Action Plan Letter To Board Of Selectmen
The registered voters of Millbury have sent a clear message to town officials expressing their opposition to the MBTA Communities Act. This letter, adapted from an attorney's letter to the Town of Winthrop's Town Manager, has been edited to reflect Millbury's specific circumstances. It was emailed to the Millbury Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, the Town Manager, and the Town Planner, urging them to conduct thorough due diligence before making any decisions on submitting a new Action Plan for the MBTA Communities Act (G.L. c. 40A §3A). The state is attempting to compel the town to implement a new Action Plan, despite the fact that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled certain related regulations unenforceable, carrying significant implications and potential penalties.
The letter reads as follows:
As you are aware, the town held a Special Town Meeting on Saturday, November 9, 2024, where an overwhelming majority of registered voters in attendance rejected Article 8—proposed zoning amendments intended to comply with the MBTA Communities Act (G.L. c. 40A §3A). This decisive vote made it clear that Millbury’s residents do not support these changes, and any attempt to push forward with compliance would be a direct disregard of the will of the people.
The people of Millbury do not support any statement or action that implies the town's intent to comply with 760 CMR 72—the so-called "emergency" regulations that would force excessive density upon Millbury under the pretense of addressing a housing crisis. These regulations would put our residents at risk, burden taxpayers with increased costs for infrastructure, education, and public safety, and undermine the very character of our town. Forcing compliance would impose long-term financial and logistical challenges on Millbury, with no guarantee of benefits for the community.
We acknowledge that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) has directed you to submit the following statement by February 13, 2025:
"It is the full intention of the [Town Administrator/Town Manager/Mayor] to take necessary actions to bring any zoning intended to comply with all requirements of G.L. c. 40A, Section 3A and 760 CMR 72 to a vote of [municipality's legislative body] in the timeframe described in this Action Plan, and to submit a District Compliance Application to EOHLC no later than July 14, 2025."
However, proceeding with such a statement would be a serious misstep for a number of reasons:
1. Millbury should be fighting for an exemption from Chapter 40A §3A, not compliance.
Our town’s unique character and infrastructure limitations make it ill-suited for the blanket density mandates of Chapter 40A §3A. Any compliance should be subject to the town’s needs and priorities—not dictated by the state.
2. Any statement of compliance contradicts the expectations of your role.
As Chairperson of the Board of Selectmen, your primary duty is to advocate for Millbury’s residents—not to engage in political maneuvers that jeopardize our town’s future. Your focus should remain on critical town priorities, such as infrastructure maintenance, public safety, and responsible development.
3. You lack the authority to make this pledge on behalf of our citizens.
The residents of Millbury have not authorized any commitment to Chapter 40A §3A compliance. Unilaterally taking this step would be a blatant overreach and a disservice to those you represent.
4. You are an elected official accountable to the people.
Unlike state-appointed officials, you were chosen by Millbury’s residents to represent their interests. It is imperative that any decision of this magnitude be made transparently and with full public input.
5. The EOHLC guidelines have been invalidated by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
The very regulations in question have already been invalidated by the highest court in the state. Any attempt to enforce compliance with these “emergency regulations” is legally questionable at best.
6. There is no legitimate "emergency" to justify these measures.
Unlike natural disasters or public health crises, this so-called “emergency” is a manufactured justification for state overreach. There is no imminent crisis that warrants bypassing local decision-making or overriding Millbury’s well-established zoning laws.
7. Ongoing litigation.
As you are aware, there is ongoing litigation challenging Chapter 40A §3A, including a class-action lawsuit and a legal challenge to the so-called "emergency declaration." Additionally, other legal actions may be underway that must be allowed to proceed through the appeals process. These cases should be resolved by the courts before the town takes any steps toward compliance. Moving forward prematurely would be both irresponsible and a disservice to Millbury’s residents, potentially forcing unnecessary and harmful zoning changes before the legal process has reached its conclusion.
8. Pending legislation.
As you are aware, at least 23 bills have been submitted by the state legislature to either repeal or significantly curtail Chapter 40A §3A—a clear indication that this law is deeply unpopular and that legislators are responding to widespread public opposition. This alone should give the town pause before rushing into compliance with a mandate that is actively being challenged at the state level. Moving forward without considering these legislative efforts would be both premature and dismissive of the concerns expressed by residents across the Commonwealth.
9. Repetitive voting.
Forcing repeated votes on this issue until the state gets the outcome it desires is a blatant attempt to wear down opposition and override the will of Millbury’s residents. Home Rule rights belong to the people of this town—not to the state—and any effort to coerce compliance through repeated voting is both undemocratic and unacceptable. Unless and until the voters of Millbury, not a town board, willingly choose to relinquish their Home Rule authority, any attempt to push these zoning mandates forward defies the fundamental principles of local governance.
10. Environmental Justice Population.
The initial version of the MBTA Communities Act overlay zoning district, had it been enacted, could have put our most financially vulnerable residents at risk of rising rents, displacement, or even homelessness. As a community, we have a responsibility to protect those who are most at risk, ensuring that any zoning decisions support stability and affordability for all. Many existing residents cannot afford housing at 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Governor Maura Healey claimed, “Together, we are going to make housing more affordable for all of the people who keep our communities strong – our teachers, nurses, first responders, small business owners, seniors, and families.” However, this statement is misleading.
Our Response
Should you proceed with this action, we will respond swiftly. The 14,000± residents of Millbury deserve transparency and the right to determine the future of our town. A form letter from the state—sent to 177 other municipalities—does not grant you the authority to disregard the will of Millbury’s residents.
We urge you to act in the best interest of Millbury, prioritizing local control over compliance with an overreaching state directive.
End of letter.
The Millbury Board of Selectmen is scheduled to take action on the MBTA Communities Act Action Plan on Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 6:00 PM at Town Hall, located at 127 Elm Street. Residents who wish to participate are encouraged to attend and speak during Citizens Speak at the start of the meeting. Zoom Meeting ID: 886 3842 5053.
The Millbury Planning Board is scheduled to discuss the MBTA Communities Act this evening, Monday, February 10, 2025, at 7:00 PM at the Town Hall. Residents who wish to participate are encouraged to attend and speak during the meeting. Zoom Meeting ID: 882 4951 4096.