The Island’s system for regulating development has a range of types of review.
· The most straightforward projects are allowed in zoning “as-of-right”, meaning that as long as the project meets zoning and other regulations, issuance of a permit is automatic.
· Projects that are potentially more problematic are often subject to “Site Plan Review”, or might need to obtain a “Special Permit” from the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeal.
· More significant projects are also reviewed by the Martha's Vineyard Commission as Developments of Regional Impact.
The adoption of the Island Plan provides a framework for the MVC and the towns to fundamentally review and possibly revise their regulatory frameworks, to achieve the objectives of the Plan and to provide greater guidance and predictability for applicants, while maintaining transparency and safeguards. For example, the MVC and towns can use the Island Plan maps to identify which projects need certain kinds of review, such as by requiring certain kinds of review for projects located in nitrogen-sensitive watersheds, scenic road viewsheds, or other sensitive areas.
The following table outlines the proposed levels of review, based on how problematic a project might be and what its potential impact is.
MVC DRI Review: The MVC reviews Developments of Regional Impact, projects that could affect the people of more than one town. In order to further the goals of the Island Plan, the Commission could revise the DRI Checklist and prepare or revise the policies it uses in DRI review.
· DRI Checklist: This outlines the standards and criteria used by towns to determine which permit applications must be referred to the Commission for review. It includes threshold sizes for certain types of development that trigger town referral of a project. The MVC should revise the DRI Checklist to reflect the ideas of the Island Plan, so that proposals in clear conformity with the Plan are not reviewed by the MVC, whereas those that might be more problematic are reviewed by the Commission. The DRI Checklist could include specific mitigation measures which projects could include to offset problematic impacts, and thereby avoid MVC referral.
The MVC’s current DRI Checklist has many anomalies which lead to MVC review of relatively minor projects, while other projects with potentially greater impact are not reviewed by the Commission, and sometimes are not even reviewed by any town board. For example, under the current Checklist, a small addition at the rear of a building (that had previously been a DRI) must be referred by the town board to the Commission for possible review, whereas a 400’-high wind turbine in a very significant vista can be erected without any Commission review (they are allowed as of right in Chilmark and West Tisbury). Similarly, the addition of 1000 square feet to a store must be reviewed by the Commission, but the construction of a 20,000 square-foot house in a traditional older neighborhood or a 9-unit apartment building in the countryside are not. Also, for most DRI Checklist items, the same standard applies across the whole Island, so 2,000 square feet of new commercial space is the threshold for MVC review, whether the store is located on a quiet rural road or in the heart of a commercial district.
The Martha's Vineyard Commission should consider the following revisions to the DRI Checklist.
- Ensure that it reviews projects of regional impact, but not require review of projects without regional impact by eliminating the need for referring smaller and less problematic projects.
- Allow for projects of limited regional impact to be reviewed at the town level only, where the town has adopted its own mechanism approved by MVC dealing with the critical issue, such as an area master plan, the requirement for special permit for critical projects, an energy code, or nitrogen-loading limits. This is similar to the current provision requiring MVC review of the major modification or demolition of a building more than 100 years old, unless it is in an historic district and will be reviewed by the Historic District Commission.
- In requiring that that potentially problematic projects have MVC review, it could spell out how applicants could avoid MVC review by mitigate their regional impacts to meet specific established standards. For example, the Checklist could require that a building in a nitrogen-sensitive watershed be reviewed unless the nitrogen is reduced or offset so it meets an acceptable standard.
A few examples illustrate how this could work (with the quantities for illustrative purposes only).
- The size threshold for commercial projects – presently 2000 sf for the whole Island – could be revised to, say, 4000 square feet for projects in town areas designated for commercial development, provided the project conformed to an area plan which had been prepared by the Town and approved by the Commission. On the other hand, the threshold could be dropped to, say, 1000 square feet for projects outside the commercial areas designated in the Island Plan.
- The threshold for a housing development – now ten lots or units for the whole Island – could be raised, say to 12, in growth areas, and dropped, say to 6, in conservation areas.
- The MVC could require that any house larger than, say, 6000 square feet be referred to the Commission for review unless it provided pre-determined mitigation for anticipated impacts, such as demonstrating that it’s nitrogen-loading level was less than the limit established for that watershed, that its fossil fuel use was less than a given standard, and that it was not in a critical viewshed.
· DRI Policies: Over the past few years, the MVC has prepared policies on several topics to provide guidance to DRI applicants in preparing proposals and to the Commission in evaluating them. The Commission should revise its these policies and draft new ones, to reflect the recommendations of the Island Plan.
Town Regulations and Project Review
The structure of town review could be revised in the same spirit, making it easier to develop projects that conform to the objectives of the Plan, and prohibiting or at least requiring more review for those that don’t. Each town may want to revise its Master Plan to work out more precisely how the principles of the Island Plan would apply to their territories.
Some of the strategies outlined in this report deal with regulations to be adopted by the towns. It would be up to each town’s planning boards, conservation commissions, or boards of health to draft regulations and bring them to Town Meetings for adoption, if it sees fit.
There are several advantages in having many or all towns work together to draft regulations. They could share research into best practices and use of consultants in drafting the regulations. They could join forces in public information campaigns to explain the proposals. It would be easier for builders and members of the public if all towns used identical or at least similarly structured regulations.
If necessary, the MVC can create or enlarge Districts of Critical Planning Concern, special areas on the Island needing additional protection. Creating a district allows towns to create special regulations and bylaws to protect these special resources. All project applications are then processed by the town.
No comments:
Post a Comment