The majority of registered voters who attended and participated in the November 9, 2024 Millbury Special Town Meeting overwhelmingly rejected the MBTA Communities Act. Now, because the proposed zoning amendments involve an overlay zoning district, the town must once again take action—hopefully rejecting the measure again—at the upcoming May 6, 2025 Town Meeting.

Outlined herein are some of the reasons why registered Millbury voters should reject the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendments, known as Article 28 and Article 29, on the town warrant. This is not an either or decision, we can and should reject both Article 28 and Article 29.

Some individuals have bought into the soundbites from state and local officials claiming that the MBTA Communities Act promotes affordable housing. However, a closer reading of the actual law reveals a different reality: even if a community wants to include affordability requirements in its zoning, the law caps affordable housing at just 10%—meaning at least 90% of the new units can be market-rate and unaffordable to many residents. This is just one discrepancy in the propaganda and misinformation being spread by people who haven't done their due diligence. The MBTA Communities Act requires that people do their own due diligence so that they can make an informed decision.

In Articles 28 and 29, the affordability requirement applies only to individual developments with 10 or more units—not to 10% of the total units across the entire overlay district. As a result, there's no guarantee that even 10% of all new dwelling units within these overlay districts will be affordable. Diving into the details matters.

Town Planner Conor McCormack invited CHAPA—a pro-housing, state-funded and developer-funded organization—to present information about the MBTA Communities Act to the Board of Selectmen. During the presentation, examples were shown to illustrate what 15 dwelling units per acre might look like in Millbury. However, if you listened closely, the presenter himself acknowledged that these types of developments can no longer be built under current regulations. This highlights why it's crucial not only to pay attention to what’s being said, but also to do your own research and not rely solely on presentations or talking points.

Developers no longer construct multi-family homes like those at 26 Canal Street, 118 Main Street, or 20 Waters Street, as current regulations restrict these types of buildings for a variety of reasons. Today’s development trends favor duplexes, townhouses, and condominiums for smaller-scale projects, while larger-scale developments tend to consist of apartment complexes.

A more realistic example of what is likely to be built would be three-story apartment buildings—structures that closely resemble the utilitarian designs of the 1960s. These are exemplified by Cobblestone Village Apartments and 19 Canal Street Apartments, the most recent multi-family additions to Millbury. These are what are being proposed and built across the Commonwealth in relation to Chapter 40B and MBTA Communities Act projects.

**Cobblestone Village Apartments**, located on Howe Avenue with 72 units, is a clear example of the type of high-density development that is likely to be built to meet the requirements of the MBTA Communities Act. However, this is less than 15 units per acre, so visualize an even higher density.

The **19 Canal Street Apartments**, located—as the name suggests—at 19 Canal Street, consist of 59 units and serve as another clear example of the high-density development likely to result from the MBTA Communities Act. Notably, the developer was granted a waiver allowing fewer parking spaces than what Millbury’s zoning bylaw typically requires.

The MBTA Communities Act mandates a density of 15 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds that of Cobblestone Village Apartments and may even surpass the density of 19 Canal Street Apartments. Additionally, the proposed parking requirements under the Act are less than what either of these developments currently provide. The two biggest challenges for residents in multifamily housing are parking and trash management—both of which frequently lead to conflicts that property management companies and governing boards must address. In some cases, parking issues spillover into neighborhoods creating contentious conflicts.

According to the traffic consultant for the proposed—but not yet built—Rice Pond Village Chapter 40B project, 192 apartments are expected to generate over 1,000 additional vehicle trips per day. Based on that same projection, a development of 750 apartments (the state mandated minimum capacity) could add nearly 4,000 more vehicle trips per day to Millbury’s roads, significantly impacting local traffic. You think traffic is bad now, just wait.

1. Unfunded Mandate

The term unfunded mandate refers to a situation where a higher level of government imposes a requirement on a lower level of government, like a state requiring towns or cities to implement a policy, but does not provide the necessary funds to cover the costs. In the case of the MBTA Communities Act, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has highlighted that the law may qualify as an unfunded mandate. This means that while the Act mandates towns like Millbury to increase zoning density for housing, the state does not allocate additional funding to support the associated costs. This could strain Millbury’s budget, as it may need to invest in significant infrastructure upgrades (like water, sewage, and transportation systems) to handle the increased population density, without state funding to cover those costs. This places a financial burden on local taxpayers, potentially causing cuts to other essential services or requiring tax increases.

2. Legal Challenges and Uncertainty

The MBTA Communities Act has faced legal scrutiny, with several towns, including Millbury residents, challenging its implementation. A notable ruling came from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which declared the law constitutional but also pointed out that the enforcement guidelines at the time were insufficient, meaning they were not clear or robust enough for local governments to follow. This ambiguity created a legal vacuum, which prompted the state to issue emergency regulations to provide clearer guidance. This situation creates legal uncertainty for towns like Millbury, as they must navigate both the intent of the law and evolving regulatory interpretations. This uncertainty may make it harder for local governments to implement the required zoning changes while ensuring they do not inadvertently violate the law. A class-action legal challenge is currently moving through the court system, with Millbury residents making up the largest group of participants from any single community—gathered in less than 24 hours. The class-action also includes residents from numerous other communities.

3. Infrastructure Strain

One of the most significant challenges of the MBTA Communities Act is the potential strain on local infrastructure. By increasing housing density, the law could lead to a surge in population that may overwhelm the town’s existing infrastructure. Millbury’s water, wastewater, and transportation systems were likely designed for a much smaller population. To comply with the law, the town would need to make significant investments to upgrade these systems to ensure they can handle the increased demand. These upgrades can be costly, both in terms of capital expenses and ongoing maintenance. The financial burden could be substantial, leading to a need for tax hikes or reallocating funds from other services, and potentially creating long-term financial strain for the town.

4. Limited Impact on Affordable Housing

Although the MBTA Communities Act aims to increase the overall housing supply, it does not include any specific requirements for affordability. This is a critical issue because while the Act may increase housing stock, it may not provide homes that are affordable for lower-income residents, seniors, or individuals on fixed incomes—groups that are most in need of affordable housing options. In Millbury, this could mean that new developments may consist largely of market-rate units, which could exacerbate existing affordability problems. In turn, the lack of affordable housing could contribute to higher rents, making it even harder for vulnerable populations to secure stable housing. Essentially, the Act could lead to housing growth without necessarily addressing the housing needs of Millbury’s lower-income residents. What the state defines as “affordable” often remains out of reach for local residents, raising the question: is it truly affordable housing, or simply a political talking point used to claim progress on affordability that, in reality, isn't being achieved?

5. Community Opposition

Millbury residents have historically opposed zoning changes required by the MBTA Communities Act. In the past, the town has voted against certain zoning changes that would have allowed for increased housing density. This opposition stems from concerns over preserving the town’s character and ensuring that development aligns with the preferences of the local community. Many residents value their local autonomy and feel that the state is imposing policies that may not be in the best interest of the community. The resistance reflects a broader concern about the balance between local decision-making and state mandates. Millbury’s residents may fear that their town’s character could be transformed by the imposition of high-density housing, leading to changes in infrastructure, the local economy, and quality of life.

6. Repetitive Proposal Concerns

One of the controversial aspects of the MBTA Communities Act is the use of zoning overlay districts, which are a type of zoning tool that allows developers to propose changes that override existing zoning regulations. The Act’s reliance on overlay districts means that proposals for high-density housing can be repeatedly introduced, even after they have been rejected by the local community. This creates a situation where towns like Millbury could experience "zoning fatigue," where residents feel pressured to accept changes over time due to the continuous introduction of similar proposals. This constant cycle of proposals could undermine local governance, as it diminishes the ability of residents to shape the future of their own community. Additionally, it may lead to increased public frustration and resistance, as it feels like local voices are being ignored.

7. Potential Loss of State Funding

Towns like Millbury are at risk of losing access to certain state funding if they fail to comply with the MBTA Communities Act. The law is linked to eligibility for various state grants, including those for infrastructure and development projects. Non-compliance could make Millbury ineligible for these financial resources, potentially jeopardizing other important projects or services. However, this presents a dilemma: the costs of complying with the law—such as upgrading infrastructure or expanding services—could outweigh the benefits of receiving state funding. In some cases, the financial burden of compliance could be so significant that the town would face more economic strain than if they simply chose not to comply. Thus, the potential loss of state funding may not be as clear-cut a deterrent as it appears, especially when weighed against the costs of compliance. It’s important to note that state grants are not guaranteed funds. The existence of a state grant does not ensure that Millbury will be awarded it.

8. Conflict with Existing Housing Laws

The MBTA Communities Act may conflict with Massachusetts’ existing housing laws, particularly Chapter 40B. Chapter 40B mandates that municipalities provide a certain percentage of affordable housing to meet the needs of vulnerable populations, such as low-income families, veterans, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. If the MBTA Communities Act is implemented without addressing affordability concerns, it could create a situation where new high-density housing developments do not meet the requirements of Chapter 40B, leading to confusion and inefficiencies in managing the state’s housing needs. This overlap could undermine efforts to create housing for those most in need and could also complicate zoning decisions at the local level. Millbury could face challenges in balancing the requirements of both the MBTA Communities Act and Chapter 40B, leading to regulatory confusion and inefficiencies in addressing the housing needs of its residents. It’s important to recognize that as more housing is built, the requirement for Chapter 40B affordable housing also grows, leading to a cycle of continuous development that results in a denser community. Over the past 57± years, only 20% of all 351 communities in the Commonwealth have reached or exceeded the 10% affordable housing threshold, and even then, they must continue to build new housing to maintain that 10% level. This creates an ongoing cycle of construction to meet the state's affordable housing requirements.

9. Not Just Zoning Amendments

A common myth surrounding the MBTA Communities Act is that it’s merely a zoning requirement—that towns are only being asked to allow for multi-family housing in theory, with no obligation for anything to actually be built. In reality, the law is a powerful tool for reshaping communities, backed by significant pressure from state agencies and advocacy groups like One Commonwealth, which actively promotes high-density development near transit areas. While the legislation doesn't mandate immediate construction, it does compel municipalities to adopt zoning that enables large-scale development as-of-right, effectively paving the way for rapid transformation. One Commonwealth and similar organizations are not simply advocating for theoretical change—they are working to ensure that zoning translates into real, high-density housing projects, often with minimal local oversight. The intent is clear: this is not just about maps and regulations, but about facilitating actual construction that will permanently alter the character of affected communities.

10. Zone It and They Will Come

Lexington serves as a cautionary example of how quickly theoretical zoning changes under the MBTA Communities Act can lead to real-world development pressures. In an effort to get ahead of the mandate, Lexington adopted zoning amendments that went well beyond the state’s minimum requirement—designating 227 acres for multi-family housing when only 50 acres were mandated. The town’s intention may have been to maintain local control and show good faith in complying with the law. However, the result was an overwhelming and immediate influx of development proposals. Within just months of the Town Meeting vote, developers had submitted numerous large-scale multi-family housing plans, capitalizing on the expansive zoning changes. What was supposed to be a long-term planning framework quickly became a catalyst for rapid development, far outpacing the community’s expectations or preparedness. Now, Lexington is attempting to scale back the number of acres it initially permitted, recognizing that the zoning changes they assumed would lead to gradual, manageable growth instead triggered a development boom that threatens to reshape the town far more aggressively than intended. This situation underscores the reality that under the MBTA Communities Act, zoning is not just a theoretical exercise—it is a green light for immediate action by developers.

Lexington, Massachusetts, has experienced a significant influx of multifamily housing proposals following its early and expansive adoption of zoning changes under the MBTA Communities Act. Initially, the town designated 227 acres for multifamily development—far exceeding the state's minimum requirement of 50 acres. This proactive approach led to a surge in development applications, prompting the town to scale back the designated acreage to approximately 90 acres in March 2025.

As of October 2024, the Lexington Planning Board had received several development proposals totaling 985 housing units, including 143 affordable units. Notable projects include:

**SGL Development's proposal**: A 319-unit apartment complex on Militia Drive near Lexington Center, replacing existing office buildings with two residential structures and a six-story parking garage.

**BXP's development**: A five-story, 312-unit apartment complex at 17 Hartwell Avenue, featuring a 2,100-square-foot standalone building for restaurant and cafe operators, a 364-space parking garage, and an additional 55 parking spots in a nearby lot.

**Cabot Cabot & Forbes' project**: A 200-unit apartment complex at 331 Concord Avenue.

**FK Partners' development**: A 32-unit condo complex at 89 Bedford Street, which includes the relocation and renovation of the historical John Davis/Hosea Holt House into two condos.

These projects, among others, reflect the tangible impact of the MBTA Communities Act on Lexington's housing landscape. The town's experience underscores the reality that zoning changes under the Act can lead to swift and substantial development activity. As noted during the Millbury Special Town Meeting and public hearings, prior to the Special Town Meeting vote on the warrant article, the developers behind Cobblestone Village Apartments and 19 Canal Street Apartments were actively encouraging property owners within the proposed zoning overlay district to enter into option agreements or consider selling their properties—positioning themselves to capitalize on the anticipated zoning amendments.

None of the proposed Lexington projects bear any resemblance to the examples CHAPA presented to illustrate what 15 dwelling units per acre might look like. Why is that? The reason isn’t hard to figure out. The reality of what is likely to be proposed will not resemble the modest single-family homes on smaller lots envisioned in the Millbury Master Plan (2019) or the Housing Production Plan (2025), nor will it align with other suggested models like cluster or cottage-style multi-family housing. The reality is that there is big money behind the MBTA Communities Act that want to build luxury corporate rental traps to amass even more corporate wealth for their bottomline. This is not about creating affordable housing, otherwise it would not restrict affordable units to only 10%.

Each of these points raises important concerns and creates challenges for Millbury as it navigates the complexities of the MBTA Communities Act. The town’s residents must balance the potential benefits of increased housing supply with the financial, legal, and community challenges that come with it.

Millbury is an attractive target for developers, with convenient access via two Massachusetts Turnpike exits, Route 146 connecting to both Providence and Worcester, and two nearby commuter rail options serving communities to the east and South Station. Additionally, real estate in Millbury remains more affordable than in the metro-Boston market. We need to be thoughtful in our decision on May 6, 2025, as to how we want to collectively shape our town. Do we want to preserve our small-town character, or are we aiming to become a city?

Vote “No” on May 6, 2025

Stand with fellow residents who have done their homework—vote “No” on Articles 28 and 29 at the Annual Town Meeting on May 6, 2025, at 7:00 PM, held at Millbury Memorial Junior/Senior High School, 12 Martin Street, Millbury, Massachusetts. Don’t assume others will take care of it—your vote is essential to protecting our community. Every voice counts. Be there. We do have a choice and it ours to make. Decisions should be guided by facts, not fear or speculation about the unknown.

MBTA Communities Act: Reasons To Vote “No”