Regional planning commissions say plans will be filed this year and urge clearer S.325 definitions

Charlie Baker, speaking for the state's regional planning commissions, told the Commerce & Economic Development committee that "all the RPCs are on track to submit our regional plans by the end of the calendar year." He framed the submissions as staggered pre‑application filings that will be reviewed by the Land Use Board for state designation.

Baker said the designations affect which towns can claim partial Act 250 exemptions and how land use areas line up with potential exemptions. He gave a rough sense of the land area towns are planning for growth: the eligible areas that towns have opted into amount to a small percentage of the state (Baker estimated roughly 2.2% in recent drafts, with legacy designations adding about 0.3%). He cautioned these were working estimates, saying the figures were "probably two months old" and should not be taken as final.

Why it matters: The designation program determines where denser housing and associated infrastructure are more likely to be permitted without full Act 250 review. Baker told the committee RPCs are trying to balance concentrating growth in small areas with the reality that a substantial share of housing—he said perhaps 40%—will still need to occur in rural places.

Baker urged statutory clarifications in the package referred to in the meeting as "3/25," pointing to section 11 changes that would streamline the regional plan amendment process (earlier community investment board involvement and shorter amendment timelines) and to an effort to consolidate definitions across sections 11, 12, 13 and 16 so future staff are not forced to reconcile inconsistent language. "There's a definitional issue that spreads across multiple sections of 3/25," he said, arguing this consolidation would reduce staff burden.

On centers and historic language, Baker said RPCs are asking that the word "historic" be removed from one definition so that nonhistoric centers (for example, a relocated center sited near a school because the historic downtown is flood‑prone) can qualify for designation. He described that as important to give communities flexibility when a historic core is no longer the appropriate growth center.

Baker also called attention to housing targets produced by the Department of Housing and Community Development. He said the department provided lower and upper target ranges for 2030 and 2050; because the transcripted figures were given as wide ranges and portions were not clear in the record, the committee was urged to treat the numbers as planning targets rather than binding requirements. "Most of us are kind of using a midpoint out in 2050 as kind of the long term planning goal," Baker said.

Questions from committee members clarified timing differences in implementation: the meeting record indicates that some priority housing provisions were delayed to 2028 while other interim exemptions or rule elements were delayed to 2030, and multiple dates appear in the referenced 03/25 actions.

The committee did not take formal votes during the discussion. The presentation closed with invitations for public testimony on related items at the committee's next meeting.

Ending: The committee scheduled follow‑up briefings next week on cPACE and other bills and invited interested parties to provide testimony through a committee assistant.