Add Comment

The potential benefits of establishing consistency among plans and programs at different geographic scales are substantial, but only if state policies, programs, and priorities are also coordinated with each other under the umbrella of the Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles.  With direction from the Governor, all state agencies should adjust funding, permitting, infrastructure, housing, and technical assistance programs to promote sustainable growth.

While the Sustainable Development Principles represent a powerful and progressive vision for the state, but they have not yet been fully integrated into the state’s policies, programs, and priorities.  Of greater concern, many state programs are not aligned with one another and often work at cross purposes.  

Coordination of state policies must begin with executive leadership and clear, specific, and measureable expectations for program alignment.  Ongoing self-evaluation and “third party” assessment will be necessary to ensure that these expectations are being met.  Modifications to state policies should prioritize capital funding for designated growth areas and create mechanisms to discourage development in resource protection areas.  Expansion of the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority service area should include strict conditions for water conservation and land use controls.  Long-range permitting and capital facilities programs—such as the Water Management Act or the Massachusetts School Building Authority—should also reflect sustainable development patterns. 

16)    Ensure state policies and investments are consistent with the Sustainable Development Principles
To standardize decision making and ensure consistency with the Sustainable Development Principles, the administration should develop a sustainable development policy checklist that must be completed and submitted to the Governor’s Office whenever a new program is contemplated.  In addition, the Commonwealth needs to review all of its policies to ensure that the Sustainable Development Principles are being followed by programs currently in existence.  These sustainable development consistency reviews should assess positive and negative sustainable development impact, and should be applied to any decision, program, or investment that is related to or affects areas covered by the Sustainable Development Principles.

This sustainable development consistency review cannot be completed by the Administration or by advocates alone.  The Governor should name a panel to review current policies and recommend changes necessary to promote the Sustainable Development Principles.  Membership should include representatives from the Governor’s office and each related agency, the regional planning agencies, and representatives of advocacy or research organizations who can bring diverse skills and perspectives to the work.

16.a    The Governor should issue an Executive Order mandating administration-wide application of the Sustainable Development Principles

16.b    In coordination with the Governor’s office and related agencies, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs should develop a Sustainable Development Policy checklist

16.c    In coordination with the Governor’s office and related agencies, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs should develop a Sustainable Development consistency review

17)    Establish mechanisms for state accountability and consistency of Sustainable Development Principles
It is essential that the state track and report on performance and progress in coordinating its policies and investments with the Sustainable Development Principles.  This provides for evaluation of those policies and investments, the identification of approaches that are more and less successful, modifications as needed to either improve efficacy or to account for progress made, and the means for the public to hold their government accountable for acting in accordance with its commitments. 

17.a     The Governor should establish an annual assessment of state program consistency with the Sustainable Development Principles

17.b    MAPC should work within the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance to regularly evaluate the state’s “sustainable development performance”

18)    Target capital funding to proposals consistent with regional plan
The Commonwealth should make investments consistent with state objectives as reflected in local and regional plans, including its capital budget expenditures on infrastructure.  State objectives should comprise the framework for all infrastructure investment.  Any applicant for capital funds should specify how the project would advance state objectives and follow the applicable local and regional plans.  

The Commonwealth Capital Program (Comm Cap) currently provides the state’s primary mechanism for promoting sustainable development principles through capital funding.  Comm Cap prioritizes capital funding to municipalities that implement planning best practices, thereby reinforcing the positive impact of those best practices and encouraging more municipalities to follow suit.   Several modifications to the program might make it more effective: criteria need to reflect state objectives, recognize regional and community type distinctions, and evolve to keep challenging municipalities to advance while not overburdening them.  More significant modifications might include increasing the relative importance of CommCap in project selection, and expanding the range of programs to which CommCap applies.  Ultimately, the state should establish consistency with regional plans and the Sustainable Development Principles as a requirement for all capital funding programs.  

The state should specifically target an expanded infrastructure improvement program on enabling critical infrastructure improvements that allow for compact growth consistent with local and regional plans.  Infrastructure funds should be targeted for water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure to enable this growth in appropriate areas that lack adequate facilities (including those areas where infrastructure exists but requires improvements in order to accommodate new growth).  

In conjunction with these recommendations, the Administration should seek to make coordinated and opportunistic investments where they can catalyze private sector investments in appropriate locations.  For example, the revitalization of a targeted district within a Regional Urban Center could be catalyzed through coordinated investments of housing subsidies, historic rehabilitation tax credits, infrastructure financing (PWED), and parkland acquisition funds.  This coordination might be facilitated by a state-level ombudsman charged with expediting grant review and contracting. 

18.a    EOEEA should modify Comm Cap to reflect differences in Community Types

18.b    EOEEA should modify Comm Cap to recognize the consistency of local zoning with local and regional plans

18.c    EOEEA should expand the list of discretionary grant and loan programs to which Comm Cap scores apply

18.d    The state should target an expanded infrastructure improvement program to appropriate growth areas

19)    Adjust 40B regulations to promote both affordable housing production and plan consistency
The region can find ways to promote housing production, plan consistency, and natural resources protection through revisions to the regulations that implement the state’s Comprehensive Permit law (MGL Chapter 40B).  Any revisions must recognize two key principles: different types of growth are appropriate in different locations; and each municipality has a responsibility to make substantive progress toward expanding its affordable housing stock.  

Housing developed through a comprehensive permit under MGL Chapter 40B has been a preeminent tool for the production of housing in Metro Boston, especially the production of affordable housing.  However, comprehensive permit applications are not required to demonstrate consistency with Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles or regional land use plans.  For example, MAPC found that only 12% of 40B projects approved from 2000 – 2006 are within ½ mile of an MBTA subway or commuter rail station.  Continuation of these patterns may hamper efforts to focus growth near infrastructure and to preserve natural resources.  Of equal concern, some communities cite 40B as a disincentive to comprehensive municipal planning, with the justification that high-quality planning provides no insulation from 40B developments.  

There are currently three mechanisms through which municipalities have the authority to deny a Comprehensive Permit application:

• If 10% of the year-round housing stock is eligible to be included in the municipality’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI);
• If SHI-eligible housing occupies more that 1.5% of the municipality's land area; or
• If the municipality has a Housing Production Plan (HPP) approved by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), and if DHCD certifies that annual production of SHI-eligible units meets a standard production target, equal to 0.5% of the year-round housing stock.

Two modifications would help to make the 40B program and the resulting housing production more consistent with the Sustainable Development Principles and MetroFuture, and might encourage more municipalities to create comprehensive plans to address housing and other issues:

• Modify Housing Production Plan guidelines to require consistency with the Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles and the regional plan; and
• Modify regulations to allow municipalities to deny 40B developments in designated natural resource protection areas, as long as they have developed a comprehensive plan, consistent with MetroFuture, which includes significant and viable districts and/or policies to encourage housing production, and as long as they have taken concrete steps to implement those plans.

It should also be noted that Strategy 8 (Access to Housing) also includes recommendations that relate to Housing Production Plans.  Specifically, regulations might be modified to allow HPPs with annual production targets lower than 0.5% in low-density, slow-growing municipalities.  That recommendation is distinct from, and complementary to, the suggestions here.   

Housing Production Plan Consistency
Modifications to the Housing Production Plan guidelines are necessary to encourage housing production policies consistent with sustainable land use.  Current HPP guidelines state that municipalities should “consider” the Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles when identifying “zoning districts or geographic areas in which the municipality proposes to modify current regulations for the purposes of creating SHI Eligible Housing.”  As for specific sites where the municipality will encourage the filing of a comprehensive permit application, the guidelines are somewhat more definite, requiring that sites be consistent with the Sustainable Development Principles “to the greatest extent possible.”  

However, HPP guidelines do not provide any specific criteria for determining such consistency.  Nor does the review process provide for assessment of consistency by the regional planning agency, which is arguably in the best position to affirm that production districts and specific sites are consistent with the regional plan.  As a result, there is no clear and consistent way to determine whether recommended sites are appropriately sited with regard to natural resources, infrastructure, or neighboring municipalities, or whether they will provide residents of new development with adequate access to shops, services, and transportation.  Furthermore, all SHI-eligible housing production counts toward the annual production target, regardless of whether it was developed in locations consistent with the HPP or the local land use plan.  

MAPC and other regional planning agencies should work with DHCD, housing advocates, and the environmental community to develop Sustainable Development criteria for HPPs and to establish a review process that includes review and approval by the regional planning agency.

Resource Protection Denials
Modifications to 40B regulations are necessary to protect natural resource areas in any municipality that has a comprehensive plan for housing production, but which may not have met the annual production targets.  Even with strong planning and community support, actual SHI-eligible production may lag behind the annual targets due to a slow housing market or financing woes that slow a particular development.  As a result, municipalities that have 40R districts—complete with higher-density zoning and by-right permitting—may still find themselves without the capacity to prevent 40B developments in sensitive environmental areas.  These uncertainties may discourage municipalities from investing in planning and production efforts.  

In order to reduce uncertainty and reward proactive planning, the 40B regulations should establish a new class of “resource protection denials” whereby municipalities that meet certain criteria could deny comprehensive permits in designated natural resource protection areas, and have those denials upheld by the Housing Appeals Committee.  This process would encourage municipalities to develop housing plans and designate locations for growth, while also providing for better protection of natural resources.  

To be eligible, a municipality would have to develop a comprehensive plan to develop housing along with a reasonable list of areas needing protection from development.  These plans should be determined by MAPC to be consistent with MetroFuture and the Commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles.  

The comprehensive plan for housing production could be an HPP, a set of 40R districts, establishment of locations zoned for multi-family housing, or a combination of steps which, when taken together, would constitute a significant and viable effort to spur housing growth.  Under any such plan, zoning should be in place to allow compact growth patterns and diverse housing types; should have sufficient capacity to accommodate 0.5% of the total year-round housing stock each year; and should incorporate mechanisms for prompt and predictable permitting.  Criteria for natural resource districts would include specific environmental or historic values; and those districts would be limited to a percentage of the unprotected developable land in the municipality.  (The percentage could be fixed or based on local conditions).  

Municipalities meeting these criteria would be allowed to deny 40B applications in the natural resource protection districts only, even if they have failed to meet the 0.5% annual housing production target.

19.a    MAPC and other regional planning agencies should work with DHCD, housing advocates, and the environmental community to develop Sustainable Development criteria for HPP and to establish a review process that includes review and approval by the regional planning agency

19.b    MAPC and regional planning agencies should work with DHCD, housing advocates and the environmental community to develop a proposal for “Resource Protection Denials.”

20)    Revise MWRA expansion policies to promote sustainable growth
MetroFuture recommends encouraging relatively more population and employment growth within the MWRA service area than might occur if Current Trends continue.  It also recommends continued improvements in water conservation (MWRA water demand has declined over recent decades, even as population has increased), so that estimated 2030 MWRA water demand is lower than would occur if Current Trends continue.  

Many of the region’s Maturing Suburbs outside of the MWRA service area would also see higher population growth; with increases in water conservation efforts, these municipalities might be able to accommodate the additional growth within the constraints of their existing Water Management Act permits.  However, the physical availability of water, the cost of infrastructure upgrades, or the environmental impact of water withdrawals may cause more municipalities, including some Developing Suburbs, to seek new connections to the MWRA.  

Under the right set of criteria, some targeted and judicious expansion of the MWRA could provide benefits to communities, the region, and the Commonwealth as a whole.  If, on the other hand, expansion of the system is allowed to go forward indiscriminately to support development inconsistent with regional and local plans, MetroFuture’s efforts to promote smart growth and minimize sprawl could be undermined.

MAPC recommends that any expansion of the MWRA water system occur under strict conditions that address land use, water conservation, and environmental concerns.  Municipalities seeking to connect to the system should commit to take measures that will reduce water demand and preserve the capacity of the expanded infrastructure.  Such commitments might include:

• land use plans and zoning consistent with the regional plan;
• establishment of service area boundaries and connection moratoria outside of designated growth areas;
• implementation of low impact development and water reuse as a condition for local permits;
• application of state of the art pricing, billing, regulatory, and educational mechanisms to conserve water and manage peak demand; and
• efforts to maximize recharge of existing aquifers. 

With such conditions in place, there might be circumstances in which expansion of the system might provide significant benefits, by reducing the demand on overtaxed local water resources while minimizing impacts on MWRA source watersheds.  In these circumstances, where critical environmental need is combined with strong municipal commitment to conservation and smart growth, the expansion of the system might be facilitated by subsidizing the “cost of entry” to the system.  

One possible approach to evaluating these issues would be to establish a Special Procedure, which under the MEPA regulations would allow for a broad review of potential system expansion issues, and a streamlined review of individual communities that come in meeting pre-defined criteria.  These criteria would assess the likelihood that introducing MWRA water would trigger unsustainable development in the given applicant municipality. 

20.a    MAPC should work with the MWRA, EOEEA, and other stakeholder groups to revise MWRA expansion policies

21)    Modify MEPA reviews to encourage sustainable development
Just as Metro Boston’s current system of land use regulation allows case-by-case decision to yield negative results in total, so too does the current Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) environmental impact reviews of certain projects requiring state agency action.  Current reviews are limited to an individual project even if others are underway or planned nearby.  This creates a situation in which cumulative impacts are underestimated, where the last developer in will more likely have the greatest apparent impact and the fewest mitigation options, and where municipalities adjacent to the host community experience impacts that cannot be addressed.  Instead, the MEPA Office should take advantage of proximate projects to designate areas of critical planning concern and coordinate a multi-developer and multi-municipality impact review process in which cumulative impacts can be examined and mitigated more effectively and equitably.

Consistent comprehensive local plans also provide opportunity for a streamlined MEPA permitting process where the proposed project(s) are also consistent with those plans.  Impact analysis would have been conducted during the planning process, essentially completing part of the MEPA process in advance and providing for faster permitting that does not compromise thorough evaluation.  This would also inherently consider cumulative and multi-parcel impacts, and set the stage for a system of impact fees, offering more predictability and equity to developers.

22)    Align school building assistance priorities with sustainable development patterns
The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) must make its investments as cost effective as possible, due at least in part to its limited resources, the relative expense of school construction, and the relative infrequency with which the authority can revisit a previous decision.  It is already expected to advance cost effectiveness by encouraging renovation and smart growth locations over new construction and locations that are more distant and therefore more expensive to serve.

The MSBA should further enhance the cost effectiveness of its investments by placing its decision making within the context of consistent local and regional plans.  School enrollment projections should be consistent with the population targets that form the basis for a MetroFuture-consistent comprehensive plan.  This also provides for greater municipal confidence that it has sufficient capacity for the anticipated school age population.

22.a    MAPC and the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance should evaluate the MSBA’s criteria for renovation, smart growth, and related criteria and make necessary recommendations 

23)    Incorporate sustainable growth projections in Water Management Act permitting
Population projections used for Water Management Act permitting should be consistent with Sustainable Development Principles and environmental capacity.   State agencies responsible for preparing water demand forecasts should use MetroFuture projections for estimating future water demand, rather than using Current Trend projections. 

23.a    The Department of Conservation and Recreation should use MetroFuture projections for water needs forecasting

Add Comment