BENJAMIN FIERRO Authority for board
A Charlton homeowner who was shocked to discover that her home is located on a former junkyard urged lawmakers last week to pass legislation that would require the disclosure of environmental hazards to homebuyers.
Pamela Wooton said she and her husband had no idea the home they purchased three years ago sits on a former junkyard until they received a letter from a company offering cleanup services about a year after they moved in. She routinely finds glass, rusted nails, screws and other debris on her property.
“I now have to watch my son very carefully whenever he goes outside to play,” said Wooton, who noted that the cost of decontaminating her property exceeds $150,000.
“If this bill is passed, we believe, other families will be spared from a similar fate,” she told members of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure last Tuesday.
But critics say the language in the bill is vague and could potentially stigmatize properties located near sites that are considered environmentally hazardous. They also say information about environmental contamination is publicly available and accessible to consumers through various federal and local agencies.
“If a property is within one half-mile of a home that had a leaking above-ground oil tank, it would be considered an environmental hazard site. Even if the leak was cleaned up … it would still be considered an environmental hazard site,” said Tamara C. Small, policy and public affairs director for the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. “This bill does not distinguish between properties that have or have not been cleaned up.”
Small also criticized a section of the bill that defines an environmental hazard site as any property within a half-mile of a “historic commercial or industrial site whose past activities were likely to have caused significant contamination.” Under that definition, she said, almost every site in any urban area would qualify.
Under companion bills filed by Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, and Rep. Theodore Speliotis, D-Danvers, sellers would have to disclose environmental problems such as leaking oil tanks, landfills and hazardous waste sites within a half-mile of homes. Sellers either could check public records themselves or hire private firms, attorneys or inspectors to provide a report.
Supporters of the legislation say while such information is available to the public, it is difficult to access and understand.
“I will not kid you. It’s not easy to get [that information],” Benjamin V. Cesare, managing director of residential services for Environmental Data Resources, told Banker & Tradesman prior to the hearing.
Environmental Data Resources, a Connecticut-based company that provides environmental risk reports and assessments to consultants hired by property owners and developers, is supporting the bill.
Cesare said states like California and Arizona have passed similar laws while states like New York and Oregon are considering legislation.
According to Cesare, a homeowner has to pay between $100 and $150 to get a report on environmental hazards from a firm like EDR, which collects information from various public databases.
But Garen K. Sahagian, a senior project manager with Norwood-based GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., said it actually would cost more because such reports are too complicated for most homeowners to understand. “The average homeowner won’t have the expertise to understand the report,” said Sahagian, who estimated a consumer would have to pay $300 to $1,000 to have a professional interpret it or put it into any context.
If the bill passes, it would create a burden for property owners, he said.
“There are very few properties in Massachusetts that don’t fall within a half-mile of one of these [environmental hazard] sites,” he said.
‘Not Entirely Clear’
Realtors also have concerns.
“It’s not entirely clear what the focus of the legislation is,” Stephen Ryan, general counsel for the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, told Banker & Tradesman.
Ryan said it’s not clear that the legislation would require sellers to provide the information, even though that’s what the proponents are saying.
He also pointed out that there’s nothing that currently prevents a homebuyer from accessing information about environmental problems that may exist. “The bill seems to try to create a situation where buyers can gather that information from the seller, but the seller is not in any better position to provide that information,” Ryan said.
In addition to those bills, legislators heard testimony about bills that would require continuing education for homebuilders with construction supervisors’ licenses. Unlike other professionals, including building inspectors and real estate brokers, builders don’t have to complete continuing education courses in order to renew licenses.
The proposed legislation would give the Board of Building Regulations and Standards the authority to impose continuing education requirements and also would establish an advisory board that would determine those requirements, said Benjamin Fierro, an attorney who represents the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts.
Harry Smith, a Weymouth-based construction consultant and a member of the building regulations board, said it’s critical to get the bill passed because the latest edition of the Massachusetts Building Code just became available.
“There’s no more appropriate time to get this bill passed,” Smith said.
Builders have been trying to pass legislation pertaining to continuing education requirements for several years, but the bills have stalled.
“This is a very consumer-friendly piece of legislation,” said Smith.
Chicopee builder Andrew Crane said it’s important for builders to know all aspects of their job, including contract writing.
“Everybody has to go for certification and continuing education. I don’t know why we don’t have to,” he said.
