Table of Contents
Get our free local reporting delivered straight to your inbox. No noise, no spam — just clear, independent coverage of Marblehead. Sign up for our once-a-week newsletter.
With a state compliance clock ticking and a lawsuit pending, the Marblehead Planning Board on Tuesday night advanced revisions to its MBTA Communities zoning proposal and began refining updates to the town’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) bylaw, aiming to bring both measures to public hearings and ultimately to Town Meeting this spring.
The Feb. 10 meeting came five days after the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) notified the town that its revised 3A Multi-family Overlay District contains no conflicts with state regulations — and less than two weeks after Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed a civil lawsuit against Marblehead and eight other municipalities for failing to comply with Section 3A of the Zoning Act.
Community Development and Planning Director Brendan Callahan read a statement from board member Marc Liebman, who was absent but has led much of the town’s coordination with EOHLC and planning consultant Judy Barrett.
According to the statement, Liebman and Callahan met with Barrett shortly after the board’s last meeting to address concerns outlined in the state’s earlier pre-adoption review.
“We were able to address each item in a way that she believed to be satisfactory,” Liebman wrote.
Among the key changes was a decision to set parking at two spaces per unit, with no guest parking requirement. Liebman noted that two spaces per unit exceeds the one-to-one or one-and-a-half ratio typical for comparable multifamily developments. Barrett did not believe the state would approve a requirement above two spaces, according to the statement.
If our coverage helps you understand what MBTA Communities compliance means, how ADU rules are changing, or why these choices affect Marblehead’s future, please consider supporting The Independent. A small monthly contribution or a one-time gift directly funds more of this essential civic reporting.
🟦 Click here to become an Independent member
🟦 Click here to make a one-time contribution
Be Independent, with us.
The board also removed the General Glover property from the proposed overlay district because it lacks frontage in Marblehead. To maintain compliance with the state’s minimum capacity requirement of 897 units, planners slightly increased density in the Tedesco Country Club zone. Liebman said the closest achievable figure was 900 units — three above the minimum. Callahan said he would confirm the exact number but recalled it was slightly above 897.
A previously proposed landscape plan requirement was also dropped. Liebman wrote that the Planning Board already retains authority to regulate aesthetics through its design review process, making a separate landscape mandate unnecessary. Board member Edward O. Nilsson had suggested the same approach at a prior meeting.
The revised plan has received pre-adoption approval from EOHLC. In a Feb. 5 letter, Undersecretary Caroline “Chris” Kluchman wrote that adoption of the proposed district would place Marblehead “in a good position for compliance,” while cautioning that the review does not guarantee a final compliance determination.
Board Chair Barton Hyte asked whether the attorney general’s office would conduct a separate review of the zoning text beyond the EOHLC process. Callahan said the AG’s office would not conduct a separate review at this time, though Town Counsel may make minor adjustments before the proposal moves to a public hearing and Town Meeting warrant.
In a second major discussion, the board turned to a draft revision of the town’s ADU bylaw, prepared by legal counsel to align local regulations with changes in state law.
Hyte framed the effort as an attempt to preserve local controls rather than simply deferring to the state.
“We chose to do that because we wanted to keep certain controls in our interest,” Hyte said. “So what I think the main message is we basically adjusted our bylaw just to correspond.”
Nilsson raised several concerns with the draft.
He questioned why dimensional relief for ADUs would be handled by the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than the Planning Board, noting that the Planning Board can grant dimensional relief under the town’s incentive zoning bylaw. Hyte said the draft clarifies that while the Planning Board reviews ADU applications related to use, dimensional relief falls under the ZBA’s authority — consistent with how the board handled a prior case on Hibbard Road. Board member Andrew Christensen recalled that Town Counsel Adam Costa had recommended the language to address comments from the attorney general’s office.
Nilsson also flagged differences in how the draft defines gross floor area compared to Marblehead’s existing bylaw. The draft excludes enclosed porches from gross floor area — a departure from the town’s longstanding interpretation, which has included even unenclosed porches.
“That has always been interpreted as even unenclosed porches, has always been included in Marblehead’s,” Nilsson said. “Very odd that that would be.”
He warned that excluding enclosed porches could allow a homeowner to substantially increase a building’s effective size without exceeding the gross floor area limit.
Hyte directed Callahan to verify whether the definition mirrors the state’s language verbatim, particularly regarding enclosed porches and attic space.
Other state-imposed provisions discussed Monday include a requirement that an ADU may not exceed 50% of the principal dwelling’s gross floor area or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller; a prohibition on local caps limiting ADUs to two bedrooms; and a parking exemption for ADUs located within half a mile of a bus stop. Nilsson confirmed that Marblehead has designated bus stops, meaning the exemption would apply to some properties but not all.
The ADU revisions require a public hearing before advancing to Town Meeting. Callahan said he is working with Town Counsel Costa to determine scheduling. Hyte suggested holding the ADU and MBTA zoning public hearings on the same night to meet the spring timeline.
“I can’t see any other way,” Hyte said.
In a separate procedural matter, the board discussed uncertainty surrounding a prior vote on athletic field lights.
Callahan said Town Counsel advised that the Planning Board may not have had authority over the usage of the lights — only measurable criteria such as height — because the project involves a municipal facility. The board had previously approved the lights with conditions, including a one-year review.
Hyte questioned whether the board should rescind its decision or proceed with the planned follow-up hearing, given the legal opinion that the hearing may not have been required.
“If we shouldn’t have had the first one, we certainly shouldn’t have another one,” Hyte said.
Callahan said Town Counsel had instructed him to draft a formal decision reflecting the board’s vote and conditions, but members agreed further clarification is needed — particularly regarding whether the imposed conditions remain enforceable.
