In Massachusetts, the permitting process for new residential development often slows down housing production and adds unnecessary costs for builders. These costs are then passed onto buyers and tenants, helping to explain why Massachusetts has some of the most expensive housing in the country.
Most residential developments, from single-family subdivisions to large apartment complexes, are subject to site plan review, a process where technical details regarding things like traffic circulation and stormwater management are scrutinized by a group of local officials, usually an elected planning board.
Unlike most other types of local permitting tools for new housing – from special permits to variances – site plan review doesn’t come with any 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, adding uncertainty and delays for project applicants. 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.
But on April 16, 2026, Governor 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 planning boards or other elected officials entirely. Municipal staff could simply examine the site plans for technical compliance without a vote, keeping the 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, which often manifests as four of the five members of a planning board needing to vote “yes” for the project to be approved.
Lastly, 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. And once the site plan is approved, municipalities can’t require reapproval due to lack of construction activity for three years. This latter safeguard seems tailored to a uniquely difficult macroeconomic environment for new housing.
All in all, Section 42 of Governor Healey’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. As of this writing, the bill is under consideration by the House’s Economic Development and Emerging Technologies committee, and 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 site plan review process, the bill’s passage would speed the delivery of new housing in Massachusetts while improving the fairness and transparency of local board decisions.
