Economic Stimulus Bill

The Massachusetts State Senate yesterday passed SB 2345, a bill aimed at streamlining state permitting, getting rid of duplication of permit requirements across state agencies, and to make it easier to move through the state permitting process. The goals are clearly laudible.

Having not read the entire bill as of yet, I will withhold passing judgement. However, the bill is not without its issues. One of which I will discuss below.

Section 122 of the bill as posted on the Senate's website (SB 2345) includes provisions extending the life of numerous local permits, licenses, variances, etc. These permits are extended for a period of three years beyond the "normal" life of the permit. Thus a permit for one year, becomes one for four years, a two year approval becomes 5, and so on.

A few highlights of what permits are extended:

• Chapter 21 extends, among other things, wastewater permits;
• Chapter 40 governs all municipal regulations and by-laws other than those specifically identified in other chapters;
• Chapter 40A extends all special permits, variances and other project approvals regardless of the fact that certain provisions in chapter 40A specifically limit the maximum period a permit is valid for and identifies certain actions that could lead to the rights granted in a permit to no longer be valid;
• Chapter 40B extends all Comprehensive Permits for an additional three years;
• Chapter 91 governs all waterways licenses; and
• Chapter 143 governs all building permits.

Finally, Section 122 includes the catch-all phrase, "and any local by-law or ordinance" which will extend its reach to any local permit or license a community may have adopted under its home rule powers that could be considered to impact "development." "Development" being very broadly defined to include the division, excavation, and filling of land, construction or change of use of structures.

Process already exist for addressing delays in the construction process. These processes involve returning to the permitting agency and having a proper determination made as to whether the provisions and findings surrounding the original approval are still valid. This proposal by-passes that process and for the next few years, overrides other local actions such as zoning changes which may have modified the final plan approval or outright prohibited the proposed use.

In my opinion, Section 122 should be removed. In its place, the state might want to urge communities when considering extending a lapsing permit, weigh the current economic situation. Section 122 does not do anything to immediately stimulate the economy. In fact, it supports actions that might delay new construction projects by extending a time-frame for construction which may encourage developers to wait for a better economic climate.