Andrew Mikula
On paper, site plan review is a box-checking exercise for builders that ensures the project’s layout, traffic circulation and stormwater management practices align with pre-existing bylaws or ordinances. In practice, it provides many municipalities with a backdoor way of scrutinizing aesthetic or other subjective aspects of a proposal and sometimes denying applications altogether.
Pioneer Institute’s forthcoming AI-assisted database of local land use regulations suggests that at least 94 percent of the state’s municipalities require site plan review procedures for at least some new housing developments. In Greater Boston, it’s 99 percent.
And yet, unlike most other types of local permitting tools for new housing – from special permits to variances – site plan review doesn’t currently have state guardrails around timing or criteria to be considered. As a result, site plan reviews can drag on for months and integrate criteria that are far more than technical, even when local zoning limits its scope.
Site plan reviews also often trigger public hearing requirements that give local residents an opportunity to voice their opinions on the proposed new housing, which on average are overwhelmingly negative.
Healey’s Proposed Fixes
But in April, Gov. Maura Healey took a big step towards standardizing site plan reviews across municipalities and ensuring they remain primarily technical processes. Healey introduced an economic development bill that not only defines site plan review but also requires objective and non-aesthetic review standards.
This would make it difficult for local boards to deny a site plan that conforms to zoning, which is not uncommon. In January, the Norwood Planning Board denied an application for a 96-unit apartment project over concerns with the project’s mechanized parking lifts, even though, as one board member put it, “everything about this project meets the bylaw.”
The economic development bill also allows localities to conduct site plan reviews without involving planning boards or other elected officials. Instead, municipal staff could examine the site plans for technical compliance without a vote.
Given that cutting out elected officials is voluntary, it’s unclear how many municipalities will do so. But placing technical reviews solely in the hands of technical experts is a best practice that helps keep the approval process at arm’s length from hyperlocal political pressure.
And even when a vote is required, the bill specifies that only a simple majority is needed to approve the project, unlike some special permit and rezoning votes that, by statute, require a two-thirds supermajority.
Further, when a project requires the same body to approve both a site plan review and a special permit, which is intended to be a more deliberate and discretionary procedure, the bill requires “a coordinated process,” hypothetically to avoid redundancy and delays. However, the vote threshold for this coordinated process would be a two-thirds supermajority. Thus, in a five-member planning board, four would need to vote “yes” to approve the project.
Will ‘Shot Clock’ Work?
The economic development bill places some limits on the timing of the site plan approval process and its validity. Without written agreement from the applicant, municipalities can’t extend site plan review processes beyond 90 days after receiving a complete application, or else the application is automatically approved.
Similar “shot clock” provisions have proven difficult to implement in other states, with localities often finding workarounds. In practice, developers often have an incentive to maintain goodwill with local officials and allow the process to last longer than 90 days, especially if additional approvals beyond site plan review are required.
Lastly, once the site plan is approved, municipalities can’t require reapproval due to lack of construction activity for three years. This safeguard seems tailored to a uniquely difficult macroeconomic environment for financing new housing.
All in all, Section 42 of the governor’s economic development bill would codify site plan review in Massachusetts state law in a way that limits the discretion of elected officials, prioritizes the use of clear and objective criteria, and will likely reduce permitting delays.
The bill is not the only permitting reform item under consideration on Beacon Hill. The fiscal year 2027 Senate Ways & Means budget includes two provisions that come highly recommended from policy circles. One would vest development rights so that developers don’t have to redesign their projects when zoning changes in the middle of the permitting process. The other would allow electronic rather than physical notifications for public hearings in some contexts.
Both the economic development bill and the fiscal 2027 budget will likely be amended substantially by both the Senate and House before the end of the state legislative session in July. By streamlining and standardizing the local permitting process, their passage would expedite the delivery of new housing in Massachusetts while improving the fairness and transparency of local board decisions.
Andrew Mikula is a senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute in Boston.
