AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
March 24, 2005
6:30 P.M. Memorial Hall
Town Hall
1196 Main Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Ricker, Sharon McManus, Kathy Gould.
PUBLIC: Louis Montzoures, Holden Hills LLC. applicant; Jonathon Finklestein, applicants attorney; Kevin Quinn, applicants engineer; Joe Montalto, partner.
STAFF: Pamela Harding, Town Planner
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
The Partnership Committee was updated on the status of various affordable housing projects.
Louis Montzouris was present representing Holden Hills LLC. Which has submitted a Comprehensive Permit Chapter 40B application to MassHousing to obtain a site eligibility letter for a 96 unit condominium development located at the current Holden Sand and Gravel site off of Route 31/Highland Street. Mr. Montzouris stated that he was willing to work with the Town to provide a development that was welcome and meets the Towns affordable housing needs.
Kevin Quinn, of Quinn Engineering gave a brief presentation of the project. Mr. Quinn stated that the plans were very preliminary but that they are expecting to ask for a number of waivers from the subdivision control regulations, including road width and grades. The Partnership asked if there had been a traffic study, noting that the travel speeds on Highland Street were extremely high and that the site distance at the entrance to the development could pose a possible safety concern.
The plan depicted an emergency access road through the storage/industrial area onto Wachusett Street and the Partnership questioned why it could not be a permanent access. The respondent stated that they were trying to avoid a residential use traveling through the Industrial area. It was mentioned that this traffic flow may exacerbate the traffic problem that exists for cars turning left from Wachusett Street onto Highland Street.
The developer was asked if they were restricted to construct all two bedroom units as shown on the plan, Mr. Mountzoures stated that he was open to provide a unit mix to meet the needs of the Town. Three bedroom units were avoided because of the difficult financial situations funding the schools. The Committee stated that there was a need for family and affordable housing for singles and they would like to see a mix of one, two and three bedroom units, it was suggested to contain a minimum of 10% of the housing stock in each category.
It was requested that common open space areas be provided and that natural buffers between abutters and the development be maintained. It was suggested that the applicant contact the Fire Chief to determine how acceptable the terminus of the roadways would be for emergency vehicle access. It was stated that the first impression of the density was that it was high for the 20 acre site in that area.
The Applicant was asked why they did not continue pursuing utilizing the Affordable Housing By-law. They stated that they were having a difficult time making the numbers work but were still considering it as a possibility. MassHousing informed the applicant stated that other development options for the site should not be discussed with the Town while a site eligibility letter for a Chapter 40B is being pursued because there was a possibility that it could be interpreted as adversarial. Because the applicant began talks about the utilization of the affordable housing by-law prior to the 40B proposal the AHPC was open to preliminary talks about possible alternatives. The applicant presented a plan for 37 single family house lots, 6 of the units would be affordable. The Committee informed the applicant that the plan created under the By-law was much less likely to run into opposition then the 96 townhomes. The applicant questioned whether the omission of counting area that
has a slope of 15% or greater is considered prior to or after development. The intent of the exemption was so that non-buildable area could not be utilized to achieve a density bonus and that it could most likely be utilized. Town staff was going to check with Counsel. The by-law was clear that the density bonus could not exceed one unit per acre.
The Affordable Housing Committee stated that they would like to see single family affordable homes and felt the subdivision proposal would proceed much faster through the Planning Board and receive less opposition then the 96 units 40B proposal.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
| 
