Now, we get into the meat of the proposal. Well, the meat of the proposal for communities which may be able to meet the demanding standards set forth in the Land Use Partnership Act. My guess is that this number will be far less than the state envisions.
II. New framework for local / regional planning
To be inserted as a free-standing series of sections into M.G.L. ch. 41, following Section 133 (current end of chapter)
1) Preamble; statement of the Commonwealth’s land use objectives
Sections A through Z of this chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Land Use Partnership Act”. The purposes of the act shall be to advance the following land use objectives:
The goals are laudable, however, they cannot possible be carried out. The provisions above for the zoning and subdivision changes will work at odds with these goals. The goals also are far too current buzz-word oriented. I would challenge the state to apply these provisions to every Chapter 40B application, I would guess that they will be ignored.
a) Support the revitalization of city and town centers and neighborhoods by promoting development that is compact, conserves land and integrates uses;
What about communities without an established development center? While this is laudable in general, it is far from fair or practical in some of the remote hilltown and farm communities. On the flip side I can think of a large number of Chapter 40B projects which have been approved for state funding and have had the local denial overridden by the Housing Appeals Committee that do not meet this objective.
b) Support the construction and rehabilitation of homes near jobs, infrastructure and transportation options to meet the needs of people of all abilities, income levels, and household types;
Another laudable goal, however another one that does not fit every community. Really, what about towns with no mass transit, very limited employment, etc. Again, what about Chapter 40B projects? Should they be limited to city and town centers and other areas where infrastructure, jobs and transit are available? That would be ideal, however, it does not appear to be what the state has been promoting under this statute.
c) Attract businesses and jobs to locations near housing, infrastructure, and transportation options;
Essentially the same as b) except it deals with job placement. It makes total sense, it would protect rural communities and would add to farmland preservation. However, such a zoning initiative by a town (agricultural zones with 5 acre lot sizes) would apparently be viewed as exclusionary and would be found problematic under the provisions of the act which precede the planning proposals found here.
d) Protect environmentally sensitive lands, natural resources, agricultural lands, critical habitats, wetlands and water resources, and cultural and historic landscapes;
I could think of many towns that could fit a protect 100% under this criteria. However, since this act requires town's to accept a 1% annual growth in housing, such preservation would be negated. I would challenge the state to look closely at the entire state and recognize the varied assets. What made some places cities, and what features kept the same development out of certain areas. I think the state would find that those same characteristics prevail today. The state needs a State Planning Office dealing with Planning Issues, not a Business Development Ombudsman or a Housing Agency, but rather a comprehensive State Planning Office, which looks at all the issues and establishes plans accordingly. I will admit that I have significant differences with the Cape Cod Commission, but I respect their efforts as they do undertake in their Regional Policy Plan far more analysis of general conditions than other regional agencies or the State. The state Business Development Ombudsman position needs to be replaced with a Planning Office that will take into consideration many of the items that the Cape Cod Commission has in effecting its plan.
e) Construct and promote developments, buildings, and infrastructure that conserve natural resources by reducing waste and pollution through efficient use of land, energy and water;
Again laudable, but may be better addressed within a larger environment. Perhaps statewide, but definitely regionally. There are clearly areas in the Berkshires or in Franklin County for instance that should be identified as areas for resource conservation and placed off-limits to the development pressures called for in this statute.
f) Support transportation options that maximize mobility, reduce congestion, conserve fuel and improve air quality;
This section, again calls for limits on the 1% annual housing construction called for in this proposed act. Some areas cannot provide such housing growth in a fashion that maximizes mobility. The towns are just plain isolated. Taking it a bit further, the limitations on off-site improvement requirements discussed earlier eliminate the ability for a town to require sidewalk or bicycle facility connections by individual developments. Placing all of this onto the community as a municipal burden
g) Maximize energy efficiency and renewable energy opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and consumption of fossil fuels;
Obviously this can be accomplished anywhere, however particular resources are easier to harness in some areas than in others. While it is possible to place a wind tower on a sky scraper in Boston, having a much larger facility in the hills will be far more efficient.
h) Promote equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of development;
I am assuming that this is the Chapter 40B savior. Every town must have an equitable share of affordable housing, regardless of whether the town has the facilities needed to support such housing or ensure that the residents of such housing can travel to work. I think a better approach to this would be to have a benefits/burden checklist. One town may host energy facilities which would off-set its need to provide some other necessary item. For instance, on the Cape there is a need for seasonal employee housing. It meets an important local need, but does not meet Chapter 40B requirements.
i) Make regulatory and permitting processes for development clear, predictable, coordinated, and timely in accordance with smart growth and environmental stewardship; and
Here is an objective that needs to be more fully understood. The ramifications are immense. The permitting process for development must be clear, predictable, coordinated and timely. Lets reduce costs in the permitting process. This takes into no consideration that each site, and each land use raises its own unique set of issues and characteristics. The problem with the development process, in the eyes of those who drafted this proposal, is that the communities area trying to stop development. Not that particular developments are inappropriate for the site, or provide inadequate information. This legislation is very much like the studies that have come out of the Rappaport Institute and other Real Estate think tanks. The problem is the communities, the local regulatory process, the local regulatory environment. The problem is not with developments that have no sense of place or consideration for the location they have chosen. This particular terminology suggests that Walmart and Target Stores everywhere is appropriate. That more homes should be built on the White Cliffs in Plymouth or the outer shores of Plum Island. And then when these homes wash away, it is the town's responsibility to try to protect this inappropriate development. Really, over 40 years ago a swamp was built on in Granby with housing. The people who bought these homes had problems from day one with their septic tanks and wells. It became the town's problem to solve. The home builder was long gone. Water and sewer extensions were the answer, but the location was far from any town boundary where neighbors has such services. When towns say "no" they are the problem in the eyes of the crafters of this proposal, but when they say "yes" they often inherit bad decisions by those seeking to build.
j) Support the development and implementation of local and regional plans that have broad public support and are consistent with these purposes.
I think when the public fully understands the nature of this legislation, it will be extremely difficult to draft a local plan that has broad public support and is consistent with this section. There is far too much in this section that declares towns, and their residents are the problem, and not enough, if anything at all, which shows that towns are doing things correctly.
As I blogged recently, the Planning Act could borrow a lot from New Hampshire. Much broader issues which must be addressed, much broader statements about what zoning should accomplish. There is none of that in this proposal, from the objectives to the final sections, the proposal is flawed. I urge everyone who reads these posts to stand up and ask the administration to withdraw this proposal. I also urge you to ask your representatives and senators to oppose this act.
Over the coming months you will hear the debate say that they are delivering to us the changes we have been asking for in zoning reform. Unfortunately this act is not that platform. This act needs to be defeated.
No comments:
Post a Comment