By Erika Brown
Essex residents this week paused the adoption of zoning by the Planning Board that would have dramatically expanded residential property protections because it was deemed anti-business and pushed too much gentrification, too quickly.
Most of the 386 residents at Monday’s Fall Town Meeting voted to “indefinitely postpone” consideration of Article 3 that would have established two new residential districts covering most of Essex and would only consider business use in the districts by Special Permit.
The postponement gives the Planning Board’s time to strike a better balance between residential business property use regulations and return to voters as soon as Spring 2025. Voters stopped short of outright rejecting the article, which would have prevented revisiting it for three years.
Seeking to “reasonably manage” Essex’s future
In introducing Article 3 to voters Monday, Lisa O’Donnell, chair of the Essex Planning Board, laid out a case for a fundamental shaping of Essex into districts based on use, like nearly every municipality in Massachusetts does.
Her board has worked for years to respond to calls to fairly regulate exactly what can be done where in the town.
But it hasn’t been easy. Ten years ago, Essex adopted the first district in its entire history, the Conomo Point District, to accommodate the unique homes there. In 2021, voters overwhelmingly supported creating the Downtown District on the Main Street Causeway for business use while a temporary moratorium for residential-to-commercial changes was adopted to give the Planning Board time to tackle comprehensive zoning.
Article 3 was designed as the solution, creating two new sweeping residential districts—the Village Residential District and the Rural Residential District.
The smaller Village Residential Use District comprised mostly single- and two-family dwellings, home occupations, and mixed-use properties and covered neighborhoods on either end of the Causeway and some smaller sections outside downtown. The larger Rural Residential Use District covered lands along Rte. 133 from the Gloucester border to Ipswich and would have been more stringent for establishing businesses.
“This is a way to reasonably manage our future,” said O’Donnell, adding it would protect residential neighborhoods from unwanted uses. She said the board has worked for years on the proposed zoning with input from the public, businesses, as well as consultants from MAPC (“Metropolitan Area Planning Council”). The board developed no less than six iterations of the zoning map before landing on the final one presented Monday to voters.
But the proposed zoning also represented an end to Essex’s legacy of allowing any use (commercial, industrial, or residential) on any property in town.
Protecting home values? Or supporting small business?
Westley Burnham, who served on the Planning Board for decades, many as chairman, was the first resident to speak on Monday.
He said the map of the two new proposed districts is “almost an insult to look at,” and pointed to Article 3’s reliance on Special Permits as a problem—a big one—because they make what should be a simple process extensive, and expensive. They’re often a deterrent to applicants, especially for small businesses just getting off the ground.
There’s a better way to deal with businesses, Burnham said.
But Meg Nelson of Belcher Street disagreed, and said small businesses aren’t the biggest danger to residential neighborhoods in Essex. She said years ago the police department deemed her historic street to be a caution area for her young children walking to school. Two years ago, a commercial waste processing business moved into her neighborhood on a vacant lot—a loophole in the town’s change-of-use moratorium. The residential character of her street is gone and, today, she said there’s constant traffic and noise from large commercial trucks.
“You think you’re protected,” Nelson said. “Guess what? You’re not.”
Sherry Bradbury of the Planning Board said for most people, their homes are their biggest investment. Zoning like that in Article 3 offers protection.
“If a business comes in (to your neighborhood), it unintentionally ruins our property values,” said Bradbury.
Three years ago, Bradbury ran for a seat on the Planning Board on one issue: fighting construction of a proposed cell phone tower in her family’s neighborhood on Eastern Avenue.
Tom Duff, County Road, pointed out that change in Essex is inevitable, and nothing illustrates that more than the escalation in average home prices. But using excessive zoning to stop change could turn Essex into an upscale theme park. Liberalizing business use with smart zoning could actually make the difference in affordability, enabling different kinds of people to continue living in town.
“This is not a Disneyland exhibit,” Duff said of Essex, adding that supporting businesses could be a big help. “Starting a business is part of that opportunity.”
Most voters who spoke out against Article 3 were like John Guerin, a local real estate attorney whose family has lived in Essex for generations. He said zoning is not the issue, but the right zoning is, and Article 3 does not represent the right approach. Guerin said the approach includes classic examples “spot zoning” that would likely be flagged by the state’s Attorney General as unlawful.
These are “huge changes, all at once,” said Guerin. “I’m not against zoning. Just this zoning.”
“It’s enormously business unfriendly,” agreed William Bruce of Pond Street.
By 8:30 p.m., Betsy Madison moved to indefinitely postpone the article, which passed easily. The article was not reconsidered.
Coming out of Monday’s vote, the Essex Planning Board will have to reset if it returns to voters. Local businesses have been vocal about their concerns, and even the Greater Cape Ann Chamber of Commerce made the unusual step of publicly standing against the article and asking the Planning Board to consider a more business-friendly posture in its zoning.
What else happened?
The gymnasium at the Essex Elementary School emptied immediately after the Article 3 vote was locked in, leaving those who stayed to move through the balance of the articles on the Town Warrant.
Voters approved a series of financial transfers for new initiatives, equipment and capital items, including the lease or purchase of a fully equipped new ambulance for the Fire Dept. (Article 5); fully-equipped new vehicles for the Police Dept. (Article 6); funding to support site selection (on town property), design, cost estimate, contracting, and permitting for a new municipal fuel depot (Article 8); new computer hardware (Article 9); improvements to the Town’s public water supply wells (Article 10); funding to match a State Legislative Earmark for an environmental study of e Chebacco Lake, the Alewife Brook, and surrounding watershed (Article 11); replenishment of the town’s maintenance fund that supports initiatives like the recreational capital improvements fund, the general capital purchases fund, Town Hall/Library and the Conomo Point Repair Fund, among others (Article 12); and funding to design, engineer and construct repairs, upgrades, improvements and/or replacements to any aspect of the municipal sewer system (Article 13).
Articles 7 and 16, which sought to transfer funds for a new Water Dept. truck and amend the FY25 Wage & Salary Scale were passed over on the floor.
