Judi Barrett
New England’s housing shortage has renewed a longstanding question: How can local control over land use coexist with the need for more housing?
States are responding with approaches shaped by their histories, political cultures and sense of urgency. Massachusetts has built a broad housing framework combining statewide requirements, incentives and local planning tools, while New Hampshire has moved more quickly to address specific zoning barriers. Both have invested in grants to encourage housing.
Rhode Island and Maine are pursuing their own reforms. Rhode Island has focused on streamlining permitting and development approvals, while Maine has expanded housing opportunities through zoning flexibility and accessory dwelling units. In Connecticut, cities and towns are now required to allow buildings with two to nine units (“missing middle” housing) on lots zoned for commercial or mixed-use development.
These approaches reflect different views about where housing barriers exist. No state has found a single solution, but each is testing tools to address the same challenge: Traditional zoning and permitting systems have not produced enough housing.
What Massachusetts Has Done
Massachusetts is the only New England state that is a “pure” home rule state, which colors how many municipalities view legislative efforts to change housing rules.
Cities and towns have traditionally determined where and what types of housing can be built. That local control has allowed communities to shape growth around local priorities, but it has also produced differences in zoning and housing availability.
Massachusetts has increasingly paired local decision-making with statewide housing policies. Chapter 40B, enacted more than 50 years ago, allows eligible affordable housing developments to seek relief from local regulatory barriers in communities that have not met defined affordable housing thresholds. Chapter 40R offers incentives for communities to adopt higher-density, mixed-income housing zoning in appropriate locations.
The 2024 Affordable Homes Act allows accessory dwelling units by right in single-family zoning districts, subject to reasonable local regulations. The optional Starter Home Zoning District Program under Chapter 40Y gives communities a tool for smaller, ownership-oriented housing in designated areas.
Massachusetts has approved Zoning Act changes removing local constraints as part of the fiscal year 2027 state budget process. The Senate also advanced legislation requiring cities and towns to allow duplexes by right on residentially-zoned lots, while preserving reasonable local regulations for site plan review, design, and septic requirements. Though not enacted in June, it could move forward this fall, along with other proposals including “Yes in God’s Back Yard,” or “YIGBY.”
Perhaps the most visible example of state efforts to pull back the reins on local control is the MBTA Communities law, a controversial requirement directing 177 communities served by or adjacent to MBTA service to establish zoning districts where multifamily housing is allowed by right.
These policies reflect an evolving balance between local authority and housing needs that extend beyond municipal boundaries. Communities continue to shape growth, while Massachusetts increasingly sets statewide expectations to expand housing opportunities.
What Other States Are Doing
New Hampshire has taken a different path. Rather than creating a statewide framework, it has focused on addressing specific zoning barriers, including accessory dwelling units, multifamily or mixed-use housing in commercial areas, and local regulations that can limit housing opportunities. Provisions expanding multifamily and mixed-use housing in commercially zoned areas aim to create housing within established areas by reducing local constraints.
The New Hampshire approach identifies individual obstacles and addresses them directly. Its impact will depend on implementation, market conditions, infrastructure and local responses, but the pace of legislative action demonstrates a willingness to confront zoning’s influence on housing growth. Challenges vary, from communities tied to the Boston metropolitan region to rural areas with different growth and infrastructure needs.
Rhode Island, meanwhile, has focused on permitting. Recent housing legislation seeks to modernize approval processes, expand electronic permitting and improve consistency in local review. The approach recognizes that zoning capacity alone does not create housing if proposal-to-approval remains lengthy and uncertain.
In Maine, recent changes have expanded small-scale housing options. State law caps minimum lot sizes in areas with public water and sewer and requires municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units in many single-family areas, while other changes increase residential density and reduce barriers to multifamily housing.
There is no single solution to the housing challenge. New England states are pursuing strategies shaped by advocates and interest groups with access to key legislators, legislative priorities and the different roles statewide planning plays. All have made calculated choices between carrots and sticks.
What is changing is the recognition that housing is a local, state and regional issue. Communities remain essential partners in shaping growth, but housing availability affects workers, families, employers and economies across municipal borders.
The challenge ahead is finding the right balance: preserving the benefits of community planning while loosening the chokehold of zoning on New England’s ability to meet regional housing needs.
Judi Barrett is president and founder of Hingham-based Barrett Planning Group.
