Massachusetts’ land-use practices are unique — and not in good ways. They require a two-thirds majority of whatever elected body has the authority to make zoning changes and special-permit approvals. In many towns, zoning is decided by town meetings, which are ill-suited for back-and-forth negotiations about individual proposals. As a result, towns and most cities have come to rely on special permits, which can be approved by an elected board, instead of zoning. The city of Boston, unlike other major US cities, pushes almost every small project through a
variance process.
Our interviewees repeatedly raised the need to streamline permitting processes, refocus judicial appeals, and allow towns greater resources for welcoming growth, such as allowing them to charge school impact fees.
There are several ways to speed up and simplify permits. Current law requires a 14-day wait every time a public hearing is paused and reconvened. The Legislature should shorten the wait to 5 days. It should also decrease the threshold for special permit approvals from two-thirds of the body that approves permits to a simple majority. This would deepen former governor Charlie Baker’s
Housing Choice reform, which allows the rezoning of land for more housing by simple majority vote. That was essential for towns complying with the MBTA Communities legislation.
Even after a project receives approval through the onerous public process, unhappy neighbors may use lawsuits to delay, disrupt, or threaten builders. This not only clogs up the courts, delaying justice for others, but also forces developers to pass on expected legal costs to buyers or renters. Indeed, one developer told us that he includes potential litigation costs in every financial proposal.
We propose that any litigation be accompanied by an expert opinion alleging a particular harm. If a licensed engineer affirms that a new development is likely to flood your neighbor’s basement, the neighbor can sue. If he merely thinks the neighborhood would be prettier without the development, he can’t.
A bill introduced by Representative Brian Murray would focus court cases on real harms and reduce repetitive testimony. The result of such reforms should be quicker decisions, which would in turn reduce the attractiveness of lawsuits as a delaying tactic.
To create a durable fiscal logic for growth, the state should allow local governments to charge formulaic school impact fees as long as the municipality is adding students and new construction is by right — permits that are granted without any discretionary review process. Nothing would change for municipalities that keep the current low-growth, discretionary permitting model. But in those that adopt the new framework, school finances and housing production would be allies instead of enemies.
www.bostonglobe.com
