Personal Thoughts on the Land Use Partnership Act – Some General Observations

Up until now the discussions have focused primarily on the changes proposed to Chapter 40A, the Zoning Act. Those proposed changes are ones that apply to everyone, regardless of your plan status. In my next post I will move to the proposed changes to the Subdivision Control changes to Chapter 41. That discussion will focus on the changes that apply to everyone.

I have had a comment made that I am misrepresenting the proposal. I do not believe this to be true. The proposal has many aspects to it. I am looking at the proposal in a very careful manner, point by point. I am encouraging my fellow planners to do so as well. I think my comments will raise the level of discussion of this legislative proposal, and will illustrate that the proposal needs much more discussion before it moves forward. A discussion that needs to take place with the many smaller towns with no, or just a single, planner. I have been thanked by more than one of these communities for leading the charge on trying to generate a discussion.

The idea of this discussion is to look at the changes that will have a significant impact on towns that for whatever reason are unable to develop a plan that will comply with the newly enacted planning standards. Those standards, and issues with them, will be discussed later. As the proposal breaks itself out into two sections, one laying out the changes that affect everyone and one that discusses the new planning framework, it is important for communities to understand that this proposal is not just a new planning framework proposal. There may be some good parts of the new planning framework proposal, I have started to review that, but I recognize that the framework establishes standards that may not be appropriate for every community. I have started to blog about some of this in reference to various other planning issues.

However, someone needs to point out that the changes in section “I. MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION AFFECTION ALL MUNICIPALITIES” will have a significant impact, in my view and adverse impact, on communities who are unable to attain the level of consistency called for in section “II. NEW FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL/REGIONAL PLANNING.” Face it, there will be many communities that cannot attain the level of consistency called for in that section. These communities stand to be harmed by the changes proposed in this set of amendments.

Phraseology also needs to be looked at quite carefully, as changes are proposed in “III. MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION AFFECTING CERTIFIED PLAN COMMUNITIES” that modify Chapter 41 Section 81L. This section is intended to affect only certified plan communities, but a “Minor Subdivision” is proposed and given an abbreviated review period. The new section does not include any verbiage limiting it only to certified plan communities which will lead many to conclude that it was meant to apply to all. Given the amendment to “Subdivsions” which provides protection to certified plan communities from ANR’s, this would seem to be a reasonable interpretation and a position that could easily be taken in court.

And, finally, well not final, but a major kick in the pants, state discretionary infrastructure spending is to be prioritized to be awarded to certified plan communities over non-certified plan communities. When I get all my thoughts together on the problems with the certified plan process, I will highlight the problem with this concept. However, I would have to ask any legislator who votes for this proposal “how can you vote to potentially deny your residents access to state discretionary spending?”