Wrentham won't fight court ruling; will comply with MBTA Communities Act

Yahoo

a day ago

Wrentham town officials have decided to comply with the controversial MBTA Communities Act after the town suit against the state and zoning law was dismissed earlier this month in Superior Court.
Wrentham Select Board members discussed the ruling and decided on the course of action at their meeting last week.
'After careful consideration, the Wrentham Select Board has decided not to appeal the recent decision,' board members and Town Manager Michael King said in a statement. 'Having pursued the case to a logical conclusion, the select board considered all various options, including appeal, and has determined that the most prudent and cost-effective option is to move forward while working proactively to manage future growth in a way that reflects the community's values and priorities.
'This decision also ensures that Wrentham remains eligible for key state funding opportunities that support infrastructure, public safety, education and other services critical to residents' quality of life,' local officials said.
Lawsuits filed by the town and eight other communities against the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and others regarding the law were dismissed June 6 by a Superior Court judge.
The other towns filing legal action against the state were Duxbury, Hamilton, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleton, Wenham, and Weston. In Hamilton, residents had filed the suit.
The suits were filed earlier this year in hopes of not having to comply with the MBTA Communities Act, which requires communities hosting or adjacent to MBTA stations to set aside zoning districts to encourage multi-family housing.
Prior to the suits being filed, the state Division of Local Mandates concluded the act was an unfunded mandate, citing the Local Mandate Law enacted during the onset of state property tax levy-limiting Proposition 2 1/2 in the early 1980s that says any state law or regulation that would impose more than 'incidental administration expenses' on local governments must either be fully funded by the state or be conditional on local acceptance of the rule.
Under the law, cities and towns can ask the state auditor to determine if a state law or regulation constitutes an unfunded mandate, and to provide an analysis of the financial impact of such a mandate, and select board members did that last October.
In February, DLM Director Jana DiNatale responded that grants the state offered communities to help develop new zoning demonstrated the law imposed additional costs, but didn't fully fund its implementation.
The Local Mandate Law also allows any community facing an unfunded state mandate to request an exemption from compliance in Superior Court, and Wrentham sought such relief until the economic impacts of the law could be assessed.
However, the court ruled the act didn't impose an unfunded mandate on cities and towns and the towns hadn't shown any direct costs for following the law.
The towns had mentioned anticipated impacts to infrastructure, public safety and other municipal services from new housing development, but a judge said these were conjecture and lacked specifics about costs and projects.
'While Wrentham presented thorough arguments to the court, the presiding judge ultimately ruled that the Auditor erroneously determined that an unfunded mandate existed and found that the only mandatory obligation was to establish a zoning bylaw,' local officials said. 'Although the select board is dissatisfied with the outcome, it respects the court's decision.
'Throughout this process, the select board has remained committed to advocating for Wrentham's fiscal and planning interests. The select board honored its obligation to the town to seek financial impact information from the Commonwealth on the sweeping state-mandated changes to the town's zoning bylaws,' officials said. 'The select board remains dedicated to protecting the interests of Wrentham residents and will continue to engage with state partners to advocate for balanced, sustainable growth that benefits the entire community.'
The state Supreme Judicial Court in January upheld the law as constitutional and mandatory, though the court said the compliance guidelines had not gone through the correct legal process and were unenforceable. The state then released new, emergency guidelines, giving noncompliant towns until mid-July to comply.
Wrentham is the only Attleboro-area community falling under the MBTA law that hasn't approved new zoning districts.
Residents at a heavily-attended town meeting late last year strongly opposed proposed zoning districts to meet the law's requirements.
The town has until July 14 to comply under the extended deadline or risk legal action from the state.
State officials have also threatened to withhold state grants from communities not adhering to the law.
The Legislature sent its $1.3 billion surtax supplemental budget to Gov. Maura Healey's desk last week that earmarks $716 million for transportation. Language in the proposal requires towns subject to the MBTA Communities Act to comply with it to get millions in road money.
Norton voters also balked against the law but at their May annual town meeting approved two new zoning districts after rejecting a district last fall.
The Sun Chronicle is a news partner of MassLive.com. To subscribe to The Sun Chronicle, click here.
Reneé Rapp announces 2025 tour, here's how to buy tickets
Martha's Vineyard makes waves with 'Jaws' 50th anniversary celebration
Nantucket distillery awarded top honors for its single malt whiskey
Red Sox 'Big 3′ join trio of elite Boston company
Western Mass. man dies after being struck by car while crossing the street
Read the original article on MassLive.