Cites Permitting Process As Major Roadblock – “Too Lengthy, Complex, and Discretionary”
The process for permitting residential housing construction in Massachusetts is contributing to the state’s lack of housing production and increasing costs because it is “too lengthy, complex and discretionary,” according to a new study.
Pioneer Institute researchers interviewed 22 planners, lawyers, developers, municipal and state officials, and scholars and concluded that the process, which largely falls under local zoning control, should be streamlined to reduce delays and dubious appeals.
The study arrives as Gov. Maura Healey’s administration implements a 2024 housing law that featured policy changes and borrowing authorizations to make a dent in a housing production crisis that has existed for years and makes it more difficult for people and businesses to thrive here.
The study co-authored by Andrew Mikula found that public hearings associated with housing production can sometimes stretch over years and rezoning efforts face hurdles due to infrequent town meetings and mandated approvals from the attorney general. Wastewater disposal, wetlands protection and design review processes are also factors for some developments, the study said, and local decisions are not always the final word.
“Plaintiffs can usually appeal to land court or another superior court,” the study said. “Developers often favor land court, where judges are seen as both more technically adept and more favorable, while opponents of development are more likely to choose superior court, where the lack of subject matter expertise makes it less likely that cases will be expedited.”
Study co-author Salim Furth said “many opponents will appeal even if their claims have dubious merit because developers often find compromise cheaper than delay” and suggested that “help may be on the way” in the form of bills awaiting attention this legislative session.
The study recommends reforms such as limiting the scope of site plan review, reducing the required notice times for continued hearings, requiring abutters appealing land use decisions to submit a written opinion substantiating the appellant’s allegation from a certified professional, and establishing training requirements for local board members.
