2010-12-07-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

need for housing assistance in Lexington. Sh e said that due to a disparity between requirements for HUD (Federal Housing and Urban Development) and the DHCD (State Department of Housing and Community Development), homeowners seeking to purchase affordable units could not currently receive federal assistance of this kind. This had left potential homeowners, some of which were Lexington residents without assistance, and therefore unable to purchase affordable units. She explained that the problem involved the different types of deed riders required by the two agencies and DHCD’s insistence that their deed rider be used if the units were to qualify as affordable. She said that the Housing Partnership had raised $10,000 in private funds to help families, but stated that further assistance was needed to provide for families and individuals in FY12. In order to meet the needs of these groups, the Housing Partnership requested $30,000 in CPA funding. Ms. Weiss asked if there were other towns considering similar CPA funding proposals, to which she responded that Carver, Leverett and North Hampton had requests before their respective CPCs. Mr. Cohen asked Ms. Sunnarborg how many units in Lexington Place and Jefferson Union might qualify for such assistance, but Ms. Sunnarborg was uncertain of this number. Ms. Fenollosa brought up the issue of Town Counsel’s review of this project, in which he noted that “there is no obvious increase in affordable housing stock promoted by the down payment assistance program”. Ms. Sunnarborg said she had read his opinion, and was somewhat surprised, since several communities such as Chatham have subsidy programs. (In Chatham’s case it is a subsidy program for accessory apartment conversion.) Ms. Fenollosa was also concerned with Mr. Batt’s opinion on the issue of public benefit. Ms. Sunnarborg responded that the issue is one committing to reducing the affordability gap. Ms. Fenollosa asked if the focus of the homeowner assistance is not one of expanding the stock of affordable housing, but of increasing the pool of eligible people. Ms. Sunnarborg concurred with this interpretation. 9.Muzzey High Condominium Association Window Replacement – Since the Public Hearing had proceeded more quickly than anticipated, the applicant was not yet present and Ms. Manz briefly described this project. Ginger McGuire, Hans Maas and Sally Springer of the Muzzey High Condominium Association joined the Hearing, however, and made a second and thorough presentation. Ms. McGuire supplied attendees with a handout, which explained that the Association was seeking $253,915 in CPA funding to replace 132 windows in 44 units at the Muzzey High School building over a period of 5 years. Ms. McGuire explained that the project was being proposed under both the historic and affordable housing components of the Community Preservation Act, and that it further conformed to the goals set forth in the (2002) Comprehensive Plan for the Town. Ms. McGuire explained that the present windows are 100 years old, in poor repair, and have interior storm windows which are difficult to manage. She said the Condominium Association had met with the Historic Districts Commission and that the two groups had reviewed the options for 4