HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-11-ZBA-min536 Lowell Street
7 -11 -02
7:45PM —
RS, JU, FS, AS, NB, JD, BS, MS, DW, LW, SMM(clerk)
RS tells audience Bd just handed EM report, peer review of financials, take some time to
review,
Begin continued hrg at @ 7:50pm
RS reads legal notice /updated checklist
Asks for appropriate conduct, respect for other points of view,
Will
BS arrives @ 7:55PM
Start evening w /report by Ed Marchant, peer review of financials
Walk through memorandum submitted tonight,
Purpose was to review the 3 pro formas from applicant submitted 6/3/02, for 32, 28, and
24 unit development(s)
Reformatted developers pro formas to better u/stand 3 costs leading to TDC (total
development cost)
Exhibit A = hard costs + soft costs + site acquisition cost
Hard costs = site work, fixed costs unlike variable and semi - variable building costs
Pro formas are projections, best guesses on likely costs and revenues
Em based cost estimates on his experience
Re site work, important number is cost per unit
Bolded the meaningful numbers
As project decreased in size, per unit costs increase
Demolition and site work fixed
Roads, drives, utilities semi - variable, and similarly site improvesments in common areas
From 22K w/32, up to 37.5 w/24 units (check)
Landscaping, driveways,walkwasy, patios, connection to street utility should be included
What sq ft nu. Use to make meaningful
Industry uses for net square feet (livable space), basically the house
Assuming sq ftge numbers correct
Is not a significant diff. Between 32, 28, 24 w/ these costs
Results in cost/sq ft. from 116 to 124 per sq. ft,
On high end,
But depends on-, everything to do w /finishes, can boost cost per sq ft considerabley
Develper is planning on high quality finishes, at least in
Ask for detailed outline spec for finishes in all units * * * * * **
So aware of all diff. Between market rate and affordable units
Want to make sure threshold for all units okay
Granite countertops e.g
Then looked at soft costs
Applicant gave quite detailed list of these
In general thought these were reasonalble
Big line item, is marketing, not unusual to have 5 % or 6%
As desirable as Lex. Is still need to sell these units
Overhead not included, in general need to include 2 -3%
Finally site acquisition,
Been significant amt of discussion re this
Hoping for simple result that said no brainer,
Couldn't
Did some sensitivity analysis
Basic feeling on site acquisition cost is should not be looked at before design, good
project question
That's cost side
Re revenue side
Is what can sell market rate for
Checked on some comps in lex.
In general these numbers reasonable,
Like to think could do bit better
Know how difficult is to project thse
Condo good in rising market
Condo deal bad in sinking market
Condo deal is high risk business
Have been relatively few high -end condo developments in suburban areas
Ref. Weston deal
Took longer
Think market really looks for 2 garage spaces,
A few of market units don't have
Quality of finishes is what makes these sell
Finishes expensive
Affordable units,
Think projections reasonabley close
Ref to Exhibit C
Bdginning w /C -1
Methodology
Review this,
When make decision, think aboujt incorporating the methodology into any decision
Really gives you control over affordable units
Then did spreadsheets what em thought, C -2 and C -3
Applies methodology using lex. Tax rate, estimated condo fees, and numbers relatively
close,
Em numbers lower than em numbers, used 7.5%
Higher the interest rate, the lower the price,
Pricing based on what affordable to houselhold paying no more than 30% of income
Defer, bd can look at, housing comm. Can look at
Applicant assumed a 10% down payment, em assumed a 5% down payment
Might decide 7 %, 10% fine
Those adjustments can be looked at, used later,
Back to the development fee,
Tried to isolate the development fee
Critical factor in looking at dill. 32, 28, 24 units
Did not think significant difference between 32 and 28 units
Did think significant diff. Between 32 and 24 units
Ref. To exhibit D
At top, applicant's numbers
In general agreed with their costs and sales projections
14.26% to
what take to try to match the absolute dollar amt of dev. Fee
from 2.134M for 32, down to 820K for 24 (check chart)
like to think cd do bit better than they projected
how much of increase in average sale price per sq ft wd be necessary to have 28 and 24
dev. Match the 32 dev.
Results, wd take @ 11 dollar increase, as percentage not huge, but on per unit basis @
25K
At what point does attached townhouse deveopment , relatively dense, match what could
find as single family detached,
Always concerned re that price point
If wanted to match percentage dev. Fee,
Less of impact,
@ 6 dollars per sq. ft,
doable?
Didn't look at cost side
This applicant at a disadvantage because don't do own construction, have to go out and
negotiate at arms length w /GC,
More control over cost and money made if own builder
Then looked at 24,
Getting this specific implies a degree of accuracy?
Based on-preliminary nature of drawings and engineering
Still significant amt of time before these wd go to market
Back to exhibit on site acquisition, ex. B?
Have one appraisal for 13M,
One report 2AM to , midpoint,
Average 2.14M
Look at each proforma, see dill.
Difference declines as development gets smaller
Ref. Exhibit A
28 unit dev. Gives 101786 per unit site acquisi. Cost
what if deduct from total dev. Cost the diff. In land value
when calculate that, shouldn't enlarge denominator
allow fee
take into consideration, not get up to 20%, not use land to increase return
no clear guidelines when NEF funded project
when did that, want to get rlative sense of land represente din terms of total devl costs
if eliminate that from base, the percentage return increases
go to exhibit D,
see does in fact result in percentage increase from 14.26 if allowed to include differential
in basis on which max. allow. Fee included, to 15.6 percent
in 28, from 11.96 to 12.
(see ex. D)
at no point to returns on theis dev. Approach the maximum allowable 20%
at ti;mes think discussion of land cost is a red herring
should be focusing on site plan and whether or not it is appropriate
q. from Bd.
NB comment as to what percentage wd be economically feasible
Is that part of this?
Em comments
Experience is when applying to a bank, bank likes to see 20 percent, that fee in part is a
contingency and if don't do so well and end up at 15 or 10 percent, bank still gets its
smoney back,
Development fee as percent,
Have to look at develper, some if establishyed, not going to do unless can make X dollars
For others, might not have as manyu opporutinities, this might contribute re dev
experince, track record, here lot of exp. Working with other companies, not much on
own,might be satisfied w /less than 20 percent?
Try to relate rewards with risk
The dev was around, in proposoals, around 14.26 %, assume that a fee that acceptable to
them,
Bob S
Assume 285 to 290 is price that marketable, what if falls well below that,
What if get into down market,
At what point, bank going to say
Em, bank going to want comparables, like Lexington
Even in Weston, do 3 units at a time, piece out, when sell a market unit, begin another
market unit?
Usually keep short leash on these deals,
If market doesn't support that,
Have to be ocnerned re deal that goes forward ajnd then dies
Take a look at and take some comfort in, at price points,
Have 8 units under 600K, never thought wd be good price
In lex. Getting good unit for w /600K,
4 units bigger, twice as big as a small ranch, than lot of houses, ?(check no. of units)
Russ Tanner,
No q. of em,
Appreciate that em generally agrees w /our financial analysis
Part. That sales prices conservative
Appreciate report generally concurs
Differ bit w /diff. Between 32 and 28 units, think greater than em does, no major
comments
q. from aud. Only on em report at this time
Bill Passman,
In past, discussion,
Clarify comment, ability to get 20 dolars or so more per sq ft in sale price
Impression from unit dense at 32, down to 24, more open space, cd expect to get an extra
20 to 25 dollars per unit, expect to
Em, note in report that as reduce density should be more attractive dev., not prepared to
put number on now, but think lower density, the higher the achievable sales price,
Here, fighting that are no detached single units, no q. that market pays more for detached
single family units,
Still having mixed income developments, limits pool of potential buyers, whenever limit
the pool, impacts this dev. More because attached units
Been number of mixed income dev.1 in suburban communities, e.g. Weston, but these
relatively large lot, single family detached units, majority of
Andy friedlich,
Any analysis done of diff. In acq. Costs
How say then that acq. Costs should not influence zba decision
Taking great issue that telling bd role Is to review
Em, if acq. Cost was 10M or 1 dollar, real issue is is this an acceptable plan
Af, but in terms of values of this town,
Em, that not in scope of my analysis, obviously number of factors,
Af, density huge issue in this town, to say that acq. Costs should be secondary to site
reviw
Bill taylor,
If that were nonissue, l OM versus 1 dolar, whay LIP and other programs have rules
against (unreasonable) cost
Em, do have rules,
Assoc.l members,
Q fo em?
Aud. Again,
Elaine dratch, prec. 5,
Re ex. A, including 6 garagess,
Why include in cost of 28, should absorb in actual bldg,
Re 24 wdn't need at all,
Em, cd argue that, feel this dev. Needs more garages, didn't think of deleting them,
Wddn't have significant impact either way
Stan A.
Looking at ex. B,
Want to point out that here taking an average of 2 values to use as a typical value of land
cost in pro forma,
One value we might consider real, of an as-zoned appraisal,
Second is a what if, might be value, might range,
Cd be a real high value,
Somebody's idea of what value mght be,
Took that value and averaged that,
The number used was an average of a real value with somebody's guess
Em, simply said, the land value is probably lies somewhere between Shaw's appraisal
and what applicant used,
Here tried to say split the appraisal, and one a report by a member of appraisal institue
(highest designation for an appraiser),
Tony G.
Kind of q. on order,
Work w /numbers constantly,
Find this doc. has enough info.l that cannot be absorbed as received,
Might be beneficial to take and q. at next meeting for questions,
Normally docs. Submitted well in advance,
Jon Witten, atty for group of abutters
Re report
Nothing for espect for em
Said twice now that bd's first order of business is to review site plan, and pro formas
later,
Urge bd to look at statute,
Statute says to look at economics,
To look at site plan,
Bd's obligation is not to ignore, look at w /secondary,
Must look at site plan, and economics pro formas at same time,
Never know what number will lead to economic project
To ensure that town not giving away something
Ephraim Weiss
Ask Bd what role of bd is in this process
Whom bd represents, whose interests and how to come together
Thinks bd should rep. Community at large and try to fit what applicant trying to present
and how fits in community at large
Em, no comment on that
Rs, bd here to rep. Town of lex., obey laws of commonwealth of mass., help resolve
discrepancy in number„ find what suitable projedct for this site,
Bill passman,
Imp.l, what wd make project an economic project
See a profit made at 24 units,
Given that have hard cost contingency built in and soft cost s built in,
Isn't even a 1 percent, but any positive percent, get up to same 14 percent, doesn't' that
indicate that 24 unit cd give same profit, and even economic
Em, if I were develper, at those numbers, wdn't do the project,
Reasonable profit,
Comes down to developer,
If looking at project w /these risks,
Contingencies normally go in to the project
Looking at 6.8 1, cd increase somewhat, but all in all wd not be attractive enough to me to
u/take this deal
Wd view 24 unit dev. As uneconomic
Nb, last time investors, put up money and leverage, look at rate of return on investment,
Still, big return on investment
Em, like venture capital, high risk, expect very high returns
Don't know terms
Rt, over several years
Russ Tanner
Rising Tide presentation
2 topics,
one a sketch of minor alternative to site plan,
trying to respond to trying to save one of trees on site
did submit letter to bd, how proceed selecting homebuyers
previously 2 large honey locust trees in front
had already planned to preserve one,
john frye had suggested 2 unit bldg in front,
shifts one unit over, so a duplex unit and then a four -plex, shd save tree
on second page, a quick rendering of elevation along Lowell St.,
that 4plex, prob put in the 3bedroom handicapped unit,
front toward Lowell Stl, will have front doors and paths, a front treatment,
need to be somewhat screened, a patio, walkway,
able to get in from back
have appearance of being on front,
other design issue was concern re setback on parking structure in back,
in that version was 6 bays,
had to make a 10 ft set back to make work
back in area, fenced, somewhat wooded, felt reasonable
because of turning area required, to add five feet in back wd have to take 5 ft away
somewhere else
minor change, re engineering,
put small detention basin in back, so had to remove one bay, down to 5 bays,
still w /10 ft setback, unless move 5 ft from elsewhere,
briefly talk through letter re selection,
Rick Waite here, from Meridien,
Talk briefly re engineering issues
Ref revised plans submitted (see checklist)
Storm drainage system, added 3 separate drywells per bldg and 2 small detention basins
for driveway drainage etc.
Recently, this morning, asked zoning bd for eng. Comments, ?? (see eng. Dept.
comments)
Specific questions,
B Sacco, any idea how much contribution slid be?
RW, think suggesting that appliant contribute towards perhaps insufficient capacity of
Lowell St.
JD
Question re lighting information,
Ref. Fixture designs,
Actual illumination, color corrected?
In town meeting, yellow lighting not acceptable to most,
Where have choice select white, color corrected
Examples in lex. To see
Russ Tanner, thse fixtures tremendously flexible, lot of customization can do w /these
fixtures
AS, q
Doc. refer to„ those all reviewed by town engineer at this point,
Ref. Snow removal e.g.
Tight development,
So engineering concurring w /reviswed plans submitted
Bill Passman,
Just found out someone putting large retention basis in back of property by my house,
How large is it, what is it retaining, etc.
RW,
Ref. 2 small retention basins,
3 ft deep at back edge,
other 4 ft
both about 30 ft wide
infiltration on top of
when fill up, ft and half or so of freebod,
handle small portion of roadway,
Bill Passman,
Now large berm in back corner,
Removing?
RW,
No, adding to it
Phil Fischer
218 East St
q. done any core drilling on site at all?
RW,
Have done tests for ability of soil to infilitrate
PF, reason to believe some ledge
RW
Have done series of test pits,
Found no ledge
PF,
Wd not like to see any blasting,
Now no problems w/ basement
Russ Tanner again,
Submitted letter to bd. Re questions re selection for affordable units
Highlighting main points
Suggeswting bd, or town mgr, or bd of selectment, appoint some kind of committee to
advise us on coming up w /plan for selection
Fair housing, lexhab,
E.g.
Wd commit to wrking w /that committee
Some kind of local pref. Plan for majority of units?
Suggesting language
Wd submit back to bd for some kind of final selection plan
Some kind of non profit, oversees?
Wd have to wrk w /monitoring agent as well
Some ideas on who in town might quality e.g.
Current residents paying more than 40 percent of incomer
Employees of town not currently town residents,
Households not currently residents, but e.g. have students in schools in metco
Houselholds recently displaced from town bec. Of cost e.g.
DW,
Why can't lexhab be assigned this task, why reinvent a committee?
BS, good suggestion,
Harriet Cohen
Fair housing,
Wd be interested in having fair housing participate w /lexhab
JD= suggest league of women votersw, e.g., other community input
Audience comments
Stan Abkowitz
40 yr lex. Resident
live on Lowell St,
along w /neighbors
believe in providing additional affordable housing in Lexington
many hrs of wrk, to reasonable alternative to developers
intented goals yet consistent whown
meeting of bd. Last month,
presented to bd, 19 pp document, legitimate concerns w/ 32 dev. Proposed
concerns which bd. Should address on behalf of town
working w /this bd for many weeks, and prev. w /town committee
Bill Taylors presentation was factual,
No. of units, lack of open space,
Tree destruction, traffic congestion
Became clear that all of these legitimate concerns disappear when overwhelming density
addressed
40B proposal shd be required to use appropriate true appraised value of land
ref. Exorbitant land price
w /proper land cost, as little as 16 or 20 units becomes possible, and density problem
disappears, consistent w /town, and 4 or 5 affordable units can be added,
up until final 15 minutes of last meeting, felt got message across to bd.
Suggestion made to get independent appraisal,
2 selectmen made suggestion that town funds cd be available,
abutters said funds cd be offered,
motion made,
no second
discussion utterly necessary,
want to know from each bd. Member why no discussion
insult to injury chr. Asked ed marchant to do peer review
neighborhood cd not consider ed marchant an independent reviewer
neighbors feel unable to get position of fairness across
strongly feel this bd must appraise the true value and require its reflection in the
developer's pro forma
if bd cannot take such action, wd reflect true insensitivity
uphold character of town
Bill Passman
Overheads, short presentation
Provided handout (as did Stan A. of his presentation)
Ref. "Alternative: 16- Units" handout
Wd like to see anything neighbors come up with be economic
Believe much smaller development can be achieved
All along, problems when dealing w /units
More comfortable when dealing w/ sq. ft.
Showed illustration of attractiave 16 unit development, 4 4- plexes,
Main contention, 16 units is a profitable development
Strong development for a senior center, at Lowell and North St.
Andy Friedlich,
Write in yrs on cover of bound memo submitted
Grave concerns re 40 B develop.'
Remarks based on preservation of open space one of core values of town
Mercer Consulting conducted townwide sample
Preservation of open space was only value all 6 categoreis of residents agreed
Confirmed by longrange planning comm. And 2020 committee
Depend onZBA for protection
Only entity that can protect interests of town residents
Should be propounding minimum density rather than negotiating for higher density than
allowed
Ref. MHFA and LIP guidelines
Housing appeals bd wd support zba if applied those guidelines
Little regard for town in seeking maximum sale price
Is mandatory that have appraisal that represents fair market value
This has a direct impact on number of units
Received 3 docs. That address this
Not willing to have residents unfairly impacted to provide profit to developer
Ref. Town of Norton
Developers taking advantage of towns re 40B
W/ 2 more 40Bs waiting in the wings
Bill Taylor,
Handout, 20 copies
Ref. Porter Lane
Follow the handout'
Clearly is a difference between developed and undeveloped lots
Ref. Bryne McKinney analysis /report
Think original estimate, used by em to average, basically wrong
Zba slid adhere to mhfa and lip guidelines, fair and accurate value
No. of units,
Setbacks,
Risk of getting 48 units,
Something to block intrusion into neighboring yards
Land deal
Also submitted boston globe article re "antisnob zoning"
Unfair that impact on abutters w /no rules, guidelines
In particular,
Ref. Dennis decision, (make more copies for associates) * * * **
Russ Tanner
Respond
Appreciate caliber of dialogue
One of doc., well worked letter ref. Barnstable decision
2 situations where Barnstable asked for appraisals
want to point out how greatly diff. Situation is here
one Stuborn?
Land write -up
In front of housing appeals comm. Now
We are not making money on the transaction, trying to cover the costs
Mr. Bornstein was tr;ying to make money on the transaction
Other, also where created a less than arms length transaction and put into proforma,
Tried to put in more
That is very dill. From someone who owns land for long time, elects to go forward
Second,
Reiterate,
Strongly believe, MHFS current policy re land transactions
Has been misrepresentation re
They do not prohibit,
Accept in both for sale and for rent,
Some discretion,
Very comfortable that MHFA wd accept our transaction
Invite to call them up and ask them that questin
Other comment, re Dennis decision
Some language pointed out,
While some open space, not usable there, on sloped area, berms,
Had there been some open usuable space, patios, e.g, wd go forward
BS, feelings re 16 unit proposal
RT= hope Ed M.1 has shown 16 units here absolutely not feasible
When first met w /neighbors informally, there suggestion/question was why not do 14 -16
unit dev. Allowable u/cluster rules
Sorry, said, in affordable housing business
Tony Galaitsis,
Here not as Planning Bd,
Want to ask some questions,
Will help u/stand,
Some of mhfa rules inaccurate?
Like to ask em some questions,
Submitted hand -out, questions,
(ref. Handout)
re last question, em, "there will always be a question re fair market value..."
that similar to case involved in in Barnstable,
bought property in late 80s, value tanked, transferered to wife, hiked up value,
can't do that,
developer may not agree w /appraised value
zba can do what it wants,
developer can appeal to hac
hac becomes the decisionmaker,
can't determine how the hac, superior court, land court will decide
em very clearly stated that 48 unit developer and 5.1M price inappropriate and abuse of
40B
tony, hypothetical q.....
Russ Tanner,
Used one of TG slides,
Ref. Question #5 slide
Re fair market value "at time of loan commitment ",
This is at time of permitting,
That is when allowed to put in value
Common procedure
Ref. To "economic benefits" paragraph,
Mhfa will not lend value on amt increased by 40B housing, can use in pro forma, cannot
lend on
Comes down to what 4 lots worth
Easiest as of right is 4 oversized lots
Some question re cluster dev. Worth more
Are they worth 400K each, or more like 700 -800K,
Is a sale on Brent Rd of tear down, @ 1M in last month
q. of being on Lowell St. diminishing value
not tried to put forward a professional value,
value reasonable to us, doc. submitted last month on that
don't think difficult to see that worth 700K or so
asking to accept that our transaction with seller was a reasonable armslength transaction,
move forward
Josh Posner
Ref. Theory
Appraisal is not exact fact
We paid a set amt of money is the one true fact dealing w /re this acquisition
We've been trying to work so can get something approved locally so doesn't go to hac,
Tried to work w /larger community
Remain commited, hope can move forward
Jonathan Witten,
At last hearing,
Asked if could obtain copy of second amendment to P &S?
More than qualified to comment on Dennis decision
Urge bd to cmpare this decision to this site plan
Very similar site plans
Ref tanner comment, that em already demonstrated that 16 units unecnomcable
Reverse by hac,
If rt wants to walk from projct
Zba obligation to make sure bank funds the project
Imoortant to go back to basics
Serious impact on my clients
Go back to statute
The law,
As long as conditions do not render project uineconomic
Bd has righgt, obligation to set a reasonable profit
No entitlement to 20 % profit
2 key definitions,
uneconomic
ensureing bd sets reasonable profit and then is consistent w /statute
continue to September 12, 7:45pm
bs, more movement
nb, have to look at existing 32 unit
still concerned w/bulk of units
not sure that 24 unfeasible, uneconomic
what from site plan a 28 or 24 wd look like
ask RT to concentrate on,
nb, uncomfortable w/32,
to change 4plexes to triplexes wd shrink the bulk of blds on periphery and if 28 not much
different than 32, still economically feasible,
remove one of 4plexes?
Being close, that garage, shirnk bldge, move garage in,
AS,
Appreciate information from ed,
More comfortable, ea. Unit
Still uncomfortable w /out appraisal,
Maybe did motion prematurely last time
Wd still like appraisal done
Done
Wd like motion
Makes motion to that B/A ask Bd. of Selectmen to get independent appraisal
JU -- what see as outcome of that to make difP
AS -- wd expect that number to be one that can be put into pro forma,
13M, 2.1M, 23M, makes big difference,
wd like B/A to go forward with that,
wd like someone we trust to come up w /that number,
implicitly or explicitly,
BS -- most members felt that having the abutters pay for an appraisal was inappropriate,
[Ed] felt that an appraisal, additional wd not really, should really not reach any
conclusion,
EM -- look at value pretty simply,
If price was 13M, wd buy that site tomorrow for that, a steal, gut feeling,
somewhere in between,
what wd do with another appraisal another queston
JU -- another appraisal would give us 3 choices, not 2
FS -- willing to second the motion [to obtain an independent appraisal] on the basis the
the town will pay for it
BS -- have had conversations wBd. of Selectmen,
think request should go to the Bd of Selectmen, to ask them to get an independent
appraisal, that the Town (through the Town Manager) would have the appraisal
conducted,
EM — there is a method where the buyer has an appraisal done, the seller has an appraisal
done, and if there is no agreement then [those] two appraisers come up with a third
Motion that the B/A ask the Bd of Selectmen to get an independent appraisal of this prop.
Second
JU -- what going to do w/ it?
AS — it gives us a number to put into the pro forma, to use that number and do next steps
FS -- I feel that, I expect an appraisal wd come in quite bit higher than [that of the]
neighbors, that it could satisfy the neighbors that a higher value is correct,
Jposner, to us, re whether can come up with livable with conditions, what gets counted
for land value in pro forma is important, as are number of othe r appraisals,
Rt, wd ask that town mgr ask for appraisal
Rs, we'll go to bd of selectmen, have town mgr. Get, prefer no one know who doing,
JU, what about a time element, we've been dragging on for months, get done in week,
Rs, address this, move on,
Motion, second
In favor, 5 -0, unanimous ( * ** *draft letter requesting? Speak to Phyllis re next selectmen
agenda)
RT flesh out design for either 28 or 24,
Russ, have done some re 28, prepared to do more, wd take units out along Lowell St,
those are least valuable units, u/some pressure,
Re design pressures on abutters, smaller 3 unit bldg on right in frontb \\
Perhaps cd bring freestanding garage down to front?
Nb, from neighborhood standpoint, ones on Lowell St., have least impact, if big bulky 4s
around outside cd be made smaller, less visual impact,
Russ, we have to consider, if getting into a 28 project,
It is thinner,
Have to think of coming up w /project cd get loan on, get built,
Re impacts on abutters,
Continue to believe that this project is similar re its impact to other projects in town
Re relationship w/burrowes st and east st night
JU, sense is contrary to nb, wd like to see bigger open space in middle, take 2 out,
JP, cd work up few conceptual approaches
Hard to keep moving on one piece,
If in situation that don't know how acq. Price to be, ..?
JD, concerned re impervious surface,
That garage,
If went down to 24, wd have significantly more room
A significant redesign,
JP, some talk re 24 being feasible,
When submitted three pro formas, yes theoretically possible, but lot cd go wrong, and not
a lot of room for error,
Hope from financial analysis standpoint, hoped wd be clear that 24 not feasible at all,
AS, if do some replanning on 28,
If reduce number of units, no. of sq. Rage should go down somewhat,
Ref. Impervious surface,
Remember (rt) that large amount there now,
RW, today, bldgs, 33% of site covereage, w/32 units, decreases to 27 %, add roads etc,.
have additional 15% of impervious surface, to @ 51%
No support from bd. For 32 (at this time), too dense
Support to try to get them to go to 16? To unreasonable?
Bs, problem w /trying to get affordable units down to 4
16 is as unreasonable as 48,
nb, hope cd do 24
as, looking forward to digesting numbers heard tonight
fs, be much happier w/24,
ju, 28, 24
bs, willing to consider 24?
Rt, thought owed you financial info re 24, is far off for what can take on for selves, bank,
etc.
Reputation means too much
Ed, thought 24 marginal, think based on my analysis, I wd not do a 24 unit dev., just not
economical
Ask bd to take real hard look at 24, but come back w /design for 28,
Bd like to see on a version of 28 or more
Up to RT,
Couple of options but very schematic (JP)
Bs, interest in project is to move along
Af, re appraisal, as currently zoned?
Bs, up to bd of selectmen
Bill passman, good breakdown of hard costs, sorts costs lumped,
Cd ed break that out and make available to us?
Time ran out
Ed, can try to clarify
BS
= Bob Sacco
JU
= Judy Uhrig
FS
= Frank Smith
AS
= Art Smith
NB
= Nyles Barnert
EM = Ed Marchant
RT = Russ Tanner
JP = Josh Posner