Saugus Town Meeting 2024 – Members overwhelmingly support five zoning articles designed to protect residents from Rte. 1 development

By Mark E. Vogler

SAUGUS – The debate continues to rage in Saugus over whether increased zoning restrictions are creating an anti-business environment, or whether adjustments are needed to protect residential neighborhoods along Route 1 from development. More than 80 percent of the members attending the fourth and final session of this year’s Annual Town Meeting voted to approve five articles crafted by Selectman Michael Serino that would add more restrictions to the Route One Business Highway Sustainable Zoning District (BHSD) bylaw.

“It’s intended to provide greater protection to the neighborhoods,” Serino said in advocating on behalf of the five articles.

“These articles also give the town more control,” Serino said.

These are the highlights of the new zoning changes approved by Town Meeting members at Monday night’s meeting:

  Article 29 increased the required setback buffer from any abutting residential district from 50 to 75 feet. This measure passed 38-6, with five absent.

  Article 30 reduced the by-right building height from four stories (55 feet) to three stories (40 feet) and now requires a Special Permit from the Board of Selectmen for any height in excess of three stories (40 feet). Structures located less than 25 feet from any buffer zone setback may not exceed three stories and 40 feet in height. This measure passed 38-6 with five absent.

  Article 31 requires a Special Permit from the Board of Selectmen for any height in excess of three stories (40 feet), up to a maximum of five stories (60 feet.)

Any structure over 55 feet in height allowed by a Special Permit by the Board of Selectmen must be at least 100 feet away from any property line. This measure passed 38-6 with five absent.

  Article 32 requires that structures or portions of structures within 50 feet of the buffer zone shall not exceed a height of three stories to a maximum height of 40 feet; this measure passed 38-6 with five absent.

  Article 33 reduced the maximum residential density in the BHSD from 20 units per acre to 15 units per acre. This measure passed 35-8 with five absent.

Planning Board backed articles

The Planning Board, at its May 23 public hearing to review and issue recommendations regarding the five warrant articles, voted 4-0 to recommend passage of all five warrant articles. Three of the members – Planning Board Chair Jeanette Meredith and Members Richard Thompson and Robert Long – are also Town Meeting members who voted in support of the articles again this week.

In its recommendation to Town Meeting, the Planning Board cited its concerns about:

(On Article 29) the impact of commercial and mixed-use development in the BHSD upon abutting residential properties;

(On Article 30) the height impact of commercial and mixed use development in the BHSD;

(On Article 31) the height impact of commercial and mixed-use development in the BHSD;

(On Article 32) the height impact of commercial and mixed-use development in the BHR subdistrict of the BHSD;

(On Article 33) the density of residential uses in the BHSD.

The state Attorney General’s Office must still review all of the articles approved by Town Meeting to determine whether they comply with state law. That process may take 30 to 90 days, according to Town Clerk Ellen Schena.

The minority view

Several veteran Town Meeting members voted in opposition to the articles. Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member Thomas Traverse called Article 29 – to increase the required setback buffer from 50 to 75 feet – “pretty contentious.” Before the Town Meeting session had gotten underway, Traverse had measured 25 feet at the front of the auditorium so members would have a better understanding about the distance.

“It seems like everywhere we look, we’re trying to stiff development,” Traverse said.

He noted that while there was about $3 million in building permits over the past year, about 30 percent of the storefronts on Route 1 remain vacant. “Somebody has to step up for development. These articles are all anti-development,” Traverse said.

Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member Peter A. Rossetti Jr. also suggested that the articles were adversarial toward development. “This is the third set of restrictions that we’re putting in,” Rossetti said.

“There haven’t been any developments proposed since these restrictions started,” he said.

“It’s a mistake to keep adding restrictions,” Rossetti said.

Precinct 8 Town Meeting Member Arthur Grabowski took umbrage to the way some Town Meeting members characterized the articles as being bad for development. “This is not anti-development. This is pro-resident,” Grabowski said.

“Yes, we need development. But we need development that’s for the town,” Grabowski said.

“Let’s start representing our residents and homeowners,” he said.

Precinct 10 Town Meeting Member Peter Manoogian supported the article, but suggested that the existing regulations would have been effective had they been enforced properly. “This is what happens when developers take advantage of a weak Planning Board or somebody not doing their job,” Manoogian said.

“There are still vulnerable neighborhoods that could be impacted by a weak Planning Board. It’s discouraging what happened. This was a good overlay [district] that was abused,” Manoogian said.

Long was not impressed with the Overlay district. “If you think the overlay is working, I’d ask you over to Essex Landing. We were promised a hotel,” Long said. But the developer appears to be backing out of the promise, according to Long.

Concerns about overdevelopment

Selectman Serino, the architect of the zoning articles, said he was motivated to address problems created by developers whose focus was on building apartments. “There is no benefit for Saugus to build apartments for non-Saugus Residents,” Serino said.

“The fastest way to change our community is to continue to build apartments at a fast pace. It is important to strengthen our zoning by-laws in order to prevent the over-development of Saugus,” Serino said.

One of his articles addressed the density issue. “My article would lower the number of apartments from 20 units/per acre [to] 15 units/per acre,” Serino said.

“A projected reduction from 3,840 potential apartments [to] 2,880 potential apartments. This projection only includes lots greater than 9 acres. This projection does not include smaller lots that could be combined into larger lots,” he said.