Advocates say that a bill in conference committee at the State House would drastically improve the local permitting process for commercial and residential developers, creating a more streamlined system.

Advocates say a piece of new legislation will send a loud message to corporations: Massachusetts is open for business. The proposal for a new streamlined permitting process may be on its way to the law books but first it must survive its current stint in conference committee where it was dumped last month after failing to make the final cut into the economic stimulus package passed by the Legislature. Lawmakers decided that a cost analysis must be completed before the bill continues on to a vote.

Advocates say that it may be as soon as next week that the topic returns to the State House chambers once again. A section of the Senate bill, No. 2127, would overhaul the commercial and residential permitting process by allowing municipalities to mandate just one public notice and create a single hearing and appeal period. No more would developers bounce from one board to the next, subjected to what can sometimes amount to dozens of meetings, appeals and public hearings. Every step of the public process would run concurrently in communities that decide to adopt the provision. Developers are hoping that they do.

“Time is money,” said Robert C. Buckley, a senior partner and real estate attorney at the Boston-based law office of Riemer & Braunstein. “That’s a major factor they [developers] consider about where to build. One of the biggest issues we face is that there’s no streamlined [permitting] process at the local level. By and large, it’s a long and lengthy process. One board asks for one thing, another for something else … It’s unacceptable.”

Buckley specializes in mixed-use development projects and environmental issues, including wetlands and brownfield sites. He has led groups in obtaining permits for office space construction for corporations, hotels and retail centers and played a role in the permitting of more than 750 units of affordable, multifamily housing in the state. He usually tells major developers that they should expect local permitting processes to take 18 months to two years. Over that large span of time, costs easily can run well above $100,000 before the project even breaks ground, Buckley said.

“We have a project right now that has spent that without any permit in hand. It’s a big risk when resources are tight,” he said. “Companies may not want to do that, especially when there’s another [development-friendly] jurisdiction that says: What do you need? We’ll build a road for you.”

As Massachusetts competes with other states for economic development, a faster permitting process may save prospects from going south, literally.

“Companies that are expanding or relocating are looking for other options, and those may be in South Carolina, North Carolina,” Buckley said.

John R. Regan experienced the need for speedier and easier permitting first-hand in the mid-1990s, when he served as director of the Massachusetts Office of Business Development. Now, as the vice president for the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Regan is lobbying the state for a streamlined permitting process to eliminate the some of the unnecessary hurdles developers must jump through.

“Anyone who has ever attempted to do real estate development in Massachusetts is aware that one of the biggest challenges is dealing with the local permitting process,” he said. “It’s extremely complicated. Communities sometimes design the process to be a hurdle. A lot of public input isn’t bad but it can be taken to an extreme. The process can be used to stop a project that has a lot of merit.”

‘Revolutionary’ Idea

A second aspect of the legislation, specifically for commercial developments, would allow towns to create fast-track development sites. Local officials would identify industrial-zoned parcels available for development and issue a special permit before a company even approaches the locality. When a plan presents itself and fits in with the municipality’s vision, the necessary permit could be issued immediately.

“With the economy at a low point and a real estate market with excess capacity, now is the optimal time to work to develop a plan to streamline the local permitting process,” said David Begelfer, chief executive officer of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. “Much has been done on the state level over the past years but local permitting still created the longest delays with the greatest uncertainties. Although it may take a couple of years to succeed, that will be about the time that the market will be needing new development.”

The legislation doesn’t discriminate between commercial or residential real estate – bringing hope to both camps of developers. While Chapter 40B provides for an expedited permitting process for residential projects, it requires in return that a certain percentage of the housing fits low- to moderate-income housing brackets. The new proposed legislation would allow an expedited permitting process for market-rate developments. Under Chapter 40B, a developer submits an application for a comprehensive permit from the local zoning board of appeals for the entire project. The developer, as a condition, must agree to limit profits and set aside 20 percent of the process for low- to moderate-income units.

A streamlined process for all types of housing makes more sense, said Benjamin Fierro of Boston-based Lynch & Fierro, the legal counsel to the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts.

“There’s a lot of merit to this proposal, it would be a revolutionary way of doing business in cities and towns that would adopt it,” he said. “It requires a significant change of mindset for communities who would adopt it … There’s an unwillingness in Massachusetts to relinquish power.”

The Senate’s final version of the economic stimulus package included another developer-friendly provision. Had it made it past the governor’s desk, it would have provided for a statewide permitting office in each region with one economic development office at the state level that would help coordinate the local offices. According to Gov. Mitt Romney’s press office, the measure was line-item vetoed by Romney because the legislation did not include a way to fund the offices and new positions.

Senate President Robert E. Travaglini supported both measures.

“It was an initiative that would give local communities the chance to be more business friendly and send the message statewide that we’re open for business,” said Ann Dufresne, communications director for Travaglini.