Builders and zoning lawyers press for changes to variance rules and appeal timelines to speed housing production

Lawmakers and land‑use attorneys told the joint committee that Massachusetts zoning process rules are adding time and cost to housing production and asked for statutory changes they said would improve predictability. Senator John Keenan testified on S.1448, a bill that would toll the one‑year period in G.L. c.40A §10 during the pendency of an appeal so that a successful developer or applicant would not lose the time to act while litigating. Keenan and counsel Benjamin Fierro, with the Home Builders and Remodelers Association, said the change would mirror existing tolling for special permits and subdivisions and would help projects proceed after appeals resolve. A Real Estate Bar Association panel urged broader amendments in H.2317 to shorten zoning hearing timelines (a proposed 150‑day presumptive limit for complex special permits and 100 days for simpler matters), to allow closed‑record review in appeals rather than de novo trials and to modernize variance standards so local boards have more discretion to address practical difficulties. Panelists said de novo appeals drive expensive discovery, repeat expert testimony and often double the time to resolve disputes; they said a closed‑record model would reduce litigation time while leaving courts able to supplement records where necessary. Supporters said reforms would preserve municipal home rule while making permitting timelines and litigation burdens less costly for developers and abutters alike. Critics on the dais questioned whether closed‑record appeals could prevent newly discovered evidence from being considered and urged careful drafting; proponents said targeted exceptions and court discretion could address those concerns. The committee heard testimony but did not vote.