In a Special Town Meeting Monday night, Marshfield voters chose to not rezone to comply with the state law meant to allow for more multifamily housing in commuting communities. Marshfield rejected the zoning changes required by the MBTA Communities Act Monday 169-289, The Patriot Ledger reported. The MBTA Communities Act was passed by Gov. Charlie Baker and requires most municipalities in Eastern Massachusetts to rezone certain areas to allow multifamily housing. The state says 177 “MBTA Communities” — further classified as rapid transit, adjacent, commuter rail, and small town adjacent communities — are required to rezone. Marshfield is one of 58 other communities designated as an “adjacent” community under the 2021 law. Adjacent communities and commuter rail communities, such as neighboring Scituate, are required to comply by the end of this year. “I applaud Marshfield’s officials for taking proactive steps toward compliance well before their deadline and encourage the town to consider another MBTA Communities zoning article at another town meeting prior to the end of the year,” Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in a statement. “My office stands ready to assist Marshfield and other towns in achieving compliance by their required deadline.” Last year, a dozen “rapid transit” communities such as Brookline, Newton, and Braintree faced a Dec. 31, 2023 deadline. Milton, the only rapid transit community out of compliance, initially rezoned to accommodate additional multifamily housing last year but reversed their decision at a special town vote in February. Milton — home to the Mattapan Trolley — is facing legal and financial consequences from the state. Milton will miss out on state grants due to their vote, and Campbell’s office filed a lawsuit against the town in February. Marshfield Town Counsel Robert Galvin said Tuesday that while the state was “disappointed to hear” about Marshfield’s vote, Campbell’s office won’t sue the town until after their deadline.“(The Attorney General’s Office) were also interested to know why people were opposed and I related what I heard,” Galvin wrote in a statement. “I did offer the points of view espoused by many that the state was overbearing in acting to require this where the town has made significant progress towards affordable housing.”