<p>A major overhaul of the state zoning, planning and subdivision laws is gaining support from Island planning board members and members of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. The changes would bring the state more in line with national standards.
A major overhaul of the state zoning, planning and subdivision laws is gaining support from Island planning board members and members of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
Representatives from the offices of Sen. Dan Wolf and Rep. Tim Madden, along with the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, a nonprofit environmental group, met with more than 25 Island officials at an all-Island planning board meeting early this month at the Chilmark Community Center to run down the key provisions of the bill.
Presented by Senator Wolf in January and co-sponsored by Representative Madden and many other state legislators, bill S.122 would be the state’s first major zoning reform since the 1970s, and would bring the state more in line with national standards.
Don Keeran, assistant director of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, said Massachusetts zoning and land use laws have led to sprawl and a shortage of housing. “We are developing but we are not developing smart,” he said.
The Vineyard has avoided the worst effects of development, due partly to zoning bylaws adopted in the 1970s, and the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, which has special powers to regulate development. The bill is aimed at the entire state but takes special note of the planning and regulation already underway on the Cape and Islands.
Among other things, the bill targets special permits, site plan review, impact fees and master planning. It defines a wide range of zoning tools, such as inclusionary zoning, where towns can require developers to offer affordable housing or other community benefits, and natural resource protection.
The bill would rewrite current variance provisions to provide more flexibility and a longer window for permits, while leaving final decisions in the hands of towns and cities.
Under current laws, variance procedures are narrowly defined by the state. “The result is that many towns grant variances illegally,” Mr. Keeran said. “Or they take the opposite approach and don’t grant them at all.”
A memo by the Massachusetts Municipal Lawyers association in July points out that development impact fees are rarely used in the state because of “troublesome case law and no mention in statute.” The new bill would authorize such fees to defray the cost of public capital facilities, including traffic improvements, bike paths and wastewater treatment.
Chilmark planning board and MVC member Joan Malkin said the meeting last week marked a shift in local awareness surrounding the bill.
One provision would reduce the required town meeting vote for new or amended bylaws from a two-thirds to a simple majority. “That could be a really useful amendment,” Mrs. Malkin said. She noted that small towns tend to resist change, but that new zoning bylaws can help accommodate and plan for inevitable growth on the Island. Enacting the change would itself require a two-thirds vote at town meeting.
Along with changes to zoning, planning and subdivision laws, the bill proposes a new law, Chapter 40Y, aimed at smart-growth planning. It would allow communities to adopt certain regulations in exchange for benefits such as expanded use of impact fees, preference for state funding and grants, and the ability to adopt low-density natural resource protection zones.
Obtaining those benefits could mean establishing housing and economic development districts, along with mandatory open-space planning and low-impact techniques for some projects.
But the bill also gives a foot in the door for communities on the Cape and Vineyard. When awarding discretionary funds and grants, state agencies would also favor communities with master plans that conform to a regional plan as certified by an agency such as the MVC.
Mr. Keeran noted that some aspects of zoning, such as approval-not-required (ANR) projects and the vested rights of developers when zoning rules are changed, do not always involve the MVC. Provisions in the bill that may conflict with MVC jurisdiction are accompanied by language that give precedence to the MVC and Cape Cod Commission.
MVC executive director Adam Turner, who attended the meeting, noted that many of the proposals are standard practice in other states. “Why has this taken so long?” he said. “I realize there are property rights and Yankee freedoms, but on the other hand, variances and other kinds of things are pretty standard.”
Mr. Keeran called the amendments “nothing radical,” but said he believed legislators had been reluctant to take on a massive overhaul. He said the bill is a stripped-down version of previous bills that had failed to pass, and noted the heavy influence of home builder association lobbyists in Boston.
Seth Rolbein, senior advisor to Senator Wolf, said the bill showed promise last time around but had died in the final weeks of the legislative session. He believed persistence could pay off this time, but he gave the bill less than a 50 per cent chance of passing. In response to Mrs. Malkin, who asked how Island boards could help, he suggested submitting a unified letter of support to the state.
Mr. Turner offered to draft the letter and circulate it to the Island planning boards for their approval. Planning boards may also send their own letters of support. In addition, Mr. Keeran suggested circulating a more general letter of support at strategic times during the process.
The legislature adjourns formal session for the year on Nov. 18.
The full text of bill S.122 is available at malegislature.gov.

Comments
I believe the resistance to
IslanderI believe the resistance to reform has come from home builders not homeowners associations. Can you double check that please? Also, is this "all-Island planning board" a public body and does it follow open meeting law guidelines, produce and approve minutes, and have a legal framework like the MVC or municipal planning boards? Or is it just a lot of elected officials deliberating on matters in their jurisdiction without sunshine law transparency? Thank you for the article.
The story has been corrected,
EditorThe story has been corrected, thanks to the reader for pointing out the error.
The Oak bluffs Planning board
Brian Packish Oak bluffsThe Oak bluffs Planning board posts the meeting according to open meeting law. I'm not sure how other entities handle posting.
You should notice not one
paul adler west tisburyYou should notice not one builder/developer was invited to this meeting. How can new costly regulations be acted upon without input from those that must implement them? This is why there is little respect for many new regulations that are costly, that neither protect or serve anyone.
Great idea,bigger Government
Tisbury voter Vineyard havenGreat idea,bigger Government control,started with Education and loosing control to State mandates weather or not there good for our children or necessary,on and on it goes.Sad that our small towns have lost just about all our locale controls.
The decision must be in the
Abraham Seiman Oak Bluffs, MAThe decision must be in the hands of the voters, all of them! Much information needs to be presented in all media, houses of worship, non-profits, homeowners and builder organizations. These presentations could include examples of successful rentals and communities across the U.S. and economics to present the financial impact of successful growth and the consequences of not acting, e.g, the eventual turning the Island into a resort with no year- round population.
Add new comment