Section 4 of the New Framework for Local/Regional Planning addresses consistency with state and regional plans and certification of local plans.
4) Regional planning agency certification and municipal adoption of plan
The chief executive officer of the municipality may, if such action is recommended by the planning board, submit the plan to the regional planning agency for certification. Within 90 days after receiving a submission, the regional planning agency shall determine whether the plan is (a) complete and (b) consistent with the Commonwealth’s land use objectives. A plan shall be determined to be complete if it contains all the elements required in Section 3. A plan shall be determined to be consistent with the Commonwealth’s land use objectives if it satisfies the minimum standards for consistency in accordance with Section 5. If the regional planning agency determines that the plan is complete and consistent with the Commonwealth’s land use objectives, then the agency shall issue a written certification to that effect. If the regional planning agency determines that it is unable to issue such a certification, then the agency shall provide the municipality with a written statement of the reasons for its determination. A municipality may re-submit for certification at any time a modified plan that addresses the issues set forth in the agency’s statement of reasons. If the regional planning agency does not issue a certification or provide a statement of reasons within 90 days after receiving a plan (including a re-submitted plan), then the plan shall be deemed certified.
Following certification by the regional planning agency, the plan may be adopted by the municipality by a simple majority vote of its legislative body.
This section is innocuous to an extent. It requires that the regional planning agency determine whether the local plan is complete and consistent with the STATE land use objectives. I emphasize consistency with the state land use objectives. As I have read the proposed state statute, I have seen little call for a regional plan to be developed, and little call for the regional plan to be consistent with any state objectives. This is a big issue. On Cape Cod, the emphasis of planning has been on preserving resources and ensuring that development impacts doe not overwhelm local and regional resources. These regional objectives, I believe, will be inconsistent with the directives in this set of regulations.
This inconsistency will lead to problems for Cape communities. In fact we are looking at a three handed beast. First, on one hand towns must develop plans under Chapter 41 Section 81D. This requirement does not appear to be replaced under this proposal. Section 81D calls for a much larger study focus than this proposal. To comply with Section 81D a town will need to draft its Master Plan. For Cape communities we are supposed to strive for consistency with the Regional Policy Plan. This plan makes requirements as to what the outcome of our 81D plan should look like. As a town planner on the Cape, I have voiced much concern about this consistency requirement as the region's vision is not always compatible with local desires. With this proposed legislation, Cape towns will have a third directive regarding the Master Plan. One that will require processes to be developed which may not be consistent with local desires, or the regional policy plan. Drafting a plan under Chapter 41 Section 81D is complicated enough, the additional burden of the Cape Cod Commission Act and now this statute will make planning far more difficult.
If this legislation were to pass, and I really hope that communities stand up and point out why is should not, I will implore the Cape Cod Commission to look at the exception provisions that are provided for later in the proposed statute. I think that, for consistency with the Regional Policy Plan objectives, the Commission will see that it is impossible for towns on the Cape to be fully consistent with the requirements set forth - in particular the growth and lot size standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment