East Bridgewater Rejects MBTA Zoning Mandate for Third Time
Residents Demand Better Communication
EAST BRIDGEWATER - May 11, 2026 - In a night marked by high attendance and sharp procedural debates, East Bridgewater voters once again rejected a state-mandated housing overlay district, signaling continued resistance to the “MBTA Communities” law. While the town approved its $58.8 million operating budget and green-lit a significant environmental cleanup for a former police firing range, the focal point of the evening was a clear rebuke of state-level zoning pressure and a successful resident-led petition to overhaul how the town notifies citizens of future tax-related votes.
The Full Story
The meeting, held at the Junior/Senior High School, was standing-room-only as residents gathered to address 20 Annual Town Meeting articles and eight Special Town Meeting articles. Town Moderator Robert Looney, marking 22 years in the role, presided over the session, which immediately pivoted from routine financial transfers to the town’s ongoing struggle with the Massachusetts “3A” zoning requirements.
The “Main Event”: Article 6 Defeat
The most contentious issue was Article 6, the proposed North Bedford Street Housing Overlay District (NBSHOD). The district aimed to bring the town into compliance with the MBTA Communities Act by allowing multi-family housing as-of-right on approximately 116 acres. Despite the Planning Board’s unanimous recommendation and warnings from the Finance Committee regarding potential litigation and the loss of discretionary state grants, voters defeated the measure in a lopsided hand count of 149 in favor and 220 opposed. This marks the third time the town has rejected the mandate.
Zoning and State Mandates
While voters rejected the MBTA overlay, they did approve Article 17, which updates the town’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bylaws. Planning Board Chairman Kevin Reilly explained that the update was necessary because the Attorney General refused to approve a version that limited ADUs to a single residential zone. The vote initially passed but was subjected to a formal recount after more than 10 residents stood to challenge the voice vote; the recount confirmed the passage with 192 in favor and 125 opposed.
Conversely, Article 18, which sought to rezone several B-4 business districts to B-2 districts to allow for smaller-scale business and residential mixes, was defeated. Opponents argued the change was “deceptive” and would open the door to unwanted high-density housing developments.
