Pioneer Institute Study Says MA Housing Permitting Process Needs Systemic Reform
BOSTON – A Pioneer Institute Study released today found that the arduous residential permitting process in Massachusetts is reducing housing production and increasing costs.
According to the study, which included interviews with 22 planners, lawyers, developers, municipal and state officials, and scholars, residential permitting process is too lengthy, complex, and discretionary. It also found that the appeals process only exacerbates the system’s tendency toward delay and obfuscation.
“Solving the Commonwealth’s housing problems will require making the permitting process more easily navigable,” said Andrew Mikula, who co-authored “How to Streamline Housing Permitting in Massachusetts” with Salim Furth. “A number of bills that were introduced as we were conducting this research are a sign that help may be on the way.”
Residential development in Massachusetts falls into three main categories:
· “Approval Not Required” projects do not need a public hearing or vote but are subject to all relevant zoning and environmental regulations.
· Single-family housing developments require subdivision and site plan approval from the local planning board; and
· Multi-family buildings often require a special permit or rezoning along with site plan approval. Special permits usually require a two-thirds vote.
The last two categories typically require public hearings, which are often continued multiple times, meaning that a single hearing can stretch over a period of years.
In towns, rezoning requires a vote by town meeting, which usually convenes just twice a year. Town rezoning also requires approval by the state attorney general.
Some developments may also be subject to wastewater disposal, wetlands protection, or design review.
And local decisions may not be final. Plaintiffs can usually appeal to land court or another superior court. 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.
Developers also have different appeal options depending on whether a project was denied in Site Plan Review or if an application for a special permit or rezoning was rejected.
“Many opponents will appeal even if their claims have dubious merit because developers often find compromise cheaper than delay,” Furth said.
The authors make several recommendations for reforming the system. They include limiting the scope of site plan review, allowing it to be performed without a board vote and, for smaller projects, without a public hearing.
Delays built into the hearing process could be limited by reducing the required notice times for continued hearings.
The issue of dubious appeals could be addressed by requiring abutters appealing land use decisions to submit a written opinion substantiating the appellant’s allegation from a certified professional.
Finally, local governments could be reformed by establishing training requirements for local board members.
###
Salim Furth is a Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Urbanity project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a Pioneer Visiting Fellow. His research focuses on housing production and land use regulation. He frequently advises local governments and testifies before state and federal legislatures. He earned a B.A. from Northeastern University and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester.
Andrew Mikula is a Senior Fellow in Housing at Pioneer Institute. Beyond housing, Andrew’s research areas of interest include urban planning, economic development, and regulatory reform. He holds a Master’s Degree in Urban Planning from the Harvard Graduate School of Design.
Get Updates on our Economic Opportunity Research!
