The Home Builders Association of Massachusetts (HBAM) defends the interests of the residential construction industry from unnecessary, budensome and costly regulations. Initiatives that HBAM has been actively and successfully working on during the past several months can be found on the HBAM website www.hbama.com. Click on the links below to get more detailed information on these topics.
Public Policy Committee
Permit Extension Act
S.2252, Act Smoke Detectors
40B - Letter to the Editor
Lead Paint Documents
The Public Policy Committee at The Home Builders Association of Massachusetts (HBAM) engages in routine outreach to legislative, regulatory and judicial officials to ensure that Massachusetts continues to support the home building and remodeling industries. Click on the document below to see a summary of some of the initiatives currently underway.
With the legislative session rushing to an end, state lawmakers gave final approval to the Permit Extension Act of 2010. Its passage came as part of an Economic Development Reorganization package (Senate Bill No. 2582) hammered out between the House and Senate only hours before the midnight deadline on July 31. Its passage was a landmark achievement for the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts.
Once signed by Governor Patrick, the Permit Extension Act will extend state and local permit deadlines for nearly all real estate developments whose approval was "in effect or existence" between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010 for a period of two years beyond the current lawful term of the approval. The act does not extend comprehensive permits issued by a board of appeals pursuant to Chapter 40B or a permit, license, privilege or approval issued by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife for hunting, fishing or aquaculture.
The Permit Extension Act will help residential, commercial and industrial projects that have already been reviewed and approved, but haven't moved forward due to market conditions and the lack of available financing. It will eliminate unnecessary delays and costs associated with reapplying for permits and provide increased predictability to developers, lenders and municipalities. The passage of the Permit Extension Act is also a potentially precedent setting setback for the home rule authority of cities and towns to regulate development.
The HBAM vigorously lobbied the Legislature for nearly 18 months to approve the Permit Extension Act. Together with NAIOP, it helped organize a broad coalition of organizations to support its passage in the face of strong opposition from the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Due to the efforts of the HBAM, the Permit Extension Act received the editorial endorsement of the MetroWest Daily News and the Boston Globe.
The Home Builders Association of Massachusetts is grateful to Governor Deval Patrick for his endorsement of the Permit Extension Act. Its passage could not have been possible without the help of Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth), Senators Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) and Michael Moore (D-Worcester), Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop), and Representatives Charles Murphy (D-Burlington), Brian Dempsey (D-Haverhill), Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) and Kevin Honan (D-Boston), among others.
Governor Patrick signed the Permit Extension Act into law on August 6, 2010. For a copy of the law
S.2252, Act Relative To Installation Of Approved Smoke Detectors
As so often happens in the waning days of the legislative session, bills adverse to our interests that have been in committee for months begin to move. Such was the case with S. 2252, An Act Relative to Installation of Approved Smoke Detectors.
Approximately two weeks ago, the Senate Committee on Ways and Means reported out S. 2252 for action by the full Senate. This bill would have granted the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulations the authority to promulgate "all necessary rules and regulations regarding approved smoke detectors for use in existing buildings." The bill would have required that upon the sale or transfer every existing one or two family building or structure and every existing building or structure containing more than one, but less than six dwelling units, such buildings or structures would have to be equipped with approved smoke detectors in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board of Fire Prevention Regulations, without regard without to the date of construction of such buildings or structures.
The intent of the legislation was to require the owners of residential buildings and structures built after January 1, 1975 (when the State Building Code was adopted) to upgrade their smoke detectors to current standards. However, if enacted into law, the bill would result in the creation of two codes governing the installation of smoke detectors: one for new construction, promulgated by the State Board of Building Regulations & Standards; and one for all existing homes (no matter when
constructed) by the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulations. This would be a terrible blow to the uniformity of building codes in Massachusetts.
Two differing codes for the installation of smoke detector systems (which today are often integrated into a comprehensive home security system) would add confusion and cost to home builders, remodelers and homeowners.
Existing homeowners (who already have, in most cases, hard-wired smoke detectors in their homes) could be forced to incur substantial expense to upgrade to the standards dictated by the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulations in order to sell their house. Individual condominium unit owners (of buildings containing 5 or fewer units) who seek to sell their units will also incur this expense; as will possibly the other unit owners in the same building if the existing smoke detector and/or electrical system is connected to all the units.
We were also concerned with the scenario whereby a home builder constructs a new home on spec and builds that home in conformity with the smoke detector requirements of the State Building Code. Subsequent to the construction of the home, but prior selling it, the State Board of Fire Prevention Regulations adopts standards for smoke detectors that exceed the provisions of the State Building Code. Immediately upon the sale of that home, the new homeowner would have a home that is not in compliance with the smoke detector requirements for existing homes! That would be an unacceptable result to the new home buyer, who is likely to demand as a condition of the sale that the home builder remove the new smoke detector system that was properly installed and install one that conforms to the requirements for existing homes.
Notwithstanding the strong lobbying by the State Fire Marshall's office, I am pleased to tell you that our efforts were successful in blocking passage of this bill. The Legislature concluded its formal session at midnight on July 31st without taking any further action on S. 2252.
Although the Legislature will continue to meet twice a week in informal session for the remainder of the year, any one legislator can block action on a bill. Should there be an attempt to pass S. 2252 during the informal sessions, we will solicit either a senator or representative to object.
Unfortunately, I am certain that we will see this bill again in the next legislative session.
Finally, I want to thank Harry Smith and Paul Moriarty for their invaluable assistance in this matter.
Benjamin Fierro III
Lynch & Fierro LLP, Counsellors At Law
Lobbyist Home Builders Association of Greater Boston
Don't scapegoat housing's effective on Chapter 40B (reprinted - Gloucester Times)
To the editor:
Mr. Ageloff's letter (Times, July 22) was headlined "Beware role of Chapter 40B at Conomo Point." I think a more appropriate title would have been, "Beware of bad permitting, not Chapter 40B."
While I will leave to Essex residents what they should do with Conomo Point, I did wish to comment on how the letter raised the specter of the Chapter 40B boogeyman in Essex's land-use discussions.
Despite the letter's fears, statistics show that Chapter 40B is the principal reason why moderately priced housing and multi-family housing has been constructed in Massachusetts. Without Chapter 40B, this type of housing would not be built, which is critical to workers, families, and young and old people throughout the commonwealth.
I know from experience as a land use planner, town counsel, real estate attorney, and a former member of a zoning board of appeals that, left to their own devices, many, many municipalities make it very difficult (some would say impossible) to construct housing. It is far too easy for land use boards to succumb to neighborhood opponents, natural resistance to change, or other professed reasons to deny new homes.
Landowners do not instinctively select Chapter 40B to seek approval for their housing. Instead, if they choose to move forward under Chapter 40B, it is commonly done after a reasonable analysis concludes that local approvals for even modest proposals are highly uncertain and subject to excessive delay under existing bylaws and permitting procedures.
Therefore, although it may be convenient to criticize Chapter 40B, it is better to critique what municipal boards are doing (or not doing to foster (or frustrate) well designed development, whether residential or commercial.
The letter cited two projects to challenge Chapter 40B.
In fact, the Ipswich project is well-designed and will provide much needed housing for people of varied income levels. The courts reviewed the opponents' various challenges and determined that the project was lawful and should go forward.
In Manchester, there is a highly successful Chapter 40B project smack in the middle of downtown that was tastefully designed, contained a reasonable density, and earned several design awards. There is also a tastefully constructed Chapter 40B project in Hamilton at the former Junction ice cream stand known as Carriage House Junction.
In these instances, the developer and design teams worked collaboratively with the local boards to implement very successful Chapter 40B projects (disclosure: I was a member of the Manchester Zoning Board of Appeals when the Summer Street project was approved and I was legal counsel for the Hamilton project).
This fall's ballot initiative to repeal Chapter 40B should be rejected by the voters because Chapter 40B has provided the only practical means to construct moderately priced housing for workers, families and people of different income levels.
It has been very effective in creating high quality, tasteful housing.
PETER J. FEUERBACH
Brook Street, Manchester
NAHB Lead Paint Documents
NAHB's legal department has written template language for remodeling firms to use when working in homes affected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation entitled "Lead: Renovation, Repair and Painting." Target homes are defined as pre-1978 homes where renovation activities will disturb lead paint. Visit www.epa.gov/lead for more information about this rule, which goes into effect on April 22, 2010.
Please note that these sample documents, notices, and contract language have all been provided for information purposes only, and do not constitute a legal opinion. Care should be taken when drafting such provisions, and it is recommended that an experienced local attorney be consulted for that purpose.
If a remodeler expects that a job begun after April 22, 2010 will not be complete, it is recommended that the remodeler use contract language applying to the active regulation. In essence, contracts signed before April 22, should anticipate the lead rule going into effect. However, it is also recommended that a local attorney be consulted in these cases.
The following materials can be used as templates for remodeling contracts, but consulting with a local attorney is strongly recommended.
Pre-Renovation Notice for Owner Occupied Housing Constructed before 1978
Additional Firms and Renovators on site
Lead Renovation "Opt Out" Provision for Owner Occupied Dwelling
Sample Move Out Clause
Pre-renovation notice for Tenant Occupied Housing Constructed before 1978
Mailing Option - Delivery of Lead Paint Pamphlet
Sample Clause for Subcontractors
