Add Comment

The region is shaped by hundreds of local planning and development decisions, ranging from the creation of municipal comprehensive plans down to the approval of subdivisions and building permits.  Each city and town must have the capacity to make planning decisions that support sustainable growth for the region.  Regional plans and state policies—no matter how well crafted—will see little impact if cities and towns lack the tools and capacity to make them a reality.  Each municipality needs to have the ability to evaluate alternatives for growth and development, build consensus, create sustainable plans and zoning, and ensure that they are implemented well.  

Unfortunately, many cities and towns lack this capacity.  Dozens of municipalities lack a full-time planner, and many more have planning departments that are understaffed and overworked.  Residents have few opportunities to develop the “planning literacy”: that will help them to more constructively engage in boards, committees, and public processes.  Abutters and community members often engage in development review from a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) perspective, rather than a broader recognition of public interest.  The technical tools and assistance that could inform important planning decisions are hard to come by, not to mention the financial resources to support long-range planning efforts.

The first step to creating the needed capacity is to ensure that each municipality has a professional planner who can address comprehensive planning challenges—if not a full-time planner, then one shared with neighboring towns.  Meanwhile, the capacity of local boards and residents can be strengthened through expanded training opportunities and a cultural emphasis on informed evaluation and engagement at the local level.  This engagement can be supported through visual, quantitative, and facilitative planning tools that help communities to understand the implications of different alternatives and support consensus building.  Finally, technical resources and financial support are necessary to enable the deliberate planning efforts that form the foundation of coordinated municipal planning. 

1)    Ensure each municipality has professional planning staff
If municipalities are to be expected to develop and implement sustainable plans, they must have professional staff dedicated to this task.  Professional planners bring technical expertise that can effectively supplement the local knowledge and commitment of by volunteer boards or committees.  

In 2008, approximately 70% of the 101 cities and towns in the MAPC region had at least one full time planner; about 10% had only part time planners or consultants and the rest did not have any professional planners on staff.  Even in many municipalities that have full-time planning staff, those staff are often so occupied with review of individual development proposals that they have little time to devote to actual long-range planning.  Increased capacity in those municipalities would allow planning staff to devote sufficient attention to careful review of development proposals, while also addressing long-range planning, public education, outreach, regional collaboration, and stakeholder development.  

Increasing this capacity will require additional resources at both the local and state level.  Municipalities must prioritize funding for planning staff, considering it an investment that will help to preserve natural and financial resources.  The state can also support this effort by creating a new funding stream dedicated to support local planning, with the understanding that this new funding should be used to increase local planning capacity, rather than replacing existing local funding.  The goal should be for each municipality to be served by a professional planner (possibly shared with another municipality), with a long-term goal of at least one full time planner for each municipality.  

1.a    Municipalities should seek opportunities to raise new funds for local planning efforts and should use these funds to increase their capacity

1.b    The Legislature and Governor should provide dedicated funding for municipal planning staff

1.c    MAPC should create model job descriptions for long-range municipal planners

2)    Increase capacity of citizen boards through education
Development of Metro Boston is driven in large part through decisions made by citizen boards and committees.  In order to make informed decisions, citizen boards and committees need training and education about planning issues and the regulatory environment.  

Planning Boards, Zoning Boards of Appeals, Boards of Health, and Conservation Commissions are all responsible for the implementation of state and local planning and development controls; their perspective and understanding of regulation and planning issues influences the decisions they make.  Many other citizen committees participate in development decisions less directly, through Master Plan committees, Community Preservation Committees, and other advisory or planning bodies. 
Many training opportunities already exist but are poorly utilized, and many board members have no formal training associated with their very important role as regulators.  MAPC, state agencies, educational institutions, and service providers should collaborate to expand access to such training.  

Board and committee members should consider it their obligation to participate in such training opportunities on a regular basis, and chief municipal officials and citizen board chairs should reinforce this expectation.  Professional planners must participate in continuing education in order to maintain their status as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners.  Similarly, municipalities might consider requiring board members to participate in continuing education in order to be eligible for reappointment or reelection (with the recognition that restrictions on the eligibility for elected positions may require enabling legislation).  

Absent a mandate for citizen board and committee members to be certified, a focus on board development as part of regular activities, as well as dissemination of information on training opportunities, could effectively create a culture in which regular training is expected and received.

The Citizen Planner Training Collaborative (CPTC) is a critical resource for local planning and zoning officials.  CPTC provides workshops and trainings, examples of proposed and existing municipal bylaws, a Planner’s Toolkit, planning links, and information on further training programs and conferences.  CPTC already offers two levels of certification, and is considering offering a third.  This certification could provide an objective benchmark to determine whether board members are meeting continuing education expectations.  

Other states require training of planning, zoning, and other pertinent board members as a precondition for current and future board members.  In New Jersey, legislation requires board members to attend training courses.  The purpose of the course is to provide a uniform educational experience for all planning and zoning board members throughout the state and to provide the basic practical information they will need to fulfill their responsibilities.  

The Massachusetts Interlocal Insurance Association (MIIA) provides discounts on insurance for completion of specified training programs.  This adds a more immediate fiscal reason for communities to ensure that all pertinent board members have completed specified training, as it will both lower the municipality’s insurance rates and ensure that their boards have the capacity to make informed planning decisions.

2.a    MAPC should collaborate with stakeholders and service providers to expand opportunities for training and education

2.b    Board and Commission members should participate in relevant training opportunities

2.c    Municipalities should establish expectations for continuing training prior to reelection or reappointment

3)    Foster informed public participation in planning efforts
Innovative new ways to increase “planning literacy” in the general population are needed for residents to more effectively and productively represent their interests in planning and development processes.  In particular, the region needs to find creative ways to cultivate the participation of low-income, minority, and immigrant populations traditionally under-represented in planning processes.

Planners throughout the region have seen many development proposals—even good proposals whose benefits far outweigh their impacts—meet opposition that results from resistance to change and concern about localized impacts.  Resident participants who can put development proposals in a broader context will be quicker to recognize benefits and find creative “win-win” solutions to addressing impacts.  Yet few residents get regular exposure to planning and development concepts or are familiar with their municipality’s plans.  Traditional strategies for public participation in planning efforts tend to draw small crowds from limited constituencies.  As a result, it is difficult for those plans to represent a diversity of voices, and the constituency available to advocate for their implementation is small.  

In light of these challenges, municipalities and advocacy organizations must redouble their efforts to engage residents in planning efforts and educational opportunities, all within the context of regionalism and sustainability.  These efforts must look beyond conventional methods of public outreach, and instead using organizational networks and technology to provide information through the venues that residents find familiar. 

3.a    MAPC should collaborate with municipalities, service providers, and stakeholders to offer more innovative planning education for residents

3.b    MAPC should collaborate with area leadership academies and educational institutions to foster civic leaders who are knowledgeable and committed to MetroFuture's goals

4)    Build local capacity to use planning support tools
Recent years have seen tremendous advancement in “planning support tools” that help regulators and stakeholders to understand the implications of different approaches to planning and development.  Such tools can help to build consensus, resolve disputes, and maintain consistency and accountability over time, and can be applied at a variety of different scales and time horizons, from an individual development proposal to a comprehensive plan.  

MetroFuture itself used such tools (in particular, the Community Viz software model) to help educate participants about the implications of alternative scenarios across a wide variety of topic areas.  Other planning support tools include more information about existing conditions or regional growth trends that will affect local conditions and should inform local decisions.   

However, many municipalities do not have the capacity to utilize such planning support tools.  Some towns have little data on recent development and current conditions; even fewer have the capacity to evaluate different future alternatives in a data-driven context.  The “buildout” maps funded by the state in 2000 contained useful information but the associated projections did not functionally support alternative decision-making.  

Municipalities need regularly-updated base maps that depict existing development, environmental resources, developable land, zoning and regulatory constraints, and infrastructure resources, and are accompanied by demographic, economic, and fiscal data about current conditions.  Decision support tools such as the Community Viz model could draw on the information contained in these maps to evaluate the impacts of alternative plans or development proposals.

Consensus building and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are also key tools that can help stakeholders to resolve differences of opinion productively, rather than leading to divisiveness and litigation.  Consensus building techniques can be applied during planning efforts to foster agreement on desired futures.  ADR techniques involve a mediated effort to reach agreement voluntarily, without the use of litigation.  Such techniques are widespread in other states but underutilized by municipal governments in Massachusetts.  The Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution is a state agency charged with expanding the use of ADR in the Commonwealth. 

4.a    MAPC and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs should partner to create updated buildout maps for each municipality

4.b    MAPC should develop prototype municipal-level applications of the Community Viz model

4.c    MAPC should partner with Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution and private service providers to develop guidelines for the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution for land use

5)    Provide more general non-contract technical support through MAPC subregions
The MAPC subregional councils are at the core of the agency’s mission and activities and should be a primary instrument for coordinating the efforts of the agency and member municipalities. 
Subregions provide a key avenue of communication between MAPC and member municipalities, and subregional coordinators are often the first point of contact for local officials or boards.  Coordinators are expected to keep abreast of planning and development issues in their subregion, and their advice or technical assistance is often sought.  However, these coordinators have a limited amount of time to devote to these activities, and little remains after meeting preparation, general communications, and other logistics are accomplished.

Subregional coordinators could strengthen the relationship between MAPC and its member municipalities, and could be key players in the implementation of MetroFuture.  Regular consultation with municipal planners and boards (and occasional attendance at those meetings) would help local officials to incorporate a regional perspective in local decisions.  The regular presence of coordinators at meetings and offices would help MAPC’s visibility in the subregions, making municipalities more likely to turn to the agency for technical assistance and to support its legislative and policy agendas.  

Subregional coordinators might also provide “small-scale” technical assistance, such as reviewing and commenting on the scope for project review, or providing feedback on a plan or study provided by a third party consultant.  They might also make it regular practice to review and comment or testify on significant zoning changes and major development proposals where appropriate (such as developments with regional impacts), including MEPA applications.  These technical assistance activities might necessarily involve small amounts of time for other staff with particular specialties, and general funding should be available to support this staff time

Subregional coordinators could also productively support local efforts through advocacy, outreach, and education.  These activities would seek to develop a constituency committed to regionally-minded planning and willing to support municipal planning initiatives to advance policies consistent with MetroFuture.  Coordinators might organize their networks of subregional contacts in support of a particular zoning change, for example; or they could provide data, targeted educational materials, and media outreach related to a particular issue.  

5.a    MAPC should seek additional funding, perhaps through increased assessment, to increase subregional capacity

5.b    MAPC should increase subregional advocacy/organizing activities

5.c    MAPC and municipalities should develop a process for MAPC review (advisory) of proposed zoning changes

6)    Support the development of local plans and zoning consistent with MetroFuture
Municipalities, MAPC, and the state must dedicate more resources to support the development of local plans and zoning consistent with MetroFuture.  Ideally, this effort must be more deliberate, intensive, and far-reaching than other recent initiatives such as Executive Order 418, which provided funding to municipalities for the development of local plans, but without any significant attention to regional consistency or local implementation.  State and regional support for these efforts would involve two components: technical assistance from MAPC,  other public agencies, or qualified private consultants (supported by state funding), and direct state funding in support of comprehensive planning processes.  

In order to build in consistency with MetroFuture, MAPC should be a close partner in the local comprehensive planning processes, and the MetroFuture scenario should be an explicit point of reference for these plans.  Local planning efforts should apply planning support tools in the context of deliberate (and diverse) public participation with an emphasis on learning and stakeholder development.  In this manner, local plans will reflect local priorities and decision making while being consistent with the regional plan.

MetroFuture’s population, housing, and employment scenario for each municipality should form a basic expectation  of what each comprehensive plan should seek to achieve.  While MetroFuture targets should be the starting point for development of local comprehensive plans, MAPC should also develop a mechanism to adjust those targets based on local conditions and preferences, while maintaining the broad outlines of the MetroFuture scenario. 
Given a “palette” of appropriate land uses that recognizes different Community Types, the comprehensive planning process would allocate land uses and basic forms of development to places within the municipality based on appropriate criteria.  On aggregate, each municipality would end up with:

• Sufficient capacity to accommodate its population and employment targets;
• Designation of sensitive and/or important landscapes that should be protected from development;
• An understanding of the positive and negative impacts of putting the plan into action as well as how impacts are distributed across the community and its populations;
• Housing production, economic development, open space, and other plans that are demonstrably consistent and together demonstrate how the municipality expects to achieve its comprehensive plan; and
• A detailed description of zoning and regulatory changes necessary to implement the plan.

While comprehensive plans are important, they must often be supported by district plans and capital plans that provide a greater detail regarding specific growth areas or infrastructure improvements necessary to support growth.  Such plans are necessary to ensure that the capacity exists to support planned growth, or to define the improvements necessary to develop the needed capacity. 

6.a    The Legislature and Governor should establish a significant new funding program for regular and ongoing local comprehensive planning efforts

6.b    MAPC should develop best practices and checklists for development of local plans within a regional context, on a community type basis

6.c    MAPC should develop a “MetroFuture summary” specific to each city and town, with data and maps depicting growth projections and recommended growth and preservation areas  

Add Comment