Steve4Plymouth

Steve Bolotin - Working for a Better Plymouth

Let's Focus on Planning!

We face many challenges when it comes to planning in Plymouth. Our desire to maintain our character, preserve open space, and protect our environment often comes in conflict with State mandates and restrictions on zoning.

A regular refrain I hear is that no one is telling the residents what is happening or why. That is why I have created this website - to inform the residents of Plymouth about issues and events so that we are able to ask questions and express our views to our representatives and those running for office.

Please remember that although I am a member of the Planning Board, all of the statements and opinions contained herein are my own, and do not represent the position of the Town of Plymouth or any of its boards, committees, or officials.

Master Plan Committee News

Updated 5/25/25

Participate in the next Community Master Plan Survey

Using the existing conditions data from numerous resources and considering the community's input, the consulting team has prepared drafts of the Vision Statement, Community Goals, and planning scenarios for the future of Plymouth and asked the residents to identify their priorities. If you weren't able to attend the most recent forum, those exercises are now online.

Look to the survey section above or click below to learn more about the Master Plan process.

Learn About The Master Plan

Atlantic Country Club

Proposed Conversion to Housing

Added 5/25/25

As you may be aware, a developer has submitted an offer to buy the Atlantic Country Club to turn it into housing. The number and type of units has yet to be identified, but it is anticipated to be significantly more than the number they would be allowed to build as of right. The Town does have an first option to purchase the property, but whether they are required to match this offer is not clear.

The Town sent an objection to the owner indicating that it had isues with the proposed offer, including the inclusion of unrelated property and the payoff of obligations in the $20 million purchase price. In response, a revised offer has been submitted to the Town removing those conditions and lowering the purchase price to $19 million. But the offer is still contingent on the buyer's ability to walk away at any time before the closing without reason or recourse. This raises questions as to the offer's legitimacy.

Below please find my analysis of the law which relates to the Town's rights in response to this proposal.

Download PDF

Why Can't Plymouth Charge for New Residential Developments?

The Legalities and Limits of Impact and Linkage Fees

Updated 5/5/25

New residential development often means more demands on the Town:

- Additional students in our schools

- More traffic on our roads

- Greater use of our social and municipal services

It also can mean a loss of open space when development occurs on previously undeveloped land.

Plymouth residents have asked if the Town can implose fees and ogther requirements on those building new residential developments to offset their effects. Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Massachusetts law has made it illegal for municipalities to impose these type of "linkage fees", costs linked to new development. And a new U.S. Supreme Court decision has questioned whether even state efforts to do so are legal.

At a minimum, for the time being, Plymouth needs to find a different approach to trying to address the effect of new growth without putting an even greater strain on already overburdened residential taxpayers.

For a more detailed description of the law and some ideas as to alternatives please read below.

Download PDF

Questions About Challenging 40B Proposals

1. Why don’t we reject 40B proposals?

The Town can (and does) regularly reject new proposals. Further, the Town has opposed every appeal of a 40B zoning permit denial. The problem is that each time we have done so we have been overruled by the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) because we don’t have at least 10% of the total number of year-round residences in Plymouth qualifying as affordable units. That is why the Town also negotiates with developers in order to get a better result for the residents than if the deceloper simply went to the HAC and got approval to do what it wanted without providing any mitigation for the effects its developoment may have.

2. I heard we are at 9.2% affordable housing, isn’t that enough to stop 40Bs?

First, we are not at 9.2%. With all of the affordable units currently built or in the process of being built we are only at 7.2%. What you may have heard is that if all of the affordable units under consideration actually get built, then we would be at 9.2%. However, for that to happen a significant number of new projects (with over 800 units of affordable housing) will have to be completed. A number of those projects have not even been formally proposed, and included within them are several 40B developments. In fact, 35% of all of Plymouth's affordable housing comes from 40B projects.

Second, even if all of these projects get approval, it will likely take 3-5 years for them to be completed and for the units to be added to the Town’s Subsidized Housing Index (SHI), which can’t occur until they are ready for occupancy. During that time, unless the Town is in “safe harbor” (which allows the Town to avoid a 40B project for up to 2 years if it has another substantial 40B project approved and under construction), another 40B project can seek approval from the Town and if rejected appeal to the HAC.

Third, even if we were to get to 9.2%, the state has been clear that merely getting close is not sufficient. For example, the HAC overrode a Town of Andover rejection of a 40B project even though Andover had 9.3% affordable housing, and the courts upheld that decision.

Fourth, after the next census in 2030, we will have a new count of total year-round housing units, a number which we know has risen significantly since 2020. That means that our percentage of affordable units will drop, once again subjecting us to even more potential 40B developments.

3. Can’t we say that 40Bs are a strain on our infrastructure and services?

We do. Unfortunately, under state law that isn't a basis to prevent a 40B project. Unless we have achieved 10% affordability, approval of new 40B developments takes precedence over all other Town considerations including open space preservation, economic development, municipal services, infrastructure, and cultural heritage.

4. Why don’t we appeal HAC decisions to the courts?

Because the same state laws that direct the HAC to approve 40B projects over Town concerns also direct the courts to uphold those approvals.

Appealing a decision of the HAC doesn't mean that a judge can decide that they disagree with the HAC and overturn their decision. As a matter of law, the courts are not permitted to substitute their judgment for that of the HAC, even if they feel the project should not have been approved. The only way the courts can overrule the HAC is if they find that the approved project poses an immediate and direct threat to public health and safety that was not considered by the HAC.

The burden to prove a health or safety threat on the party opposing the project, and to meet that burden requires specific and substantive evidence in support (which means having independent experts providing empirical data). Even then, if the HAC considered and rejected that evidence, the courts may not overturn the approval. This makes appeals both expensive and generally futile. For example, residents of Nantucket have spent several years and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars opposing a 40B project, and in the end the State approved a 300+ unit development.

5. Why don’t we just appeal to delay 40B projects so the developers go elsewhere?

To prevent such action, Massachusetts enacted a law which allows a court that finds that a challenge to a 40B project was without merit or done to interpose delay to award a developer costs, legal fees, and damages. The purpose of this law is to penalize those who try to use the right to appeal as a way to forestall projects and increase the cost of 40B developments. The result is that if trhe Town unjustifiably opposes a 40B project it could be ordered to pay the developer tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, none of which o\would be covered by its insurance, meaning it would have to come from tyaxpayer funds.

Conclusion

If it sounds as though the deck is stacked against those seeking to stop 40B projects you are correct. The state wants to see 222,000 new housing units built in the next 10 years. To that end, through its appointments to the HAC and regulations it is promoting the construction of new housing over all other considerations. So, until/unless we reach 10% (both under the current census and then under the next census), other than for those short periods when we are in “safe harbor” we simply can’t prevent 40B approvals.

For more details on the process and the laws governing 40B developments, go the the Chapter 40B Housing page.

Why Plymouth Can't Enact a Building Moratorium

3/20/25

At the request of the Chairman, Planning Director Lee Hartman and Planning Board Chair Steve Bolotin appeared before the Select Board to answer questions regarding the possibility of a residential building moratorium in Plymouth to slow the influx of new residents. As both explained, a building moratorium for these purposes is neither possible nor advisable. An overview of the reasons are as follows:

1. Administrative Restrictions

All proposed zoning bylaw changes (including moratoria and rate of development restrictions) must be approved by the State Attorney General.

The state has made its desire for more housing clear, meaning that they will look for reasons not to approve building moratoria. Given the law, it won’t have to look far.

Both the U.S. Constitution and state law preclude the use of moratoria as a means to stop new residential growth.

Since municipalities can’t adopt a zoning by-law that is “inconsistent with the constitution or state law, no general building moratorium will be approved by the Attorney General. Home Rule Amendment, Mass. Const. amend. art. 2, § 6.

2. Legal Restrictions

Going back almost a century, zoning restrictions intended to limit residential development have been held to violate both the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions.

In a Massachusetts case, the U.S. Supreme Court said that while a town may not want a new wave of permanent home seekers, it does not serve the general welfare of the Commonwealth to permit one particular town to deflect that wave onto its neighbors. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926).

The Commonwealth has followed that holding, regularly ruling that zoning by-laws cannot be adopted for the purpose of setting up a barrier against the influx of people who desire to live there. Simon v. Needham, 311 Mass. 560, 565 (1942).

The fact that new residential growth may strain a community's resources does not provide a justification, as "prevent[ing] the entrance of newcomers in order to avoid burdens upon the public services and facilities . . . is not a valid public purpose." Zuckerman v. Hadley, 442 Mass. 511, 520 (2004), quoting Beck v. Raymond, 118 N.H. 793, 801 (1978). Accord National Land & Inv. Co. v. Easttown Bd. of Adjustment, 419 Pa. 504, 532 (1965).

3. Practical Considerations

Beyond the formalities, even if a building moratorium could be obtained, it ultimately wouldn't serve the purpose of actually controlling development.

Moratoria don't aply to subdivisions that are already approved. All a property owner needs to do to avoid a moratorium is file for approval of a subdivision as a matter of right. Their property is then governed by the existing zoning bylaws for a period of 8 years.

Moratoria don't apply to 40B developments. Those propjects are approved by the state and are exempt from all Town zoning.

Moratoria can only limit construction in a limited area for a limited time. As a result, they tend to direct building to other areas of town, often those we are trying to preserve.

To read a more detailed analysis of the applicable laws on building moratoria click on the image to the right.

Click on Image to Read a More Detailed Analysis

Addressing the State’s New Housing Mandates

Plymouth Will Have to Build Thousands More Units

2/15/25

On February 13, 2025, Governor Maura Healey, Lt. Governor Kim Driscoll, and Secretary for Housing and Livable Communities Ed Augustus came to the Redbrook Community to announce funding for 14 affordable housing projects across the state, including Grantham’s “Cranberry Corner” project which included a $4.1 million contribution from Community Preservation and Affordable Housing funds approved by Town Meeting last April. Plymouth is honored that the Governor chose to make this announcement here, but it was about more than just affordable housing.

At the ceremony, the Governor confirmed that it was the intent of her administration to create 222,000 units of new housing statewide. Using the phrase “pedal to the metal”, she stated that the state would use a variety of programs and dictates, such as the MBTA Communities law, to achieve this construction. And Plymouth is squarely within the Governor’s sights when it comes to such new development.

Plymouth is already the fastest growing town in Massachusetts, but the Governor has indicated that she expects it to do more. She has set a goal of increasing Plymouth’s housing stock by another 7.5% to 10%. In practical terms, that means another 2,100 to 2,800 units. The Governor's newly released housing plan states that such additional housing is needed in part to drive down housing prices. Yet, even with all of the new development in Plymouith, housing proces continue to rise. At the same time, state and federal funds to help pay for the increased services and infrastructure are decreasing.

Historically, Plymouth’s idea of controlling development has been to zone everything Rural Residential (3-acre zoning) and oppose any efforts at greater density. That is why 71% of Plymouth is zoned Rural Residential. But that approach hasn’t worked. Instead, sprawl has increased and high density 40B housing (which circumvents local zoning) has been built in places that have created challenges for the community.

Given the state’s insistence that Plymouth build more housing, and courts’ acknowledgement that the state can override local zoning to do so (e.g. the recent MBTA Communities Law decision), it is clear that Plymouth cannot stop housing growth. Given our current zoning, that means we will need to use up more land. This is antithetical to the wishes of the residents as expressed during the Master Plan process.

Given the state's ability to direct zoning, Plymouth will be hard pressed to avoid the continued development of new housing. If Plymouth is to have any control over such development, it needs to change the way it thinks.

1. If Plymouth wants to protect specific land from development, it has to own that land.

Strong laws regarding property rights (as evidenced by rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), prevent municipal efforts to stop development through restrictive zoning or additional fees. The only true way to control the land is to own the land.

2. If Plymouth wants to limit the need for new infrastructure expenses (e.g. water, sewer, schools, emergency services, etc.), it needs to encourage development in areas where such infrastructure already exists.

Plymouth regularly states that it wants to encourage development in its Village Centers (now including the new areas of the Pinehills and Redbrook). But when denser development proposals are submitted, the response is typically to oppose such development on the grounds of infrastructure need (an increase in traffic, a concern about more school-age children, etc.). But those issues will persist regardless as to where new development occurs. So, the only question is where does higher density development make more sense; where there are already municipal services or where new facilities will have to be built and instead of being on a sewer system the housing will use septic systems damaging to our environment?

3. If Plymouth wants to promote affordable housing it needs to create public/private partnerships.

When we look at the recent history of affordable housing in Plymouth it is evident that municipal development of housing is ineffective. Publicly owned housing is more expensive to develop and to operate. In contrast, public participation in funding of private development has been shown to be a cost-effective way to create and manage affordable housing. That was why the Governor chose to make her affordable housing announcement at the site of the new Cranberry Commons project in Redbrook; because it represents an ideal combination of local, state, and federal government working with a private developer to create a truly affordable development which gives preference to Plymouth residents. In simple parlance, it gave everyone the most bang for the buck. If Plymouth wants to continue to develop truly affordable housing (and community sentiment expressed during the Master Plan process says that it does), it needs to develop ways of funding similar public/private partnerships.

4. If Plymouth wants encourage developers to transfer undeveloped rural land to the Town, it needs to create a more effective mechanism for doing so.

20+ years ago, Plymouth enacted its Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) bylaw. This bylaw allows developers to agree to forego as of right development of rural land in exchange for being permitted to build increased density. Redbrook is an example of such a development. But the TDR bylaw only allows for such development to also occur in rural areas, meaning that the developer agrees to preserve rural land in order to be allowed to build in rural land. Moreover, it provides that permission to use TDRs is subject to Planning Board approval, meaning that no developer will agree to preserve land before having an already approved development. For Plymouth to encourage the preservation of rural land it needs to change how TDRs are used, directing their use to areas where there is already infrastructure and creating a value for TDR rights without having a pre-approved development.

Planning in Massachusetts is challenging. It requires an understanding not only of what we want but also what is possible. We have to move beyond the empty promises of the “keep things as they are” mentality. It is that type of thinking that has resulted in making things worse, because legally, politically, and financially we can’t keep things the same. Plymouth will now have an extra 100 40B apartments at Colony Place because it tried to stop the type of development being supported by the state.

Instead of our failed obstructionist approach, let’s get behind new ideas that will help Plymouth reach achievable goals:

- Learn about the proposed Plymouth Land Bank – an effort to fund Town ownership of land for the purposes of open space, truly affordable housing, and future municipal needs, all without raising taxes. [Click on the LandUse/Land Bank Tab under Town Issues for more information]

- Support zoning that promotes development not of so-called “affordable housing” but of housing that is actually affordable for people at all income levels.

- Encourage programs such as expansion of home offices and building re-use credits to bring in businesses that provide needed services and living wage jobs for residents and the type of tax revenue that allows people to remain in our community.

No more wishful thinking; let’s actually plan for Plymouth’s future.

Massachusetts Changes its Tax Foreclosure Law

Municipalities are permitted to place liens and even foreclose on properties which are delinquent in their taxes or fees owed. Towns like Plymouth often used such foreclosed properties to supplement their open spaxce, recreational, and affordable housing needs. However, following a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Massachusestts changed its tax foreclosure laws.

The new law makes it both harder to undertake a tax foreclosure proceeding and far more expensive to keep foreclosed properties. For more detail regarding the changes in the law and analysis as to how it may impact Plymouth go to the New Tax Takings Law page under Town Issues.

Court Upholds MBTA Communities Act

What are the implications for Plymouth?

Added 1/9/25

The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that despite some techical errors in the creation of guidelines, the MBTA Communities Act is both constitutional and enforceable. Communities that do not comply are not only subject to loss of State grants but also legal enforcement action by the State Attorney General.

As a result of this decision, the State is now being required to reissue the guidelines for compliance. This could potentially have a drastic efffect on Plymouth. For more analysis and to review a copy of the SJC decision go the the MBTA Communities page under Town Issues.

Land Bank Legislation Filed at the State House

An Opportunity to Meet Plynouth's Needs Without Burdening the Residents

Updated 1/20/24

At Town Meeting on Saturday, October 19, 2024, Town Meeting voted to allow the Town to seek approval from the State Legislature to create a Plymouth Land Bank. The final decision on whether any such proposal is ultimately adopted will be up to the voters of Plymouith.

The proposed Land Bank would be the first of its type in the nation, seeking a way to address our open space, affordable housing, and future municipal needs, all without raising taxes on Plymouth residents. Instead, the funds would come from a property transfer fee on the sale of property in Plymouth, paid by the buyer, and subject to numerous exceptions so that it applies only to those coming to Plymouth and who can afford it.

This week, the Proposed Plymouth Land Bank was filed in the State House. Please, contact your state Representative and Senator and ask them to support this potentially transformative piece of legislation for Plymouth.

Learn More About the Land Bank

Click below to the link with a history of the development of the proposal, a summary of its key provisions, and the entire draft legislation.

Learn More About the Land Bank Proposal

Planning for Our Future

Steve Bolotin - Working for a Better Plymouth

Let's Focus on Planning!

Questions or Comments? Contact Me

I want to know what you're thinking! I respond to all inquiries.

Town Surveys and Registrations

Master Plan Draft Strategies Survey

Planning Board Information

PLYMOUTH PLANNING NEWS