Building housing is difficult. Development sits in the middle of a dynamic fiscal, resource and permitting ecosystem that is really hard to navigate. As previously discussed, zoning reform is a foundational issue, but just changing local zoning won’t break the housing log jam.  It took a long time to create the problems we face today, and only a set of comprehensive set of solutions based on data and lessons learned will get us out of it.

A good example of this is Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), an oft-touted part of the housing puzzle. ADUs should be an easy, low-impact way to increase housing supply that better matches the housing stock to our developing demographics. But that has not been the case.

In 2017 the City of Boston started a multi-year pilot program (Expanding ADU Access in Boston | Boston.gov), sponsoring residents who wanted to create their own ADU’s.  Not only was this supposed to add ADUs, but it would also help the city better understand impediments, which has already resulted in one change to the zoning. Other Massachusetts communities have also implemented ADU zoning changes with varying success and lessons learned. In Provincetown, where non-conforming lots are the norm, initial ADU zoning required conformance with current zoning, preventing a sizable portion of the community from participating. Northampton used ADU zoning to create accessory spaces that homeowners could use as ancillary living space, art studios, parent respite space and short-term rentals.

But as California learned, just because ADUs are as-of-right does not mean they will, or can, be built. The 2017 statewide zoning reform has been touted for creating a 20-fold increase of permitted ADUs. But in 2021, out of 14,627,460 total housing units in the state, only 23,600 ADUs were added.  This is less than 0.2% of the total housing stock, less than1.5% of 2021 housing building permits, and far too small to have any appreciable impact on availability or price.

Why so few? There are a lot of theories, but a piecemeal regulatory structure is a likely culprit.  Turns out that any number of other government authorities must also say yes before an ADU can be built. From fire and police to utility companies and the conservation commissions, authorities empowered by other parts of the law could, and do, say no.   One of Boston’s hurdles preventing garages or other existing outbuildings from being converted to ADUs is BFD’s requirements for accessing buildings down long residential driveways, which was not addressed by the new zoning.

It is also all but impossible for an individual homeowner or small developer to have the time, expertise, and financial resources to work their way through all these different agencies. Each requires its own specialized set of consultants.  When these soft costs are added to expensive construction, high interest rates and changes to their existing house’s tax rate, it makes the hurdle just too high for most homeowners.

Local control and separate state and federal agencies, authorized by different parts of the law, means that the Commonwealth lacks any one entity that has the authority to adjudicate between different authorities and set priorities. While this is understandable, it either makes everything equally important or equally unimportant.

The question we need to ask together is, in a world of limited resources and where the lack of housing is hurting our citizens and competitiveness, what goals and programs should our government be prioritizing? In Massachusetts there are at least twelve separate, parallel regulatory authorities impacting the design, approval, and construction of housing.  Some, like zoning, are concerned with scale and aesthetics. Others, like building and health codes, regulate construction, safety, energy, uses and livability. Some respond to issues bigger than a specific lot, like the environment and off-site impacts. An incomplete list would include:

• Local Planning
• Local and State Conservation
• Chapter 91
• Massachusetts and Federal Environmental Impacts (MEPA)
• Local, state and federal roadway access, traffic, and public transportation
• Utility availability
• Building codes, including local interpretations, state and national
• Energy codes including local additions, state and national
• Life safety including police and fire
• Accessibility including local interpretations, state and national, and
• Let’s not forget the Fair Housing Act.

Add to this permitting related to local historic decisions, public improvements, higher levels of environmental and energy compliance, as well as off-site mitigation for schools and infrastructure like sewer. If public subsidy is involved, there are local, state, and federal compliance issues that come with using public funds for low, moderate, and mixed-income housing.  And although it may be true that each of these only adds nominal expenses to the overall cost of housing, together they add significant time, money and difficulty.

The Butterfly Effect teaches us that everything impacts everything else in unpredictable ways. Housing is foundational to health, employment, public transportation, economic success, competitiveness, education, human rights. The environment relates to everything.

Zoning is just one of the many twists and turns that created the labyrinth of multiple, uncoordinated regulations that impact housing.  Zoning reform is necessary but is insufficient to straighten out the Gordian Knot that we’ve tied.  The housing crisis will not be solved by only thinking about supply.  Every dollar spent on permitting, especially for workforce housing, is a dollar that could have been used to build more housing.

We must acknowledge that we have limited resources with which to respond to a seemingly overwhelming number of important issues.   The data and the lessons learned exist to create streamlined policies that coordinate the diverse regulations that impact housing permitting and construction.  Without a comprehensive approach, it is difficult to imagine a way to create the ecosystem of available, affordable and appropriate housing that the Commonwealth’s residents deserve.

Scott Pollack is founder of SRPlanning (SRPlan.net) and serves as Co-Chair of ULI Boston/New England’s Housing Roundtable. Susan Connelly is Chief Operating Officer of Housing Opportunities Unlimited. Please send any reactions, comments, or ideas to Scott at [email protected].