Home 
Economic & Community Development Administration files zoning reform bill
On Jan. 14, the Patrick administration filed a comprehensive bill that would offer some relief under the Zoning Act for communities that opt to follow the state’s sustainable development principles in land-use planning.
The bill also proposes changes that would apply to all cities and towns, regardless of their participation in the opt-in program.
The Zoning Reform Task Force, which includes representation from the MMA, had been working on the bill since the summer of 2007. The task force is chaired by Housing and Economic Development Undersecretary Greg Bialecki.
The MMA supplied extensive comments during task force meetings and advocated several proposals that have been included in competing legislation, known as the Community Planning Act, or CPA II.
The bill would make the following changes to the Zoning Act for all municipalities except for Boston, which is governed by its own special legislation:
• Requirements for subdivisions: The bill would tighten current requirements (under Ch. 41, Sect. 81Q) for the design and construction of subdivision roads; limit consideration of off-site traffic impacts (other than within or at property boundaries); and limit the scope of subdivision rules addressing areas covered elsewhere by local ordinance or bylaw (e.g., storm water management).
• Declaration of development intent for plan freezes: The bill would require property owners/developers to file a declaration of development intent (e.g., to develop 100 single-family houses) prior to filing subdivision plans in order to obtain a zoning freeze. The eight-year zoning freeze would begin on the date of declaration of development intent; would render inapplicable any zoning changes the first public notice of which had not occurred prior to the filing of the declaration; and would apply to the intended development, not to the land.
• Expansion of permit freezes: Construction or operations under a special permit or site plan approval would not need to conform to subsequent changes to zoning or other local land use ordinances or bylaws so long as the use or construction would be commenced within a period of two years after the issuance of the permit and, in cases involving construction, unless such construction is continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable. Construction involving the redevelopment of previously disturbed land would be deemed to have commenced upon substantial investment in site preparation and/or infrastructure construction, and construction of development intended to proceed in phases would have to proceed expeditiously, but not continuously, among phases.
• Scope of site plan approval/required mitigation. The bill would preclude case-by-case consideration of the possible off-site impacts of development and the possible mitigation for such impacts for as-of-right uses (including those requiring site plan approval), except for a generally applicable, reasonable and consistent impact fee on such development.
• Limitations on certain appeals: The bill would limit appeals under the subdivision control law and site plan review under certain conditions.
• Votes for zoning ordinances/bylaws: The bill would require a simple majority vote for approval of a zoning ordinance or bylaw, unless the municipality chooses to use a two-thirds standard.
• Regulation of maximum residential floor area: The bill would eliminate the existing prohibition on such regulation.
• Statutory authorization of certain powers: The bill would affirm the authority of municipalities to adopt and implement site-plan approval, impact fees, transfer-development rights, and cluster and form-based zoning.
The following changes apply to communities that adopt land-use plans consistent with the state’s “smart growth” principles, have those plans certified by the regional planning agency, and enact zoning and other land-use regulations consistent with the overall plan:
• ANR/minor subdivision: Communities that adopt a limited and efficient minor subdivision review process would be allowed to limit or eliminate the approval-not-required exemption.
• Changes to subdivision plan freeze: The bill would allow communities to reduce the duration of a plan freeze to three years (or five, if there has been substantial investment in infrastructure development), and the plan freeze would render inapplicable any subsequent changes in zoning or other local land-use ordinances or bylaws (for duration of the freeze).
• Rate of growth: A zoning ordinance or bylaw that imposes a reasonable limitation on the number of new housing units within residential development districts for which building permits may be issued in any 12-month period would not be declared exclusionary or otherwise against public policy.
• Natural resource protection zoning: The bill would allow a local ordinance or bylaw requiring a minimum lot of two acres for single-family residential development upon farmland, forest land or other land of environmental resource value.
The MMA is continuing to advocate for changes to the bill that would enhance, not erode, home rule authority in the area of land use. The MMA is also working to strengthen the relief available to cities and towns that opt into the growth district model.
Economic & Community Development Administration files zoning reform bill
Administration files zoning reform bill
On Jan. 14, the Patrick administration filed a comprehensive bill that would offer some relief under the Zoning Act for communities that opt to follow the state’s sustainable development principles in land-use planning.
The bill also proposes changes that would apply to all cities and towns, regardless of their participation in the opt-in program.
The Zoning Reform Task Force, which includes representation from the MMA, had been working on the bill since the summer of 2007. The task force is chaired by Housing and Economic Development Undersecretary Greg Bialecki.
The MMA supplied extensive comments during task force meetings and advocated several proposals that have been included in competing legislation, known as the Community Planning Act, or CPA II.
The bill would make the following changes to the Zoning Act for all municipalities except for Boston, which is governed by its own special legislation:
• Requirements for subdivisions: The bill would tighten current requirements (under Ch. 41, Sect. 81Q) for the design and construction of subdivision roads; limit consideration of off-site traffic impacts (other than within or at property boundaries); and limit the scope of subdivision rules addressing areas covered elsewhere by local ordinance or bylaw (e.g., storm water management).
• Declaration of development intent for plan freezes: The bill would require property owners/developers to file a declaration of development intent (e.g., to develop 100 single-family houses) prior to filing subdivision plans in order to obtain a zoning freeze. The eight-year zoning freeze would begin on the date of declaration of development intent; would render inapplicable any zoning changes the first public notice of which had not occurred prior to the filing of the declaration; and would apply to the intended development, not to the land.
• Expansion of permit freezes: Construction or operations under a special permit or site plan approval would not need to conform to subsequent changes to zoning or other local land use ordinances or bylaws so long as the use or construction would be commenced within a period of two years after the issuance of the permit and, in cases involving construction, unless such construction is continued through to completion as continuously and expeditiously as is reasonable. Construction involving the redevelopment of previously disturbed land would be deemed to have commenced upon substantial investment in site preparation and/or infrastructure construction, and construction of development intended to proceed in phases would have to proceed expeditiously, but not continuously, among phases.
• Scope of site plan approval/required mitigation. The bill would preclude case-by-case consideration of the possible off-site impacts of development and the possible mitigation for such impacts for as-of-right uses (including those requiring site plan approval), except for a generally applicable, reasonable and consistent impact fee on such development.
• Limitations on certain appeals: The bill would limit appeals under the subdivision control law and site plan review under certain conditions.
• Votes for zoning ordinances/bylaws: The bill would require a simple majority vote for approval of a zoning ordinance or bylaw, unless the municipality chooses to use a two-thirds standard.
• Regulation of maximum residential floor area: The bill would eliminate the existing prohibition on such regulation.
• Statutory authorization of certain powers: The bill would affirm the authority of municipalities to adopt and implement site-plan approval, impact fees, transfer-development rights, and cluster and form-based zoning.
The following changes apply to communities that adopt land-use plans consistent with the state’s “smart growth” principles, have those plans certified by the regional planning agency, and enact zoning and other land-use regulations consistent with the overall plan:
• ANR/minor subdivision: Communities that adopt a limited and efficient minor subdivision review process would be allowed to limit or eliminate the approval-not-required exemption.
• Changes to subdivision plan freeze: The bill would allow communities to reduce the duration of a plan freeze to three years (or five, if there has been substantial investment in infrastructure development), and the plan freeze would render inapplicable any subsequent changes in zoning or other local land-use ordinances or bylaws (for duration of the freeze).
• Rate of growth: A zoning ordinance or bylaw that imposes a reasonable limitation on the number of new housing units within residential development districts for which building permits may be issued in any 12-month period would not be declared exclusionary or otherwise against public policy.
• Natural resource protection zoning: The bill would allow a local ordinance or bylaw requiring a minimum lot of two acres for single-family residential development upon farmland, forest land or other land of environmental resource value.
The MMA is continuing to advocate for changes to the bill that would enhance, not erode, home rule authority in the area of land use. The MMA is also working to strengthen the relief available to cities and towns that opt into the growth district model.
