Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board presses counsel to review state's draft surplus-land regulations, cites broad local concerns
Summary
Facing an April 13 comment deadline, the Select Board compiled a detailed list of legal and policy questions about the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities' draft surplus-land regulations — including density calculations, preemption of local environmental and inclusionary requirements, and reuse restrictions — and requested multiple meetings with counsel to evaluate municipal authority and potential challenges.
Chair Marjorie Freiman said the Board's intent was to surface specific questions for counsel rather than finalize comments, and reminded residents to submit written comments directly to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) by April 13.
Board members raised numerous detailed concerns about the draft regulations. On definitions, members asked whether a land-disposition agreement between the Commissioner and a developer could contradict a town's developer agreement and whether —residential development type— might include or exclude trailer parks. They asked whether reuse restrictions are perpetual or subject to renewal (for example, 30 years) and whether the Commissioner could permit uses other than housing.
On the regulatory framework, the Board flagged potential loss of municipal control over affordability, stormwater, parking, design review and building codes under sections such as §77.03—6§77.05. Members said §77.04 appeared to require suitability for families with children, which could preclude age-restricted housing, and questioned the Effective Density calculation in §77.05 if it counts entire lot area, including wetlands and rights-of-way, potentially forcing extreme density on buildable portions of a parcel.
Members asked counsel to clarify whether municipalities retain a right of first refusal if projects fail, what municipal site-plan and design controls would remain, and to examine whether state rules would preempt local environmental regulations that are often more stringent than state minima. Several members expressed frustration that a January 9 Town letter to the Commonwealth had not been answered and said the Board would need multiple meetings with counsel given the compressed timeline and complexity of the issues.
