What the Massachusetts site plan review bill would change, and where it stands

Massachusetts housing officials say a change to local site plan review would help housing projects more than any other reform now under discussion. The change is part of the 2026 economic development bill, which is in a House and Senate conference committee. The House and Senate each passed their own version in July, and both versions include site plan review language.

Why the state wants the change

On Sept. 29, Housing Secretary Juana Matías told developers in Boston, “Nothing is more important than time and certainty when it comes to projects.” She said site plan review reform would have the greatest effect on project feasibility of the changes under discussion.

Site plan review is the local process that checks whether a project’s layout meets set standards for items such as parking, drainage, access, lighting, and utilities. Pioneer Institute research finds at least 94% of Massachusetts cities and towns require it for some new housing. In Greater Boston, the figure is 99%.

The state Zoning Act allows towns to use site plan review but does not define it or set rules for how it works. As a result, each town runs its own process. Matías said some towns have used it to delay or stop housing even in districts where zoning allows the project by right, meaning no special permit is needed. She also said, “There’s rarely a crowd at a town meeting demanding faster site plan review.”

Delay has a direct cost. For example, a $4 million land and predevelopment loan at 8% carries about $27,000 a month in interest. Six months of added review adds roughly $160,000 before construction starts.

How the bill reached conference

Governor Maura Healey filed the Mass Wins Act (H.5386) on April 16, 2026. The $305 million economic development bill included statewide standards for site plan review. The site plan review language is based on a bill filed by Rep. Kristin Kassner, An Act facilitating site plan review (H.2298).

The House passed its version (H.5576) on July 8 by a vote of 148 to 2. The $561 million bond bill also creates training requirements for local land use boards. The Senate began debate on a $325 million version on July 22 and passed its bill (S.3228) by voice vote on July 24. According to an analysis by planner and attorney Jonathan Berk, the Senate adopted the House site plan review language nearly word for word.

The bills went to a conference committee on July 30. The conferees are Reps. Aaron Michlewitz of Boston, Carole Fiola of Fall River, and Michael Soter of Bellingham, and Sens. Barry Finegold of Andover, Michael Rodrigues of Westport, and Peter Durant of Spencer.

What the bill would do

Based on the House version, the bill would make the following changes:

Define site plan review as a process that sets criteria for a project’s layout, safety, and impacts and checks compliance with reasonable performance standards.
Require performance standards to be reasonably definite and objective, so applicants know them before they apply.
Prohibit standards that regulate the appearance of buildings. Towns could not require specific building materials or set height and bulk limits stricter than those in their own zoning.
Limit conditions to those necessary and proportionate to a project’s impacts. Conditions outside the site would be limited to direct effects on adjacent properties and roads.
Require a decision on uses allowed by right within 90 days of a complete application, by a simple majority vote. If the town does not act in time, the project is approved. Lawyers call this constructive approval. Under the governor’s version, the applicant could agree in writing to extend the deadline.
Allow denial on only two grounds, either that the project does not meet the specific requirements of the zoning or that the applicant did not submit required information and fees.
Allow towns to assign routine reviews to a building commissioner or planning director, with no board vote.
Keep approvals valid for at least three years.

The governor’s version also required a coordinated process when the same board handles both site plan review and a special permit for one project.

Where the two versions differ

The Massachusetts Municipal Association, which represents the state’s 351 cities and towns, told the conferees in an Aug. 14 letter that the House and Senate took “slightly varied approaches.” The MMA supports uniform definitions and predictable timelines. It asked the conferees to adopt the Senate language in Section 72 of S.3228, which it said more clearly allows towns to set uniform design guidelines. How the final bill treats design guidelines is not yet known.

The Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, Abundant Housing Massachusetts, and CREDA Massachusetts, the commercial real estate development association, all support the reform. A Sept. 9 Boston Globe opinion piece said municipal officials and developers have agreed on the site plan review legislation and that negotiators need only reach a final agreement.

Other housing provisions in conference

The conference committee is also deciding several housing measures that passed in only one chamber:

The House bill would allow religious institutions to build multifamily housing by right on land they have owned for at least three years. Projects could reach 30 units per acre with 20% of units affordable at 80% of area median income, or 50 units per acre with deeper affordability, at up to four stories or 45 feet.
The Senate bill would allow duplexes by right on any lot zoned for residential use.
The Senate bill would give communities whose zoning supports housing a preference in state discretionary and competitive grants. The House bill includes a similar preference for HousingWorks grants.

Both bills would let towns opt in to zoning that allows commercial buildings to be converted to housing by right. The House version includes $50 million for grants and technical assistance for towns that opt in. The MMA opposes the duplex, religious land, and grant preference provisions. It supports commercial conversion.

Status and timeline

Formal sessions ended July 31. Under new rules adopted for this session, the Legislature can hold formal sessions later in the year to vote on a compromise, because the conference committee was formed by the end of July. A bond bill requires roll call votes, which are allowed only in formal sessions. MassINC has noted that the committee could finish its work as late as early January.

As of late September, the bill remained in conference. When the committee files a report, each chamber votes on it without amendment, and the governor then decides whether to sign it. In the last session, negotiators announced an agreement on the 2024 economic development bill in November, more than three months after formal sessions ended.

Housing production context

The state’s goal is 222,000 new homes by 2035. It added 34,561 in 2025, about 15.6% of the goal. Matías said high interest rates, inflation, and tariffs are making projects harder to build.

The state is also adding funding. This fall it expects to award $200 million in Chapter 90 funds, the state’s money for local roads and bridges, for infrastructure tied to new housing. Matías said underused state land could support more than 5,600 homes.

Matías cited Austin, Texas, which added more than 120,000 homes over 10 years. After that growth, rents stabilized and in some areas declined. The Massachusetts goal is nearly twice Austin’s total.

Sources:

David J. Murphy is the Managing Attorney of Murphy PC, a Boston-based real estate and business law firm, and is Of Counsel to McDermott, Quilty, Miller & Hanley LLP. With over 20 years of experience, David counsels developers, sponsors, owners, and investors in commercial real estate transactions throughout New England and other states, with a focus on joint ventures, preferred equity, and complex deal structuring. He can be reached at dmurphy@murphypc.com or 617.993.0650.

This article is for general informational purposes only. It is not legal, financial, or investment advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney before acting on anything discussed here. This may constitute attorney advertising.