A bill under consideration by the state Legislature seeks to make it easier for developers to build housing. Supporters of the bill say it addresses the housing shortage in the Bay State; opponents say the bill is just a money-grab by already wealthy real estate developers.

Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) introduced SB 119, “An Act Improving Housing Opportunities and the Massachusetts Economy,” this spring. Rodrigues said if the bill becomes a law, it will simply be another tool in the tool box to address the lack of housing – especially affordable housing – in the commonwealth.

“I understand that it [SB 119] is certainly controversial,” Rodrigues said. “Many local communities want to use permitting and zoning in a way that restricts growth. I just want to have a discussion. It’s the number-one priority of the real estate community.”

Rodrigues said his bill seeks to eliminate “red tape” across the state by making the size of buffer zones around wetlands – which can vary from town to town – consistent statewide. It would also seek to eliminate state requirements for water discharge permits in areas where both federal and state permits are currently required.

“I haven’t had any heated debate on this bill. I think more and more people are understanding that we have a housing crisis,” Rodrigues said. “If people own their own home and it’s paid off, that’s great. Where will their children and grandchildren be able to afford to live?”

But some parts of the bill are particularly controversial. The bill seeks to require municipalities to allow multifamily housing to be built by right on at least 1.5 percent of the town’s suitable developable land at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. Currently many municipalities require a supermajority vote to approve variances and special permits. If passed, SB 119 would require no more than a majority vote.

Protecting The Rights Of Municipalities

Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said the bill is “clearly an attempt to pass a windfall profits bill that would dramatically increase the value of land developers own and completely circumvent the local process,” adding that it runs roughshod over the public process and accountability.

“The real purpose is unmasked when you see there are sections to do an end-run around local wetlands requirements, and the attempt to make it easier to get variances,” Beckwith said. “Variances are designed to be rare and this would make them common, which would upset property owners by lowering their value.”

Beckwith said compromising the ability of cities and towns to ensure that development is sustainable and affordable is not in the public’s interest.

“I have a huge amount of respect for Sen. Rodrigues and him ensuring a conversation is a great first step, but the impact of this legislation will provide developers with too much influence about how the community will be built out,” Beckwith said.

Creating New Units In Underutilized Spaces

The Massachusetts Association of Realtors (MAR), along with the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, supports the bill. MAR President Corrine Fitzgerald said the portion of the bill that would allow homeowners to build accessory dwelling units, or ADUs – think in-law apartments – by right in residential zones would help address the state’s need for affordable housing. Most cities and towns either don’t allow them, or make them prohibitively difficult to build.

“In one town I work in, Greenfield, if you wanted to turn your garage into an ADU, the lot and building have to meet the requirements of a two-family house,” Fitzgerald said. “It’s the same thing if you created an ADU in your own home. Some towns require that only a blood relative of the homeowner be allowed to live in an ADU.”

Beckwith rebutted that, saying there are other initiatives underway to address the issue of ADUs.

Michael McDonagh, MAR’s general counsel, said it’s worth the effort to bring all sides together to discuss the lack of affordable housing.

“Whatever side you’re on, you have to recognize that we have an affordable housing problem in this state,” McDonagh said. “We feel this bill doesn’t take all of the authority from the municipalities. The problems aren’t the same all across Massachusetts. In the west it’s a development problem; the east is an affordability problem.”

SB 119 is currently in the Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses.

“We hope it doesn’t advance,” Beckwith said. “Our members are expecting that legislation like this will not gain much traction on Beacon Hill.”