Governor Baker announced the Housing Choice Initiative, $10 million in incentives to communities to promote more housing in the region and proposed legislation to make it easier to change zoning to make it easier to build housing.
The proposed legislation, which would obviously require legislative action, would lower the threshold for some zoning changes from a 2/3 super-majority to a simple 1/2 majority. From the press release:
Zoning changes that promote best practices that would qualify for the simple majority threshold include:
- Building mixed-use, multi-family, and starter homes, and adopting 40R “Smart Growth” zoning in town centers and near transit;
- Allowing the development of accessory dwelling units, or “in-law” apartments;
- Granting increased density through a special permit process;
- Allowing for the transfer of development rights and enacting natural resource protection zoning; and
- Reducing parking requirements and dimensional requirements, such as minimum lot sizes.
An Act to Promote Housing Choices does not mandate that cities and towns make any of these zoning changes. The legislation allows municipalities that want to rezone for responsible housing growth to do so more easily, and in a way that is consistent with peer states.
While it is not entirely clear, it does appear that, if the state makes these changes, no further action would be required at the municipal level. The next special permit filing for additional residential density after the effective date would only require 12 or 13* votes in Newton.
What do you think?
* Does a tie in Newton mean passage or defeat?
Sean does this mean that if the legislation passes the statehouse, then a city would still need to pass an ordinance to make the zoning changes easier?
I’d be more impressed if it were coupled with a commitment to spend the necessary money on our public transit infrastructure to go with that “smart growth” near transit.
As I read it, this law would prohibit the 2/3 super-majority requirement for the designated changes. Is this the correct interpretation? (A re-statement of Jake’s question.)
Jake and Jon,
As I understand it, Baker is proposing legislation that would reduce the votes required to make certain zoning changes from 2/3 to 1/2 of the council members. If enacted by the legislature, no further action would be required by a municipality for this change to be effective.
Put another way, following passage at the state level, a petition for additional density by special permit, for instance, would only require 13 votes by our current city council. Newton would not need to opt in nor be able to opt out.
We have a housing crisis in eastern Massachusetts. We have a workforce shortage. And as a report from the Boston Foundation last month documented, Boston’s suburbs are not doing their fair share to address this.
We need zoning reform locally and statewide that creates a easier path towards building the housing we need for our workers, for our families and for our seniors.
This is a step in the right direction. But we also need to reform the laws that allow frivolous lawsuits that can delay a project for years, adding millions to the cost, or that discourage projects from being proposed in the first place.
Jake and Jon,
Thinking about this some more, it ultimately doesn’t matter what the governor intends on the question of opt-in/-out. The legislation that will emerge from the state house depends on what the reps and senators want it to look like. So, it could be that there would be an initial opt-in for the lower threshold for particular zoning/land use decisions at the local level. Or, it could be that the threshold changes for municipalities regardless of whether they want it or not.