Committee backs streamlined reform to automatic stay on appeals; forwards slimmer bill to Planning Board with request for second ordinance

On June 6 the Land Use and Sustainability Committee recommended forwarding a narrower, sponsor-sponsored ordinance that would limit the automatic stay triggered by appeals of Historic Preservation Board (HPB) or Design Review Board (DRB) decisions.

Sponsor Michael Larkin and other proponents argued the current automatic stay — which can remain in effect through higher-tier appeals and sometimes last years — creates a de facto tool to extract concessions and to delay approved projects. The sponsor's slimmer proposal would lift the automatic stay after 120 days, add a briefing schedule (answer brief in 30 days, petitioner reply in 15 days) and require an oral argument to be scheduled within 90 to 120 days; objectors would retain the right to seek stays or injunctions from state court. The sponsor also opposed an automatic bond requirement and asked that the automatic stay not be reinserted as project-level review approaches certificate-of-occupancy (CO) issuance.

Administration staff said the city's version was broader, addressing rehearing timelines and other appeal-notice reforms, and identified two areas of conflict with the sponsor draft: a proposed performance-bond requirement and narrower limits on who may proceed without a stay. Staff said they would not support a large surety bond requirement and expressed concern about permitting applicants to move forward in some circumstances where the city itself is an appellant; staff said it would bring the fuller package to the Planning Board for consideration but could accept the committee's direction to transmit the slimmer ordinance.

During debate commissioners asked whether the changes could be done in two steps; the committee agreed to recommend the sponsor's slimmer ordinance to the Planning Board and to ask the administration to prepare a second ordinance covering the broader reforms for committee review, with the sponsor moving the slimmed version in committee that day.

Proponents, including developer representatives and a downtown development attorney, said lengthy stays create uncertainty and encourage meritless litigation; city staff and the city attorney agreed to coordinate language before first reading. The committee sent the slimmed ordinance to Planning Board (scheduled June 21) with a favorable recommendation and asked staff to return with the second package for Land Use Committee review (target July work session).