Add Comment

The location, scale, density, and design of compact growth will depend on many local considerations: the degree of existing development, regional context, availability of infrastructure, sensitive natural resources, and other factors.  Each municipality, in coordination with the MetroFuture land use plan and principles, should plan for how they can provide the benefits of compact growth to their residents at the appropriate scale.  Improved systems of municipal planning, described in (#1 Coordinated Plans), are a prerequisite for sustainable plans for compact growth.  Those recommendations call for consistency of zoning, local plans, and the regional plan; in every municipality, the identification of compact growth areas—of an appropriate scale—will be one element of consistency.  

While master plans can identify appropriate locations for compact growth, district plans are necessary to provide more specifics about scale, densities, design, access, uses, and infrastructure.  Municipalities have increased support from state programs and MAPC for the development of such plans.  In both urban and suburban communities, plans for compact growth often meet resistance due to concerns about visual impact and impact on community character.  More widespread application of tools for visualizing growth will help to build community support through a more responsive and accountable process.  Local areas plans for compact growth must be aligned with capital planning and resource availability, to avoid redundant costs, unused capacity, and environmental damage. 

1)    Support district plans for compact growth
Strong district plans provide a framework for zoning, infrastructure investments, and permitting.  Too often, proposals for new development—even those that are allowed by zoning—become entangled in community disagreement about the vision for a given location.  The developer wastes time and money, and the community loses opportunities to maximize local benefit.  District plans seek to avoid this entanglement by building consensus about scale, density, and form; and by evaluating how growth will relate to existing infrastructure, municipal finance, and surrounding neighborhoods.  As a result, permitting can be an efficient process to determine whether the proposal is responsive to the community’s vision, rather than a time-consuming process of debating what that vision should be.  

Technical assistance is critical for municipalities seeking to prepare district plans.  There are already a variety of state programs to support district planning efforts, including the 40R Smart Growth Overlay District program, District Local Technical Assistance Program, and the Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure and Housing Support Program.  These programs should be supported with sufficient funding and expanded as more municipalities seek to develop district plans.  MAPC can also support district planning efforts through general non-contract support from subregional coordinators and staff planners. 

1.a    Municipalities should develop district plans for locations suitable for compact housing growth and economic development

1.b    The legislature (through DHCD) should provide substantially increased state agency support for 40R district planning and marketing

1.c    The Legislature and Governor should fully and consistently fund the District Local Technical Assistance program

1.d    The Legislature should continue to support the Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure and Housing Support Program

1.e    MAPC should provide more general non-contract technical support through subregional coordinators

2)    Use visualization and decision support tools to engage the public in district planning
In both urban and suburban communities, plans for compact growth often meet resistance due to concerns about visual impact and impact on community character.  More widespread application of tools for evaluating alternatives and visualizing growth will help to build community support through a more responsive and accountable process.  

Preparation of “alternative futures” based upon clear criteria (e.g., existing zoning versus an alternative set of regulations) can quantify important impacts such as vehicle trips, water demand, and open space.  These projections help participants (residents, property owners, municipal officials) to evaluate alternatives based on quantitative projections rather than speculation.  

Technology can also help residents to understand the visual impacts of development alternatives within a local context.  This can be as simple as showing photographs of structures that could be constructed under the existing zoning versus an alternative, or as complicated as constructing virtual or tangible 3-dimensional models of the development that could be generated by the changes.  

In addition to traditional public forums, communities should take advantage of technology to expand upon public input and public education, including on-line illustrations of alternative scenarios, web based surveys, web discussions, etc.  However, communities should understand that some residents either are not comfortable with, or may not have access to, such web-based communications, and that they are not a complete substitute for traditional methods of allowing for public input and education.

2.a    MAPC should work with allied organizations and experts to develop subregional and local applications or adaptations of the existing MetroFuture model

2.b    MAPC and allied organizations should support the development and dissemination of scenario visualization techniques in the region

2.c    MAPC should work with stakeholders and experts to identify best practices and models for the use of virtual (on-line) participation and electronic communication with stakeholders

3)    Develop capital plans for compact growth areas
With detailed master plans and district plans, municipalities will be able to determine where infrastructure investments are needed to support desired compact growth, and where new or increased capacity would encourage growth that is contrary to the land use plan.  Compact growth located near already developed areas may require little new infrastructure, but will likely require repairs or increased capacity for existing streets and sidewalks, transit facilities, water and sewer services, and related infrastructure.  

In order to preserve capacity and focus growth, municipalities should establish well-defined service area limits for utilities such as water and sewer; parcels outside these service area boundaries should be expected to use on-site or local (private) utilities, as necessary.  Phased expansion of service area boundaries or capacity can yield more cost-effective investments and can focus market response to a particular location before infrastructure is extended.  Abundant research and case law supports the legal establishment of such service area boundaries (if rationally applied).

The development of capital plans is a prerequisite for any of the innovative financing tools described in (#9D Diverse Funding Streams).  Capital plans will allow municipalities to determine infrastructure costs associated with new development and to establish value capture programs or impact fee assessments accordingly. 

3.a    Municipalities should develop capital plans to accompany district plans

3.b    MAPC should collaborate with other stakeholders to develop legal clarification and guidance for infrastructure phasing and service area boundaries

4)    Broaden use of Chapter 40R Smart Growth Zoning Districts
Chapter 40R of the Massachusetts General Laws encourages cities and towns to establish new overlay zoning districts to promote housing production and, more generally, smart growth development.  Under Chapter 40R communities that adopt special zoning districts allowing “as-of-right” (no special permit required) higher density residential development are provided financial rewards.  These financial incentives come in two forms: the “zoning incentive payment” awarded when the zoning is adopted, and the “bonus payment” awarded when building permits are issued; both are calculated based on number of housing units.  

Chapter 40R districts can be in one of three locations: near transit; in areas of concentrated development such as city, town and, village centers and commercial districts; or in areas that are “highly suitable” for growth by virtue of their infrastructure, transportation access, existing underutilized facilities, and/or location.

While there are many municipalities that have adopted Smart Growth Zoning districts under Chapter 40R, other communities are wary of permitting these districts as-of-right.  While design guidelines and form-based codes (described below) can provide municipalities with considerable control over the design and appearance of compact growth, some communities are unfamiliar with these tools and are concerned that as-of-right zoning will result in loss of local control.  The Legislature should consider modifying Chapter 40R to allow for special permit, but with elimination of the zoning incentive payments that municipalities receive when they adopt 40R as-of-right.  Municipalities would still be eligible for the bonus incentive payments.  As a result, there would be no cost to the Commonwealth and until building permits are issued, and municipalities would have an incentive to approve appropriate projects in the special permit process. 

4.a    The Legislature should modify state statute to allow 40R by special permit (without zoning incentive payments)