[MassHistPres] new "by right" zoning bill and possible threats to preservation

[Dennis De Witt]

Those interested in preservation and community control of historic resources should be aware of significant boon for developers that is making its way though both houses of the legislature   The Senate version, which appears even more threatening than the house version, is S.2311 and is up for a vote today.  Like 40B, it gives developers means of trumping local zoning — nominally in the name of “affordable” housing.  But, unlike 40B, there is not even a temporary 20%-20-year affordable component.  And, like 40B, there appears to be NO EXEMPTION for Local Historic Districts, Neighborhood Conservation Districts or NR properties.
 
 This should be a huge concern — in addition to the historic properties and districts that are already falling victim 40B projects.   
 
Like the ANR (Approval Not Required) ‘By Right” lots that have long circumvented proper rural sub-division planning, this law would introduce various by-right classes of projects that would not even require a special permit — thus taking away significant aspects of local control and handing them over to developers.

In the tradition of 40B, this legislation is being heavily lobbied in the press and on Beacon Hill by the development industry.

Key provisions of S. 2311
— Mandated “by-right” multi-family housing districts: S. 2311 would mandate that every city and town establish “by-right” zoning districts for multi-family housing.  Not necessarily a bad thing, if local power of placement and regulation is not lost in the process — and if there was respect for Historic Resources.

— Mandated “by-right” “accessory” or “in-law" apartments: S. 2311 would require every city and town to allow accessory apartments in all single family districts with a lot size over 1/9th acre — apparently including Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Districts.  “In-law apartments" equal to at least a certain % of ALL of the town’s residential units, including existing apartments, would be mandated by right.  Thus, in more fully built out communities with a significant share of multi-unit buildings — such as Brookline, Newton, or Somerville, in effect, every single-family neighborhood would be completely rezoned as two-family

— Inclusionary Zoning: 2311 contains an inclusionary zoning provision — a good thing — but would only allow inclusionary zoning in exchange for greater density — a bonus to developers who in many communities already have to include the affordable units within the zoned density.  Towns and cities that already have inclusionary zoning are effectively penalized.

— Mandated “open space residential developments” — a.k.a “cluster -zoning": Every city and town would be required to approve “by-right” residential development projects with greater density, if those projects are designed to preserve open space in or adjacent to the development — again not a bad thing in theory, but apparently with no concession to the many communities that already have cluster zoning. 

— "Improving the zoning process….” One cited example is that a developer will be able to lock in old zoning with a pro forma development plan for ten years! rather than the already excessive present eight years. To figure out who is actually benefitted by S. 2311 and how, see:  https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/S2311
 
Dennis De Witt
Brookline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20160609/06192bee/attachment.htm>