ICYMI: Emerging Economic Growth Bill Could Have Lots Of Local Implications
H-W News
By Tim Vande Brake | Staff Reporter
Broad economic-growth legislation advancing on Beacon Hill contains various local nuggets of note—among them $150,000 for downtown Wenham improvements, $100,000 for Hamilton Town Hall renovations, and land-development-review measures that have stirred debate in a North Shore state legislative race.
The latest version of the legislation also includes a measure to spur duplex housing in communities across the state—a provision housing-affordability advocates strongly support but Hamilton Town Manager Joe Domelowicz said could potentially put local zoning control “really at risk.” "The proposed changes that are being considered by the legislature would impact local zoning,” Domelowicz told H-W News. “I'd hesitate to say how much, because the final version hasn't been agreed to yet.”
The economic-development legislation passed the Massachusetts House as a $561 mil- lion package on July 8, and an amended $575 million version cleared the state Senate on July 24. It remains unclear whether the earmarks for Hamilton and Wenham—which were only included in the House bill as of July 29—will make it into a final, reconciled version of the legislative proposal.
The multipronged legislation was known as the Mass Wins Act when Gov. Maura Healey originally filed it in April. Across versions passed by the House and Senate, it addresses a wide array of policy aims ranging from housing construction and greater economic competitiveness to streamlined local land-use decision-making and investment in artificial intelligence.
State Rep. Sally Kerans (D-Danvers), whose district includes a portion of Wenham, said any funding included in the final version would not be released immediately. Rather, as a bond bill, communities and other entities would have to work with the Healey-Driscoll administration to receive it.
“We do many things in this legislation to help businesses, towns, downtowns and to address the state’s housing challenges, and I’m particularly pleased to have gotten support for the Town of Wenham,” Kerans said, refer- ring to the $150,000 allocated for Wenham’s Downtown Vibrancy Initiative in the House version of the bill.
Those funds were designated with help from fellow state Rep. Hannah Bowen (D-Beverly), whose district also includes part of Wenham. In a text to H-W News, Bowen said some of the statewide allocations in the House bill that could potentially benefit North Shore communities include $25 million for downtown revitalization, $25 million for capital grants to strengthen arts, culture, and the creative economy, $20 million for the veterans supported housing initiative program and $10 million to support food science, strengthen sustainable food systems, and help grow agricultural technology businesses.
Both the House and Senate versions of the bill would direct $75 million to support the development and application of artificial intelligence technologies and $100 million for the in-state development of defense related technologies. In addition, both would incorporate rules aimed at improving safety for e-bikes and other “micromobility devices.”
Also included in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation is a set of measures proposed by state Rep. Kristin Kassner (D-Hamilton) to standardize the site-plan-review process, which municipalities use to gauge the impacts of proposed developments.
“These provisions are the result of collaboration with planners, municipal leaders, legal experts, housing advocates and development partners, and they create a clear, consistent framework for reviewing by-right projects,” Kassner said in a news release, referring to developments for which special permits are not required.
In remarks on the State House chamber floor, Kassner said that currently, site-plan review is applied unevenly across municipalities, creating undue uncertainty for development projects.
“Because it [site plan review] is not defined in Mass General Law, its practice and approval criteria vary widely. With 350 different versions, site-plan review today is not predictable, efficient or universal. Some communities do it exceptionally well, others struggle, resulting in unnecessary litigation, delay and uncertainty,” Kassner said. “This bill changes that.”
Kassner said the measure nevertheless “preserves local control by allowing communities to review projects and reasonably condition them to mitigate impacts.”
Dan Kelly—an Ipswich Republican running to unseat Kassner in the upcoming Nov. 3 general election—criticized Kassner’s proposed site-plan-review changes, saying they would continue “Beacon Hill’s growing pattern of taking authority away from local boards and placing more power in the hands of the state.”
“[The legislation] is being sold as an economic development bill, but buried inside it are serious zoning changes that should concern every town in the Second Essex District,” Kelly said via email. “This is a continuation of the same top-down approach we have seen with Chapter 40B and the MBTA Communities Act, also known as 3A: Beacon Hill decides, local communities comply, and the people who live with the consequences are left with less say.”
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), whose district includes Hamilton and Wenham, told H-W News that he had several locally relevant provisions added to the Senate bill. These include “an $800K earmark for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to conduct a study and analysis of all wastewater treatment plants and collection systems in the Commonwealth which are licensed to discharge wastewater into the Merrimack River.” The measure was added in the wake of Haverhill’s sewage-main break, which occurred in June and affected the health of clam flats, beaches and other local ecosystems.
Other provisions Tarr said he added to the Senate bill include a $1 million earmark “to improve drinking water supplies and interconnections in our region, to relieve pressure on the Ipswich, Parker, and Essex Rivers,” as well as a measure aimed at making it easier for snow plow contractors to get insurance and a program to assist first-time homebuyers.
A widely followed component of the Senate bill would override municipal restrictions to allow the construction of duplexes on lots zoned for single-family housing.
The measure has captured attention because it applies broadly, stipulating that no local ordinance or bylaw in any community be “more restrictive of duplexes than of single-family dwellings.”
A narrower provision in the House bill would allow construction of multifamily housing on land owned by a church or other “religious sect or denomination” by right, meaning without a need for special permits from municipal authorities.
Domelowicz said he would reach out to Tarr and other lawmakers regarding the proposed changes. “The idea of local zoning would be really at risk if the legislation as pro- posed is passed,” he said. “There's still plenty of room and time, I think, for some compromises and some change.”
Wenham Town Administrator Steve Poulos did not respond to a request for comment on the proposed land-use changes as of July 29.
Abundant Housing Massachusetts, a non-profit promoting expanded in-state housing availability and affordability, praised the duplex and site-plan-review provisions in the pending legislation. In a July 27 news release, it described the measures as “significant policy reforms that will help increase housing production across the Commonwealth.”
“With these reforms, Massachusetts is one step closer to producing the 222,000 new homes needed by 2035,” the news release reads. “Together, these policies will help lower housing costs, expand housing opportunities, and strengthen the Commonwealth’s economy.”
Whether these and other provisions become law will come down to last-mile decision-making on the sprawling legislation. Tarr told H-W News that as of July 29, the Senate bill was up for consideration in the state House of Representatives. The House could accept the changes, propose amendments—which would send the bill back to the Senate—or insist on its original bill, which would trigger the appointment of a conference committee charged with negotiating a final version.
