2024-02-22-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2/22/2024 AC Minutes 2 Rather than adding additional constraints to the motion, he would be satisfied if the Select Board and/or AHT offered acceptable public statements defining limitations to be included in the RFP. Mr. Osborne stated that he was less concerned about the details of the future development, and he was satisfied with the due diligence performed by the Town and the AHT while investigating the feasibility of the proposed parcel for an all-affordable development. Mr. Levine added that he did not think the Town should “push the envelope” for an all-affordable development. He suggested that the first major project supported by the AHT should aim for a strong vote of approval from town meeting, which would probably require a more measured scale for the development. Mr. Ahuja stated that he has heard concerns from residents in precincts five and six. He felt that 40 units would be too many, but 30 would be better. Ms. Yan stated that she has received many letters voicing concern from neighbors and constituents. She lives in the area just off Lowell St. and feels the traffic on Lowell St is horrible, so adding an- other development would increase traffic. She was concerned that a lack of public transportation in the area would require the residents to rely more on automobiles. Mr. Michelson stated that the proponents’ presentation on this article should cover sidewalks on Lowell St. that are in the Town’s 5-year capital plan, access to the shopping area and grocery store in Burlington that is within walking distance of the parcel, and provisions for mass transit in the area for residents who do not have cars. He reminded Ms. Yan that she lives in a “friendly 40B” de- velopment, and that, before it was built, faced similar criticisms. Ms. Yan agreed but noted that add- ing more units to a crowded area remains a concern. Mr. Osborne noted that 40B developers engage with the local boards to work on issues such as shared amenities, common open space, impervious surface, and stormwater runoff. They must also respond to traffic mitigation requirements. All these issues establish constraints that can lower the number of units that end up being created on a site. He reiterated that the AHT’s initial presentation had covered some of the infrastructure costs to the Town, and that he expected any development like this to undergo a permitting process and public hearings. The Select Board should emphasize that a friendly 40B development requires a certain amount of elasticity from the community. Mr. Sandeen summarized the discussion so far. He stated that the AHT met that morning. The AHT recommended that the motion for Article 33 be updated to include the requirement for an all-afford- able development, which is not stated in the current motion. They also encouraged the Select Board to engage in a public discussion of what they want to see in an RFP prior to town meeting. Mr. Sandeen noted that, independent of Article 33, the Town has proposed regional transit along Lowell St., and this would rise in priority if Article 33 is approved. Mr. Sandeen noted that the financial impacts on the Town also must include financial benefits. Lex- HAB’s previous attempt to finance affordable units at Vine St. failed due to the cost, estimated at $1 million per unit for six units. Under the all-affordable development model, Federal and state funds are leveraged so that the net cost of an affordable unit to the Town is roughly 10% of the rate, e.g., proposed at Vine St. Currently, the Select Board’s top priority is housing in Lexington, and Mr. Sandeen hopes Lexington will set a good example. Mr. Levine questioned whether an all-affordable development was only feasible using town-owned land. He asserted that the Town could purchase a reasonably sized parcel and finance the