TOWN OF HOLDEN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
HEARING
Winterberry Hollow, LLC Case No. 40B0107
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a continued public hearing on January 30, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in Memorial Hall, 1196 Main Street, Holden, MA on the Application of Winterberry Hollow, LLC for an affordable housing Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit referred to as Winterberry Hollow.
Members of the Board in attendance: Ronald Spakauskas, Roy Fraser, Fred Lonardo, J. Deignan and S. Annunziata.
Mr. Paul McManus from Eco Tech, discussed environmental issues. He distributed and discussed a plan which depicted both state and local jurisdictional areas of the project. He indicated the old layout and the new layout of the Newell Road entrance. They have avoided all wetland fill. The applicant a complete waiver from the Holden Local Wetlands Bylaw. The bylaw protects 200 ft. around the perimeter of vernal pools.
R. Fraser said the ZBA should meet with the Conservation Commission and address these issues. R. Spakauskas agreed; he would like to draw on the expertise of the Conservation Commission.
Attorney Mark Donahue, representing the applicant, said they are not intending to make a formal filing with the Conservation Commission until they are assured they have a Comprehensive Permit. When meeting the CC, it needs to be done with the understanding that the applicant will do what is required with the Zoning Board under Comprehensive Permits; they are not prepared to do additional design.
Mr. McManus said the applicant has a lot of hurdles in front of them, a number of things could change with designing definitive plans. A blanket waiver from the Local bylaw would permit the construction of a roadway to destroy the isolated uncertified vernal pool on the site. The Conservation Commission literally has no ability to regulate activity in this area if a blanket waiver is awarded.
F. Lonardo asked what would happen if the Zoning Board retained control of the conservation issue at this point; P. Harding said they could condition issues that protect resources.
Atty. Donahue said that if the Board retains jurisdiction, it would allow them to do the work within the 200 ft. area and the permit would incorporate local wetland bylaws. He did not feel that any further detailed plans should be required at this time. It was acceptable to the Board, the applicant and Paul McManus that a condition be placed on the projects which does not allow further intrusion into any protected resource area (both local and state) then what is currently depicted on the plan.
Jeff Lizotte wanted to know what they are going to do to work out the issue of endangered species; Mr. McManus said the applicant has agreed to meet the standard for the particular area. Endangered species habitat is regulated by State requirement and cannot be waived by the ZBA.
The Board proceeded to discuss the Pro Forma. R. Spakauaskas said they have received a copy of the pro forma review and the applicant's response.
Mr. Jacobs, President MHJ Associates summarized the key points. The financial review indicated numbers that are preliminary rough estimates. They have looked at all costs of rental units, operating, construction costs, etc. and define levels of profitability. The construction costs are the least expensive has has seen; well below other projects. The site work indicates a cost of $17,000 per unit, the landscaping indicates a cost of $2,800 per unit. These costs appear to be very low. He expressed concern with the three-bedroom units because he did not have a lot to compare it to. The profit on the rental units are more complicated; however, it does fall within the state regulations.
F. Lonardo asked about reducing the number of units; Mr. Jacobs said there are a lot of fixed operating costs no matter how many units there are.
S. Annunziata asked why he felt it was presented this way. Mr. Jacobs said it would be tough to build at these numbers and considered it a high risk project.
Judith barrett, Consultant for the Town, asked if these numbers would have been the same if they had come before DHCD (Department of Housing and Community Development) instead of Mass Housing.
J. Deignan asked if this project borderlined terms of state's standards. Mr. Jacobs said it was.
Atty. Donahue said the construction data is somewhat dated; this application was filed a year ago. Real estate development at this level is high risk.
Mr. Thomas Probert, 93 Cranbrook Drive, felt that if the town imposed conditions it would increase costs.
Mr. Karl Makela, 60 Newell Road, commented on the size of Winterberry Hollow.
R. Spakauskas said the burden is now on the applicant; Atty. Donahue said he received letters from various departments on January 23rd. He will submit a written report for the next meeting.
Mr. Ray Sherbourne, 740 Salisbury Street, commented that when the original variances were applied for, density was discussed. At what point will the variance requests be addressed.
Judith Barrett, said the applicant would have to address the Board regarding the waivers; the Board needs a valid reason not to grant these based on health and safety.
Atty. Donahue addressed the letter dated March 15, 2007 from the Transportation/Circulation Committee regarding sidewalks. There is an existing sidewalk on Newell Road and the applicant will install a crosswalk from the project across Newell Road.
Judith Barrett suggested the applicant meet with the appropriate town personnel to address the public health and safety issues so they can progress this project.
F. Lonardo said he would like to see a phasing plan presented to the Board.
The Board voted unanimously to continue this public hearing until March 6, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.
Ronald E. Spakauskas, Chairman
| 
