Comments on: New 40B regulations

By: Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:00:54 +0000

There are pending 40B reg changes, but they are currently being reworked based on the comments from the hearing in December. DHCD could not say when the finalized changes would be announced.

By: Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:45:45 +0000

Last changed in 2008. Nothing new since then. But we are rechecking on status on this notice.

By: carolinebhuang

carolinebhuang — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:16:56 +0000

Any update on the new 40B regulations?

By: Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:57:51 +0000

Yes, I think most of the changes pertain to the profit issue.

The point you make though is well taken. In my view the burden of persuasion on economic issues should remain on the developer because the developer has much more access to information about cost.

By: Michael Arnott

Michael Arnott — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:21:55 +0000

It was not clear to me the impact of all the changes. Only one change stood out. If I interpreted the document correctly, all proposed changes are in colors other than black and the only change relevant to those with environmental concerns regarding 40B developments is the following:

A condition imposed by the Board to decrease the number of units in a Project by 5% or more shall create a rebuttable presumption that the Developer will not be able to achieve a reasonable return, and shall shift both the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion from the Developer to the Board on the Uneconomic issue in 760 CMR 56.07(2)(3).

The Board is the “local zoning board of appeals.” I think this would make it harder for Belmont’s Zoning Board of Appeals to question the development of the Belmont Uplands. I think proof the Belmont Uplands development or any other development for that matter is not an undue burden on the environment should be up to the developer, not anyone else.