By Joe Stewart

Wrentham officials videotaped a roundtable discussion to prepare voters for the Special Town Meeting on December 16 at the King Philip Regional High School. The discussion was moderated by Select Board member Chris Gallo, and the participants were Wrentham Finance Director Mike King, Wrentham Planning Board chairman Mike McKnight, Select Board member Michelle Rouse, and Wrentham Town Manager Kevin Sweet. Questions for the roundtable were submitted by residents last month. 

The recording is available at https://bit.ly/3CyKAik.  Note that Cable 8 has included an index that enables one to move directly to a topic of interest in the recorded video.

Sweet summarized that Wrentham is required to provide zoning for multi-family housing “by right,” meaning that the town could not impose additional, special permits. Sweet noted that the law does not require that housing be built, only that the town has zoning authorizing multi-family housing by the end of the year.

One of the questions posed to Sweet was “Why are Boston and other towns not included in the MBTA Zoning law?” Sweet responded that Boston and other suburban communities already have multi-family zoning in place. Sweet next addressed questions relating to unfunded mandates and home rule, explaining the state has required towns to provide zoning for multi-family housing but the state has not provided funding to offset costs. He also noted that zoning is typically a local matter addressed under home rule.

McKnight provided a summary of the Planning Board’s year-long process, including the formation of a subcommittee, and guiding principles (notably lower impact to the town, traffic, and that the multi-family housing zone locations have easy access to transportation).  McKnight outlined that 15 locations were assessed in depth, with the Planning Board selecting two locations for the multi-family housing overlay zones. The first is off Elysium St. near Franklin and Route 140 with 37.7 acres, and the other off East St. / Foxborough Rd. near Foxborough and Route 1 with 21.2 acres.

Questions posed to McKnight included “Are there age restrictions?” and “Are there affordable housing requirements?”  McKnight responded that there are no age restrictions and that the Planning Board decided to retain a 10% affordable units requirement so as to remain in compliance with affordable housing laws. Sweet then explained that affordable housing laws have been in place for decades and Wrentham has been and remains in compliance by achieving the 10% threshold.  

Next McKnight was asked to discuss what controls Wrentham loses with by right multi-family housing zoning. He explained that property owners in those zones can develop their properties under the existing zoning or under the multi-family zone. For the existing zoning, the Planning Board can impose special permit requirements while under the multi-family zone the Planning Board does not have special permit authority. In particular, so long as the property owner complies with Wrentham codes, no additional special permits can be imposed.

However, McKnight pointed out that the proposed zones are not easy to develop and both are relatively long-term development projects. Both will require substantial permitting work due to traffic and wetlands. McKnight concluded that these sites are not easy or quick to develop. On the other hand, both sites are close to transportation and both would likely keep new traffic on the outskirts of Wrentham on Route 1 near Foxborough and Route 140 near Franklin.

Next, Finance Director King was asked to describe the grants that are tied to compliance with the law. King outlined the four grant programs specifically in legislation: Housing Choice, Local Capital Projects, MassWorks, and Housing Works, and then explained that in the last two years the only grant Wrentham received from these programs was a $70K grant to study downtown wastewater treatment feasibility. King also highlighted that Wrentham received a $2.2M grant under MassWorks for water line expansion in 2016.  

King noted that 13 more grant programs have been added, thus 17 designated grant programs, but went on to highlight that town compliance with the law may inform other discretionary funding decisions. For example, Milton lost a grant funded under the Seawall program due to its non-compliance. Since FY2023, Wrentham has received about $1.2M in all grants including a grant from the same program as Milton.  

The panel then shifted to a discussion of unfunded mandates outlining collaboration and communication with other affected communities and a formal request by the Select Board to the Division of Local Mandates under the State Auditor for a determination if the state law is an unfunded mandate on municipalities. It’s unclear when that determination will be made.

On a related topic, the panel discussed the fiscal impacts of adding 750 housing units. King explained the initial methodology, per-capita, and estimated an increase to the town’s budget of approximately $11.5M. The Division of Local Mandates asked that Wrentham refine those estimates focusing on education and public safety. At full build out, Wrentham could expect a budget increase of as much as $16M, with much of the increase due to increased student enrollment. On the revenue side, King estimated that property tax revenue would increase by $2.3M.  

With a gap of more than $13M, King was asked to explain how the shortfall would be funded.  He explained that Prop 2 ½ limits the rate at which property taxes can be increased and thus to cover the gap Town Meeting would have to use overrides. Gallo summarized other needs including $10M in roads and $7M for a well in West Wrentham. Gallo concluded that taxpayers should understand that approving this zoning could lead to property tax rate increases.  

Sweet elaborated that the Roderick School has a substantial project and Wrentham needs to address the public works facilities, both of which will require debt exclusions to fund.

From there the panel shifted back to McKnight to discuss current planned projects. McKnight expects the developer for the Crosby property behind the Dunkin’ at the center of town to refile their plan at the beginning of 2025. That project is expected to include more than 80 townhomes for sale, more than 200 apartments and flats for rent, and more than 30,000 square feet of retail space. Another proposed project is off Beech St. and will include a senior living community of about 60 units.

Rouse was asked if the state is funding any services to ease access to MBTA facilities from Wrentham and Rouse responded that no funding has been made available. A follow-up question to Rouse related to the state using any housing built in a multi-family zone to serve the state as a sanctuary site or temporary shelter. Rouse responded that the state can make a decision about a sanctuary site at any time as demonstrated by what happened in Norfolk, with Rouse likely referring to the state’s use of the decommissioned Bay State Correctional Center in Norfolk as a temporary shelter for homeless people.

A related discussion addressed what happens if Wrentham adopts the multi-family zoning and then the state’s supreme court decides that the MBTA Communities program is unlawful.  Sweet responded that any adopted zoning would require a ⅔ vote at Town Meeting to change the zoning.

Likewise, Sweet explained that if the State Auditor determines the MBTA Communities program is an unfunded mandate, any adopted zoning would require a ⅔ vote at Town Meeting to change the zoning. King elaborated that when programs are deemed to be unfunded mandates, municipalities can apply to be exempted or the state can provide funding; however, if a municipality accepted the mandate knowing it was unfunded, then the state is no longer required to provide funding. 

Wrapping up, Gallo shifted to the options for voters at Town Meeting: vote to adopt the zoning, vote to reject the zoning, or wait. The third option refers to waiting for a decision at the Supreme Judicial Court and / or waiting for an unfunded mandate determination. From there Sweet noted that the requirement is to bring the zoning to Town Meeting: if voters decide not to adopt the zoning then grants will be in jeopardy due to administrative discretion in awarding grants, including federal grants such as Community Project funds.

Wrentham has assembled an MBTA Communities page including summaries and meeting recordings at https://www.wrentham.gov/185/MBTA-Communities.