DHCD MBTA Draft Guidelines Ch 358 Sec 3A https://www.mass.gov/doc/draft-guidelines-for-mbta-communities/download

Mass MBTA Public Comments on Draft Guidelines https://www.mass.gov/forms/submit-public-written-comment-on-draft-guidelines-for-multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

MAPC Multi-Family Zoning Requirements https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/mbta-multifamily-zoning/

MAPC T-Station Interactive Website https://www.tstation.info/#/

Mass Ch 358 An Act Enabling Partnerships for Growth https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter358

MAPC MBTA Communities FAQ https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mbta-communities-frequently-asked-questions#d.-minimum-gross-density-

MBTA & DOT TOD Projects https://www.mbtarealty.com/transit-oriented-development/

MAPC MetroFuture Regional Plan https://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MetroFuture_Goals_and_Objectives_1_Dec_2008.pdf

One comment

  1. March 22, 2022

    Just to let you know that we sent the following letter to mbtafeedback@gloucester-ma.gov. We also received the following response:

    “Thank you for contacting the Office of Gloucester Mayor Greg Verga. Your feedback, questions, and submissions are important to the Mayor and to City staff. Due to the volume of emails received and our desire to ensure that all are carefully reviewed and considered, there may be a delay before you receive a reply. If your matter is urgent or requires immediate attention call 978-281-9700. For additional information please visit the City of Gloucester’s website: http://www.gloucester-ma.gov. Thank you.”

    We sent the following email this morning, and hopefully will receive a response soon.

    Good morning:

    Please accept our apologies for submitting this email late, but West Gloucester did not have internet until early this morning.

    We attended the Public Forum last night at the Portuguese Club in Gloucester, MA. We wanted to listen to speakers and understand the zoning proposals, as well as the connection to the multi-family zoning requirement for MBTA Communities.

    With all due respect, we are definitely not in favor of these zoning proposals. We are well aware that the majority (about 80%) of current residents have expressed opposition to this proposal. We hope that our voices are loud and clear, and do not fall on deaf ears.

    We moved here in 1988 (34 years ago) due to the fact that we prefer to live in unpopulated, less dense areas. Cape Ann Island is a beautiful island, one that does not need to increase its population for the sake of state funding. We, as a community, need to protect our current zoning laws, as well as preserve our pristine deep-rooted community. We are all for “Don’t Boston My Cape Ann.” In the matter of fact, we only travel to Boston Logan Airport when necessary, and have no desire to visit the city itself!

    When we first moved here, the City of Gloucester held meetings regarding Open Space. The zoning for residential land in West Gloucester increased from one-half acre to an acre. We also voted to increase residential taxes so that the City of Gloucester could purchase properties so that they could not be developed. So, we would like to know how many of these “Open Spaces” have been procured and at what costs, considering we have been paying this tax for over thirty years. It appears that now, the City of Gloucester is reversing this goal without community input or consent.

    Before considering any deals on the table, the City of Gloucester needs to address and improve it’s current infrastructure, such as but not limited to, the following:
    water pressure – the water pressure, especially West Gloucester, is very limited, and some residents have wells instead;
    road conditions – the side roads are in disrepair and continue to erode due to municipal neglect and funding;
    traffic congestion – there is already significant traffic backup, especially in the summer months, and residents are limited to traveling at peak hours due to “bottleneck” conditions and lack of escape routes; and
    pedestrian right of passage – sidewalks and bicycle paths are lacking throughout the city; so promoting “pedestrian” activity, which is one of the “pros” outlined in the proposal, is contradictory.

    In addition, as taxpayers, we have asked the City of Gloucester numerous times to make improvements on current infrastructure, but the response is always the same. If a street has a “blue” sign, the homeowners are responsible to fix the water pipes, pave the roads and add much needed sidewalks for safety. This is at an additional costs to the homeowners. However, if a street has a “green” sign, the City of Gloucester is responsible to do the same. However, this is paid for by all tax payers. Therefore, those residents that reside on a street with a “green” sign receive these benefits at no additional costs. Perhaps those residents that reside on a street with “blue” sign should receive a tax break in order to pay for maintenance and improvements that the City of Gloucester continues to ignore the issue.

    The increase in the city’s population is not to establish “family-roots”, since the proposal is for high-rises that are rental properties. These individuals are commuters, that more than likely will come and go, and have no interest in settling here permanently. We would like to know whose “deep pockets” are reaping in the “pot of gold” from massive rental properties at the expense of current Gloucester residents. This increase in population requires safety, which means addressing fire stations, police departments, ambulatory services, emergency clinics and other public necessities such as water, sewer and trash. All these needs will become the burden of the taxpayers, and not the burden of the business owners of multi-family rental properties, which are unwanted high rises that destroy our beautiful scenic seaport and skyline.

    As for these proposals, most of the planning has been secretly conducted behind close doors. In addition, all public meeting have been conducted via Zoom meetings due to COVID restrictions, and this has hampered the community to meet openly and voice their opinions. Please consider the fact that many residents do not subscribe to the Gloucester Times, do not have access to technology or simply are not tech savvy. Therefore, we believe that the City of Gloucester has failed to reach out and inform all residents of these intentions. It would have been advantageous to send out letters to all residents, especially since it appears that this is easily accomplished when it comes time to send out the quarterly tax bills. Please open these meetings back up, where we come together as a community and express our “in favor” or “in opposition” to the proposals. Please open up our City Hall, and open the doors to our much needed public forum.

    Gloucester residents have clearly spoken in very limited Zoom meetings. The majority are clearly not in favor of these proposals, and do not appreciate being bullied or bribed by the State of Massachusetts or wealthy bureaucrats, especially those with lined pockets.

    These proposals do not offer any meaningful benefits to Gloucester residents. These proposals only benefit the elite such as as oligarchs and corrupt politicians. Please save our beloved community from the corrupt political interests of others to make a profit at the expense of our current residents of Gloucester, residents that treasure their close-knit community as is and do not want or need an increase in population.


    Jane E. Fox Dobson and William G. Dobson
    14 Becker Circle
    Gloucester, MA 01930

Comments are closed.