Dalton & Finegold, LLP, a Massachusetts-based law firm renowned for its expertise in real estate law, estate planning, and litigation, is excited to announce the addition of Looney Cohen & Aisenberg, LLP, a highly respected 30-year-old Boston-based law firm offering closely aligned services. Three partners, a senior associate, and one additional supporting staff member will join Dalton & Finegold, bringing decades of experience representing lenders, corporations, business owners and investors in high-value transactions and litigation matters. The addition sustains the positive momentum and rapid growth of Dalton & Finegold and coincides with the relocation of its Boston office to 125 High Street.
Looney Cohen & Aisenberg LLP was founded in 1995 with Jim Cohen and David Aisenberg acting as two of the founding partners. In the ensuing years, the firm earned an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest rating possible. With a focus on commercial real estate, finance transactions, and general business litigation, the addition of Looney Cohen & Aisenberg will expand Dalton & Finegold’s commercial real estate and general litigation capabilities in the Greater Boston region.
“We are honored to welcome the highly esteemed Looney Cohen & Aisenberg team to Dalton & Finegold to bolster our commercial lending and litigation teams,” said Barry Finegold, Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Dalton & Finegold. “Beyond the complementary services, we felt strong alignment on the client-centric approach, making the transaction a natural fit. The addition of Looney Cohen & Aisenberg’s experienced team represents the latest milestone in the firm’s growth and gives us greater depth in complex and high stakes litigation. We look forward to their contributions to these efforts in the years to come.”
Key team members joining Dalton & Finegold as partners include Jim Cohen, who specializes in commercial real estate and distressed debt transactions; David Aisenberg, an expert in business and real estate litigation; Steven Kasten, who focuses on complex business disputes and healthcare representation; and Senior Counsel Jesse Geller. The newly ingrained team will work out of the Boston office, which, effective February 1st, moved to 125 High Street. Dalton & Finegold’s new Boston office will provide an enhanced environment for collaboration while accommodating the newly expanded team.
ABOUT DALTON AND FINEGOLD
Dalton & Finegold is a full-service civil law firm, proudly meeting the legal needs of individual developers, institutional real estate funds, commercial landlords and tenants, corporations and family offices, privately-owned companies, entrepreneurs, professionals and closely-held and family-owned companies. Regardless of their needs, our clients choose us because they value stability, unwavering devotion and our stellar legal results. https://www.dfllp.com/
BOSTON, MA – January 16, 2025 – Dalton & Finegold, LLP, a Massachusetts based law firm specializing in real estate law, estate planning, and litigation, is pleased to announce the promotions of Paige Shlayen, Esq. and Mckenzie Russell-Masterson, Esq. to the position of Partner, effective immediately. The appointments recognize their dedication, outstanding achievements in their respective fields, and unwavering commitment to the firm’s core values of delivering powerful results, dedication to clients, and collaboration.
Both Shlayen and Russell-Masterson have demonstrated exceptional performance in the firm’s real estate sector, including growing the footprint beyond Boston. Shlayen has played a pivotal role in expanding the firm’s presence in Newton and the MetroWest area, while Russell-Masterson has been instrumental in Western Massachusetts growth.
“Dalton & Finegold’s entrepreneurial approach to legal services is centered on cultivating a new generation of diverse leaders like Paige and Mckenzie who drive results and excellence across the board,” said Barry Finegold, Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Dalton & Finegold. “We are incredibly proud of their individual growth and achieving Partner in a matter of years. Dalton & Finegold strives to recognize emerging leadership, like Paige and McKenzie, and create pathways for advancement. By rewarding hard work and success with meaningful opportunities, we empower our team to grow, lead, and shape the future of the firm.”
Shlayen was most recently a senior associate at the firm and specializes in residential real estate with a focus on buyer and seller representation. She joined the firm in June of 2020, having previously worked in compliance for Santander Bank, and works out of the Boston office. Shlayen is a graduate of Quinnipiac University and New York Law School.
Russell-Masterson last held the position of associate and specializes in residential real estate, with a focus on home buyers, sellers, and developers. She joined the firm in February 2018 and leads the Longmeadow office while also serving clients from Boston to the Berkshires. Russell-Masterson is a graduate of Saint Anselm College and New England Law.
Dalton & Finegold is proud to celebrate this milestone in Shlayen and Russell-Masterson’s careers and the firm’s ongoing growth in Massachusetts and across the New England region. Their promotions to Partner reflect their individual achievements and commitment to fostering a collaborative and client-focused environment.
ABOUT DALTON & FINEGOLD
Dalton & Finegold is a full-service civil law firm, proudly meeting the legal needs of individual developers, institutional real estate funds, commercial landlords and tenants, corporations and family offices, privately-owned companies, entrepreneurs, professionals and closely-held and family-owned companies. Regardless of their needs, our clients choose us because they value stability, unwavering devotion and our stellar legal results. https://www.dfllp.com/
CONTACT:
Sean Hathaway
shathaway@issuesgroup.com
(857) 208-5858
State Regulations Set Definitions for Housing Category
Trinity Financial is proposing 700 apartments and condominiums in Charlestown, including 407 income-restricted units, on Austin Street parking lots offered by the city of Boston for a mixed-income development
Massachusetts residents are familiar with entreaties for production of more “affordable housing” from well-meaning government leaders and housing advocates.
The commonwealth does indeed suffer from a shortage of reasonably priced dwelling units, but before joining the chorus of promoters of “affordable housing,” one might want to consider the meaning of that term, and the consequences of affordable housing initiatives.
The state Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) plays a major role in housing development and affordable housing programs. It is responsible for administering local housing authorities and overseeing state-aided housing projects, urban renewal regulations, housing voucher programs, low-income housing tax credits, smart growth zoning and comprehensive permits for affordable housing projects. It also determines whether municipalities are in compliance with the MBTA Communities law.
EOHLC regulations define “affordable housing” as “homeownership or rental housing which is restricted to occupancy by low- or moderate-income households and for which the sales prices or rents are affordable to such households.” The regulations define “low- or moderate-income households” as those “with gross income at or less than 80 percent of area median household income as most recently determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) adjusted for household size.”
Housing production is the core of EOHLC’s mission.
Area median household income varies throughout Massachusetts, but it is generally in the vicinity of $100,000 per year. These definitions are essential to EOHLC’s affordable housing programs.
The city of Boston and many other municipalities have their own affordable housing requirements baked into their zoning ordinances and bylaws. Boston’s zoning mandate, known as “Inclusionary Zoning,” is particularly aggressive.
It requires new housing projects with seven or more dwelling units, to set aside up to 20 percent of units as income-re-stricted: 17 percent deed-restricted and another 3 percent set aside for holders of state or federal housing subsidy vouchers.
The Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH) oversees compliance with Boston’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance.
Boston Sets Minimum Requirement
In order for affordable housing programs to meet their goals, government agencies, such as EOHLC, MOH and local housing boards, must limit housing prices and rents on affordable units, and determine income eligibility of buyers and renters of those units. These monitoring agencies also must ensure that when affordable units are resold or relet, the household incomes of new occupants do not exceed eligibility limits.
These responsibilities require a lot of effort not only from monitoring agencies, but also from developers, landlords and property managers of affordable units.
To set pricing of affordable units and see that affordable units are only owned by or rented to income-eligible households, developers must accept deed restrictions under affordable housing agreements. These pricing and occupancy restrictions generally last for decades.
Developers intending to sell affordable units to homebuyers are expected to assemble and submit to monitoring agencies marketing plans directed at income-eligible buyers. Developers are sometimes required to give preferences to first-time home buyers, local residents or artists.
The deed restrictions limit resale prices on affordable units, to prevent owners from enjoying profits from a resale, and to verify that buyers meet income eligibility limits. Monitoring agencies must certify that resales meet these requirements.
Challenges in Upkeep and Monitoring
Similar restrictions apply to affordable rental units. Developers must present marketing plans acceptable to monitoring agencies, with limitations on rents and tenant incomes.
For example, when properties inevitably require capital improvements or replacements, owners need the ability to recover their expenditures. Restrictions on resale prices and rents must be loosened to accommodate these expenditures, which owners of affordable units must verify with monitoring agencies.
Also, affordability restrictions on rental properties should be tailored to address increases to occupants’ income levels. Individuals who have low or moderate incomes when they first join the workforce often enjoy significant pay increases as they acquire skills, experience and responsibilities. Monitoring agencies should have mechanisms to prevent “over-income” households from enjoying the benefits of affordability restrictions intended for lower-income households.
Keeping track of tenant income, and moving over-income households out of affordable units to make room for income eligible households, can be difficult for monitoring agencies.
Affordable housing in Massachusetts has come to mean not inexpensive housing, but instead price-controlled housing set aside for lower-income individuals with associated governmental oversight. Imposing affordable housing requirements on developers might be good public policy, if combined with financial incentives that encourage production of more market-rate housing for the general public.
But, if local governments use overly restrictive zoning limitations to force developers to build affordable housing, and their restrictions result in less overall housing production, then it’s time to reevaluate those limitations.
By Christopher R. Vaccaro
Special to Banker & Tradesman
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus stated centuries ago that change is the only constant in life. A few things expected to bring change to the Massachusetts real estate industry in 2025 are discussed below.
The MBTA Communities Act
The MBTA Communities Act requires 177 Massachusetts cities and towns with access to MBTA service, to create at least one zoning district where multifamily housing is permitted as of right. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities’ guidelines set minimum multi-family unit capacities for these MBTA communities. EOHLC issues determinations of compliance to communities that meet its guidelines.
By January, another 130 Massachusetts cities and towns are required to add multifamily zoning districts, expanding development opportunities.
Most MBTA communities have achieved full or interim compliance with EOHLC guidelines, but not the town of Milton. The guidelines require Milton to establish a 50- acre zoning district accommodating at least 2,461 multi-family housing units. Milton’s town government tried to comply, but local opposition thwarted its efforts. The opposition organized a referendum, and Milton’s voters rejected the zoning change.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell promptly sued Milton in the Supreme Judicial Court, seeking an injunction requiring Milton to adopt a compliant zoning amendment.
The attorney general’s suit relies on provisions of the Zoning Act that give courts jurisdiction to enjoin zoning violations. Courts typically use this power against property owners who disregard zoning limitations on building dimensions or uses. The attorney general’s lawsuit to force a municipality to adopt a specific zoning bylaw is an unusual use of the Zoning Act.
The SJC heard arguments on this case in October. It is expected to issue a decision early next year. The real estate community and housing advocacy groups are standing by.
The Affordable Homes Act, enacted last August, includes numerous spending and housing production policies, many of which will take years to deliver results. But one component of the AHA is likely to have a meaningful impact soon.
Affordable Homes Act
The AHA requires that local zoning laws allow at least one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) as-of-right in single-family zoning districts throughout Massachusetts (but not in Boston).
Municipalities cannot require owner occupancy of either ADUs or principal dwellings. The size of an ADU is limited to the lesser of one-half the gross floor area of the principal dwelling or 900 square feet. Reasonable regulations for site plan review, building dimensions and short-term rentals are allowed.
This simple zoning law change has excellent potential to add badly needed dwelling units in Massachusetts.
Offshore Wind Turbine Projects
Massachusetts is expected to be a major staging area for offshore wind turbine projects in federal waters south of Martha’s Vineyards. Vineyard Wind is already under construction, promising to generate clean energy for over 400,000 homes and businesses.
However, Avangrid’s Commonwealth Wind project stalled. That project was expected to generate enough clean energy for over 700,000 homes.
Avangrid originally entered into long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with several utility companies at set prices. Later, it sought to undo the PPAs, claiming that the project was now uneconomic because of inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain problems and other disruptions.
The Department of Public Utilities approved the PPAs over Avangrid’s objections, whereupon Avangrid withdrew from the project.
Another clean energy firm may build this project, but President-elect Donald Trump is no proponent of offshore wind turbines, which depend on leases and other financial incentives from the federal government. The growth of this industry in Massachusetts is at risk.
The End of Chevron Deference
Chevron deference is a legal doctrine that gave federal agencies broad latitude to interpret enabling legislation and promulgate regulations.
The U.S. Supreme Court formulated this doctrine four decades ago in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. In that case, the EPA issued new air pollution regulations that eased permit requirements for polluting industries that modify their plants.
The Supreme Court ruled against an environmental watchdog group that challenged the EPA, holding that when Congress implicitly delegates authority to an agency, courts cannot substitute their own construction of the enabling legislation for the reasonable interpretation of the agency’s administrator.
Last June, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Owners of fishing vessels had challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service’s regulation requiring the fishing industry to pay for on-board observers enforcing the service’s fishery management plan.
Courts now must exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority. They cannot readily defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Loper gives federal courts more scrutiny over federal agencies’ actions, which is expected to increase litigation involving those actions.
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) mandates that businesses share information to help enhance transparency and combat financial crimes. Any company that meets the reporting requirements of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), must file a Beneficial Ownership report by January 1, 2025.
Failure to comply with the BOI reporting requirements may be subject to civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues. A person who willfully violates the BOI reporting requirements may also be subject to criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.
Historic Tax Credits Sweeten the Pot for Developers
By Christopher R. Vaccaro
Special to Banker & Tradesman
Developers looking to reposition historic properties have a double advantage in Massachusetts – federal and state income tax credits based on qualifying historic rehabilitation costs.
The federal historic rehabilitation tax credit program is administered through the Internal Revenue Service and the National Park Service. The credit amounts to 20 percent of “qualified rehabilitation expenditures” on a “qualified rehabilitated building,” as determined by the National Park Service.
The credit is available for substantial rehabilitations of “certified historic structures,” which are buildings listed in the National Register of Historic Places or certified by the National Park Service as contributing to the significance of a registered historic district. In general, a building is considered “substantially rehabilitated” if, during a 24-month measuring period, the qualified rehabilitation expenditures exceed the greater of the adjusted basis of the building and its structural components, or $5,000. The U.S. Department of the Interior publishes detailed standards and guidelines governing rehabilitations that qualify for the tax credit.
State and federal historic tax credits generated $13.5 million in equity toward the first phase of the Eagle Mill redevelopment in Lee which began construction this spring. Rees-Larkin Development and Berkshire Housing Development Corp. are creating 56 affordable apartments in the complex, which operated as a paper mill from 1808 to 2008.
The federal credit is only available for capital expenditures on existing depreciable buildings that are income-producing. It is not available for personal residences. The federal credit is unavailable for acquisition costs, newly constructed buildings, and enlargements or additions to buildings, but it is available for qualified expenditures that increase floor area through interior remodeling. The federal credit cannot be claimed for landscaping, sidewalks, or parking lots. Unlike the Massachusetts historic rehabilitation tax credit discussed below, the federal credit generally is not transferable.
Before 2018, the entire 20-percent federal tax credit could be taken in a lump sum, but now it must be spread out over a 5-year period. The federal rehabilitation credit is one of the general business credits that taxpayers can claim against income tax. As such, if the available credit exceeds income taxes owed in a given year, taxpayers generally can carry back for one year and carry forward for up to 20 years the unused portions of the federal tax credit.
AHA Expands State Investment
The Massachusetts historic rehabilitation tax credit is available through the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The historic rehabilitation tax credit can offset state income taxes for up to 20 percent of a developer’s qualified expenditures to rehabilitate an historic building. Qualified buildings are those listed with the National Register of Historic Places or deemed eligible by the MHC for such listing. Qualifying projects must be certified by the MHC. The credit is earned when the completed project is placed in service.
This state tax incentive program originally was only in effect from 2005 through 2009, with a limit of $10 million in annual tax credits. The program became popular with developers and the state legislature, which amended the statute a few times. The annual limit was soon increased to $15 million, then to $50 million in 2006, and eventually to $55 million in 2018. The sunset provision of the program was steadily extended beyond 2009 to 2027.
Gov. Maura Healey’s Affordable Homes Act, enacted in August, significantly increased the commonwealth’s financial commitment to this tax incentive program, doubling the annual limit on the tax credit from $55 million to $110 million, and extending its expiration date to 2030. Because of the annual limit on the Massachusetts credit, investors must go through an approval process to qualify, and the MHC has discretion when allocating the available credit.
In making this allocation, state regulations require MHC to consider several enumerated factors, such as whether the project will create affordable housing, the historical significance of the building being rehabilitated, the availability of other beneficial funding sources to the taxpayer and the overall economic effect of the project on the surrounding community.
Similar to the federal tax credit, the Massachusetts credit is not available for personal residences, or for acquisition costs. But unlike the federal historic tax credit, taxpayers who qualify for the Massachusetts tax credit can transfer the credit to a different taxpayer without transferring the qualified historic structure itself. This is particularly useful for developers whose taxable income is less than the amount of the credit. Taxpayers can only carry forward unused credits for only up to five years, but taxpayers’ ability to transfer tax credits enables those who cannot utilize the full credit, to realize a financial benefit by selling the unused credit to a taxpayer who can use it.
Historic rehabilitation tax credits are attractive for those committed to preserving historic buildings, but taxpayers must use them with caution. There are numerous complexities that cannot be fully explained in a short column. Consultation with tax professionals is advised.
