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

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

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”

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Questions Action to be taken.