AFFORDABLE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
February 16, 2006
6:30 P.M. Memorial Hall
Town Hall
1196 Main Street
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Ricker, Sharon McManus, Joanne O'Brien, Peter Brennan, Cathy Gould.
STAFF: Pamela Harding, Town Planner
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Kimberly Ferguson, Selectman attended the meeting in David Whites absence.
The Partnership Committee was updated on the status of various affordable housing projects.
They were informed that ten families were awarded units at Stoneridge Estates. Four units were awarded to families of 5, four units were awarded to families of four and two units were awarded to families of three. Not all families have had their qualifications verified so this may change.
Fisher Terrace Chapter 40B was approved for 32 units, 8 affordable, 6 of the 8 will be given local preference, the units will sell for $155,000.. The lottery is expected to occur in the late summer early fall and will be conducted by CHAPA.
The hearing for Winterberry Hollow was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mark Donahue, the applicants attorney, reviewed the history of the project. Mr. Donahuse stated that the project consisted of 246 rental units. 62 units will be affordable. 18-1 bedrooms will be affordable, 52- 1 bedrooms will be market rate; 40 –2 bedroom will be affordable, 120 – 2 bedroom will be market rate; 4-3 bedroom will be affordable, 12-3- bedroom will be market rate.
Mr. Robert Wedknecht, RLA from Beals and Thomas represented the applicant and reviewed the preliminary site plan issues. Mr. Wedknecht stated that there were 5 vernal pools on the site and 2 additional areas were identified as potential vernal pools which required the entrance of the site from Cranbrook Drive to be relocated onto Salisbury Street. It was stated that a total of 44 acres consisted of wetlands and/or endangered species habitat. There will be two parking spaces per unit and the project build-out would result in 17 acres of impervious surface.
A memo from Pamela Harding addressed to the AHPC dated February 10, 2006 was reviewed. The applicant stated that they will be providing additional information for items 1-3. The applicant verbally reviewed the phasing plan, Buildings 1 and 2 would be constructed with the clubhouse, Buildings 3 and 4 would be Phase II, Buildings 5, and 6 Phase III, and Buildings 7 and 8 would include the final Phase IV. The last two Phases are the only buildings which require the construction of a pump station. Both the Applicant and the AHPC had concerns with item 6 which compared the community development study to Winterberry Hollow stating that not all the units would be affordable even if they are considered toward the counts, so the development would only be satisfying a need of 62 units, which is well within
the boundaries of the study. The remainder of the items were in agreement. Item 7 the applicant stated that they would be required to conduct lotteries and lower the rents until the units were occupied by qualifying tenants. It was agreed this information should be provided. Item 8 the applicant agreed to revise the pro forma and a sample from Stoneridge Estates was provided. Item 9 the Applicant will submit architectural drawings with the application. Item 10, there will be no differentiating factors between the interior of the affordable or market rate units. Item 11 the applicant will obtain a notice of intention from CHAPA Item 12. A summary will be provided in the ZBA application. Item 13. Information will be provided on the conventional subdivision in the ZBA application. Item 14 was answered stating that a total of 44 acres of the 92 acre parcel included wetland or endangered species habitat.
Russ Henderson 12 Newell Road stated that he was impacted by the development of a 55 and over project on Newell Road, suffering personal damage and hoped that would not be the case during construction.
Chair Robert Ricker stated that the Affordable Housing Committee would only be addressing affordable issues and everyone present would have the opportunity to address other concerns before the appropriate Committees.
Mr. Henderson stated that he was not against affordable housing but concerned with the size of the development and traffic.
Ed Murray, 700 Salisbury Street asked why the entrance to the development was moved from Cranbrook Drive to Salisbury Street abutting his property. The applicant stated that it was due to the location of a vernal pool. He was opposed to the relocation causing the intersections of the proposed roadway, Cranbrook Driver and Fisher Road all to be within close proximity.
Fran Madigan, 125 Cranbrook Drive asked when the fourteen questions from the letter will be answered. Bob stated that the AHPC will only be making recommendations to the ZBA and guiding the applicant.
Nancy Smith, 165 Newell Road asked the Committee how they could make recommendations without considering all the impacts. She was informed that many of the Committees will be reviewing topics only as they relate to their specific expertise. Various Committees will make recommendations to the ZBA and it will be the ZBA’s responsibility to compile all the comments and evaluate the project comprehensively.
David Cyganski, 94 Newell Road was concerned about the rental aspect of the development and felt that an ownership project would ensure continual maintenance and house residents which felt a greater sense of ownership in the community.
Kimberly Ferguson asked how the applicant addressed the component of ownership that was requested by the Board of Selectman during the LIP approval. The applicant stated that DHCD would not permit a mix of ownership/rental under one application. The AHPC had previously voted to support a rental project stating they felt a need was present.
P. Brennan stated that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a high lack of rental units and he would rather see the project developed by a local developer that resides in Town and has a vested interest in the projects success, he felt that there was a need for the project which was clustered and buffered sufficiently..
Thirteen of the 246 units will be handicap accessible.
Kenneth O’Brien asked what impact the development would have on school children, according to two sources a rental project of this size would generate 52 school age children. This was the higher number of two numbers generated from two sources, cited in Section ten of the application.
Michael Robinson, 695 Salisbury Street stated that he didn’t feel a rental development in a single family residential area was a good mix of uses.
JoAnne O’Brien stated that she would like to see lower affordable rents.
R. Ricker and P. Brennan stated that they were not concerned with the number of units because of the size of the parcel and felt that phasing was key to the project and would ensure that the units would be rented to meet both the affordable and market rate needs.
The hearing was closed at approximately 9:15p.m. Members of the audience were invited to stay if they wished.
The Committee voted to endorse the letter written by P. Harding dated February 10, 2006 with the discussed amendments and the inclusion of a Phasing requirement. The Committee asked that a draft of the decision be mailed to all members prior to the distribution of the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Approved: Date:
| 
