Opinion ID: 2365726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Establish Set-Aside or Override Procedures to Facilitate Construction of Low and Moderate Income Housing

Text: Establishment of a so-called set-aside or override procedure provides another means of preventing unnecessary administrative delays and stimulating construction of low and moderately priced housing. This technique may be utilized whether or not developers of low and moderate cost housing are actually involved as litigants in the suit. This procedure is embodied in the Massachusetts Zoning Appeal Law, L. 1969, c. 774, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 40B §§ 20-23. [26] This act allows certain developers of low and moderate income housing to bypass local land use regulations which prohibit such housing or make it economically infeasible. Under the law, any public agency, nonprofit corporation or limited dividend organization [27] that proposes to build low or moderate income subsidized housing may submit to the local zoning board of appeals a single application to build such housing in lieu of separate applications as to the [other] applicable local boards. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 40B, § 21. The board of appeals then notifies all other local boards and agencies and schedules a hearing on the application. If the application is approved, the developer receives a comprehensive permit in lieu of all other required permits or approvals. Ibid. This procedure prevents unnecessary delays and bad faith, dilatory tactics. If, however, the local board of appeals denies an application for a comprehensive permit, the developer may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee, a division of the Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs. Id. at § 22. For purposes of such appeals, the statute establishes a quota of low and moderate income housing as the legislative determination of what is consistent with local needs. Id. at § 20. Where the Housing Appeals Committee concludes that a local decision denying a developer's application is unreasonable or is inconsistent with local needs (as defined by the act), the state agency is empowered to vacate the decision of the local board and direct the board to issue a comprehensive permit to the applicant. Id. at § 23. In this way, the statute provides for state review of local zoning decisions and permits the state to override decisions which are myopic, unreasonable or in conflict with broader state and regional goals. For an analogous statutory procedure, see ALI Model Land Dev. Code §§ 7-501 to 7-503 (Proposed Official Draft, 1975). While the Massachusetts law is a product of legislative initiative, its principles are equally available to trial courts for the framing of judicial relief. As noted above, remedial decrees ordinarily fix and specify the defendant-municipality's fair share of the regional housing need. This designation is, in many respects, comparable to the quotas established by the Massachusetts legislation. Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 40B, § 20. Under this approach, the trial court could provide that, until such time as the required number of low and moderate income housing units have been constructed, a developer whose proposed project is consistent with the court-ordered allocation plan could apply to the court, or its designee, for an order setting aside all local regulations which unreasonably interfere with its project. This procedure would be available to all developers of low and moderately priced housing regardless whether they were litigants in the law suit which produced the remedial plan. One variation of this approach would allow the developer to apply to the trial court for a set-aside or override order only after it had made a good faith effort to comply with local regulations and obtain all necessary approvals. Thus, before granting this relief, the trial court would have to determine whether the applicant had made the necessary good faith effort, whether the developer's project would in fact have furthered the objectives of the remedial plan and whether the municipality had unreasonably withheld approval of the project. A second, more potent variation of this approach would permit the developer to apply directly to a single, designated municipal board or, if the board proved to be uncooperative, to a court appointed panel of planning experts for a comprehensive permit similar to the one available under the Massachusetts law. A denied application could be reviewed by the trial court which originally imposed the procedural remedy. See generally Rubinowitz, supra, at 221-222; Rubinowitz, supra note 8, 6 Mich. J.L. Reform at 662-665; Note, supra note 4, 6 Rutgers-Camden L.J. at 741-744; Mallach, supra, 6 Rutgers-Camden L.J. at 670; Mytelka & Mytelka, supra, 7 Seton Hall L. Rev. at 7-12. Imposition of either of these devices as part of a remedial order will facilitate construction of low and moderate cost housing. Moreover, through its abbreviation of the approval process, this approach will provide an incentive to developers to undertake projects geared toward meeting the housing needs of lower income families.