2024-02-08-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2/8/2024 AC Minutes 4 were worth pursuing. The proposed project would then go through the zoning process for a “friendly 40B” development. Mr. Levine expressed discomfort with the concept because town meeting would have no formal in- volvement after Article 33 is passed, and their approval is being requested before any details of a future RFP have been presented. In addition, he feels that the process will tend to create the maxi- mum amount of housing, which preliminary analysis suggests could be as high as 50 units. The en- tire parcel is 3.1 acres, including half an acre of wetlands and around 2.5 acres of developable land. Mr. Levine would prefer to set preconditions on the scale of development in the RFP before voting on Article 33, or perhaps to have the Select Board issue an RFP in advance of seeking approval from town meeting so that town meeting can review proposals before voting. Mr. Levine raised the example of 661 Lowell St, aka Locke Village, which has 62 condominiums clustered in 3 buildings on 5 acres. If parcel 68-44 were developed to a comparable density, it would have only 30 units. Mr. Levine is concerned that responses to the RFP would all exceed this density, forcing the Town to permit a denser development. Ms. Tung said she understood Mr. Levine’s concerns and noted that this is a new process for Lex- ington, but many other towns have followed this model and been successful. She asserted that prior discussions at the AHT have not specified a 50-unit development in their criteria. The AHT’s goals are to create an all-affordable development with rental housing for residents ranging from 30% AMI to 80% AMI, with an average of 60% AMI. They want a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, and two thirds will need to be two- or three-bedroom units in order to qualify for federal and state subsidies. They want a development that is appropriate and respectful of the environment and the community. And they want to leverage CPA funds to get federal and state subsidies that would cover the bulk of the development subsidies. Ms. Prosnitz stated that the RFP would include many guidelines, including the goals listed by Ms. Tung, and that the selection process would investigate the proposed designs and financing including how much local funding would be needed. If none of the proposals meet all guidelines, the Town would not be obligated to proceed with any of them. If a proposal was close to being satisfactory, the Town could negotiate for changes to bring it to an acceptable state. Once a developer was se- lected, there would be continuing community input. Since the project will likely be requesting a 40B comprehensive permit, some state approvals will also require the Select Board to hold public hearings which provide further opportunities for feedback. After the state issues a Project Eligibility Letter, the Zoning Board of Approvals would engage in public hearings while reviewing the project. Ms. Prosnitz stated she understands that people are concerned about the possibility of a large devel- opment, but we should wait until we have real proposals to consider. She noted that there is cur- rently no significant outside support for building affordable homes for ownership as opposed to rentals. The opportunity to use town-owned land is a major factor supporting the goal of an all-af- fordable development. The local commitment to provide this land and a portion of the development costs makes this a much more competitive proposal for scarce grant funding. It may take a couple of years until all the necessary state and federal funding is available. Mr. Levine stated that he appreciated that the RFP would have some guidelines, even if the number of units was not capped at 30. He wondered why the Town would not get to vote on the final choice for using town-owned land. Ms. Kowalski responded that for an all-affordable development, which requires many steps over a period of years to bring all the resources to bear, the subsidizing agen- cies would not offer support for a project that could be rejected by town meeting at the end of all that effort.