Pro, con sides make 3A pitches

Early voting starts today

By Ethan Forman

» Staff Writer

With early voting for the April 24 Special Election on the city’s MBTA Communities Act-compliant zoning starting Monday, April 14, leaders of both the ‘“yes” and “no’” camps made their best elevator pitches Friday.

A “yes” vote upholds the City Council’s approval of the Multi-Family Overlay District zoning, and a “No” vote rejects it.

Officials have said a “no” vote would knock the city out of compliance with state law and send it back to the drawing board to come up with a new plan by mid-July, or risk being out of compliance and losing out on some state grants.

Those arguing in favor of the MFOD say it’s a mandate to zone, not to build, and it will not lead to much new housing, while opponents fret about the “unintended consequences” of the new zoning and the loss of local control.

“First it’s zoning, it’s not building houses,” Yes For Gloucester Chair Jack Clarke said of the law, known as Section 3A. The law is a mandate to build family- friendly housing.

It allows for someone to add a third unit to their two-family home without having to go through the rigmarole and expense of getting a special permit.

“In other words, it’s a property rights measure,” he said.

Layered over neighborhoods that are largely developed, Clarke estimates the zoning would allow for the creation of several hundred new units, and estimates the creation of 10-20 units a year over the next decade, which is typical of Gloucester’s housing creation.

The units would most likely be for an aging parent, an adult child or a city worker who can’t afford $800,000 to buy a house.

He warns of the consequences of the city being out compliance with the loss of state grant money.

“The state controls the standards and they

See ZONING, Page A2

Tracy O’Neil

Jack Clarke

Continued from Page A1

can change them at any time,” is a concern of Vote NO on April 24 Chair Tracy O’Neil, a former Ward 2 city councilor. She helped lead a petition drive to force a vote on the zoning.

“It’s unintended consequences that you can’t foresee, but I can,” O’Neil said.

More development means the need for more policemen, firemen, and schools, she said. It creates issues around trash, traffic and arguments over scarce downtown parking. The MFOD calls for one parking space per unit, but O’Neil said developers could go to the zoning board for a variance to increase their number of spaces.

O’Neil and Beverly Johnson, who is also with the Vote No group, said they see the zoning as an unfunded mandate, in light of a recent state auditor’s ruling.

The law was not unfunded, in that the state provided Gloucester $75,000 in technical assistance to craft its zoning plan, Clarke said.

Citing an April 3, 2024, story on Boston.com asking whether the state should ban corporate home buyers, Johnson said she was concerned the new multifamily housing would be swept up by institutional investors, who would flip them for higher prices or raise rents.

O’Neil was concerned the state could change the law’s guidelines at any time. And with the zoning having a minimum multifamily unit capacity of 2,270 units, she’s concerned the zoning would lead to hundreds of new units, putting a burden on city services.

Due to requirements of the law ensuring half of the districts are located within a half-mile of train stations, nearly 90% of the planned MFOD sits within a half mile of the Railroad Avenue train station downtown. There’s a small sub district near the West Gloucester train station. O’Neil said a “No” vote might mean a more equitable plan for the downtown.

“It would force the Planning Board to go back to the drawing board … and come up with a more equitable plan,” she said. “Instead of 90% of the new units being zoned for downtown, it should be 25% downtown, 25% at the West Gloucester station and the remaining 50% divided among other areas of town. This is crushing to us.”

The 3A zoning means a loss of home rule and loss of control, Johnson said.

“We have the right to determine what kind of zoning, what we want in our zoning right now. If we embrace 3A we lose that right,” she said.

Clarke, who chaired the Planning Board for 10 years, said the city is not losing home rule, but actually gaining it.

“The state will do the zoning for us if the ‘no’ vote prevails,” he said. All zoning authority comes from the Legislature, so when a community zones, it has to comply with state law.

A “Yes” vote would keep the tax rate stable because a “No” vote would result in the loss of millions of state funding, Clarke said.

Last year, the city received almost $9 million in grants for housing, street repair, and the upgrade of the city’s wastewater treatment plant, he said, which would be jeopardized if the city were not in compliance by July 14.

“There are no guarantees for grants,” O’Neil said.

Unlike other cities and towns, the City Council and the Planning Board listened to residents and took a modest approach in crafting the zoning “and did the minimal.” Of the overlay district, Clarke said, two-thirds of it are already built out.

“You’ll hear from the opposition,” he said, “Say ‘no’ to 3A. That argument is with the state Legislature. 3A is law. The vote before Gloucester on April 24 is whether or not to support the Gloucester housing ordinance, not 3A.”