Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes to draft inclusionary zoning bill after members request clearer language
Summary
The Planning and Development Committee voted to draft House Bill 6812 (redefining inclusionary zoning) and hold a roll-call vote; members voiced support subject to seeing final text and asked drafters to clarify that the measure would not impose eminent-domain authority.
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning and Development Committee voted to draft House Bill 6812, an act redefining inclusionary zoning, during its March 7 meeting. Committee members stressed the need to review full language before finalizing any mandate.
Representative Gucker supported moving the bill to drafting so proponents could produce language to help towns comply "with the spirit and functionality of 8-30g," while requesting a roll-call vote to ensure members had their positions recorded. Senator Gordon said he had discussed the bill with proponents and understood it was not intended to invoke eminent domain, but asked that drafters make that explicit if necessary.
Several members raised procedural and substantive cautions: Zip Ripsolo (as recorded in the transcript) said the committee should see full language and ensure the proposal is not a mandate and respects municipal charters and town-meeting forms of government. Gucker said the bill aimed to help towns better comply with 8-30g.
Action taken - The committee voted to draft House Bill 6812 (motion: vote to draft). The committee conducted a roll-call vote; the record shows a majority in favor and at least one recorded no vote (Representative Zawistowski voted no). The full roll-call record is part of the committee minutes.
Next steps - Committee staff will prepare draft language that clarifies whether the bill imposes mandates, respects municipal charter provisions and town-meeting government structures, and clearly states that it does not expand eminent-domain authority if that is the intent.

