“ An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities”

1. “An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities” Bill Number - H. 1859 Brian Domina, Senior Land Use Planner

2. Summary • The latest attempt to update the major planning, zoning and subdivision statutes in Massachusetts • The proposed legislation is a streamlined version of CLURPA and rightfully focuses on many of the important issues

3. Overall Recommendation • BRPC is pleased to lend its QUALIFIED support to “An Act Promoting the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communities.” • Discussion: The “good” and the “not so good”

4. Major Changes – Good • Expressly recognizes a municipality’s home rule authority • Allows a municipality to change from a supermajority vote to a majority vote when adopting zoning bylaws (6 month waiting period) • Vested Rights: (duly applied for) • Building Permit (2 years) • Special Permit (3 years) • Definitive Subdivision Plan (8 years) • Minor Subdivision Plan (4 years) • Eliminates (3 year) vested rights for ANR plans • Minimum 3 year duration for special permits

5. Major Changes - Good • Adds standardized “Site Plan Review” process • 95 days to decide • Majority vote • Discretion is very limited • Public hearing may be required • Minimum duration of approval is 2 years

6. Major Changes - Good • Allows for Development Impact Fees for off-site public capital facilities (e.g. infrastructure) • States that “inclusionary zoning” is a permissible action (affordable housing req.) • Includes a voluntary land use dispute avoidance process • Sets new standard for the issuance of a variance • Local option to replace the Approval Not Required (ANR) process with a minor subdivision process

7. Major Changes - Good • Creates process for recording perimeter plans and lot line change plans • Allows for the dedication of open space as a part of a development. • Change of judicial review from de novo to certiorari • If a zoning change is consistent with master plan the court will find that such change serves a public purpose.

8. Major Changes – Not So Good • Requirement that certain factors be met before multi-family is allowed in non-residentially zoned areas. (what about home rule authority) • Special permit vote reduced to simple majority (why not reduce at local option) • No public hearing is required for extension of special permit

9. Major Changes – Not So Good • Clarification is needed as to who must pay for the studies to determine the impact fee amount. • Consolidated Permit Process • At option of the developer for projects of 25+ units or 25,000 sq. ft. • Time to hold public hearing reduced to 45 days • Joint public hearing required • Unclear if Board has authority to continue public hearing

10. Major Changes – Not so Good • Planning Ahead for Growth Act • Local opt-in is good. • If community adopts certain bylaws for economic development, housing, etc. and becomes certified they earn incentives • One incentive is preference in state discretionary funds – however the required bylaws are not all appropriate for rural towns and thus these towns are disadvantaged

11. Major Changes – Not So Good • Master Plans (are good) • Not required • Overly prescriptive • Restatement of Administration’s priorities • Discourages communities from adopting master plans • Requires legislative approval of master plan, which might lead to the plan being politicized.

12. Major Changes – Not So Good • Land Court given concurrent original jurisdiction for appeals relating to developments of 25+ units or 25,000 sq. ft. • Such cases originally begun in Superior Court may be transferred to Land Court upon notice by either party.

13. Questions • Action to be taken.