We are often asked to help a business through a transition involving a sale, acquisition or a succession within a family, with co-owners or with key employees. Given that these transitions may evolve over a long period of time, it is important for owners to plan “exit strategies” to maximize their business value and achieve their exit goals. Although the terms of each deal are unique, the following issues often come up and require negotiation among the parties:
1. Buy/Sell Agreement (aka Business Continuity Agreement): These provisions are important for business continuation because they specify the conditions for transferring the partners’ interests in a business, with the goal of identifying who can (and who can not) acquire the interests; the triggering events for the transfer (e.g., resignation, death, disability, bankruptcy, divorce, business disputes, etc.); and, the method to value the interests at the time of transfer.
In essence, the remaining owner(s) agree to purchase the interest of the departing owner pursuant to the terms of the agreement. Without such an agreement, a business could falter if there were problems with the withdrawing owner, an ex-spouse or heirs. An important component of a buy/sell agreement is the funding mechanism to buy out the interest and pay any estate taxes, to accomplish the transfer, such as “key person” life and disability insurance.
2. Earn Out Provision: The acquirer may want to pay part of the acquisition price over time, through an earn-out provision. Thus, some amount is paid when the deal closes and the balance is contingent on the company’s future performance. Certain target goals are set for several years in the future for such metrics as gross revenue, earnings, net income, new customers, etc. Of course, care must be taken to ensure that the targets are not made difficult to achieve or manipulated (e.g., reducing the marketing budget, increasing or inflating overhead expenses, making unexpected capital expenditures, poorly operating the business, customers preferring to deal with the prior owner, change to the company’s operations, etc.)
The seller can monitor the company’s future business if it negotiates a new role as an employee or consultant, with limitations on the buyer’s ability to replace the seller. Monitoring may also be achieved by retaining rights to audit the company’s books. A dispute resolution provision can be helpful so the parties know in advance how disputes will be settled.
3. Non-compete provision: A covenant not to compete may prevent the seller from competing with or diverting business away from the company. A non-compete provision may not trouble a retiring owner but it may concern a younger seller who is prepared for the next business venture. Non-compete agreements are enforceable in Massachusetts, especially those contained in an agreement to purchase a business. (However, new legislation has been discussed in Massachusetts in recent years to regulate non-compete agreements in the employment context.)
Although non-compete agreements are judged on a case-by-case basis, enforceability often turns on whether the agreement is supported by “consideration” at the time it was signed (such consideration is typically found in the purchase of a business); is tailored to protect a legitimate business interest, such as prohibiting the individual from soliciting the company’s customers, protecting trade secrets, and protecting good will; and, is reasonably limited in terms of its duration, geography, and scope.
Business succession raises additional issues concerning future management, business valuation, tax liabilities, legal structures, and the like. A proactive owner should consider these issues with trusted advisors (e.g., accountant, financial planner, insurance agent, attorney, etc.) in order to plan a rewarding exit.
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on business succession issues or this post..
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Great News for Real Estate Owners: Your Permits are Extended!
Property owners and real estate developers will be pleased to know that their land use and environmental permits may be extended for four years under the “Jobs Bill” signed by the Governor on August 7, 2012. Thus, permitted projects that have been stalled due to the recession may remain viable.
The Massachusetts Legislature recently passed the “Economic Development Bill”, or “Jobs Bill”, which the Governor signed on August 7. Two sections of that Bill amended the original 2010 “Permit Extension Act,” to extend it by two years. The Permit Extension Act itself had granted an automatic 2-year extension to qualifying State and local permits that had been in effect between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010. Pursuant to the new Jobs Bill, a permit that was in existence between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2012, would be extended for a total of four years.
Here is how the 2010 Permit Extension Act works in conjunction with the 2012 Jobs Bill:
The Act as amended states that, “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, an approval in effect or existence during the tolling period shall be extended for a period of 4 years, in addition to the lawful term of the approval.” The “tolling period” in which the permit needs to have been in effect is defined as “the period beginning August 15, 2008, and continuing through August 15, 2012.”
For instance, if a qualifying permit was in effect on January 1, 2009, the permit would be extended for four years beyond the original term of the permit. Similarly, if a permit existed as of the date of this post (August 9th, which is before the August 15, 2012 cut-off date), the permit would be extended for four years beyond its original expiration date.
Of course, there are limitations and conditions in the 2010 Permit Extension Act, and the Commonwealth issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” guidance document on the Act in 2010, both of which should be consulted to evaluate the specific workings of the statute. It will also be important to see if the Commonwealth issues new guidance in the future pertaining to the 2012 amendments.
I previously wrote about the original Permit Extension Act in August and November 2010. I have included that 2010 information below in case you are interested. Keep in mind that information from 2010 has been superseded by the 2012 Jobs Bill and amendments discussed above.
On August 5, 2010, the governor signed the "Permit Extension Act". This law is important for economic development because it will prevent (at least for two years) the expiration of real estate development permits that had already been granted for commercial, industrial and residential projects. This will provide relief for projects that have not been able to move forward due to poor financing and market conditions during the recession and therefore faced the expiration of hard earned permits.
In essence, any State or local permit “concerning the use or development of real property” in existence between August 15, 2008 and continuing through August 15, 2010 (the so-called “tolling period”) shall be extended for two years in addition to the lawful term of the approval. Approvals that are extended include those issued under the Zoning Act, Subdivision Control Law, Wetlands Protection Act, MEPA, and Chapter 91. Also included are approvals issued under “any local bylaw or ordinance”.
Permits that are not extended by the Act include “comprehensive permits” issued by a local zoning board of appeals under Chapter 40B, Federal permits and certain other approvals. There are certain other limitations in the Act.
Back in August 2010, I alerted clients and colleagues to the new “Permit Extension Act”, which provides a very valuable two-year extension to qualifying real estate development permits that were in effect or existence between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010. Last week, the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) issued helpful guidance in the form of “Frequently Asked Questions” to assist regulatory agencies, property owners and consultants in implementing the Act.
The 2010 FAQ clarifies and confirms many aspects of the Act, such as:
a. The Act automatically extends the permit by operation of law, so that a permit holder and issuing agency are not required to take action to activate the extension. However, an issuing agency may issue an extension form to a permit holder who requests such a document.
b. The Act is not limited to state-issued permits; the two-year extension applies to all qualifying permits issued by any town, city, regional or state entity.
c. Permits related to pre-development activities, such as the clean-up of oil or hazardous materials, are not affected by the Act. Such pre-development activities are considered to be independent undertakings outside the context of a larger development project and, therefore, are not covered by the Act.
d. The Act extends building permits that were issued or in effect between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010.
e. MEPA certificates, decisions, and waivers are covered, so that qualifying certificates will have two additional years before a “lapse of time” will have occurred that would otherwise have triggered a Notice of Project Change or a new Environmental Notification Form.
f. Importantly, the Act revives and extends any permit or approval that may have expired during the qualifying period of August 15, 2008 through August 15, 2010. Thus, for instance, “a permit that expired on July 1, 2009, is now revived and set to expire on July 1, 2011.” Also, a permit is revived even if an extension had been previously denied by the agency.
g. The Act provides an additional two years to the original term of the permit even if it was not due to expire until after the qualifying period of August 15, 2008 through August 15, 2010. Thus, “if a permit or approval was due to expire on September 1, 2011, it will now automatically expire on September 1, 2013.”
h. However, a permit that had been revoked during the qualifying period is not extended, because the Act specifically preserves the issuing agency’s authority to suspend or revoke a permit. However, the agency must have an independent reason authorized by the terms of the permit in order to revoke or suspend the permit. The agency cannot attempt to avoid the two year extension by revoking or suspending the permit.
i. The Act does not protect a permit holder from enforcement actions to address noncompliance. The issuing agency’s enforcement authority is retained.
j. The Act does not extend mitigation that was required as a condition of the original permit. All conditions that applied to the permit continue to apply, so that the permit is subject to the same substantive terms as when it was originally issued. However, any interim deadlines established by the permit are extended for two years, according to the FAQ.
k. The FAQ indicates that a permit that was pending “adjudicatory appeal” during the qualifying period is not extended. In contrast, a permit pending “judicial appeal” would qualify for an extension if the court were to ultimately uphold the permit.
Of course, the complete text of the FAQ and the Act should be reviewed to evaluate the specific workings of the statute.
The Massachusetts Legislature recently passed the “Economic Development Bill”, or “Jobs Bill”, which the Governor signed on August 7. Two sections of that Bill amended the original 2010 “Permit Extension Act,” to extend it by two years. The Permit Extension Act itself had granted an automatic 2-year extension to qualifying State and local permits that had been in effect between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010. Pursuant to the new Jobs Bill, a permit that was in existence between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2012, would be extended for a total of four years.
Here is how the 2010 Permit Extension Act works in conjunction with the 2012 Jobs Bill:
The Act as amended states that, “Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, an approval in effect or existence during the tolling period shall be extended for a period of 4 years, in addition to the lawful term of the approval.” The “tolling period” in which the permit needs to have been in effect is defined as “the period beginning August 15, 2008, and continuing through August 15, 2012.”
For instance, if a qualifying permit was in effect on January 1, 2009, the permit would be extended for four years beyond the original term of the permit. Similarly, if a permit existed as of the date of this post (August 9th, which is before the August 15, 2012 cut-off date), the permit would be extended for four years beyond its original expiration date.
Of course, there are limitations and conditions in the 2010 Permit Extension Act, and the Commonwealth issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” guidance document on the Act in 2010, both of which should be consulted to evaluate the specific workings of the statute. It will also be important to see if the Commonwealth issues new guidance in the future pertaining to the 2012 amendments.
I previously wrote about the original Permit Extension Act in August and November 2010. I have included that 2010 information below in case you are interested. Keep in mind that information from 2010 has been superseded by the 2012 Jobs Bill and amendments discussed above.
TEXT FROM AUGUST 2010
On August 5, 2010, the governor signed the "Permit Extension Act". This law is important for economic development because it will prevent (at least for two years) the expiration of real estate development permits that had already been granted for commercial, industrial and residential projects. This will provide relief for projects that have not been able to move forward due to poor financing and market conditions during the recession and therefore faced the expiration of hard earned permits.
In essence, any State or local permit “concerning the use or development of real property” in existence between August 15, 2008 and continuing through August 15, 2010 (the so-called “tolling period”) shall be extended for two years in addition to the lawful term of the approval. Approvals that are extended include those issued under the Zoning Act, Subdivision Control Law, Wetlands Protection Act, MEPA, and Chapter 91. Also included are approvals issued under “any local bylaw or ordinance”.
Permits that are not extended by the Act include “comprehensive permits” issued by a local zoning board of appeals under Chapter 40B, Federal permits and certain other approvals. There are certain other limitations in the Act.
TEXT FROM NOVEMBER 2010
Back in August 2010, I alerted clients and colleagues to the new “Permit Extension Act”, which provides a very valuable two-year extension to qualifying real estate development permits that were in effect or existence between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010. Last week, the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) issued helpful guidance in the form of “Frequently Asked Questions” to assist regulatory agencies, property owners and consultants in implementing the Act.
The 2010 FAQ clarifies and confirms many aspects of the Act, such as:
a. The Act automatically extends the permit by operation of law, so that a permit holder and issuing agency are not required to take action to activate the extension. However, an issuing agency may issue an extension form to a permit holder who requests such a document.
b. The Act is not limited to state-issued permits; the two-year extension applies to all qualifying permits issued by any town, city, regional or state entity.
c. Permits related to pre-development activities, such as the clean-up of oil or hazardous materials, are not affected by the Act. Such pre-development activities are considered to be independent undertakings outside the context of a larger development project and, therefore, are not covered by the Act.
d. The Act extends building permits that were issued or in effect between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010.
e. MEPA certificates, decisions, and waivers are covered, so that qualifying certificates will have two additional years before a “lapse of time” will have occurred that would otherwise have triggered a Notice of Project Change or a new Environmental Notification Form.
f. Importantly, the Act revives and extends any permit or approval that may have expired during the qualifying period of August 15, 2008 through August 15, 2010. Thus, for instance, “a permit that expired on July 1, 2009, is now revived and set to expire on July 1, 2011.” Also, a permit is revived even if an extension had been previously denied by the agency.
g. The Act provides an additional two years to the original term of the permit even if it was not due to expire until after the qualifying period of August 15, 2008 through August 15, 2010. Thus, “if a permit or approval was due to expire on September 1, 2011, it will now automatically expire on September 1, 2013.”
h. However, a permit that had been revoked during the qualifying period is not extended, because the Act specifically preserves the issuing agency’s authority to suspend or revoke a permit. However, the agency must have an independent reason authorized by the terms of the permit in order to revoke or suspend the permit. The agency cannot attempt to avoid the two year extension by revoking or suspending the permit.
i. The Act does not protect a permit holder from enforcement actions to address noncompliance. The issuing agency’s enforcement authority is retained.
j. The Act does not extend mitigation that was required as a condition of the original permit. All conditions that applied to the permit continue to apply, so that the permit is subject to the same substantive terms as when it was originally issued. However, any interim deadlines established by the permit are extended for two years, according to the FAQ.
k. The FAQ indicates that a permit that was pending “adjudicatory appeal” during the qualifying period is not extended. In contrast, a permit pending “judicial appeal” would qualify for an extension if the court were to ultimately uphold the permit.
Of course, the complete text of the FAQ and the Act should be reviewed to evaluate the specific workings of the statute.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
10 Terms for Your Term Sheet
Clients often ask what steps they need to take to buy or sell (or invest in) a business. Commonly, they need to finish hammering out the business terms with the other side and then prepare a Term Sheet (or a Letter of Intent (LOI), or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)) to outline the principal business points.
The purpose of the Term Sheet is to create a road map for the transaction, so the parties know where they are headed as they enter into the deal. Although the “typical” Term Sheet is non-binding (more on that, below), it nonetheless is important to identify the key terms the parties have “agreed to agree” on if they ultimately go forward. The terms in the Term Sheet can be replaced with the final deal documents.
Here are “10 Terms for Your Term Sheet” for discussion with the other side along with other items unique to your deal:
1. Price and Consideration: This should identify what the parties are exchanging, for instance, a certain dollar amount in exchange for all or part of the company or a certain parcel of land or interest in a building. In addition, discuss whether the price will be paid in cash or some other property (e.g., stock in a company, real estate, services, etc.) and if financing is involved.
2. Structure of the Deal: If it is a business sale, confirm whether it is an asset purchase or a stock purchase. With an asset purchase, the buyer acquires certain assets while leaving other assets (and liabilities) with the seller. However, if it is a stock purchase, the buyer acquires the stock of the company (its assets as well as its liabilities). Naturally, when taking on broader liabilities, due diligence may become more important (see below). If it is a real estate deal, confirm the type of interest involved (e.g., fee simple, a phase of a condominium development, a lease, certain rights in a project, etc.).
3. Payment Terms: Discuss whether the buyer will pay a lump sum at closing or make payments in installments. If there are installment payments, discuss if they are conditioned on the company’s future performance, such as the company reaching certain financial milestones. (In May 2011, I circulated a Memo on business succession and exit planning. Please contact me if you would like a copy.)
4. Is Financing Involved?: If the buyer requires outside financing, discuss a financing contingency, obtaining appropriate commitment letters, complying with the lender’s closing conditions, and providing some amount of down payment or deposit. If the seller is providing the financing, discuss the interest rate, term, and collateral to protect the seller. For instance, collateral may be a pledge of the company stock or business property or some individual assets of the buyer.
5. Due Diligence: The buyer may want a reasonable time to evaluate the assets, liabilities, operations and financial condition of the business. (See Confidentiality, below.) This may necessitate access to the seller’s management and other representatives as well as financial data and other business information. If land or buildings are included in the deal, due diligence may include environmental, zoning, structural and other inquiry into the property.
6. Confidentiality: The buyer and its agents should anticipate that the seller may want them to sign a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement related to the confidential business information that is provided during due diligence. Although the Term Sheet may be nonbinding, the Confidentiality provision may be identified as binding and surviving the expiration or earlier termination of the Term Sheet.
7. Assignment and Transfer Issues: The parties should attempt to identify the assets that need consent from a third-party to be transferred to the buyer. For instance, the transfer of real estate leases, customer or vendor contracts, and financing agreements may trigger third-party consent. In addition, consent may be required if there is a transfer of the company’s stock or controlling interest even if the company’s name on the underlying contract does not change.
8. Covenant Not to Compete: If the buyer wants the seller and its key employees to help run the business after the closing, the parties should reference employment agreements and consulting agreements that will need to be executed. If the buyer is prepared to run the business on its own, it may want to prevent the seller from competing for a certain period of time. In Massachusetts, noncompete agreements that are reasonable as to time, scope and geography are enforceable. (Please contact me if you would like a copy of the Memo I circulated in April 2012 on noncompete agreements.)
9. Exclusivity and “No Shop” Provision: Buyers often want to prevent the seller from using the offer to shop for a better deal. Thus, consider a provision preventing the seller from soliciting or negotiating alternative proposals during the due diligence and up to the binding agreement. Unlike other terms, this provision should be binding.
10. Post-Closing Obligations: The parties should specify the items they may need to complete after the closing, such as completing tax filings, obtaining approvals from third parties, consulting or employment agreements, and noncompete agreements
Although the terms of the Term Sheet limit the binding nature of the proposal, a buyer and seller can nonetheless agree to make all reasonable efforts to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms they have outlined. If buyer’s due diligence is successful, the parties can proceed to drafting the final documents, such as the purchase agreement, assignments, and consents, and proceed to closing the transaction and performing any post-closing obligations.
The buyer and seller should give the Term Sheet serious consideration even though it might seem informal due to its nonbinding nature. The key terms that have been negotiated will likely be difficult to re-negotiate once the parties get to drafting the binding purchase agreement and final deal documents.
Please contact me if you or a colleague have any questions regarding the purchase or sale of a business or real estate.
The purpose of the Term Sheet is to create a road map for the transaction, so the parties know where they are headed as they enter into the deal. Although the “typical” Term Sheet is non-binding (more on that, below), it nonetheless is important to identify the key terms the parties have “agreed to agree” on if they ultimately go forward. The terms in the Term Sheet can be replaced with the final deal documents.
Here are “10 Terms for Your Term Sheet” for discussion with the other side along with other items unique to your deal:
1. Price and Consideration: This should identify what the parties are exchanging, for instance, a certain dollar amount in exchange for all or part of the company or a certain parcel of land or interest in a building. In addition, discuss whether the price will be paid in cash or some other property (e.g., stock in a company, real estate, services, etc.) and if financing is involved.
2. Structure of the Deal: If it is a business sale, confirm whether it is an asset purchase or a stock purchase. With an asset purchase, the buyer acquires certain assets while leaving other assets (and liabilities) with the seller. However, if it is a stock purchase, the buyer acquires the stock of the company (its assets as well as its liabilities). Naturally, when taking on broader liabilities, due diligence may become more important (see below). If it is a real estate deal, confirm the type of interest involved (e.g., fee simple, a phase of a condominium development, a lease, certain rights in a project, etc.).
3. Payment Terms: Discuss whether the buyer will pay a lump sum at closing or make payments in installments. If there are installment payments, discuss if they are conditioned on the company’s future performance, such as the company reaching certain financial milestones. (In May 2011, I circulated a Memo on business succession and exit planning. Please contact me if you would like a copy.)
4. Is Financing Involved?: If the buyer requires outside financing, discuss a financing contingency, obtaining appropriate commitment letters, complying with the lender’s closing conditions, and providing some amount of down payment or deposit. If the seller is providing the financing, discuss the interest rate, term, and collateral to protect the seller. For instance, collateral may be a pledge of the company stock or business property or some individual assets of the buyer.
5. Due Diligence: The buyer may want a reasonable time to evaluate the assets, liabilities, operations and financial condition of the business. (See Confidentiality, below.) This may necessitate access to the seller’s management and other representatives as well as financial data and other business information. If land or buildings are included in the deal, due diligence may include environmental, zoning, structural and other inquiry into the property.
6. Confidentiality: The buyer and its agents should anticipate that the seller may want them to sign a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement related to the confidential business information that is provided during due diligence. Although the Term Sheet may be nonbinding, the Confidentiality provision may be identified as binding and surviving the expiration or earlier termination of the Term Sheet.
7. Assignment and Transfer Issues: The parties should attempt to identify the assets that need consent from a third-party to be transferred to the buyer. For instance, the transfer of real estate leases, customer or vendor contracts, and financing agreements may trigger third-party consent. In addition, consent may be required if there is a transfer of the company’s stock or controlling interest even if the company’s name on the underlying contract does not change.
8. Covenant Not to Compete: If the buyer wants the seller and its key employees to help run the business after the closing, the parties should reference employment agreements and consulting agreements that will need to be executed. If the buyer is prepared to run the business on its own, it may want to prevent the seller from competing for a certain period of time. In Massachusetts, noncompete agreements that are reasonable as to time, scope and geography are enforceable. (Please contact me if you would like a copy of the Memo I circulated in April 2012 on noncompete agreements.)
9. Exclusivity and “No Shop” Provision: Buyers often want to prevent the seller from using the offer to shop for a better deal. Thus, consider a provision preventing the seller from soliciting or negotiating alternative proposals during the due diligence and up to the binding agreement. Unlike other terms, this provision should be binding.
10. Post-Closing Obligations: The parties should specify the items they may need to complete after the closing, such as completing tax filings, obtaining approvals from third parties, consulting or employment agreements, and noncompete agreements
Although the terms of the Term Sheet limit the binding nature of the proposal, a buyer and seller can nonetheless agree to make all reasonable efforts to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms they have outlined. If buyer’s due diligence is successful, the parties can proceed to drafting the final documents, such as the purchase agreement, assignments, and consents, and proceed to closing the transaction and performing any post-closing obligations.
The buyer and seller should give the Term Sheet serious consideration even though it might seem informal due to its nonbinding nature. The key terms that have been negotiated will likely be difficult to re-negotiate once the parties get to drafting the binding purchase agreement and final deal documents.
Please contact me if you or a colleague have any questions regarding the purchase or sale of a business or real estate.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Why is it so difficult to rebuild a home?
Property owners are often struck by how difficult it is to build or rebuild a home in Massachusetts, especially if the lot or building is “nonconforming” (e.g., the lot is too small or does not have enough frontage, the house is too close to the property line, there is too much lot coverage, etc.). Even if a home has existed for decades without any “problems”, it can be very difficult (and expensive) to obtain approvals for additions or rebuilding to create present day amenities like energy efficiency, larger space and improved views.
If a city or town has tightened its zoning code over the years, the home falls into the category of “preexisting nonconforming structure” with challenging permit requirements regulating alterations. All of a sudden, a “team” of professionals may be needed to help obtain the necessary approvals. (However, to paraphrase Seinfeld, not that hiring professionals is a bad thing!) Although “mansionization” grabs the media attention, even modest reconstructions can face this challenge.
The Legal Standards
The challenge originates primarily in the State Zoning Act, General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 6, which provides that a preexisting nonconforming single family structure may be altered or reconstructed provided that it “does not increase the nonconforming nature” of the structure. To determine if a home’s nonconforming nature would be increased, one needs to identify the existing nonconformity (e.g., area, setback, frontage, coverage, etc.) and then determine if the new home would intensify the nonconformity or create new ones.
If the municipality determines that the home’s nonconforming nature would be increased, the rebuilding is allowed only if it is not “substantially more detrimental” than the existing home to the neighborhood. This is often called the “Section 6 Finding”, after its location in Section 6 of the Zoning Act.
As you likely sense, these are vague, subjective standards. Ultimately, the determination is typically made by the volunteer members of the local zoning board of appeals, who are often subject (and receptive) to neighbors’ claims that they are “aggrieved” by the proposal. (One maxim applies here: very few neighbors like change.)
Adding to this challenge is the authority granted to each municipality to adopt its own local zoning code to customize provisions of the Zoning Act. For instance, each municipality is allowed to implement different procedures, standards, prohibitions, and voting requirements for the Section 6 Finding and determining whether an alteration is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
What Is “Substantially More Detrimental” to the Neighborhood?
Prior court decisions may not be too helpful in clarifying these issues because the other decisions are often tailored to a municipality’s specific code and project. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) attempted to facilitate approval of certain “small scale” alterations in its 2008 decision titled “Bjorklund vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Norwell”. However, the SJC’s list of small scale projects was so limited as to have little practical effect for owners proposing even modest additions or reconstructions. For example, the SJC’s list of small projects included adding one dormer, enclosing a porch or sunroom, constructing a 2-car garage, and installing a storage shed for gardening or pool equipment.
Some municipalities handle the Section 6 Finding as an “administrative finding”, usually by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) based upon a simple majority vote. However, some municipalities have made the Finding subject to a discretionary “Special Permit”, with all the strict requirements imposed by Section 9 of the Zoning Act, such as written notice to all “interested parties”, legal advertisements in the newspaper, long time frames for opening the public hearing and issuing a decision, and, very importantly, a “supermajority” vote (e.g., four affirmative votes of a five member board).
In addition, a municipality may seek to impose a detailed list of “Special Permit criteria” to the statutory test of whether the proposal is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Of course, because “substantial detriment” is not susceptible of a fixed measure, the public hearing often delves into amorphous issues like, is it too big, is it in harmony with the neighborhood, does it impact views, etc.
This complex process begs a simple question: If other homes in the neighborhood are roughly similar to the proposed house, is it possible for the new home to be “substantially more detrimental” to the neighborhood?
As if the discretionary Section 6 Finding was not challenging enough, some municipalities have also adopted a discretionary “site plan review” requirement (or, even more onerous, a “site plan special permit” requirement), or wetland regulations with strict “no build” zones, or sewage disposal restrictions more stringent than the State standards. These all have their own complexities, often necessitating a team to navigate them. However, apropos of Seinfeld, not that hiring a team of experts is a bad thing!
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on permit requirements for building a home or other real estate issues.
If a city or town has tightened its zoning code over the years, the home falls into the category of “preexisting nonconforming structure” with challenging permit requirements regulating alterations. All of a sudden, a “team” of professionals may be needed to help obtain the necessary approvals. (However, to paraphrase Seinfeld, not that hiring professionals is a bad thing!) Although “mansionization” grabs the media attention, even modest reconstructions can face this challenge.
The Legal Standards
The challenge originates primarily in the State Zoning Act, General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 6, which provides that a preexisting nonconforming single family structure may be altered or reconstructed provided that it “does not increase the nonconforming nature” of the structure. To determine if a home’s nonconforming nature would be increased, one needs to identify the existing nonconformity (e.g., area, setback, frontage, coverage, etc.) and then determine if the new home would intensify the nonconformity or create new ones.
If the municipality determines that the home’s nonconforming nature would be increased, the rebuilding is allowed only if it is not “substantially more detrimental” than the existing home to the neighborhood. This is often called the “Section 6 Finding”, after its location in Section 6 of the Zoning Act.
As you likely sense, these are vague, subjective standards. Ultimately, the determination is typically made by the volunteer members of the local zoning board of appeals, who are often subject (and receptive) to neighbors’ claims that they are “aggrieved” by the proposal. (One maxim applies here: very few neighbors like change.)
Adding to this challenge is the authority granted to each municipality to adopt its own local zoning code to customize provisions of the Zoning Act. For instance, each municipality is allowed to implement different procedures, standards, prohibitions, and voting requirements for the Section 6 Finding and determining whether an alteration is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
What Is “Substantially More Detrimental” to the Neighborhood?
Prior court decisions may not be too helpful in clarifying these issues because the other decisions are often tailored to a municipality’s specific code and project. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) attempted to facilitate approval of certain “small scale” alterations in its 2008 decision titled “Bjorklund vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Norwell”. However, the SJC’s list of small scale projects was so limited as to have little practical effect for owners proposing even modest additions or reconstructions. For example, the SJC’s list of small projects included adding one dormer, enclosing a porch or sunroom, constructing a 2-car garage, and installing a storage shed for gardening or pool equipment.
Some municipalities handle the Section 6 Finding as an “administrative finding”, usually by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) based upon a simple majority vote. However, some municipalities have made the Finding subject to a discretionary “Special Permit”, with all the strict requirements imposed by Section 9 of the Zoning Act, such as written notice to all “interested parties”, legal advertisements in the newspaper, long time frames for opening the public hearing and issuing a decision, and, very importantly, a “supermajority” vote (e.g., four affirmative votes of a five member board).
In addition, a municipality may seek to impose a detailed list of “Special Permit criteria” to the statutory test of whether the proposal is substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. Of course, because “substantial detriment” is not susceptible of a fixed measure, the public hearing often delves into amorphous issues like, is it too big, is it in harmony with the neighborhood, does it impact views, etc.
This complex process begs a simple question: If other homes in the neighborhood are roughly similar to the proposed house, is it possible for the new home to be “substantially more detrimental” to the neighborhood?
As if the discretionary Section 6 Finding was not challenging enough, some municipalities have also adopted a discretionary “site plan review” requirement (or, even more onerous, a “site plan special permit” requirement), or wetland regulations with strict “no build” zones, or sewage disposal restrictions more stringent than the State standards. These all have their own complexities, often necessitating a team to navigate them. However, apropos of Seinfeld, not that hiring a team of experts is a bad thing!
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on permit requirements for building a home or other real estate issues.
Monday, February 27, 2012
"Who you gonna sue" (or be sued by)?
In the Ghostbusters movie, the popular refrain was, “Who you gonna call?” In the business world, when a company’s expectations are not met, the inquiry is often, “Who you gonna sue?”
Fortunately, for providers of professional services, the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently confirmed that there are limits on who can sue a professional. Even with these limits, professionals need to watch out for third-parties (i.e., parties with whom they are not in contract) that may seek to rely on, and attempt to sue based on, the professional’s services. This is important for consultants, engineers, architects, contractors, brokers, accountants, planners, and other professional service providers.
Facts of the Case
The Appeals Court case is called, “Meridian at Windchime, Inc. v. Earth Tech, Inc.” A real estate developer attempted to sue a professional engineering firm that had been hired by a town as a consultant to inspect the developer’s road and utility work. Importantly, the engineer’s contract was with the town, not the developer.
The developer alleged that the engineer’s inspections were negligent because they failed to identify deficiencies with the infrastructure work performed by the developer’s construction contractor. When the deficiencies were discovered later on, the developer was required to replace the road at far greater cost than if the deficiencies were discovered earlier.
When the road contractor went out of business, the developer was faced with the question, “Who you gonna sue?” It chose the engineer, even though it did not have a contract with the engineer.
What the Appeals Court Said
The Appeals Court held that the developer was not allowed to sue the engineer because there was no direct contract between the developer and the engineer (i.e., no “breach of contract” claim), and there are limits to the liability of a professional to a third-party for negligent performance of a contract.
Under the principle of “reasonable reliance”, a professional employed to provide a service does not owe a duty of care to a third-party with whom the professional has no contractual relationship unless (i) it was “foreseeable and reasonable” for the third-party to rely on the services provided by the professional to its client, and (ii) the professional had “actual knowledge” that the third-party was relying on the professional’s services.
The Court held that there was no “reasonable reliance” because the developer had hired its own project engineer to provide services on the project, the underlying contract between the town and the engineer provided that the engineer would have no responsibility for the construction methods selected by the developer, and the engineer had informed the developer of the engineer’s limited role in the project.
Things For the Professional to Consider
• When entering into a contract for professional services, the professional should consider whether the work product might be obtained and relied upon by a third-party who is not the intended client. For instance, this scenario can arise if the professional is engaged to make submittals to local or state agencies (which could then make the document accessible to the public, members of which might claim “reliance” on the submittal). Another scenario is when a professional submits work product to a client or lender, who then shares it with a buyer, borrower, customer or other “user”.
• Consider adding provisions in the contract as well as statements in the work product to clearly announce that the services and work product are only for the client’s use, the document may not be used or relied upon by any third-party, and there are no intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract. Such a statement should be considered for each submission prepared by the professional even if the submissions are numerous or frequent (e.g., periodic inspection or status reports).
• If there is reason to believe that a third-party might seek to rely on the services or work product that the professional is providing to its client, the professional should consider informing the third-party that it can not and should not rely on the professional’s services without prior express approval.
• In contrast, if you are in the role of the “third-party” and want the legal right to rely on the work product of a professional with whom you are not in contract, you can attempt to obtain a statement from the professional, sometimes in the form of a “reliance letter”, confirming that you are authorized to rely on the work product just as the original client was able to rely on it.
Although these measures do not assure immunity from claims by third-parties, they might provide some level of protection against them.
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on contracts, performance, or real estate issues.
Fortunately, for providers of professional services, the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently confirmed that there are limits on who can sue a professional. Even with these limits, professionals need to watch out for third-parties (i.e., parties with whom they are not in contract) that may seek to rely on, and attempt to sue based on, the professional’s services. This is important for consultants, engineers, architects, contractors, brokers, accountants, planners, and other professional service providers.
Facts of the Case
The Appeals Court case is called, “Meridian at Windchime, Inc. v. Earth Tech, Inc.” A real estate developer attempted to sue a professional engineering firm that had been hired by a town as a consultant to inspect the developer’s road and utility work. Importantly, the engineer’s contract was with the town, not the developer.
The developer alleged that the engineer’s inspections were negligent because they failed to identify deficiencies with the infrastructure work performed by the developer’s construction contractor. When the deficiencies were discovered later on, the developer was required to replace the road at far greater cost than if the deficiencies were discovered earlier.
When the road contractor went out of business, the developer was faced with the question, “Who you gonna sue?” It chose the engineer, even though it did not have a contract with the engineer.
What the Appeals Court Said
The Appeals Court held that the developer was not allowed to sue the engineer because there was no direct contract between the developer and the engineer (i.e., no “breach of contract” claim), and there are limits to the liability of a professional to a third-party for negligent performance of a contract.
Under the principle of “reasonable reliance”, a professional employed to provide a service does not owe a duty of care to a third-party with whom the professional has no contractual relationship unless (i) it was “foreseeable and reasonable” for the third-party to rely on the services provided by the professional to its client, and (ii) the professional had “actual knowledge” that the third-party was relying on the professional’s services.
The Court held that there was no “reasonable reliance” because the developer had hired its own project engineer to provide services on the project, the underlying contract between the town and the engineer provided that the engineer would have no responsibility for the construction methods selected by the developer, and the engineer had informed the developer of the engineer’s limited role in the project.
Things For the Professional to Consider
• When entering into a contract for professional services, the professional should consider whether the work product might be obtained and relied upon by a third-party who is not the intended client. For instance, this scenario can arise if the professional is engaged to make submittals to local or state agencies (which could then make the document accessible to the public, members of which might claim “reliance” on the submittal). Another scenario is when a professional submits work product to a client or lender, who then shares it with a buyer, borrower, customer or other “user”.
• Consider adding provisions in the contract as well as statements in the work product to clearly announce that the services and work product are only for the client’s use, the document may not be used or relied upon by any third-party, and there are no intended third-party beneficiaries of the contract. Such a statement should be considered for each submission prepared by the professional even if the submissions are numerous or frequent (e.g., periodic inspection or status reports).
• If there is reason to believe that a third-party might seek to rely on the services or work product that the professional is providing to its client, the professional should consider informing the third-party that it can not and should not rely on the professional’s services without prior express approval.
• In contrast, if you are in the role of the “third-party” and want the legal right to rely on the work product of a professional with whom you are not in contract, you can attempt to obtain a statement from the professional, sometimes in the form of a “reliance letter”, confirming that you are authorized to rely on the work product just as the original client was able to rely on it.
Although these measures do not assure immunity from claims by third-parties, they might provide some level of protection against them.
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on contracts, performance, or real estate issues.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Is your property contaminated? How about your indoor air? (MassDEP's Guidance on Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Air)
Just in time for the recent Holiday season, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection provided the real estate and environmental communities with a dubious present, the 102-page (plus five appendices) “Interim Final Vapor Intrusion Guidance” document on the scintillating (to some) topic of indoor air contamination caused by groundwater and soil contamination. The Guidance document will be important for building and landowners, developers, lenders, tenants and environmental consultants, particularly Licensed Site Professionals (LSP’s), with the misfortune of encountering (potential) indoor air contamination.
The DEP estimates that approximately 50 new sites are identified each year with the potential for vapor intrusion (i.e., the way contamination in soil and groundwater can enter a building and contaminate the indoor air). In addition, vapor intrusion concerns have been raised at former contaminated sites that were previously cleaned up and believed to be “closed” under the hazardous waste cleanup regulations. Additional expensive and time-consuming hazardous waste response actions have been required at some former sites based upon assertions that the prior cleanup did not properly evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion or for new building construction. As imagined, this uncertainty has been a serious concern for lenders, owners, developers and LSPs.
A title combining the words “Interim”, “Final”, and “Guidance” raises some questions as to the document’s legal and practical effect. According to DEP, the document is “final” insofar as it can be quoted and cited after a prior draft had previously been circulated. It is “interim” insofar as DEP says that it will issue formal revisions to its regulations by July 2012, which may supersede parts of the document and lead to additional revisions. Finally, according to DEP, the “Guidance” is not a regulation, rule or requirement, and should not be construed as mandatory. However, because the Guidance presents the technical recommendations and preferences of DEP, an owner, developer or LSP could be forgiven if they treated the document as a requirement subject to enforcement by DEP.
The Guidance outlines DEP’s recommendations for best practices that will meet the current regulatory requirements. The stated purposes are to clarify when to evaluate the pathway for vapor intrusion; provide guidance on conducting assessments to determine if the vapor intrusion pathway (i.e., migration route from the containment source to the sensitive receptor) is complete and conducting risk assessments if the pathway is complete; and, recommend mitigation strategies to address vapor intrusion.
In terms of evaluating the potential for vapor intrusion at sites where there is soil or groundwater contamination, the Guidance contains a multi-step flow chart including documentation of indoor air contamination or odors, the concentrations of contaminants within certain distances of an occupied building, specific building criteria (e.g., an earthen floor, significant cracks in the foundation, a groundwater sump, etc.), and the potential for contaminants moving along preferential migration pathways such as utility trenches.
The DEP recommends a multiple “Lines of Evidence” approach to determine if the vapor intrusion pathway from source to receptor is complete and likely to be of concern. The Lines of Evidence may include the concentration of contaminants in the soil, groundwater, soil gas below the building (sub-slab soil gas), and indoor air; the presence of preferential migration pathways for vapors; and, the presence of other outdoor and indoor sources for the contaminants (e.g., outdoor sources of pollution, household products, etc.).
In an effort to “simplify” the evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway, DEP has developed Residential and Commercial/Industrial Threshold Values (TVs). These Threshold Values are used to determine whether measured indoor air concentrations are within the range of typical residential indoor air concentrations and typical exposure scenarios for commercial and industrial settings.
The Guidance addresses the common question of whether, and when, to conduct direct sampling of indoor air. The Guidance indicates that it is not common to sample indoor air for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) without first collecting other data on groundwater, soil, or soil gas that indicates that there might be an indoor air problem due to environmental contamination, at least for the purpose of satisfying hazardous waste cleanup regulations (i.e., there may be other reasons to sample the indoor air unrelated to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, or MCP, at 310 CMR 40.0000). The Guidance recognizes that direct sampling of indoor air without gathering other site data can result in erroneous conclusions and unnecessary response actions to address conditions that are not related to the MCP. In addition, when sampling indoor air (if it is appropriate), efforts should be made to eliminate sources of contamination within or near the building that can affect the results, such as cigarette smoke, the use of sprays, solvents, paints, and other household products, and operations of nearby businesses, such as a dry cleaner.
The Guidance discusses the contentious issue of potential future building construction when there is a potential risk of vapor intrusion (if a building were to be constructed). Achieving closure of a vacant contaminated site that does not have a building can be difficult because actual building conditions cannot be directly measured and existing methodology may not explicitly address potential indoor air problems at a future building. The Guidance indicates that, if some amount of residual contamination will remain in the soil or groundwater, the potential for vapor intrusion should be considered in planning the future placement of a new building and preparing the building site.
The Guidance states DEP’s preference of using an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL), which is a deed rider recorded at the Registry of Deeds, to provide notice to interested parties of the contamination that remains and how to address it in the future. For instance, an AUL might specify the measures to be taken at the time of future building construction (e.g., installation of sub-slab depressurization (SSD) system and a vapor barrier) or might restrict construction activity to locations outside of areas with contamination, or specify that an LSP must evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion before a building is constructed.
The Guidance provides that engineering measures may be incorporated into the future construction plans to protect against vapor intrusion if a building will be constructed in an area where contamination remains that could lead to vapor intrusion. Depending on the concentration of the contaminants, a vapor barrier and an active SSD system either is not required (Category A site), or “should” be installed (Category B site), or presumably “would” be installed (Category C site). The Guidance provides criteria on whether post-construction confirmatory indoor air sampling is necessary and the procedure to determine if the SSD system can be terminated.
Among the various takeaways for owners, developers, and lenders is that LSPs and environmental professionals will have good reason to be cautious in addressing contaminated sites with the potential for vapor intrusion and indoor air contamination. This includes sites with existing buildings as well as vacant properties on which building and construction activities may occur in the future. The Guidance will likely lead to additional site investigations and sampling, which would likely be reflected in the cost and schedule of the work.
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on DEP’s Guidance or on other real estate or environmental issues.
The DEP estimates that approximately 50 new sites are identified each year with the potential for vapor intrusion (i.e., the way contamination in soil and groundwater can enter a building and contaminate the indoor air). In addition, vapor intrusion concerns have been raised at former contaminated sites that were previously cleaned up and believed to be “closed” under the hazardous waste cleanup regulations. Additional expensive and time-consuming hazardous waste response actions have been required at some former sites based upon assertions that the prior cleanup did not properly evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion or for new building construction. As imagined, this uncertainty has been a serious concern for lenders, owners, developers and LSPs.
A title combining the words “Interim”, “Final”, and “Guidance” raises some questions as to the document’s legal and practical effect. According to DEP, the document is “final” insofar as it can be quoted and cited after a prior draft had previously been circulated. It is “interim” insofar as DEP says that it will issue formal revisions to its regulations by July 2012, which may supersede parts of the document and lead to additional revisions. Finally, according to DEP, the “Guidance” is not a regulation, rule or requirement, and should not be construed as mandatory. However, because the Guidance presents the technical recommendations and preferences of DEP, an owner, developer or LSP could be forgiven if they treated the document as a requirement subject to enforcement by DEP.
The Guidance outlines DEP’s recommendations for best practices that will meet the current regulatory requirements. The stated purposes are to clarify when to evaluate the pathway for vapor intrusion; provide guidance on conducting assessments to determine if the vapor intrusion pathway (i.e., migration route from the containment source to the sensitive receptor) is complete and conducting risk assessments if the pathway is complete; and, recommend mitigation strategies to address vapor intrusion.
In terms of evaluating the potential for vapor intrusion at sites where there is soil or groundwater contamination, the Guidance contains a multi-step flow chart including documentation of indoor air contamination or odors, the concentrations of contaminants within certain distances of an occupied building, specific building criteria (e.g., an earthen floor, significant cracks in the foundation, a groundwater sump, etc.), and the potential for contaminants moving along preferential migration pathways such as utility trenches.
The DEP recommends a multiple “Lines of Evidence” approach to determine if the vapor intrusion pathway from source to receptor is complete and likely to be of concern. The Lines of Evidence may include the concentration of contaminants in the soil, groundwater, soil gas below the building (sub-slab soil gas), and indoor air; the presence of preferential migration pathways for vapors; and, the presence of other outdoor and indoor sources for the contaminants (e.g., outdoor sources of pollution, household products, etc.).
In an effort to “simplify” the evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway, DEP has developed Residential and Commercial/Industrial Threshold Values (TVs). These Threshold Values are used to determine whether measured indoor air concentrations are within the range of typical residential indoor air concentrations and typical exposure scenarios for commercial and industrial settings.
The Guidance addresses the common question of whether, and when, to conduct direct sampling of indoor air. The Guidance indicates that it is not common to sample indoor air for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) without first collecting other data on groundwater, soil, or soil gas that indicates that there might be an indoor air problem due to environmental contamination, at least for the purpose of satisfying hazardous waste cleanup regulations (i.e., there may be other reasons to sample the indoor air unrelated to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, or MCP, at 310 CMR 40.0000). The Guidance recognizes that direct sampling of indoor air without gathering other site data can result in erroneous conclusions and unnecessary response actions to address conditions that are not related to the MCP. In addition, when sampling indoor air (if it is appropriate), efforts should be made to eliminate sources of contamination within or near the building that can affect the results, such as cigarette smoke, the use of sprays, solvents, paints, and other household products, and operations of nearby businesses, such as a dry cleaner.
The Guidance discusses the contentious issue of potential future building construction when there is a potential risk of vapor intrusion (if a building were to be constructed). Achieving closure of a vacant contaminated site that does not have a building can be difficult because actual building conditions cannot be directly measured and existing methodology may not explicitly address potential indoor air problems at a future building. The Guidance indicates that, if some amount of residual contamination will remain in the soil or groundwater, the potential for vapor intrusion should be considered in planning the future placement of a new building and preparing the building site.
The Guidance states DEP’s preference of using an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL), which is a deed rider recorded at the Registry of Deeds, to provide notice to interested parties of the contamination that remains and how to address it in the future. For instance, an AUL might specify the measures to be taken at the time of future building construction (e.g., installation of sub-slab depressurization (SSD) system and a vapor barrier) or might restrict construction activity to locations outside of areas with contamination, or specify that an LSP must evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion before a building is constructed.
The Guidance provides that engineering measures may be incorporated into the future construction plans to protect against vapor intrusion if a building will be constructed in an area where contamination remains that could lead to vapor intrusion. Depending on the concentration of the contaminants, a vapor barrier and an active SSD system either is not required (Category A site), or “should” be installed (Category B site), or presumably “would” be installed (Category C site). The Guidance provides criteria on whether post-construction confirmatory indoor air sampling is necessary and the procedure to determine if the SSD system can be terminated.
Among the various takeaways for owners, developers, and lenders is that LSPs and environmental professionals will have good reason to be cautious in addressing contaminated sites with the potential for vapor intrusion and indoor air contamination. This includes sites with existing buildings as well as vacant properties on which building and construction activities may occur in the future. The Guidance will likely lead to additional site investigations and sampling, which would likely be reflected in the cost and schedule of the work.
Please contact me if you or a colleague has a question on DEP’s Guidance or on other real estate or environmental issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
