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 and other committees, 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.

Plymouth Comprehensive Plan

Updated 3/26/26

Comprehensive Plan (Master Plan) Adopted

On March 25, 2026, the Planning Board unanimously adopted a new Comprehensive Plan (formerly called the Master Plan) for Plymouth called Charting Our Future Together. This plan is the culmination of almost 5 years’ worth of work. It started with the Master Plan Task Force which reviewed our prior plans to determine where they succeeded and where they failed, and what Plymouth should do differently in planning for its future. Then it moved to the Master Plan Committee which committed to ensuring the creation of a plan based on broad community input, driven by measurable data, and implementable under anticipated conditions. This meant directing our staff and consultants to focus on two areas:

1. Community engagement and data collection.

Past plans relied heavily on Town volunteers and staff to identify what was happening in our community. That had the tendency to direct attention to the interests of those who were more engaged in the Town and miss issues which may be affecting broader segments of our population. To avoid this potential shortcoming, Plymouth engaged a consulting team with multiple specialties.

The consulting team began by locating and collating independent data and trends about key aspects of our community – facts rather than supposition. Then, working with the Master Plan Committee they undertook the effort to hear from as many people as possible regarding what their vision for the future. We used multiple methods (forums, listening sessions, public meetings, appearances at public events, surveys, and general comment opportunities), went to all geographic areas (forums in central Plymouth, meetings at Town Hall, and separate listening sessions at each of the villages, Pinehills, and Redbrook), created opportunities to participate through different media (in person on weekdays and weekends at different times of day, virtually, online, and in writing), provided ways for people to focus on specific issues (the economy, environment and sustainability, housing and land use), and utilized new modeling techniques (scenario planning) to see the impact of their choices on multiple aspects of community life. The result of these efforts is that we now have more current data and input from more residents than any time in the history of Plymouth.

2. Implementation of the community’s vision.

Past plans included some ideas for projects in each section but never addressed the Town as a whole. The result was that we created plans with conflicting goals and no assigned responsibilities. To address that, the new Comprehensive Plan contains a 25 page implementation matrix which identifies specific short, medium, and long term goals, how they relate to one another, and who is responsible for achieving them.

So, what comes next?

As was stated at the Planning Board, this is the end of one process and the start of another. Elected and appointed Town officials will be responsible for prioritizing the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan based on a variety of factors including immediate need, technical and legal feasibility, and of course availability of funding. Town staff will be responsible for carrying out the tasks needed to achieve those goals. To do so there will be both an interdepartmental committee to establish coordination of efforts among the various departments needed to accomplish these efforts (because every goal affects multiple aspects of the Town, meaning it requires action by multiple departments) and an implementation committee made up of Town officials and residents to monitor and report on their progress. The existing Master Plan Committee will continue to meet to discuss recommendations to the Planning Board as to the role and makeup of such a committee.

Even though the Comprehensive Plan has just been adopted, the Town is already working on some of its recommendations:

- Listening to concerns about the absence of different types of housing that are more affordable and less harmful to the environment, through a grant from the State the Planning Department and Planning Board have engaged a consultant to assist in drafting proposed zoning changes to allow for compact dwellings on smaller lots where there is existing infrastructure.

- Recognizing the need to be mindful of expenditures and fiscally responsible, the Select Board, Town Manager and Finance Department are working to create a running 5 year projection of mandatory expenses and anticipated revenues in order to understand the minimums necessary to fund Town operations, allow Town officials to prioritize the need for other expenditures, and assist the Town in deciding on areas of focus.

I encourage everyone to click the link below and at least read the Executive Summary and Implementation Section to better understand what the community has said, where Plymouth is today, and what actions are proposed to help Plymouth advance in our next decade.

https://tinyurl.com/PlymouthCompPlan

Learn About The Master Plan

Land Bank Legislation Status at the State House

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

Updated 3/12/25

Plymouth needs to protect critical open areas, create genuinely affordable housing, and provide residents with services without raising taxes on Plymouth residents. That is why the Land Bank proposal was created. It has the potential to allow Plymouth to raise funds from those moving into our community who are causing a need for increased infrastructure and services and decide how those funds are to be spent. The need for this new approach (which is now being copied by others) is is significant, especially as Plymouth is already facing a budget shortfall and affordability crisis.

In order to proceed, Plymouth needs State approval (although the final decision will rest with the residents through a Townwide vote). The Land Bank proposal, H3934 – A Bill to Create a Plymouth Land Bank, is currently before the Joint Committee on Housing. That committee has extended the date by which they must decide whether or not to advance the bill until March 18, 2026.

Below is a letter to the Chairs of the Joint Housing Committee again asking them to support this important legislation. Please, write to them as well and let them know that you support Plymouth's efforts to manage growth and promote responsible land use. A sample letter can be found by clicking the link to the Land Bank page.

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

Cedarville Traffic Improvements – Project Status

Changes are coming, slowly.

Added 12/3/25

The process for obtaining the long awaited, and much needed, traffic improvements for State Road in Cedarville is now underway, albeit still more slowly than desired.

After several years of requests by the Town, on May 28, 2025, MassDOT created an official project designation, Project 614028, for the corridor improvements along State Road (Route 3A) between Herring Pond Road and Hedges Pond Road/Old County Road. However, it was not until October 17, 2025, that MassDOT created a scope for the project. This only finally occurred because the Town committed the funding to design the project and hired GPI to do the preliminary engineering work. That funding came from monies received by the Town for traffic improvements from the sale of 71 Hedges Pond Road.

The project is currently in the conceptual design development phase. Once those plans reach a certain point, the Town and MassDOT will further coordinate efforts to finalize the design. This is anticipated to occur in spring 2026. As those final plans are further refined, MassDOT will provide opportunities for public input. This is expected to take place in spring/summer 2026.

As for when the work would actually start, the Town has stated that there is a need to complete the State Road improvements before work begins on the Sagamore Bridge reconstruction. However, the State creates the budget for transportation infrastructure projects in 5 year increments. Because this project was not given an official designation by MassDOT until 2025, the State did not include it in the Fiscal Year 26-30 project list.

MassDOT has advised the Town that it will review the status of the project in Spring 2026 to determine whether it is sufficiently advanced to include in the FY31 list. Even then, the final determination will still depend on funding availability and program priorities, meaning that even if it is ready there are no certainties. As for advancing the project to an earlier date, MassDOT has only indicated that it will consider that issue after the project timetable is established.

The Plymouth Economy - An Unsustainable Model

How Plymouth Generates and Spends its Revenue

Added 11/20/25

For the last 20 years, Plymouth has relied on new residential development and increased housing values to fund its spending levels. Changes in construction costs, lack of large parcels for residential development, and increased cost of services for new residents mean that this trend is coming to an end. Plymouth now has to decide what it intends to do to offset the upcoming revenue shortfall. Below are the facts regarding Plymouth's economy to help residents decide what we do next.

Download PDF

Atlantic Country Club

No Change - For Now

Added 11/7/25

As was widely reported, the owners of the Atlantic Country Club have chosen not to renew the property's status as recreational land (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 61A) and instead proposed selling it to a developer for $19 million. Under State law, the Town was then given the opportunity to match that offer if it was considered to be a legitimate offer to purchase (the legal term is bona fide). But because the offer was contingent on the buyer's ability to walk away at any time before the closing without reason or recourse the Town challenged its legitimacy. Ultimately, the buyer decided to walk away rather than close on the purchase.

Does this mean that Atlantic Country Club won't be developed? Unfortunately, no.

What it does mean is that after a 1 year period of paying taxes on the property as it is is zoned (which is rural residential), the owners may then sell it to anyone interested without the Town having an ability to match the offer. That means that if the property is sold it can be used for the purpose that it is zoned, which is large lot (3 acre) housing. Given the location and absence of access and services in the area this doesn't make sense for Plymouth, but unless we own the land we can't stop it from being used as allowed under our zoning bylaw.

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

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.

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.