Marshfield Faces Consequences for Non-Compliance with MBTA Communities Act
Select Board explores options after state notification threatens grant funding; approves new affordable housing policy
MARSHFIELD - February 24 - Marshfield's Select Board is taking action after receiving official notification that the town is non-compliant with the MBTA Communities Act, potentially jeopardizing access to state grants and other funding.
During their February 24 meeting, the board voted to pursue multiple strategies to address the situation, including seeking exemption from the law and requesting state funding to implement the requirements.
Chair Lynne Fidler read a letter from Edward M. Augustus Jr., Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), which stated: "The consequences of non-compliance are significant... all discretionary grant programs across the Healey-Driscoll administration take compliance with the MBTA Communities law into consideration when making funding decisions."
The letter, dated February 19, explained that Marshfield had not submitted a required action plan by the February 13 deadline, placing the town in non-compliance with Section 3A of the Zoning Act.
"We are in non-compliance. It is what it is. That was the decision from the town meeting," Fidler said, referring to town meeting votes in April and December 2024 that rejected the MBTA Communities Act proposals.
The board discussed the financial implications of non-compliance, with Fidler noting that $261,000 in harbor navigation funding is currently on hold.
"I'm really fiscally conservative, so this is so important to the town because we need to understand exactly what is at stake," Fidler said. "We're not just talking about 17 grants now, which is what where our heads were back in December. We're talking about really big numbers."
Vice Chair Steve Darcy emphasized the potential consequences of remaining out of compliance.
"It's an unpopular piece of legislation... but this is exactly what we were worried about – all the grant funding that we would lose," Darcy said. "We lost a grant to dredge the North and South River, and that money is going to have to come from somewhere."
The board also discussed a recent determination by the State Auditor that the MBTA Communities Act constitutes an unfunded mandate for the town of Methuen.
"The state auditor... didn't nullify the law. What she said was it's an unfunded mandate and that the state should provide funding for the costs incurred by towns to get into compliance with this act," Darcy explained.
Town Counsel Bob Galvin advised the board on potential options, including seeking legislation to exempt Marshfield from compliance or pursuing a court order under the unfunded mandate law.
"I believe that we will be recommending that you also consider bringing a claim that the town of Marshfield should be exempted under the unfunded mandate law," Galvin said.
The board voted 2-1 on three motions: to ask the state auditor for an unfunded mandate determination for Marshfield, to request state legislators seek funding or make compliance optional for the town, and to pursue a court order exempting Marshfield from compliance until adequate funding is provided. Board member Eric Kelley voted against all three motions.
"The law states that if a community chooses not to accept it, they lose three funding grants," Kelley said. "This law is supposed to be voted on by the citizens at town meeting. The law was defeated, so we are in compliance. I see it no other way."
In a related matter, the board unanimously approved a new Local Initiative Project (LIP) policy to guide the evaluation of affordable housing projects in town.
The policy establishes a process for developers to seek Select Board endorsement for "friendly" Chapter 40B projects, which would need to offer clear benefits to the community beyond conventional 40B developments.
Galvin explained that now that Marshfield has exceeded the 10 percent affordable housing threshold, the town is in a stronger position to evaluate proposed developments.
"We are in the driver's seat. We can decide whether we want to accept any other 40B project as long as we maintain over 10 percent," Galvin said.
The policy requires developers to submit detailed information about proposed projects, which would be evaluated by the Planning Board before coming to the Select Board for consideration.
"This policy creates a process by which a developer could approach the town in a very public way with some specific plans," Galvin said. "It gives us a mechanism to have it evaluated by our planning department... and provide a mechanism for you all to discuss it publicly and make a decision in a very open and obvious way."
The policy specifies that projects should offer benefits such as innovative site design, a higher percentage of affordable units than the mandatory 25 percent, building density that does not maximize development of the site, and other community benefits.
The Zoning Board of Appeals would be excluded from the initial evaluation process to avoid potential bias if the project later comes before them for a comprehensive permit.