A recent hearing on Beacon Hill brought the 30-year-old question of land-use reform back to the forefront of state housing issues. Groups and individuals representing numerous facets of real estate interests – including homebuilders, Realtors, planners and local officials – recently convened to offer testimony and discuss the controversial Massachusetts Land Use Reform Act.

The act proposes a series of modifications to the Chapter 40A zoning statutes of Massachusetts General Law, which have been in place for over 30 years without significant changes. The suggested reform would considerably alter the existing system by placing more decision-making power over development in the hands of municipalities, a move that supporters believe will help promote comprehensive master plans and make housing production a better fit within cities and towns. Those opposed contend the changes would hinder construction of homes by imposing further permitting roadblocks and allowing for actualization of prevailing anti-growth attitudes in many communities.

Supporters and opponents of the bill seem to be bifurcated along employment lines. Pushing for the change are municipal officials and planners while homebuilders and Realtors are largely against the proposal, which has been filed as two identical bills in the House and Senate. The testimony was heard in an unusual, jointly held hearing of the Committee on Community Development and Small Business and the Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government on June 30.

“I think the bill will provide a lot more balance than the current situation has. I think right now things are skewed very much in favor of homebuilders and the vesting provisions currently in place are the most extravagant in the nation,” said Peter C. Lowitt, president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Planning Association. “We need to get into the 21st century, into the middle of the pack. [The Massachusetts Land Use Reform Act] does just that. It’s attempting to fix what obviously doesn’t work.”

The act has others looking not at what will be fixed, but what the fallout could be if the suggested changes are put into place in the commonwealth.

“From a planning perspective I would say that there’s seemingly good reason for the bill. Statutes are antiquated. However, if you look at things from a broader perspective and what the impact will be upon the state, you have to be more concerned. This act would give planners and towns a more modern set of tools, but many are concerned with what those tools will be used to do,” said Kurt Gaertner, director of sustainable development with the state’s Office of Environmental Affairs, speaking on behalf of the Office for Commonwealth Development.

Along with providing municipalities and planners with more options, the act also looks to do away with some established practices, which concerns opponents.

“Do you think by giving local governments more ability to regulate development that makes any sense in the big picture? You have to step away and look at the implications,” said Greg Vasil, acting president of the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. “GBREB and the Massachusetts Association of Realtors are opposed. As you tick down the bill, we clearly have to be. It would do away with Approval Not Required plans, one of the only things that we have seen that actually works. [The reforms act] gives the ability for municipalities to greater regulate the number of one- or two-family dwellings. There are so many things.”

One of the key issues that both sides of the issue are debating is the effect the act would have on the creation of much-needed affordable housing.

“I think one of the stronger components within the proposed enabling legislation is the requirement that community zoning be in compliance with its master plan, which would require a beefed-up housing provision and talks about how communities can provide their fair share of affordable housing,” Lowitt said.

Opponents of the Land Use Reform Act, however, say that increased municipal power will lead to a decrease in affordable housing, to which many Massachusetts communities have historically been resistant.

“I don’t think this act will produce a single unit of affordable housing. Communities rail against Chapter 40B [the state’s so-called anti-snob zoning law, which promotes affordable housing development], but my response to that is that it’s been around for 36 years and wouldn’t be necessary if communities did what was expected of them in the first place: build houses that people can live in,” said David Wluka, president of Sharon-based Wluka Real Estate Corp.

“For those who have reservations about the bill’s effect on affordable housing – and may of those [concerns] are unfounded – we have worked with the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association to incorporate affordability into the bill, although that’s only half the equation,” said Jeff Lacy, a member of the Shutesbury Planning Board and chairman of the Zoning Reform Working Group, one of the organizations behind the proposal. “Many communities are being asked to zone more densely for affordable housing in village centers, but I don’t think communities will embrace a model of dense centers surrounded by sprawl. They need the whole tool kit, not just density. They need to protect the countryside as well.”

The Land Use Reform Act has sparked a great deal of debate and although both supporters and critics are vocal, at the recent hearing testimony in favor of the measure outnumbered testimony against by a 2-1 margin, according to Lacy, who has been involved with land-use reform since the Zoning Reform Working Group’s inception in 1999. It was created under the watch of Rep. Jack Stasik who gathered area planning and zoning experts to discuss solutions to existing land-use statutes.

After a time, Stasik retired and ZRWG disbanded for a short while, though a number of the original members reformed soon after as an advisory group and crafted the new Land Use Reform Act in an attempt to aid what they saw as a failing zoning system.

“The way things work in Massachusetts now is essentially broken. The state land-use statutes give our communities most of the responsibility for land-use planning and regulation, but strip away the authority they need to carry it through. The process [of getting projects approved and developed] is rancorous, costly and what often ends up being built is not particularly desired. The Land Use Reform Act promises to address this situation Â… I think everyone will benefit, builders very much included,” said Lacy.

‘A Line in the Sand’

Wluka, a former ZRWG member, disagrees with that assessment.

“The act as it is written today creates no nexus between planning and zoning and takes away what few property rights are left out there. I’m very concerned that this is an assault on property rights,” said Wluka. “The basic concepts are good – economic development, protection of the environment, protection of quality of life and smart growth – they can all be done. But it can be done better than this if everyone who should be at the table is at the table.”

When the group was reformed after Stasik retired, the organizations that actually build and deal with homes – homebuilders and Realtors – lost their voice in ZRWG, according to Wluka.

Lacy, however, contends that the schism was a matter of choice, not exclusion.

“We did meet with [the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts] and, frankly, although the Zoning Reform Working Group was very willing to engage in a dialogue with them, they did not pursue it. Anyone who has desired to become involved with the group over the years has gotten a chance. No one has ever been turned away. Anyone who was not involved in the process wasn’t involved because of their own choices,” Lacy said.

The Land Use Reform Act is currently in committee and will probably stay there until the fall, according to Lacy, who is hopeful that the act will proceed further after that. Others, however, aren’t so sure.

“If the bill is ever passed there will be some compromise between the existing bill and the protections the home builders will seek,” said Gaertner.

Without some consensus, the Land Use Reform Act may continue to sit as the controversial centerpiece at the land-use discussion table.

“A line has been drawn in the sand on the issue. Each party is on the other side of the Grand Canyon on this thing. If anyone tries to advance the bill it would be one heck of a long and bloody battle. I just can’t see both sides reaching any sort of agreement,” Vasil said.

Ashley Wilkins may be reached at awilkins@thewarrengroup.com.