At a discussion on April 22, the Danvers Planning Board voted to recommend unfavorable action on three citizens' petitions on the annual town meeting warrant (Articles 36, 37 and 38) that seek to repeal or rescind zoning changes related to MBTA Communities law compliance.

The petitions ask town meeting either to direct the town to prepare articles to repeal MBTA-related zoning changes (Article 36), to ask the planning department to revisit MBTA-related zoning updates and address perceived overdevelopment (Article 37), or to rescind several prior MBTA-related zoning warrant articles (Article 38). After staff explained that the petitions will proceed to the finance committee and town meeting, the board discussed process, history and accuracy of the petition language.

Board members cited the multi-year planning and public-review process that produced Danvers' downtown and MBTA-related zoning, and emphasized that earlier downtown overlays and the 2017 Maple Street overlay predated the state's MBTA Communities requirements. Planning board member Jim Sears said he would not support repealing zoning that had been adopted after extensive review. Planning board member Tim Spiddle encouraged citizen engagement but said the zoning changes were the product of years of study and town-meeting votes and expressed concern about factual inaccuracies in petition text.

After discussion the board took three roll-call votes recommending unfavorable action to town meeting, recorded as follows: Article 36 — Tim Spiddle aye; Mike DeCoulis aye; Jim Sears aye; Louis (Lou) George, chair, aye (motion carried). Article 37 — same roll-call results (motion carried). Article 38 — same roll-call results (motion carried). Staff said the petitions remain on the warrant and will appear before the finance committee on April 28; planning staff will provide the motions and the board's votes to other committees as requested.

Board members and several public commenters emphasized local design standards and historic preservation concerns during discussion. Resident Karen Nastick urged attention to building height and historic character; town meeting member Bill Bates urged continued support for smart-growth efforts that were the product of prior studies and votes. Planning staff and board members noted that Article 38, which would attempt a broader rescission, would require a formal zoning-amendment process, including public notices and hearings, if pursued.

The planning office will transmit the board's unfavorable recommendations and the recorded motions to the finance committee ahead of its April 28 meeting.