View the Barriers to Housing Zoning Subcommittee Report

View the Barrier's Commission Subcommittee on Title 5

The report presented to the Barriers to Housing Commission from the Title 5 Subcommittee does not represent the position of all Subcommittee members. In fact, the undersigned committee members and organizations are concerned that many of the recommendations are based on anecdotal information and seek to undermine home rule and environmental protections. We hold that neither should be sacrificed to provide housing for citizens of the Commonwealth.

While we reserve the right to comment in more detail on the specifics of the report, we are most concerned about the following issues with regard to its development and content:

Subcommittee membership did not include Boards of Health. Neither the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards or the Massachusetts Health Officers Association was included in the discussion. Both of these organizations represent the group responsible for implementing Title 5, developing local bylaws, and enforcing those rules.

Individual cases are presented as wide-spread problems. While the Subcommittee was provided with selected local bylaws for review, no one compiled their characteristics for comparison by the group, nor were tallies developed to determine the incidence of "unfounded" restrictions. We object to the anecdotal nature of the review presented in the body of the report. As the conclusion states, "many local regulations proceed with sound basis and are in agreement with the provisions of Title 5…". The Commission should not be misled into thinking that most Boards of Health are overstepping their authority in implementing the law.

The existing pilot program to evaluate a slower percolation rate is adequate (Section 3.3). We object to the recommendations to allow 50 applicants per year for slower-than-30-minute percolation rates and eliminate the fee. If over the course of six years DEP received only 15 applications, why must the limit be raised to 50 in one year? We do not see the application procedure as particularly onerous, and oppose reducing the list of requirements. The logical reason for lack of applications is the increased cost associated with yearly monitoring, and the delay caused by review of the application and proposed plans. Since the program is testing a slower percolation rate, caution is justified, and these procedures are necessary. If developers are truly dedicated to both maximizing homebuilding as well as protecting natural resources as they often point out, they will participate in the program to build the body of evidence supporting such a change.

We urge the Commission to send the Subcommittee back to its task with all stakeholders at the table, and adequate time and information to draw fact-based conclusions and recommendations.

Submitted by:

Pamela DiBona, Title 5 Subcommittee member
Environmental League of Massachusetts

Robert L. Zimmerman, Jr., Title 5 Subcommittee member
Charles River Watershed Association

Marcia Benes
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards