Why the Commonwealth needs House Bill 1859: An Act Promo=ng the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communi=es

Transcription

1 Why the Commonwealth needs House Bill 1859: An Act Promo=ng the Planning and Development of Sustainable Communi=es House Bill 1859 will: 1.Make the development process more predictable, saving 8me and money for both municipali8es and developers. 2.Save on infrastructure costs and maintain property values by encouraging compact development. 3.Increase housing produc8on in order to retain local talent and improve our region s compe88veness with other parts of the country. 4.Encourage ci8es and towns to become more walkable to reduce public health costs and help combat the obesity epidemic. 5.Preserve cri8cal natural resources like water, agricultural lands, scenic landscapes, and working forests. 1. Save =me and money on planning and permifng H includes a host of improvements to planning and permiing that will make development more prompt and predictable. Special Permits. Most ci8es and towns require significant development projects to be approved by special permit, which requires a 2/3 vote by the local authority. This makes the development process more risky, dampens investment, and encourages developers to look elsewhere. The bill makes approval of special permits by simple majority. It also extends the dura=on of a special permit to a minimum of three years instead of the current maximum of two years, and establishes a clear lapse and extension process. Appeals. The legal costs associated with development in MassachusePs tend to far exceed that of other states. House 1859 streamlines and limits the appeals process. Consolidated PermiFng. Most ci8es and towns have mul8ple boards that review projects at different 8mes and do not coordinate the development process. These boards usually have conflic8ng agendas, may ask for different informa8on, and make different, some8mes contradictory, requirements of developers. Working independently with mul8ple local boards is very 8me consuming, expensive, and risky. Any board can stop the development from moving forward. As a result, House 1859 creates a consolidated local permifng process for major projects (greater than 25,000 sq W or 25 or more dwelling units) requiring all boards involved to conduct a joint hearing within 45 days of filing. It calls for a single applica8on that contains general project informa8on relevant to all boards and requires that all boards must share draw project decisions before finalizing them. Local Vote. It is very onerous to change zoning to allow for more growth, especially in Town Mee8ng communi8es, because it requires a 2/3 supermajority vote. The bill gives ci=es and towns the op=on of reducing the threshold for passing new zoning changes from 2/3 down to a simple majority. Building Permits. House 1859 extends the life of a building permit from 6 months to two years before construc8on must begin. This beper reflects today s construc8on schedules, affording builders more breathing room so that details, such as financing, may be apended to prior to actual construc8on. 1

2 Vested Rights. House 1859 standardizes the ves8ng provisions for building permits, special permits, and defini8ve subdivision plans. This makes it easier for building permits and special permits to vest. Subdivisions would vest with defini8ve plans rather than preliminary plans. Approval Not Required (ANR). Many towns with scenic landscapes, such as those in Western Mass and Southeastern Mass, are concerned about unregulated (ANR) development along roadways. The bill allows towns to review ANR lots through a streamlined minor subdivision process. Site Plan Review. House 1859 introduces statewide standards for site plan review that make it the prompt and predictable permifng process that it is meant to be., including: a 95day 8me frame (shorter than many local provisions today); minimum 2year dura8on awer approval (longer than many local provisions today); administra8on by a single local board; and limits on condi8ons and offsite mi8ga8on required of developers. Zoning Variances: The state's current language for variances is so strict that many ci8es and towns grant almost no zoning variances, while others ignore the statute and grant them willynilly. The bill sets reasonable procedures that provide flexibility to municipali=es and property owners. Development Impact Fees. Ci8es and towns push back against many projects because they fear the expected impacts. This leads to drawnout, owen conten8ous nego8a8ons with developers. The bill establishes a process for implemen8ng impact fees, which are common in other states. Impact fees would be quickly calculated up front by formula, and developers would know any applicable fees in advance. This would help reduce local opposi8on. Alterna=ve Dispute Resolu=on. House 1859 encourages a voluntary, offline avenue for applicants and municipali8es to work out difficul=es in advance through media=on rather than in court. Subdivision Roadways. The bill limits towns from requiring excessive roadways in subdivisions, which will reduce both the roadbuilding costs to developers and the environmental impact. Minor Subdivision. As men8oned, a new minor subdivision process could apply to former approval not required lots, but it would also streamline smaller residen=al subdivisions that today are regulated as full subdivisions, with a shorter review period, op8onal public hearing, and fewer requirements. Lot Line Changes. The bill streamlines the process to alter lot lines under certain circumstances by allowing these plans to go directly to the registry of deeds awer a signoff from the local zoning enforcement official, rather than ac8on by a planning board. 2. Increase housing produc=on Housing produc8on creates jobs, increases tax revenue, and makes housing more affordable. However, new housing construc8on in MassachusePs has remained inadequate since the 1980s. In the last decade, the Commonwealth had the 4 th lowest rate of housing construc8on per capita in the na8on 1 and by 2008, had a shortage of over 20,000 housing units 2. A 2009 University of MassachusePs Donahue Ins8tute public opinion poll found that 35% of state residents or immediate family members 1 United States Census Bureau Data see 2 Foundation for Growth: Housing and Employment in 2020, University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute 2

3 were seriously considering leaving MassachusePs because of the high cost of housing and 64% felt high housing costs were hur8ng their local economy 3. The rise in comprehensive permit applica8ons (40B) over the last twenty years may in part be due to the exclusionary housing policies and prac8ces adopted by many communi8es 4. House 1859 addresses the housing crisis by: Encouraging communi=es to plan and rezone in ways that allow for growth and density. It is widely recognized that an inadequate supply of affordable housing constrains MassachusePs economic growth 5. Large lot zoning drives up housing costs, limits economic growth by limi8ng the number of homes that can be built, and limits the types of housing constructed. High housing costs deter skilled workers from loca8ng in our state and spur current residents to leave to seek more affordable op8ons. The optin sec=on (Planning Ahead for Growth Act) is the first =me municipali=es across the state are asked to proac=vely accommodate housing in their community in ways that meet state and regional needs. Streamlining permiing to make it easier for housing projects to get approved. Formally authorizing inclusionary zoning to enable ci8es and towns across the state to require affordable housing as part of proposed developments. Enabling optin communi=es to use impact fees to help create affordable housing. 3. Save on infrastructure costs and maintain property values Development paperns have a huge effect on the finances of a city or town. Growth that uses land more efficiently saves municipali8es (and developers) money on upfront infrastructure and generates greater tax revenues 6. Compact development also saves families money and creates a vibrant density that generates and supports local businesses. In general, smart growth development: Costs one third less for upfront infrastructure, such as roads, sewers, water lines etc. This translates into lower maintenance and replacement costs as well. Saves an average of 10 percent on ongoing delivery of services, since less distance travelled lowers costs and in some communi8es can reduce the number of vehicles, personnel and facili8es needed. Generates 10 =mes more revenue per acre on average than conven8onal suburban development. House Bill 1859 encourages smart growth in the following ways: Authorizes and expands modern zoning tools such as cluster development, transfer of development rights, natural resource protec8on zoning, and formbased codes. 3 The 2009 UMass Donahue Institute/CHAPA Housing Poll, April Homebuilders Association of Massachusetts, Massachusetts at a Crossroads: Renewing the Competitiveness of Boston and the State, John LaWare Leadership Forum, Boston, MA, March 24, 2009; Voting with Their Feet? Local economic conditions and migration patterns in New England, New England Public Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, "Building Better Budgets: A National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart Growth Development" by Smart Growth America and Strategic Economics and based on 17 studies from across the country that compare different development scenarios

4 Streamlines development in loca8ons near infrastructure while enabling sensible oversight of development in greenfields, or undeveloped areas. Makes it easier and cheaper for ci=es and towns to create new plans, by rewri8ng the master plan requirements in statute and providing more flexibility. There is also guidance that follows the state s Sustainable Development Principles and regional growth plans. Creates incen=ves for municipali=es to grow in sensible ways by establishing the Planning Ahead for Growth Act (Chapter 40Y). A community may optin if it: o Establishes housing development districts in smartgrowth loca=ons that can accommodate, through byright development and with minimum density requirements, a 5% increase the community s total number of exis8ng housing units. o Establishes an economic development district in a smartgrowth loca=on that permits prompt and predictable permiing of commercial or industrial development. o Requires open space residen=al design (OSRD) for developments of 5 units or more on large lots (greater than 40,000 sq. W. per unit). o Requires low impact development (LID) techniques for developments that disturb over one acre of land. Communi8es that are cer8fied to optin by their Regional Planning Agency will: o Acquire addi=onal regulatory tools to manage growth. o Preference for state funding and infrastructure investments, such as water and sewer infrastructure, school building funds, and biking and walking facili8es; and requirements that the state take into considera8on regional plans and local master plans in its capital spending. o Become eligible to receive reimbursement for costs of developing and reviewing implemen=ng regula=ons. 4. Combat the obesity epidemic and reduce public health costs Currently, more than half of MassachusePs adults are either overweight or obese. Approximately 25% of high school youth and more than a third of children ages two to five years par8cipa8ng in the WIC program are either overweight, or at risk of becoming overweight 7. Obesityrelated medical costs are es8mated at $1.8 billion annually in MassachusePs 8 and produc8vity losses related to obesity are es8mated at $17 billion in MassachusePs annually 9. Beger planned communi=es save money on health costs because: People in walkable neighborhoods did about 3545 more minutes of moderate intensity physical ac8vity per week and were substan8ally less likely to be overweight or obese than similar people living in lowwalkable neighborhoods Health of Massachusetts, MA Department of Public Health, Finkelstein. Statelevel estimates of annual medical expenditures attributable to obesity. Obes Res. 2004;12(1). 9 Milken Institute. An Unhealthy American: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease Sallis, James F, et al. (2009). Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes. Social Science and Medicine 68:

5 43 percent of people with safe places to walk within 10 minutes of home met recommended ac8vity levels; among those without safe places to walk just 27 percent met the recommenda8on 11. House Bill 1859 encourages walkable communi=es for all the reasons it contributes to infrastructure savings. In addi8on, it encourages local boards of health to par=cipate in development discussions with an eye to more ac8ve living, and encourages communi=es to incorporate public health into their landuse plans. It also allows communi=es to setaside up to 5% of land in subdivisions for parks and playgrounds, helping to keep neighborhoods ac8ve. 5. Preserve cri=cal natural resources Just as streamlining development makes sense, preserving important landscapes and natural resources contributes to our economy and quality of life. One example is that the development of lands that recharge our aquifers degrades water quality and greatly increases the cost of water treatment. Protec8ng lands around water sources can be a longterm bargain in comparison. For example, every 10 percent increase in forest cover in the source area reduces treatment and chemical costs by approximately 20 percent 12. Another example is that MassachusePs agriculture contributes $5.7 billion per year in direct and indirect value added, and just over 68,000 jobs to the state economy. Yet farmland has been converted to development much faster than any other type of land in the state. In fact, MassachusePs ranks third in the na8on in farmland loss 13. House Bill 1859 curbs sprawling development that eats up the landscape and promotes more efficient use of land. Specifically, it: Encourages communi=es to plan ahead and iden8fy priority conserva8on areas. Reforms approvalnotrequired (ANR) to reduce its nega=ve environmental impact, which is unique in the United States. Reducing this unregulated sprawl development will help towns preserve their important landscapes. Ensures that Conserva=on Commissions and Boards of Health par=cipate in development decisions in a produc=ve and =mely fashion through the consolidated permifng process, in coordina8on with other local boards. Allows optin communi=es to implement enhanced natural resource protec=on zoning so that for important natural resource areas, a significant majority of the land remains permanently undeveloped and available for agriculture, forestry, recrea8on, watershed management, or wildlife habitat. 11 Powell, K.E., Martin, L., & Chowdhury, P.P. (2003). Places to walk: convenience and regular physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 93, A study of 27 water suppliers conducted by the Trust for Public Land and the American Water Works Association in Gregory C. Watson, MA Department of Agricultural Resources Commissioner, writing in the Springfield Republican. February 10,

6 Requires low impact development techniques for developments greater than an acre in optin communi8es. This decreases the amount of stormwater runoff which leads to improved water quality, reduced flooding, and replenishment of water supplies. Allows development impact fees to help offset water infrastructure. Incorporates natural resources and energy into a community s master plan. Eliminates ves=ng loopholes that undermine thoughqul local planning and zoning efforts. Expands the authoriza=on of transfer of development rights and cluster development, which are tools that can be used to conserve land while suppor8ng development. 6