SHREWSBURY – MBTA zoning, local government reform, and Department of Public Works facility upgrades are set to be discussed on Nov. 18, when Shrewsbury’s elected body of 240 representatives will gather at Oak Middle School for a Special Town Meeting.
Here’s an overview of some of the night’s biggest topics.
Article 6 would appropriate $2 million to fund the design of a proposed renovation of the town’s 207-211 South St. DPW facilities. In April, the Select Board formed the Municipal Facilities Optimization Committee (MFOC), which was tasked with reviewing the state of the DPW facility and returning with a “preferred design concept and budget.”
Constructed in the 1950s, the Water and Sewer Garage (207 South St.) is an 11,000-square-foot facility that town officials and employees alike have said is “at the end of its useful life.” The 30,000-square-foot Highway Garage (211 South St.) was first constructed in 1976 and houses the Highway Division, Parks and Cemetery Maintenance Division, Fleet Management Division, and Public Buildings Division.
Over the course of several meetings, the MFOC recommended a $26.8 million design that included the demolition of the Water and Sewer Garage and a 21,600-square-foot addition to the Highway Garage. In subsequent meetings, an additional $5.5 million was proposed for work on Town Hall.
Town Meeting in November will be asked to appropriate money exclusively for the design of the project. The town plans to call a Town Meeting in April 2025 to ask for a borrowing authorization, with a possible town-wide vote planned for that May. If the borrowing is approved, construction could start in August.
The Finance Committee on Nov. 7 unanimously recommended the article.
Learn more:
→ State of the Building
→ Shrewsbury Media Connection Tour
Article 9 is the long-awaited MBTA zoning vote. The town is proposing a contiguous, 118-acre zone that contains three main parcels: Shrewsbury Commons, 409 South Street and Emerald Run. The town has worked for months to ensure that the plan, if adopted, will meet all state requirements under M.G.L Chapter 40A, Section 3A.
As part of the 2021 MBTA Communities Act, Shrewsbury must zone for approximately 1,500 housing units, which is equal to 10% of the town’s current housing stock. Town officials have opted to zone on pre-existing density – or areas that will soon have residential density – to limit the amount of expected development.
Though the zoning could technically accommodate 1,512 units, given the 588 existing units in the zone and 498 40B units expected to be developed between Emerald Run and 409 South Street, the town can expect a “net new unit” count of approximately 426.
If Shrewsbury does not pass MBTA zoning by Dec. 31, the town will be ineligible for 13 discretionary grants, including MassWorks, Housing Choice, and other funds. Though grants are never guaranteed, Shrewsbury has utilized roughly $5 million in related grant funding over the last 12 years to fund “significant’ improvements in town.
Opponents of adopting MBTA zoning point to an ongoing case involving Milton before the Supreme Judicial Court challenging the extent to which the Attorney General’s office can enforce the MBTA zoning mandate; some have encouraged the town to vote “no,” wait for the court case to resolve, and reconsider the zoning afterward. For others, it’s about fighting perceived state government overreach into local communities.
Since the start, Shrewsbury leaders have said they feel it’s their responsibility to bring forth a viable zoning plan and “path to compliance” – then the town can decide from there.
The Finance Committee on Nov. 7 unanimously recommended the article.
Learn More:
→ Planning Board Discusses MBTA zoning
→ MBTA Zoning Timeline Tightens
→ Shrewsbury Moves MBTA Zoning Location
→ MBTA Zoning Vote Pushed Until Fall
→ Town Website (MBTA Zoning)
Article 10 is a citizens’ petition from Gregg Richards with signatures from about 180 residents. The article would, if approved, change the town’s Planning Board from an appointed body to an elected body. According to Richards, 70% of towns with a Planning Board elect their members, including several local communities.
An elected board would boost accountability, Richards said, and would promote engagement and interest in town government.
“What better way to expand engagement and interest with the towns and committees than to allow that board to be elected? Elections and the campaign process bring awareness to not only the Planning Board, but also the impact those individuals may have on the community,” said Richards.
“I understand that change is hard, right? A lot of people might fear change. But just changing from an appointed board to an elected board does not guarantee the make-up of the board would change at all. If the existing Planning Board still feels they’re the best to serve in those positions, they can simply run, and that election process would allow them to present their experience and qualifications directly to those who matter most – the residents,” he added.
Those opposed to the article argued that Shrewsbury’s current appointed model better reflects principles of government found in the U.S. Constitution and other founding documents – the idea that the town elects people that then appoint people who run the government.
“Our forefathers said that you should elect people and appoint people – and they’re two different people. One [is based on] electability, and one is supposed to be based on merit and skill for that position … When we elect people, we elect them and who they appoint. Forever. Since the beginning of this country. To say, ‘The Planning Board, I don’t like how they put things.’ Well, it’s the Town Meeting members that put that into law, and they’re elected,” said Finance Committee member David Remington.
The possible politicization of the Planning Board was also a concern; residents also commented about how some people who wish to meaningfully contribute may not want to go through an election process. Town Manager Kevin Mizikar said that due to several technical shortcomings, the article may not be accepted by the state if approved by Town Meeting.
The town’s current government model was initially formed in 1953, according to Mizikar. Since July 2017, Mizikar has fielded 37 Planning Board applications from 26 different residents. In that time, he has made eight appointments.
“In sum, I believe that appointing Planning Board members can enhance the board’s effectiveness by fostering a balanced mix of professional expertise, sector representation, stability, and independence from political cycles. This approach enables the Planning Board to support the mandates of the zoning bylaw and associated strategic objectives of the community,” Mizikar said on Nov. 7.
The Finance Committee on Nov. 7 unanimously voted to not recommend the article.
Article 11, Article 12, Article 13, and Article 14 are all articles brought forth by the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). Three of the articles (11-13) ask Town Meeting to fund renovations to the First Congregational Church in the center of town. Article 14 would continue the effort to restore historic gravestone markers in Mountain View Cemetery.
Located at 19 Church Rd., the church was first built in the 1720s, though there’s been a fair amount of construction around the structure in the subsequent three centuries. According to a walking tour produced by the town’s Historic District Commission, townspeople rotated and moved the building 50 feet south using logs in 1834. A three-story addition was built in 1965.
Aside from a hurricane in 1938 that blew the steeple off the church, the building has been relatively adverse to natural disasters. But, just in case, the Community Preservation Committee is planning to bring Article 11 to Town Meeting, which seeks funds to add “lightning protection” for the church. The building is currently not protected, according to project documents.
Article 12 at Town Meeting would fund $5,200 of “trim repairs,” and Article 13 would fund a roughly $10,000 “architectural survey” of the church. Project documents outline that the east side of the church (along Boylston Street) has some rotted and warped boards. There are also structural problems with the wooden floor.
“The goals of the project[s] are to preserve [a] historic building in the town of Shrewsbury and ensure safety to all building-users, [like] Boy Scouts, AA group meetings, [and] public school groups. The project will benefit local citizens, both with the church community and as well as outside town and local residents,” project documents read.
As a private entity, the church – which asked the Community Preservation Committee for the funds – is eligible for the projects through its status as a historic landmark. There was debate in CPC meetings dating back to July as to whether some of the proposed projects were maintenance issues (not eligible) or preservation issues (eligible).
“I don’t want the town or the [CPC] to be viewed as a crutch, and [so organizations] can decide to defer maintenance and not have to pay for it because they know they can go to the [CPC] and not have to pay for it. That’s my fear. I think there has to be some fiduciary responsibility,” Richards said on Nov. 7.
“I think the church should be paying for that. It’s a historical building, but they have their own funding. Every other church has funding for their improvements. If there is a real issue there – fund it,” said Finance Committee member Denis O’Connell.
The Finance Committee on Nov. 7 voted 6-1 to recommend Article 11; 4-3 against recommending Article 12; 5-2 against recommending Article 13; and 7-0 to recommend Article 14.
More on Town Meeting here.
