parcels comprising a proposed development site, at least 10 percent of the dwelling units shall be affordable housing to households with income not exceeding eighty percent (80%) of the Area Median Income, as defined by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) or its successors. Fractions shall be rounded down to the next whole number.
The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) raised additional concerns about the proposed zoning amendments that were not addressed during the most recent Millbury Planning Board meeting. Numerous other communities have received similar demands or suggestions on a multitude of concerns or perceived issues.
This helps to illustrate the point that once the state gains control over our local zoning bylaw, they may continue to insist upon us amending our zoning to fit their needs, not necessarily ours, eliminating our local autonomy.
The MBTA Communities Act offers no clear benefit to Millbury taxpayers and should be rejected once again. This is not an either-or decision—we can, and should, vote “no” on both Article 28 and Article 29.
These proposals risk imposing unnecessary zoning changes that could lead to higher-density development without corresponding investments in infrastructure, schools, or public safety. They may strain local services, alter the character of existing neighborhoods, and burden taxpayers without delivering meaningful improvements in affordability or transit access.
Millbury does not have direct MBTA service, and the state’s one-size-fits-all mandate fails to recognize the unique needs and limitations of our town. Adopting these articles prematurely—especially without proper community input or demonstrated benefit—would be a disservice to residents. We deserve thoughtful planning that reflects local priorities, not rushed compliance with top-down mandates.
Annual Town Meeting
Every registered voter must attend and participate on May 6, 2025, at 7:00 PM, at the Millbury Memorial Junior/Senior High School, located at 12 Martin Street, Millbury, Massachusetts. The decisions made that evening will shape the future of our town and additional tax burdens. Don’t assume someone else will take care of this—each of us has a stake in this decision, and your voice matters.