Locals waiting at Wakefield Station. The town has until December 31, 2024 to develop a zoning plan to conform with the mandates of the MBTA Communities Act which requires zoning changes related to multifamily housing. (File Photo Frank Conte)

WAKEFIELD — The Town Council’s new “40A Subcommittee” met for the first time last week at Town Hall and via Zoom.

The Town Council recently voted to form the three-member subcommittee to look at creating a new plan to bring the town into compliance with section 3A of Massachusetts General Laws 40A. That subcommittee includes Town Council Chairman Michael McLane and Town Councilors Edward Dombroski and Robert Vincent.

The law requires communities with MBTA service to create a district near public transit in which multifamily housing is permitted as of right. 

At last May’s Annual Town Meeting, voters rejected three different compliance plans. One of those plans, created by the Planning Board, proposed a district that exceeded the state requirements in terms of unit count and geographical size. Two “minimum compliance” plans – one created as by the Planning Board as an alternative to its main proposal and another submitted to Town Meeting by citizen petition – were also rejected.

The town has until Dec. 31, 2024 to come up with a compliance plan acceptable to the state. A number of communities, most notably Milton, have outright refused to comply with the state mandate. The state has threatened loss of grant funding as well as possible litigation for communities that don’t comply.

Joining the 40A Subcommittee at their inaugural meeting were Town Administrator Stephen P. Maio and the town’s Senior Planner, Samantha Elliot. Elliot told the subcommittee that she was working on a survey to be used to gather public feedback related to any new compliance plan.

McLane said that he hopes to have as much public feedback as possible. Public forums are anticipated at the end of this month and in August. Public input will also be accepted at regular subcommittee meetings, McLane said. 

He acknowledged that some residents were under the impression that after Town Meeting, 40A was no longer in play and the issue was finished. But McLane said that he anticipated the new subcommittee coming up with a very different plan than the ones that Town Meeting rejected last spring. A new plan could include areas of Greenwood near Melrose Highlands and/or the Greenwood commuter rail station as well as the North Avenue train station. McLane said that a new plan could also include mixed-use development.

Maio said that based on various timelines, a new plan and map would need to be completed by early October in order to be ready for the November Town Meeting.

Dombroski said that various options should be on the table, including noncompliance. But he added that based on Town Meeting input last spring, nothing that exceeds minimum compliance with the state mandate should even be considered.

McLane and Vincent agreed that any new plan should go no further than minimum compliance.

When the meeting was opened to the public, Bronwyn Della-Volpe of Cyrus Street asked why Chapter 40A was still in play at all after Town Meeting rejected all previous compliance plans.

McLane said that while he had opposed all three plans presented at last spring’s Town Meeting, there might still be a plan that he could support and that would be acceptable to the public. He said that he couldn’t ignore the fact that there are consequences to outright noncompliance, including loss of grant funds.

He said that he would like to give voters at the fall Town Meeting a choice between a more palatable compliance plan and outright noncompliance.

Della-Volpe asked why the Town Council subcommittee was now taking this on rather than the Planning Board.

McLane said that in his opinion the proposals made by the Planning Board and the way they handled public feedback were “an abject failure.”

Dombroski said that if the fall Town Meeting votes down a new compliance plan created by the subcommittee, that should be the end of it.

Other members of the subcommittee agreed.

The subcommittee meets again tonight at 6 p.m.