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

Browse Search

2/8/2024 AC Minutes 5 Mr. Bartenstein asked if the Comprehensive Permit was part of a so-called friendly 40B develop- ment. Ms. Prosnitz confirmed this and stated that rather than going through the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) would be the agency reviewing the proposal. Mr. Bartenstein stated his concern that Article 33 will ask town meeting to relinquish the future decision-making process to the Select Board and the ZBA. In other types of planned developments, town meeting votes on the final designs. Ms. Tung replied that the standard development cycle we are familiar with works with typical de- velopers, but not with all-affordable developers. The standard cycle requires the Town to pay for the development, or to be satisfied with a small number of affordable units (often just one) as part of a larger group of market-rate units. Mr. Bartenstein noted that Article 33 does not specify an all-affordable development. Mr. Levine suggested that the AHT could perform a feasibility study before issuing an RFP. Ms. Kowalski stated that the AHT has investigated the feasibility of the site and they were satisfied that the project was viable and would be able to attract the necessary funding for an all-affordable development. Mr. Bartenstein asked if the development would count towards the MBTA zoning requirements. Ms. Tung replied that it would not. Ms. Kowalski noted that the Town would see far more benefits to its Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) from this project where all units would be eligible than the developments expected to fulfill MBTA zoning needs where only the few affordable units would be eligible. Mr. Levine stated that he was hoping a consultant would be able to narrow down the options before Town Meeting had to vote on Article 33. He wondered if the local developers who were consulted had any suggestions. Ms. Tung replied that she did not identify the exact parcel to the developers to avoid a potential conflict of interest in the case that they decided to respond to an RFP. The AHT did examine what the developers would expect to see from the Town, and they looked at other RFPs for affordable developments. In short, she did not believe a consultant would provide additional value. Mr. Bartenstein reiterated his concerns about the lack of accountability to town meeting. Ms. Pros- nitz responded that the accountability flows from the community engagement and the local boards that help shape the development. Mr. Bartenstein stated that he expected town meeting would want more clarity on the project before they granted permission to the Select Board. Mr. Michelson agreed that town meeting might be very hesitant to proceed with the request as presented. Mr. Osborne asked if the AHT’s review with Town staff had considered water and sewer load, and the capacity of the Fire Department to operate in a multi-story residential building. Ms. Kowalski responded that the Engineering Division had no concerns about water or sewer capacity, and the Fire Department representative saw no insurmountable issues. Mr. Michelson expressed concern about the general lack of public transportation in the area of par- cel 68-44. Ms. Kowalski stated that Lexpress serves the location, and a pending grant would in- crease service to every half hour between Waltham and Burlington, going right past the parcel. She noted that a development would increase the demand for sidewalks and transportation services in the immediate area. Mr. Parker asked the Committee to return to the financial impact on the Town. Ms. Prosnitz stated that the largest impact would be the initial funding from the AHT, after which the development would be privately owned and operated. Mr. Parker noted that developers often quantify the impact of new developments in terms of additional demands on public safety and street maintenance. Mr.