The town is one step closer to a unanimous board standard for “friendly 40B” protocols. Intended to continue a dialogue among boards, a letter from the Harvard land-use boards to the Board of Selectmen regarding 40B Local Initiative Projects (LIPs) went out on March 27. Solicited by the BOS, the document includes recommended changes by the land-use boards to its proposed “Partnering on a Local Initiative Project” protocols. The next step is for the BOS to review and react to the comments.
The land-use boards comprise the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, and the Board of Health. Representatives from each of the boards meet unofficially once a month, in an effort to keep all the boards informed, said Planning Board member Joe Sudol. There is no decision-making at this level. At the March meeting, the group produced a draft letter and comments for members to bring back to their respective boards.
Reviewing the draft protocols prepared by Sudol, which showed the annotations and comments from the land-use boards, the health board parsed it at its March 25 meeting, and Chairman Tom Philippou ultimately signed it.
“We decided we’d give the selectmen recommendations on what the process should consist of, especially in light of the new regulations in February,” said Sudol in a phone interview this week.
Land-use board comments relate to the process and criteria by which the town should consider a 40B project as a Local Initiative Project (LIP) or “friendly 40B,” including that “any decision by the town to partner with a developer on a 40B project [should] include input from all interested parties prior to making that decision, i.e., land-use boards, abutters, town residents, and others.” The letter refers to the Department of Housing and Community Development’s recently approved 760 CMR 56.00 regulation governing affordable housing, which “clearly intends that these parties be included in the decision-making process.”
The land-use boards also recognize the “potential conflict of interest” represented by the ZBA’s involvement in both the decision-making process and in the later review of the application for a comprehensive permit. The letter states, “We agree that the ZBA should not be part of this process and our comments reflect this position.”
The dialogue shows agreement that the involvement of interested parties early in the process will identify benefits to the town and ensure a shared vision.
“In addition,” the letter states, “this ‘inclusive process’ will minimize the potential for embarrassing, legal, or other significant issues that may arise during a review of an application for a comprehensive permit that may later be submitted to the ZBA.”
“We encourage the Board of Selectmen to seriously consider the changes being recommended,” the letter says, “as we believe they will result in a process that is in the best interest of the town and takes full advantage of the responsibilities of the land-use boards and the expertise and experience of its members.”
The letter ends with the land-use boards seeking a meeting with the BOS.
“Let’s do this right,” said Sudol.
