Andrew Mikula

In 2007, the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies published a best practices guide for municipalities on streamlining local permitting for new development. Nearly 20 years later, many of its recommendations sound quaint, often involving basic utilization of the internet. These include “maximizing the municipal website” and “creating an electronic filing process for permit applicants.”

In the age of AI, one would think that every municipality in Massachusetts would have clear and easily accessible permitting information on the internet and would allow solely electronic application submittals. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Permitting information is often difficult to find on municipal websites and is rarely displayed together in one place. Application forms may only be available on webpages associated with the approval body for that application. Sometimes it’s difficult to identify all the materials that need to be submitted. As a result, filling out the initial application is both more laborious than necessary and gives well-connected insiders an unfair advantage over smaller, newer applicants.

Municipal websites frequently contain outdated or conflicting information, and a few haven’t updated the online version of the zoning code in years. There can be inconsistencies between online permitting instructions and official policies. Even permit application fee structures can be opaque to applicants. No wonder developers frequently hire attorneys to navigate the application process – which many smaller builders cannot afford to do.

Online Apps an Iceberg

Application submittal requirements vary widely. Some towns require more than 20 physical copies of plans for certain project types. In a few, application submittal forms aren’t available online – an applicant needs to pick one up in person from the building commissioner. More commonly, the municipality requires both online and physical submissions.

Often, municipal leaders would like to move permitting systems fully online. But doing so may not be an urgent task, either because of a low permitting volume or because related regulations (like zoning) need to be updated or standardized first. Both local staff and insider applicants can also resist efforts to adopt online permitting systems. In other cases, IT and budget capacity can be binding constraints.

The permit application process can be difficult to standardize. In practice, navigating timelines for multiple approval bodies takes close coordination between municipal staff and applicants. And because each approval body has rules and standards tied to separate bylaws (wetlands bylaw for conservation commissions, zoning for planning boards, etc.), needed application information can differ greatly between boards. Thus, adopting online permitting requires reforming other aspects of the process, including how local boards review applications.

Still, there are tangible benefits to moving permitting online. The “required fields” label can reduce the incidence of incomplete applications. Some information can be filled automatically and shared more easily between municipal departments. Local officials can also set up notifications for individual staff members when they need to get involved.

Lastly, moving to online permitting helps municipalities prepare for further innovations that automate the process. For example, AI systems can check for missing documentation, a process that currently is often conducted by hand.

What Your Process Should Look Like

In general, municipal websites should provide checklists of needed application materials and online communication portals that connect applicants directly to application reviewers. A single webpage should describe the process for different project types, list fee schedules, and provide estimates of permitting timelines. Some cities, such as Worcester, also have permitting landing pages with frequently asked questions, intake forms for pre-application meetings, and links to state resources.

The state should help standardize permitting information available on municipal websites, requiring cities to post updated zoning bylaws online within 30 days of passage and towns to do the same within 30 days of approval by the attorney general’s office.

Localities should refrain from requiring in-person application submittals. Paper documents are cumbersome to handle, time consuming to deliver to the right administrator, and create unique storage issues and risks. The in-person submittal process also makes it harder to maintain objective completion criteria and consistent review workflows.

Adopting an online permitting system still requires a concerted upfront effort.

Larger communities with well-staffed IT departments should take the initiative themselves. Smaller municipalities can make upfront costs more manageable by sharing permitting software systems with others. In fact, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments, a regional planning agency in western Massachusetts, has long handled inspectional and permitting services for more than a dozen towns under one software license.

Online materials are both the first touchpoint most applicants have with the permitting process and an underutilized way of streamlining that process. Local elected officials who want faster and more predictable approvals should prioritize moving their municipalities to all-electronic permitting systems, and state and regional agencies should provide them with the resources needed to do so.

Andrew Mikula is the chief housing economist at the Pioneer Institute in Boston.