The next discussion focuses on the elements of the plan. The elements of the plan are intricately tied into the states goals for plans some minimum performance standards to be discussed in a later post. The following provides the sections and my comments:
3) Elements of community land use plan
A planning board may prepare, and from time to time amend or renew, a community land use plan for a municipality, to be submitted to the regional planning agency for certification. The plan shall address at least the following five areas: economic development, housing, open space protection, water management, and energy management.
First we are to recognize that this plan is "optional." Of course "optional" is relative. The state has tied discretionary spending to areas with plans certified under this statute. As such, the plan is "optional" as long as receiving state infrastructure money is also optional to the town. It is amazing that the state believes that we only have five areas of concern! The plan does not even have to address issues for which Impact Fees are authorized! Again, this is short-sited, not responsive to full spectrum planning and focuses only on the needs of today, not a full picture of the town. All the issue areas of 81D should be studied and continue to be required, otherwise it is not truly a plan.
The plan shall contain:
(a) an overall statement of the land use goals and objectives of the municipality for its future growth and development, including specific reference to each of the five areas;
Except for this being limited to the five areas called for above, this is a basic part of any plan.
(b) a description of the zoning and other land use regulation policies that will be used to implement those goals and objectives, including with respect to each of the five areas;
The planning requirements jump from goals and objectives to implementation. There is much that needs to be taken up between what is called for in (a) and (b). In particular the community needs to be looked at, where it is in its history, how it got here, and, especially important, where it fits into the region. Rather than this type of an introspective analysis, the legislation calls for jumping straight to implementation. Why? Because the drafters of this legislation have the answer! There is no need for analysis when the conclusion has already been drawn. The conclusion is that we are not building enough housing, we are taking too long to issue permits, we are all anti-growth. This is cannot be further from the truth. Proposition 2 1/2 creates a strong need to chase growth. The limits of Proposition 2 1/2 does not allow the local tax rate grow fast enough to keep up with inflation. New growth is needed. New growth is not happening fast enough for various state officials. There are many studies illustrating how much land we are losing to development. Many studies illustrate how growth is outstripping our ability to provide the necessary infrastructure. It is not that we are growing too fast, it is that we are growing in the wrong areas. We are growing in communities which should stay farmland. We are growing on the sand bars of many coastal towns, only to watch those houses wash away. Jumping from goals, to policies without the needed analysis will continue to lead to wrong decisions. Decisions that will not necessarily aid the economic growth of the state.
(c) an assessment of the infrastructure improvements needed to support the implementation policies and strategies identified in (b);
Again, infrastructure assessment is an important part of a local plan. This assessment however needs to take place after a complete look at the community. We need to know how the community is and has been growing, not just what infrastructure is needed to get somewhere in the future. This analysis would suggest that the needs of future residents and businesses is more important than those that are already within our boundaries.
(d) an assessment of the plan’s consistency with any applicable existing regional plan or planning guidance;
And then we jump to determining consistency, outside of goals and future land use strategies, we have not yet looked at the town in a proper planning framework and we need to look at whether our future patterns are consistent with a regional vision. Before determining consistency, we should have made a determination as to where a community fits into the region.
(e) an overall assessment of the plan’s consistency with the Commonwealth’s land use objectives set forth in Section 1;
Here again, consistency seems to take priority over needs assessment and proper planning. While the objectives of the state should be considered, discussed and decisions made in relation to these, consistency should not be seen as the end that must be justified. Within the framework of this legislation the end seems to be the only consideration.
(f) an assessment of the plan’s specific compliance with the minimum standards for consistency set forth in Section 5 below; and
Section 5 will be discussed later. It raises issues that not every community can meet nor should have to meet. Having to meet the minimum standards in Section 5 will preclude many from pursuing this form of plan. These minimums will also deny some access to state discretionary funds.
(g) a description of the manner and degree of public participation and involvement in the preparation of the plan.
All plans must be developed within the public forum. If not, it is not much of a plan. However, with consistency requirements established by a regional entity, and an even more remote state mandate, establishes ends which the public are being told they must accept. Hardly public involvement. The objectives of this legislation, and the minimum standards have been established by special interests. It has been overseen by a party interested primarily in getting permits issued. It establishes limits on public appeal of decisions, this legislative proposal hardly represents the public participation needed for the planning process, and has set limits on what the plan can accomplish.
The plan may include materials prepared within the past five years as part of a local planning document, including a master plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 41, Section 81D of the General Laws.
Here we see reference to a Chapter 41 Section 81D plan, which MAY be included in the plan called for in this legislation. The 81D plan should be the starting point, not an optional aspect of a planning document upon which local zoning is established.
The planning board shall hold at least one public hearing, with two weeks prior notice, for public review of and comment upon the plan, before the plan is submitted to the regional planning agency for certification. After the public hearing, the planning board may recommend to the chief executive officer of the municipality that the plan be submitted to the regional planning agency for certification.
This last paragraph should call for formation of a committee to draft the plan and solicit public involvement. Perhaps a final public hearing needs to be stated in the legislation, but the legislation should lay out some minimum level of public participation throughout the document.
No comments:
Post a Comment