Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Aaron Gornstein, Undersecretary
Department of Housing and Community Development
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Undersecretary Gornstein,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association appreciates the opportunity to offer comment on proposed changes to regulations relative to Chapter 40R, Smart Growth Zoning and Housing Production. These regulations, 760 CMR 59.00, govern the establishment of Smart Growth Zoning Districts in the cities and towns of the Commonwealth and will have a major impact on planning and development in municipalities for years to come. The MMA urges you to retain eligibility language that would continue to facilitate strong municipal participation by interested communities and commends the proposed changes that would serve to expand opportunities for municipal participation.
Under current law, “eligible locations” for the establishment of a Smart Growth Zoning District must be: 1) areas near transit stations, including rapid transit, commuter rail and bus and ferry terminals; 2) areas of concentrated development, including town and city centers, other existing commercial districts in cities and towns, and existing rural village districts; or 3) areas that by virtue of their infrastructure, transportation access, existing underutilized facilities, and/or location make highly suitable locations for residential or mixed-use smart growth zoning districts. This definition establishes a clear statutory framework of smart growth principles, but is broad enough to allow the potential participation of a wide range of municipalities that have diverse existing development and transportation infrastructure.
Current regulations further define “eligible location” by establishing certain criteria that must be met. The regulations also include language that indicates that the Department of Housing and Community Development shall presume that a location is highly suitable if it has been identified as an appropriate locus for high-density housing or mixed-use development in a local comprehensive plan, community development plan, area-specific plan, regional policy plan, or other plan document, in each case adopted or updated after a public planning process no longer than five years prior, or if it has been designated as a development district under Chapter 40Q, District Improvement Financing. The regulations state that otherwise, a municipality must provide satisfactory evidence that designation of an area, by virtue of its existing or planned infrastructure, transit or other transportation access, existing underutilized facilities, and/or location is consistent with the statutory goals of smart growth set forth in Chapter 40R.
The proposed changes to the regulations, however, would remove the presumption that an area designated by a municipality for high-density or mixed-use development in a planning document should qualify as an eligible location for Smart Growth Zoning. Instead, under the proposed revisions, the municipality would be required to present further evidence that an area should qualify, and the Department would then make its own subjective decision based upon that submission. Local or regional plan designation of the area as an appropriate location for high-density or mixed-use development would be just one piece of evidence to be considered. Other required evidence would include the degree to which the location and proposed Smart Growth District provides transportation choice through proximity to a rapid transit or commuter rail station, or bus or ferry station terminal, or access to reasonably scheduled public transit. This criterion, for example, while well-intentioned, could have the negative effect of excluding municipalities that have planned transit options that remain to be developed, or that currently lack transit options but wish to plan for development in a way that will allow for sensible transit infrastructure creation in the future.
The proposed regulatory change would effectively strike the existing presumption of suitability based on a local or regional plan, and shift to a top-down, state-controlled, micromanaging process that would require the submission of a broad range of evidence of suitability. We oppose this change because a shift of this nature would create uncertainty for municipalities and increase barriers to participation in shared state/local Smart Growth goals. We respectfully request that the Department retain the existing language that is working very well now. The current provision facilitates municipal participation and is expansive enough to accommodate and give weight to future growth and development in cities and towns.
In addition to our comments above, we would like to offer support for changes to the regulations that would facilitate municipal participation, including the creation of a conditional approval process based on the future development of water/wastewater infrastructure and the expansion of the definition of underutilized land to include areas that have marginal or significantly declining use. These changes would take into account the realities of local development conditions, and make the establishment of Smart Growth Zoning Districts more feasible.
Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed regulatory changes relative to Smart Growth Zoning Districts. We urge you to retain language that recognizes that significance of local planning efforts and support the common-sense changes that would foster municipal participation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact Catherine Rollins of the MMA staff at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA