2/15/25
On February 13, 2025, Governor Maura Healey, Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll, and Secretary for Housing and Livable Communities Ed Augustus came to the Redbrook Community to announce funding for 14 affordable housing projects across the state, including Grantham’s “Cranberry Corner” project which included a $4.1 million contribution from Community Preservation and Affordable Housing funds approved by Town Meeting last April. Plymouth is honored that the Governor chose to make this announcement here, but it was about more than just affordable housing.
At the ceremony, the Governor confirmed that it was the intent of her administration to create 222,000 units of new housing statewide. Using the phrase “pedal to the metal”, she stated that the state would use a variety of programs and dictates, such as the MBTA Communities law, to achieve this construction. And Plymouth is squarely within the Governor’s sights when it comes to such new development.
Plymouth is already the fastest growing town in Massachusetts, but the Governor has indicated that she expects it to do more. She has set a goal of increasing Plymouth’s housing stock by another 7.5% to 10%. In practical terms, that means another 2,100 to 2,800 units. The Governor's newly released housing plan states that such additional housing is needed in part to drive down housing prices. Yet, even with all of the new development in Plymouith, housing proces continue to rise. At the same time, state and federal funds to help pay for the increased services and infrastructure are decreasing.
Historically, Plymouth’s idea of controlling development has been to zone everything Rural Residential (3-acre zoning) and oppose any efforts at greater density. That is why 71% of Plymouth is zoned Rural Residential. But that approach hasn’t worked. Instead, sprawl has increased and high density 40B housing (which circumvents local zoning) has been built in places that have created challenges for the community.
Given the state’s insistence that Plymouth build more housing, and courts’ acknowledgement that the state can override local zoning to do so (e.g. the recent MBTA Communities Law decision), it is clear that Plymouth cannot stop housing growth. Given our current zoning, that means we will need to use up more land. This is antithetical to the wishes of the residents as expressed during the Master Plan process.
Given the state's ability to direct zoning, Plymouth will be hard pressed to avoid the continued development of new housing. If Plymouth is to have any control over such development, it needs to change the way it thinks.
1. If Plymouth wants to protect specific land from development, it has to own that land.
Strong laws regarding property rights (as evidenced by rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), prevent municipal efforts to stop development through restrictive zoning or additional fees. The only true way to control the land is to own the land.
2. If Plymouth wants to limit the need for new infrastructure expenses (e.g. water, sewer, schools, emergency services, etc.), it needs to encourage development in areas where such infrastructure already exists.
Plymouth regularly states that it wants to encourage development in its Village Centers (now including the new areas of the Pinehills and Redbrook). But when denser development proposals are submitted, the response is typically to oppose such development on the grounds of infrastructure need (an increase in traffic, a concern about more school-age children, etc.). But those issues will persist regardless as to where new development occurs. So, the only question is where does higher density development make more sense; where there are already municipal services or where new facilities will have to be built and instead of being on a sewer system the housing will use septic systems damaging to our environment?
3. If Plymouth wants to promote affordable housing it needs to create public/private partnerships.
When we look at the recent history of affordable housing in Plymouth it is evident that municipal development of housing is ineffective. Publicly owned housing is more expensive to develop and to operate. In contrast, public participation in funding of private development has been shown to be a cost-effective way to create and manage affordable housing. That was why the Governor chose to make her affordable housing announcement at the site of the new Cranberry Commons project in Redbrook; because it represents an ideal combination of local, state, and federal government working with a private developer to create a truly affordable development which gives preference to Plymouth residents. In simple parlance, it gave everyone the most bang for the buck. If Plymouth wants to continue to develop truly affordable housing (and community sentiment expressed during the Master Plan process says that it does), it needs to develop ways of funding similar public/private partnerships.
4. If Plymouth wants encourage developers to transfer undeveloped rural land to the Town, it needs to create a more effective mechanism for doing so.
20+ years ago, Plymouth enacted its Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) bylaw. This bylaw allows developers to agree to forego as of right development of rural land in exchange for being permitted to build increased density. Redbrook is an example of such a development. But the TDR bylaw only allows for such development to also occur in rural areas, meaning that the developer agrees to preserve rural land in order to be allowed to build in rural land. Moreover, it provides that permission to use TDRs is subject to Planning Board approval, meaning that no developer will agree to preserve land before having an already approved development. For Plymouth to encourage the preservation of rural land it needs to change how TDRs are used, directing their use to areas where there is already infrastructure and creating a value for TDR rights without having a pre-approved development.
Planning in Massachusetts is challenging. It requires an understanding not only of what we want but also what is possible. We have to move beyond the empty promises of the “keep things as they are” mentality. It is that type of thinking that has resulted in making things worse, because legally, politically, and financially we can’t keep things the same. Plymouth will now have an extra 100 40B apartments at Colony Place because it tried to stop the type of development being supported by the state.
Instead of our failed obstructionist approach, let’s get behind new ideas that will help Plymouth reach achievable goals:
- Learn about the proposed Plymouth Land Bank – an effort to fund Town ownership of land for the purposes of open space, truly affordable housing, and future municipal needs, all without raising taxes. [Click on the LandUse/Land Bank Tab under Town Issues for more information]
- Support zoning that promotes development not of so-called “affordable housing” but of housing that is actually affordable for people at all income levels.
- Encourage programs such as expansion of home offices and building re-use credits to bring in businesses that provide needed services and living wage jobs for residents and the type of tax revenue that allows people to remain in our community.
No more wishful thinking; let’s actually plan for Plymouth’s future.
Added 2/10/25
The Town of Plymouth is engaging the community to explore potential options for the Pilgrim1600 acres. Click below to be directed to the website/survey. Attend the first workshop on 2/13/25 at Plymouth Community Intermediate School.
Municipalities are permitted to place liens and even foreclose on properties which are delinquent in their taxes or fees owed. Towns like Plymouth often used such foreclosed properties to supplement their open spaxce, recreational, and affordable housing needs. However, following a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Massachusestts changed its tax foreclosure laws.
The new law makes it both harder to undertake a tax foreclosure proceeding and far more expensive to keep foreclosed properties. For more detail regarding the changes in the law and analysis as to how it may impact Plymouth go to the New Tax Takings Law page under Town Issues.
Added 1/9/25
The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that despite some techical errors in the creation of guidelines, the MBTA Communities Act is both constitutional and enforceable. Communities that do not comply are not only subject to loss of State grants but also legal enforcement action by the State Attorney General.
As a result of this decision, the State is now being required to reissue the guidelines for compliance. This could potentially have a drastic efffect on Plymouth. For more analysis and to review a copy of the SJC decision go the the MBTA Communities page under Town Issues.
By now you have probably heard about 40B developments and how they are a way for developers to circumvent Town zoning. New 40B proposals are currently being considered for Plymouth. Click below to find out more.
Updated 8/25/24
Holtec, the company now decommissioning the former Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, wants to release over 1 MILLION GALLONS OF RADIOACTIVE WATER into Cape Cod Bay. Several heartings were held and a separate public comment period was given to allow those opposed to the proposal to submit their views. The Save the Bay organization sponsored rallies and letter writing campaigns, and several towns and private individuals submitted legal arguments in opposition.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has issued its ruling denying Holtec's request. That ruling was not based on either policy or scientific grounds, but rather a legal issue. Specifically, the MADEP determined that the Holtec plan would violate the Marine Sanctuaries Act by dumping polutants into a protcted area. Not surprisingly, Holtec has apealed this ruling, arguing that because its permit predates the Ocean Sanctuaries Act its ongoing activities cannot be restricted by that law. There is no timeline for a ruling on this appeal, and it could up to a year to decide after which Holtec has further avenues for legal challenge.
__________________________________________________
QUICK LINKS:
On May 6, 2022, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) held a "field hearing" of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in Plymouth on Issues Facing Communities with Decommissioning Nuclear Plants. To view the video of the entire 3+ hour hearing, go to https://www.facebook.com/EdJMarkey/videos/369466435223333/
The Provincetown Independent has written an article explaining the finances behind Holtec's activities. To read the article, go to https://provincetownindependent.org/news/2022/05/18/holtec-expects-to-make-huge-profit-off-pilgrim-plant/
Click below to be directed to the Holtec Radioactive Water Release page where you will find more information, summaries of the proposal, documents, and links to other sites.
Updated 2/8/24
At a meeting before the Select Board, the County Commissioners which own the Wood Lot, the land on which the proposed racetrack would be built, formally announced that after investigation the developer to whom they leased gthe land would not be proceeding with either a horse racing track or gaming facility on the site. The residents of Plymouth had previously voted overwhelmingly to reject horseracing, and the Select Board had sent two letters to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission stating that they would not provide required authorization to dconduct horseracing in Town. Instead, the developer, Boston South, which has signed a 73 year lease for the property, is investigating other uses for the property which would include some form of sports complex along with possible office/medical/biotech space, and a hotel. Depending on what is proposed, the project (or portions thereof) may require approvals by the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and/or Town Meeting.
Click below to be directed to the Racetrack Proposal page where you will find information about the history of the racetrack proposal and the residents' response.