Land Use Partnership Act and, quite possibly, Community Planning Act Level Playing Field Idea

In my last post I suggested I had some ideas on how to level the playing field for the development review process. The idea follows upon some concepts raised in the Land Use Partnership Act and the Community Planning Act as well as a variety of streamlined permitting reports, including that written by the MAPC. The idea would be to provide a common project development process whether you are going to be seeking Site Plan Review, Special Permit Review, Subdivision Approval, or an Approval Not Required Plan. The last possibly being no longer needed in reality.

My idea would be to revise Chapter 40A Section 6, specifically the second, fifth and sixth paragraphs. The process currently creates a situation where a person wanting to do something with their land could undertake a significant investment, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath him or her, especially in the Special Permit process. Here is where I would borrow a little from LUPA:

Step One in the development process would be to allow for a filing of a Letter of Development Intent, as called for in LUPA. The Letter would allow the developer with a 12 month window within which to complete site analysis and prepare plans for a development project. The filing would protect that parcel of land from a zoning change during that twelve month time period. I would, to protect the towns against speculation, limit the filing of a Letter of Development Intent to no more than one such letter in any 24 month time period. The idea provides a developer with expectations, and protection from a zoning proposal being petitioned as soon as people see the surveyors on the land.

The application would have to be filed within the 12 month window provided by the Letter of Intent.

Step Two would deal with the life of the approval. Here, I would suggest keeping, generally, the same approval life as we presently have, with a few changes. The changes suggest compromises that benefit both the community and the applicant. The idea would be that all approvals are good for a two year time period that is renewable under the original terms as long as substantial progress is being made on implementing the project that has been approved. Substantial progress would need to be determined as part of the renewal process and should include consideration of market conditions.

Obviously, this needs some discussion and fleshing out. It provides better development anticipation, creates similar paths for all developments, and provides an understandable process for the life of a project, while not leaving un-built projects protected forever.