State committee hears broad support for 'Yes in My Backyard' zoning reforms to spur missing‑middle housing

A joint legislative hearing on zoning and Chapter 40B on Tuesday drew sustained testimony in favor of bills commonly called “Yes in My Backyard” that would allow more duplexes, triplexes and modest multifamily housing as of right and reform local rules that block small-scale development.

Advocates and local elected officials told the Joint Committee on Housing the package would create predictable rules for “missing middle” housing and remove costly local requirements — especially parking quotas — that make small projects financially infeasible.

Advocates said the reforms matter because many Massachusetts communities cannot build large apartment complexes and so must rely on smaller projects to expand supply. “In Western Massachusetts, large apartment buildings are rarely possible,” said Keith Ferry, president and CEO of Way Finders. “The opportunities that we do have are in duplexes, triplexes, and modest multifamily homes.”

Why it matters: Witnesses told the committee that building more small-scale housing is the most realistic path to increased supply in many towns. Several speakers cited statewide estimates of unmet need and local infrastructure constraints. “Massachusetts needs 222,000 new homes just to stabilize our housing market,” said Matt Noyce of the Citizens' Housing & Planning Association (CHAPA). Multiple witnesses said statewide polls show broad public support for targeted zoning changes.

Testimony and evidence: Housing developers, regional planners and municipal officials described barriers they encounter under current bylaws: minimum lot sizes, excessive frontage rules, and parking minimums that raise construction costs. “Right now, these opportunities are blocked by outdated zoning rules, minimum lot sizes, excessive frontage requirements, and parking mandates,” Ferry said. Jonathan Burke, a Salem planning board member, presented local data showing Salem’s required minimum of 1.5 spaces per unit contrasts with measured peak demand of about 0.85 spaces per unit, leading to overbuilt parking and fewer homes.

Speakers representing a range of organizations urged complementary steps to align subsidies and smaller development. “To truly deliver missing middle housing, we must also align state subsidy programs with these smaller developments,” Ferry said, noting Western Massachusetts evidence that building costs can exceed what local households can afford without subsidy.

Local officials’ perspective: Municipal elected officials described both political challenges and local reforms they’ve adopted. Mark McGovern, vice mayor of Cambridge, described recent city steps that included a citywide multifamily housing ordinance and removal of parking minimums. Meredith Derica, Braintree town councilor, said last month her council approved reduced ADU setback rules after a multimonth local process and that state leadership helps keep housing on local agendas.

Parking reform: Multiple witnesses singled out parking mandates as a specific and solvable cost driver. A policy director with the Parking Reform Network told the committee that typical national construction costs for parking run roughly $10,000 for a surface space and $40,000 for a garage space and that every $10,000 in parking construction can add about $100 per month to a unit’s rent. “These codes were not adopted through careful study and analysis,” he said, urging statewide limits so towns are not stuck repeating lengthy local rulemaking.

Opposition and caveats: Testimony in the hearing was overwhelmingly in favor; the record included acknowledgment of neighborhood concerns about scale and design. Several witnesses said the bills preserve tools for design review and that predictability — not automatic removal of local say — is the principal objective.

What’s next: Supporters urged the committee to advance the bills to provide consistent rules statewide and to pair zoning changes with subsidy alignment so smaller projects can be financeable. Abundant Housing Massachusetts, developers and municipal officials asked for the legislature to report the measures out of committee favorably.

Ending: Committee members requested follow-up material — including county‑level housing need estimates and local examples — and legislators said they would circulate written testimony and district‑level lists of parcels from witnesses. The bills remain under committee consideration.