The towns of Massachusetts have long struggled with inadequate state zoning laws.  These have had the effect of restricting home rule, fostering urban sprawl and placing the interests of communities in controlling growth far behind those of developers in making profit.  There has been much pressure of late placed on the state legislature to address some of the town’s land use/development concerns.  The Massachusetts Legislature is currently moving forward with a new land use reform initiative, known as the Comprehensive Land Use Reform and Partnership Act (CLURPA) but rather than addressing town concerns, it appears to raise entirely new ones.

The bill addresses the issue of home rule (the right of towns to zone) in a very ambiguous way.  While there is a declaration supporting this authority, the legislature has added a caveat establishing its own right to promote state planning interests.  This subtle but significant duality in purpose permeates the bill, adding more confusion rather than eliminating it.

Towns have long sought the authority to control their growth rate, impose impact fees on significant developments and establish measures to protect their natural resources and open space.  This legislation offers the towns these powers along with state financial assistance for infrastructure support and technical assistance.  However, in order to realize these benefits the towns must cede a considerable amount of their planning oversight power.

Each community seeking the benefits of this legislation must apply for and obtain certification from their regional planning authority, which is a quasi-state agency.  For Westford, this would most likely be the Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG).  Certification would usher in entirely new set of planning dynamics.  Under the auspices of a "partnership" with the regional agencies, the towns would be required to commit to very strict approval deadlines (95 days) for completing site plan reviews.  Commercial and residential developments could be planned across municipal boundaries, apparently under the oversight of the regional planning authority and not the local planning board.  The practice of reviewing site plans in open public meeting may also be lost.  This legislation would make the public hearing optional.

Other changes include extending the life of variances from one to two years.  Approved subdivision plans would be operable for 3 years as opposed to the current limit of 2 years and a ban would be imposed on any attempts to restrict "mansionization".  There is also a provision that would discontinue special permit review as a stand alone process by merging it into site plan review.  This would make the denial of certain special projects, such as major commercial or industrial developments, much more difficult to sustain.

Judging by the form this initiative seems to be taking, the political influence of developers and realtors remains much in evidence.  State power and authority appears to be dramatically expanded through the use of a "carrot and stick" approach in order to achieve as much support from the towns as possible.  Despite the array of promised benefits there is a very subtle hint of "bait and switch" in this proposal.  The end game behind this measure may be to convince the towns to give up what little local planning authority they have, so that state planners can pursue their own development agenda.  At best, these measures should be regarded as a mixed bag when viewed from the perspective of local interest.  Much more clarity is required before town planners should jump on board.

Rather than pursuing heavy handed approaches for addressing legitimate issues of regional planning, the state should adopt an approach which pays far more deference to the needs of the suburbs and rural communities.  Communities should be able to unconditionally establish impact fees, adjustable growth rate limits and maintain their current systems of site plan review, preserving the special permit process.  In order to advance more regional interests, the state should utilize local aid incentives and demonstrate far more willingness to engage local communities in a negotiation process to achieve regional planning goals.  This Governor and this legislature need to re-evaluate their approach to state-wide planning and make the process more enticing to the fiscally strapped suburban and rural communities of the state.