Board of Selectmen:
Richard Loughlin
William Sullivan
Fan Cabot
Nancy Beecher
(absent - Terry Rothermel)
Town Manager, Steve Sheiffer
Developer, Roy Smith
Nancy Beecher: Board of Selectmen: "Since the prior meeting of the Board in which this question was considered and at that time the Board concluded that it was not willing to go with a home-ownership partnership on this piece of land for as many as 16 units. But it was willing to explore the possibility of 12 and it also wishes to consider with Mr. Smith the figures he had submitted and see if they were indeed something that seemed to make sense and give this Board a clear understanding of what his various options were. We did receive from Mr. Smith some figures which we made available and shared in the neighborhood and community and all the members of this Board examined those and reached our individual conclusions about them, I guess, as we studied them. We had already authorized the Town Manager to explore further whether there were any possibilities of clarifying these figures in various options that might still be before the town and so we asked him to hold another conversation with Mr. Smith on our behalf to see if we could arrive at any clearer understanding of what the figures represent. Mr. Sheiffer did so. It would be helpful to us if you'll give us a sense, Mr. Sheiffer, of your thinking on the matter as a result of your deliberations and your consultation with Roy Smith and as you are so good at doing, helping us by presenting us with some suggested options for our action.
Steve Sheiffer: Town Manager: "When the Board last took up this matter, the Selectmen appeared to indicate a willingness to discuss what Mr. Smith wanted at 12 units and you also asked Mr. Smith for all profit data, which he has done. I think whenever any of us look at the profit data, everyone has questions. Well, let's put the profit data aside and get on to the home ownership issue. It seems to me that the only question for the elected officials of Concord is whether there is a home ownership opportunity which will benefit the common good. From our perspective it is irrelevant how much profit Mr. Smith will make on his five units. What's relevant is whether you feel as selectmen as elected officials that there is a proposal that you feel will benefit the common good, not Mr. Smith and not anyone else.
"Now Concord has had since 1973 as two of its primary goals, housing and open space. It seems to me as you look at the options one has to look for a balanced approach that accomplishes any home ownership opportunity within the Concord area. It's got to be balanced between housing and open space. I've looked at the numbers and I've talked to Mr. Smith and I believe that the Board has two options which are realistic and would be pragmatic. Not to say that there are not others. One of those options would be to eject the partnership. Clearly that is an option before the Board and that would leave 5 units. The second option that I suggest you would consider is 15 units. Of the 15 units, 9 units would be market rate units. One unit would sell for $110,000, four units would sell for $86,000 and the 15th unit would be the existing house that would be given to the Town of Concord for nothing to be used. Initially I had thought there were 14 units but when I realized that the existing house could be left in place without movement and could be given to the town for zero dollars, I changed it to 15 units. The 15 units is three clusters of four, a cluster of two and the house. That 15 units would produce for the town, six units of affordable housing which at least one could be given to the Housing Authority to be used as subsidized rental housing. I believe that is a viable option. It is a balance between housing and open space; it is not the 25 units initially suggested nor is it the five, it is the midpoint. So I would say to you that if you want a home ownership opportunity that if you think there's one that serves the common good, then it's the 15 units.
"But I also need to point out for your consideration that 14 units is roughly the break point. It might be as low as 13. What I mean by the break point is that point where the full cost of the land and all the fixed costs for site improvements are covered by the existing units, and every unit after that will pay its own way at $86,000. At about 14 units, that number of units absorbs the full cost of the land and all the fixed site costs, the road network and so on, so after that point, an 11,000 sq ft unit which is built for $86,000 can sell for $86,000, so we know 9 and 5, 9 and 7, 9 and 9. I don't recommend to you if you take this option more than the 9 and 5 though, because I think we would be out of balance as to how many ownership units we have to market units on the site. Nine and 5 plus one for you which is 9 and 6 is similar in balance of market to ownership to rental. If you go beyond that, you get out of balance. So the question for the Board is whether you think there's a home ownership opportunity that serves the common good. I think there are two options, reject the partnership or accept the 15 units in a nine and six split of which one would be a gift to the town."
Nancy Beecher: "Thank you. Does this suggest then, Steve, that this is something that Mr. Smith is ready to go forward with. Mr. Smith is present?"
Roy Smith: "Well, Mr. Sheiffer has the numbers, and of course, we did discuss the reasons for the numbers and we reviewed them and we talked about the streets and all the things that would be required and I agreed that based on the numbers he had, even though I thought they were close enough, that it could work. I talked with my partners and they felt the risk was acceptable and we said that we would do it."
Nancy Beecher: "So the possibility of the 14 plus the 1 is something I think we could work with. So we have our two suggested options and that's not to say those are the only options but they are the Town Manager's analysis of options."
Bill Sullivan: "The existing dwelling, that's to be kept as a single unit and rented?"
Steve Sheiffer: "It would be kept as a single unit, it would have to go into the condominium association and so the exterior would have to be fixed and then I think we would have three options; we could turn it over to the Housing Authority, we could rent it ourselves, or the town could sell it. I would suggest to the Board that it be turned over to the Housing Authority as a family rental unit. But I have not had an opportunity to discuss that with the Authority nor with the Board so I think that needs some work. But it is a standard family unit."
Richard Loughlin: "I hate to turn down a gift horse but what is the condition of it? Is it habitable?"
Roy Smith: "It appears that no one has been in it to destroy it. It needs work, there is no question about it, and I would suggest that the outside has to be done to meet the standards of the condominium and the interior would have to be worked on, also. It would have to be modernized, but I think that depends on what level you want to bring it to. It could be rented during the period of construction, which would build up some cash for the renovations, and I would suspect that we could get most of the contractors who come from the general area we could probably get contributions of raw material.
"I have to bring the house up to a standard that the building inspector would let someone occupy that and how or exactly what level you're going to bring it up to has not been discussed. This is something that is sitting on the plan as to be removed and Mr. Sheiffer asked 'Couldn't we keep it?' and I said, 'Forget it, it's in a location where it couldn't be kept and it wouldn't work.'"
Steve Sheiffer: "I think the modernization is not an issue. I think the Housing Authority has received funds in the past for modernization. They started with the Harrington House. It slowly began being renovated by the tenant and somehow it got renovated. We've also done some building renovation using prisoners from the prison. The value of a housing unit is such in 1986 that we could find a way to use that and then we would have it fixed up."
Nancy Beecher: "Steve, in your initial statement, I think you gave us an appropriate challenge to decide whether this is a home ownership opportunity that would benefit common good and I guess I append mentally to that at a reasonable or not inappropriate cost to the town from the point of view of other elements. For example, as we're going to be talking later on about our proposed exclusionary housing bylaws, we're going to talk about density that we will permit which is something being made available as densely developed and we recognize as is true in any development that goes on in the town, we add to some degree traffic and we add to some degree demand on the infrastructure. I just add that as one of the things that we obviously are weighing.
"I would like to say, by the way, for the sake of everyone that is present that Mr. Rothermel is very much here in spirit. He happened to have to be elsewhere personally. He did not ask us to delay these actions, both this and the discussion of exclusionary housing bylaws, although those were his initiative, he has fully shared the information that has come up to the point of his having to depart either last night or this morning and he has conveyed back to us the questions that he wants to make sure are addressed and his position that he takes. So nobody should conclude that he would not like to be here if he could.
"Any other thoughts on this now?"
Richard Loughlin: "Well, I think it is certainly time for decisions to be made. I think the neighbors ought to know that the selectmen have been through a difficult process, I think we're breaking new ground here. It's a progressive approach to the affordable housing issue that Steve has just mentioned has been a goal of the town. I think the process has been fair both for the neighbors and to Mr. Smith. I think negotiations have produced results that are in the long-term best interests of the town and at this point in time, I'm prepared to make that decision and go forward with the fifteen unit proposal."
Fan Chabot: "I wasn't for this last month and I'm not for it this month. I came in here thinking we were getting fourteen, we now have it up to fifteen, that's fifteen units on five acres. It's too high a density. Frankly, the town of Concord is going down the drain. Builders are coming in here and they are building up all these houses, units. I have absolutely nothing against low cost housing. Anyone who can pay $86,000 or $110,000 is not somebody from the slums. They certainly would probably be most enjoyable people and there is no reason that they couldn't be placed in any area in this town, any one of the streets in this town. So I have absolutely nothing against that, that is not why I am against this proposal. I am against it strictly because there are fifteen houses or units going on to five acres and there goes our open space idea. We can't have both and I feel that this Board is putting the low cost housing ahead of the open space. That is not what the people in this town want. They want both, of course, but it would be better to put the low cost housing on a larger tract of land where it would not be quite so noticeable for the density of the place."
Nancy Beecher: "Fan, I walked it again this morning and in fact I have a couple of questions. The trees there and the plantings help, and I wonder what your thought is about the trees and the plantings there, Mr. Smith. If you go forward, would there be any great interference with the trees that exist there."
Roy Smith: "You're essentially only using two acres of the land. You have about 2 1/2 to 3 acres I suspect that would be common open space under the rules and that lays over towards the insurance company. The only displacement of trees is where the road cuts through which is going to be about a 24 foot swath. The road will be 18 feet wide. Actually as the trees are shown on the plan, that's the only spot. We only have to cut on Main Street where the road goes through which is a thin shield of trees which will ultimately thicken by pines and then you have one section where the road cuts through and that's the only place where the trees will be disturbed. The units are now placed so that they don't disturb the foliage at all. The intent and the reason for that is of course it makes the units more saleable. You want to leave as much of the natural colors as you can. From the street as you go by, it will be the road cut and that's the only trees that you will see from the street, that's the only destruction of the location."
Nancy Beecher: "My sense is, and this is speaking to your point about open space and comments made in communications from a number of you, that as you are going out Main Street from the center of Concord towards Route 2, that's the one remaining piece of open space that is visible along Main Street. As I visualize it then, there is the one place before you get where your driveway will be, there is no place before you get to the driveway and there is no place at the present house which is very much screened where you can see from the road. At least now while the leaves are off the trees and the bushes, you can see a field there. So I guess that's the area the folks are concerned about. But at the same time I believe I am hearing you say that there would remain a planting and indeed planting could be increased between Main Street and the dwellings. So that arguably while we would lose that bit of open vista we could have the same amount of greenness that we have surrounding the houses along Main Street itself as you are coming out past Oak Road toward Route 2."
Roy Smith: "I have the color plan and it will show if it's that important but the only thing that is cut, it goes through the existing line of trees, the only cut is about a 25-foot cut that goes into the tress. Then there's one more cut way back about 150-200' that ends up being 18 plus about 5 feet on each side and that's the cutting."
Nancy Beecher: "Then otherwise you plan to keep those nice big stands. The wonderful long stand of trees that extends all the way back almost to Route 2 is not at all on your property, is it? It divides some of the private properties from the Sentry property. This stand really protects the properties along Coolidge Road and Oak Road.
"Between the Florio property and the Sentry land, there is now no screening."
Roy Smith: No, I propose that we do whatever fence is allowed, a wooden fence with grill work on the top that would go along there and we would plant it with probably Norwegian or Northern pines that grow fast and we would develop the rest of that boundary until you get up past where the parking lot turns off. That parking lot runs very close to that area. As it turns off, there is a large section of residentially zoned land that Sentry owns but it is still residentially zoned under the special permit. Our line would be planted with trees also."
Fan Chabot: "You were saying these trees, now, this is when I drive by I see these beautiful trees."
Roy Smith: "They all remain except for a 20-foot cut."
Fan Chabot: "Well, what happens to me when I visit somebody in that area, am I going to see trees and land?"
Roy Smith: "You're going to see almost 2 1/2 acres that is completely open. Under the normal condominium or PCRC that will be designated as it is at Wright Farm, conservation open space which people have rights to walk on and its the same situation as we have at all the others. That's the rule."
Fan Chabot: "And three acres will be filled with houses."
Roy Smith: "No, the other two. The plans are very obvious. I think I should show you. [Plans being shown.] The green indicates the present trees on the lot. There are one or two trees sitting around the house but the major clusters of trees are outlined by the surveyor. The only cut is the road cut which turned out to be about 26' and this 22 or 23' slash through the trees here, the rest of the trees will remain. Of course, this is all heavily wooded. The landscaper's preliminary plan shows the thickness in this area with pines and then this whole area would be planted.
Originally the house was to be removed so all of this parcel remains completely untouched. The tennis court is still there because it's there. This whole corner and what you typically do, you take a 30' square as it is at Wright Farm around and the rest of it is conservation open space. Nothing can be developed on it under the law. It is restricted to maintenance of septic systems and we have sewer here so that's not a problem."
Nancy Beecher: "So you have three clusters of four units and one cluster of two units. And you do intend to go forward with the tennis court?"
Roy Smith: It all depends on how everything works. It would be nice to have it since it's against an area of parking lot and road. There are no wetlands here. There is no area that cannot be built. There is an area in heavy rains where the water will sit but it's drains off and it's all gravel underneath. That area would be built up."
Bill Sullivan: "In order to try to maintain some of the rural character of the land, is it possible to put that cluster nearest Main Street where the tennis court is?"
Roy Smith: It could be, but when you do that you're putting those people right next to the driveway and I'm not sure that that's the ideal spot to be in. Cars are coming in and out all morning. You're saying the field is the rural characteristic."
Nancy Beecher: "In your plan, where does the kind of rise exist. As you walk along from the house toward that upper border, there is a little bit of a ridge."
Roy Smith: Well, when you're on the house level, you've actually come up most of the ridge, you're almost on the flat farmland."
Nancy Beecher: "Would you intend to bulldoze that down or change it in any way?"
Roy Smith: "There are some cuts and fills in the road which we had showed the other time. There is a little fill here and then there are cuts right here to bring the area up along the road, but it's nothing sudden.
It was designed to meet the privacy requirements as much as possible of everybody and leave as much open space as could be and still provide an area fairly well separated. As you know this is a large field and then the ball-field is over here, so this is a very private area for four units. This area is located so that it actually goes into this treed area and there are some other trees along the side here and the visibility is fairly good and they have their privacy. So I'm trying to generate a little community approach. There is very little asphalt. We cut the asphalt way down and we don't have a circle anymore which you do have in a standard subdivision which takes up quite a bit of the space. We use the "Y" which is acceptable in most towns for their fire trucks and it's an acceptable alternative. So we don't have that big 120' circle that is required under the law."
Richard Eaton, 591 Main Street: "Mr. Smith, you were talking about the water in the lower left corner of the lot there near Main Street and you said you were going to fill it or something there to eliminate that standing water that occurs after a rain storm and I was wondering what assurances there is that that wouldn't jeopardize the immediate neighbors' cellars."
Roy Smith: "Well, there are street drains that we can tie into and the design calls for two main catch basins about 100' in, but the street drains are there and by bringing that elevation up all you do is direct all that water into the street drain system. So what it essentially will do is it will reduce the impact, potential impact, on the neighbors if that water is causing any trouble now, you're getting that water away."
Richard Eaton: "I don't think it's causing any trouble now but if it were to cause trouble...."
Roy Smith: What it will do, if there is any potential for a problem, we will eliminate it because the water will now go to an established designed drain system."
Steve Sheiffer: "If the selectmen go through with this proposal this will still have to go through detailed design review through the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board and probably the one area that gets the most scrutiny in design review is drainage and run off calculations where they actually calculate storm flows and where the water goes. Because when the storm drainage does not work, that is the one area that produces the most complaints in this town than anything else."
Anna Thompson, "Could I comment on this? It seems that in the past from all the many meetings I have been to over the years that water generated on site, arriving on site, cannot be put into the storm drain. Is this going to be the policy? I know that it is going to be allowed for the Housing Authority on Thoreau Street but are we going to allow all the development in the future to put their water in the storm drains and if so, what are we going to do with it?"
Steve Sheiffer: "I don't believe that is an accurate statement of policy. The town's policy is to allow street drainage to be connected to the storm drainage system. Not house drainage, that is the policy. I don't intend as town manager to get into a detailed discussion of drainage designs since I'm not an engineer. That's the kind of thing that goes through the design review process. But we do not intend to change our policy on drainage for this project."
Anna Thompson, "I think it should just be made clear that it hasn't been allowed in the past."
Roy Smith: "To answer the question that was asked of whether drainage was available, the system is already designed, the road designed for the subdivision shows that there is no requirement for offsite drainage and it is a town road so we could hookup but my policy has always been to try not to compound the materials used. The water tables are low there even though the water does stand because of continued farming over the years, the water will stand in certain areas, but the drainage is good and it can take care of the whole road. It has been designed by Acton Survey and Engineering and I think they are considered to be one of the good engineering firms in the area. There will be no impact under that plan and I see no reason why a lower density where there's less road, less asphalt on this plan than the housing plan so there's more absorption. There's going to be less water running."
Nancy Beecher: "When you say housing plan, you mean your original subdivision plan."
Roy Smith: "Five lot subdivision has more asphalt which means that it is nonpervious material, it has to go somewhere into a drain instead of into the ground."
Bill Joyce, Main Street: "I think we're all familiar with the railroad bridge down by South Bridge Boat House and the towns problem with hubcap level water at times. That whole wetland area has slowly been drained into channels from Concord Greene all the way down. Now a couple of obvious facts for you, we've all seen in the paper about the 10% housing goal we're going for and the recent proposal to put 251 units down off Sudbury Road with 80% and 20% low income housing, I just want to point out that you never catch up with those numbers. If we added units to that extent with 6% increase to the town's housing stock, we only come up with a little bit less than 1% increase in the low and moderate income housing. Then we have to add another 251 and we add 5.5% and we come out with a little bit less than 1%. If it ever reaches 10% level in this town, we would have to double, absolutely double, the 4791 single homes now in town. The more you add the less percent, you would just have to increase that all the time.
"You can't control some of these developments. Some of these developments come across our way and may not be what we want so we have to take a little more concern with those developments that we can control because we don't know what the future's going to hold for other areas. That Sentry plot was a high school and became an insurance company from a town meeting vote and we all know how busy town meeting gets, and that lot could be further developed. There's plenty of room on that lot for either condominiums or more development. The professional center right across the street could be more intensely developed; it has been. The Emerson Hospital has been increased. About fifteen years ago they wanted to put up a parking lot, and the town through various members of the Board decided that wasn't a good idea, and the trustees listened very heavily to the town at that time. Now with the increase of needs for medical health care the area is starting to develop in other ways. That's going to impact Old Road to Nine Acre Corner. You can't control those things. Those are going to come. You can control this. You can plan for the future and think about how the rest of the development is going to come. Not what it is now, what's five or ten years down the road because it's going to be developed. That little intersection is going to become something like Route 2 and Baker Avenue. You're going to have lights up there and you're going to have an access.
"There's going to be heavy development there and I just suggest that the Board really should plan what they can control because in the future other things will go in there that you can't control."
Nancy Beecher: "I'd like to build a little bit on what you said because in part that's one of the things that would move a person like me, and that is to be able to control when you can control. I could turn that in on another way and say one of the things we have before us is the fact that not only the town of Concord has this as a goal as Mr. Sheiffer said earlier to keep some mix of housing in town but in the Greater Boston Region and in the state, it is a problem. As a result the state has established certain programs, and as we have known for some time back, it has established the leverage of the state to intervene in our local processes in order to kind of force us to move in this direction. That is the famous Chapter 774.
"Sure taking your first point. If we aim at reaching the goal, it may be an impossible thing to achieve over a reasonable period of time, but the state and the powers that be, so to speak, in general look favorably on a good faith effort. A good faith effort means continuing to try when you have an opportunity. And indeed just in good conscience, I as one individual regardless of what the state says, would feel that if you really achieve something you keep trying even if you can't get the whole goal for the next ten or twenty years. So that I would make that comment on your first point.
"And on your second point, I think it speaks strongly to the need for us to take hold of a situation when we can have some control. You have a history going on right now in the town in relation to a much bigger possible development where 251 units have been proposed. The interesting thing to notice about that is that the person who's interested in there was in conversation with our Concord Housing Authority and the Housing Authority was trying to drive as hard a bargain as possible and get some units in perpetuity and so soon. When the developer decided that he didn't want to put up with that any longer, then he went to the state and under the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency got the support to go ahead under the power of state law and do something that would achieve us much less than we might have achieved in that particular situation arguably if we had gone forward where we had control. That remains a possibility.
"The partnership idea that the state has now established suggests that we as town leadership go into some kind of partnership with a developer and we can negotiate terms and we can get perhaps significant number of units and we can get them in perpetuity as is provided for under the partnership. They are not provided in perpetuity under the state law surprisingly. If a developer would decide to go that route, they could override our zoning in a variety of ways and the town would come up with x units, maybe even a smaller number of units, and for only 14 or 15 years and then they would revert to market. So we wouldn't have achieved our longer term goal. I lay this all out because I want you to understand that one of the things we're trying to do, and we believe we're trying to do if we go through with this plan, is have greater control as a town."
Anna Thompson, "I heard Mrs. Senkler's opinion of the value of this particular proposal and recalling the numbers from my memory rather than facts, I believe the low income unit would be a maximum income of $26,000 and for the moderate income unit, it would be $40,000. Well, I did some calculations before I came here and I have my figures if anyone wants to argue, on a $26,000 maximum income for the four low income units, one would have to have only the allowable mortgage. Using $125 for the condominium fee and $125 for taxes, which I think would be low compared to other units of similar size in Concord Greene, the maximum mortgage that would be allowed to a low income family would be $42,000 which would need a principal down payment without points of $44,000 if you use 9.5% interest. Now admittedly they may be lower at that time but they could just as easily be higher, I think I'm using a relatively realistic number. It means that someone who is considered low income has got to have $44,000 in the bank plus points, plus legal fees so they've really got to have about $50,000. I wouldn't call those people low income and I don't know how many people earning $26,000 could accumulate that sort of money if they really had an income of $26,000.
"Now the one unit with the $40,000 income which would sell
for $110,000 comes out using the same $125 taxes, $125 condominium
fee, I worked this out so that they would have to have a $81,000
mortgage. This is maximum figures which means they are going to
have to have $29,000 down payment plus points, plus legal fees,
plus, plus, plus."
Nancy Beecher: "Excuse me, but what is the thrust of the argument?"
Anna Thompson, "The thrust of the argument is that if you are hoping that these units would go to low and moderate income families, and that obviously is your genuine belief that this will happen and I'm sure that it was intended in the law that this could happen, but it's never to my knowledge been intended that there would be a condo fee of $125 a month on top of this which means it is about a $15,000 difference in the amount of mortgage that they can receive. So what I'm saying to you that if you are doing this in order for more moderate and low income people to move into these units, and you feel those people will have those cash assets of either $35,000 for the $40,000 family or $50,000 for the $26,000 family, then by all means go ahead and vote for it, but I think if you realistically look can they feasibly be sold and if they can't be, then what is going to be your action when Mr. Smith comes back and says 'I'm sorry, I can't find anybody who qualifies.'"
Nancy Beecher: "Mr. Sheiffer, the Mass Home Ownership Partnership provisions give support that I'm not sure she took reference to when she was talking about it."
Steve Sheiffer: "I really would not like to get into that, but I do think there is a way to make this work."
Roy Smith: Well, there's one major item that has been
forgotten. In the first place, the reason for the partnership and
the law provides state funds to lower the interest rate
approximately on the average of about 3 points, so instead of
talking about 8 1/2 or 9 and that's below prime. Right now it
would mean it would going down as low as 4 1/2 or 5%. That is
only in this situation. That is the only part the town is going
to have to mortgage and to control, the rest of the project will
be at normal rates. That's the big difference between what's
going on or what we are attempting to do here and when you go into
the situation where you've got approximately ten units per acre
under the state plan. There is a procedure where the whole
project can get the lower funding and in that situation that's
when the units are provided for a number of years and then they
come back to the developer. The only thing is that this is
specially designed with a low maintenance type item. The most
expensive thing there is probably the tennis court. The rest of
it is to look natural, it's conversation open space for sharing.
It can't be touched, it can be mowed. The units are designed with
architectural 30-35 year shingles. The rest of those will be
designed with low maintenance style buildings.
"The estimate that I have now since you have to understand that filings are going to be managed essentially by the town or the ownership will be provided for but then the management could go on into the home owners. I would be very surprised unless they run some more expensive programs that I don't know about, that the cost would be over $85, the condo fees that we projected are not over $85. I don't think they have to be that high but it depends on what the association gets together and says if it wants some fancy maintenance. The units are designed for low maintenance.
"The other thing is that I'm not familiar with the tax rate but I understood it was going to be $11 or $12 in Concord."
Bill Sullivan: "$11.47"
Roy Smith: If it's $11.47, the tax bill per month comes out to be $77 or $78 on an $85,000 unit because that's what they're valued at. That's approximately $150 that was thrown into the equation from the other side and I think if you're down to 4 1/2 or 5% in mortgage rate, I haven't done the calculations but the town has done the calculations and they say that it works. I don't know."
Nancy Beecher: "Thank you. That's a helpful response and it fills us in on some information that we didn't have right at our fingertips. I think it is important to say in response to the thrust of what you raised earlier, Mrs. Thompson, that, of course pending the analyses of costs that are going to be worked out, everybody at least can recognize that this would be more affordable than what is going up in general in town. That's one of our goals."
Anna Thompson, "I'm using $125 condominium fee from Mr. Smith's own paperwork. He said the maximum would be $135 when you contemplate all the surcharges and the maintenance of the road, etc. It probably may be on the high side but I doubt if it's that high. If Mr. Smith is correct about the value of $85,000, this certainly wouldn't be on the $110,000 unit they would have to exclusively use that number. I'm not at all familiar as to how the assessors office could assess those particular units unless there are some rigid description on the facts that those particular units can never appreciate in value."
Nancy Beecher: "If we could stop on that point, I think that is part of the home ownership provision."
Anna Thompson, "The other thing that I would raise here is that I was using 9.5 and Mr. Smith somehow got down to 4.5 or 5% with a 3% differential. I don't need my calculations to tell me there is something wrong with those numbers. Who then is going to provide these funds for the owners who are being subsidized? Is the town going to provide them? Where is this difference coming from?"
Steve Sheiffer: "This is a statewide program. The funds are raised through local lending institutions by the Commonwealth who guarantees them and sees that their subsidized rates are provided. My general understanding is 5 1/2% is fixed at $86,000 and 8 1/2% at $110,000. The reason I make my statement that the numbers will work is because we have a similar project at the Emerson Annex which has been exhaustively reviewed because of the issues you've raised. We realize we do have some issues on fees and so on that we're going to have to work out. There is a very tight line in the Annex to keep everyone eligible. There is a lot of staff and there's a committee of people experienced at Belknap and there's an outside developer on that, and they told me there is a way to make the numbers work. I really think the issue here in any event is land use issue and I think that's why many of the residents came tonight is to hear about land use issue not to hear you and I debate numbers.
"My statement was whether or not there was a home ownership proposal that serves the common good. If there is any misunderstanding what common good is, it means the best interests of the inhabitants of the town of Concord, all of them, in any way that the Board defines it. That is your job to define that phrase."
Ann Buttrick, Oak Road: "I'm sure everyone in this room would
like to see affordable housing, affordable housing return to the
town of Concord. Because the proposed high density development
appears to be coming closer to our neighborhood, we have all be-
come interested in the situation. It seems to be true you become
involved when it's closer to home and that is why we are here
tonight. We are all concerned about traffic. Main Street, Route
62 that is, seems to be a thruway at certain times of the day. However, traffic is only one problem. I'm more concerned about the town of Concord and it's problem. The town of Concord needs
to plan for this kind of development without a deadline, without a
developer breathing down it's neck, without a neighborhood up in
arms. If the town needs small units for low and moderate income
families, why must we, the town, be saddled with additional large
expensive housing. At this rate, we appear to be in a race with
Acton. A race to what, oblivion? Therefore, I would like to make
a suggestion that the Board of Selectmen at this time, postpone
making a decision on this development until after they have
scheduled discussion about putting this kind of development on the
voting at town meeting this spring."
Nancy Beecher: "So much has been commented on that point about postponement, we are going to do that this evening after this. Even when we do it, we may as a Board decide to go forward with one or more articles for the warrant or not to go forward, then there is the whole process of going through hearings for town meeting and of course bringing it to town meeting. If we followed that logic, we would wait until after town meeting.
" Now and then you have to seize an opportunity to try something, so I think that is something that is in the minds of some of us. A lot of thought has gone into this. There is a lot of thought of course going into plans around town in general. I suspect in relation to each one that comes up in the future, it's going to be tough to make a decision because there will be pros and cons but that is just a partial response to what you said which we appreciate.
"We want to acknowledge again, I certainly do for the folks who are here from the neighborhood, the very helpful letters that have come, some of them anguished because they are not sure whether we are taking into consideration points that you have raised and we are certainly sensitive to that. Some very carefully reasoned statements help us work out the numbers and we appreciate that."
Fan Chabot: "Nancy, I would like to know why we are rushing right now when in another hour or whenever we are going to be discussing perhaps the article, and why do we have to rush this right now?"
Richard Loughlin: "Well, I'm not so sure we're going to rush into the three bylaws either, Fan, so opportunities do exist and we may not have any bylaws this town meeting or next town meeting. I don't know when town meeting is going to vote on these three bylaws. The issue is the opportunity will continue to arise and I think we have to address them and the buck stops here. That's unfortunate but it does. And we have to make some decisions and we can postpone and postpone and that doesn't remove the issue. It's going to continue to happen. We can vote down on housing partnership, but I think at this point future bylaws are only part of the problem. I can't sit here and say what town meeting is going to do with these three proposals. I agree it is an issue that's out there but there is no immediate answer but opportunity is going to continue to arise and we are going to have to address them without a bylaw process."
Nancy Beecher: "Is anybody ready to make a motion after all this deep, weighty, thoughtful discussion?"
Richard Schmidt: Main Street: "The balance of mixed housing does not work from a sales point of view. The value of the three lots will be severely repressed. What about the people that already live here. What happens to the value of our property? The second point, a memo dated October 23 to Mr. Sheiffer from Mr. Smith. 'Feasibility of selling one lot to the town for housing - As I said before it is not an option for the remaining four lots to be sold in single family lots. There are risks of building $500,000+ houses next to an undefined project. It would not be acceptable to the partners, a lending institution nor potential buyers.' It's not acceptable to the residents either. Why are we going to be treated any differently? We are residents of this town, we pay our taxes and we have played by the rules. When I purchased my house, the acreage across the street was zoned for one acre housing and that had a major impact on my decision to buy my piece of property. Now I played by the rules as they were. I expect the town to also play by the rules. Thank you."
Fran Kehoe, Concord Housing Authority: "Mrs. Beecher, I would like to ask Mr. Smith a question. How much green space would there be if you went ahead and built five houses? How much more green space would there be?"
Roy Smith: I think we did this before, if you go in and put a town road in of standard width to a circle that you have to do and you do the driveways for standard homes. There's more asphalt on the other plan than there is on this one. You see here we really only have three driveways. And there's probably less green space because typically that's the reason for going to a PCRD or planned unit development (PRD), depends on which town, but the reason for doing it is that you are trying to locate the units in a manner to provide green space and to protect the land. Those units cover a little more than, well they don't cover as much as five houses would cover now with this layout and the asphalt is less than that so I would say it's probably about 15% more in this situation. Those calculations are done by the engineers. It's on the chart and the plans say how much open space and how much is covered with nonpervious materials."
Frank Kehoe: "Just following up on that question, I guess I'm puzzled because I wonder one of the arguments the neighbors have made repeatedly is that you are concerned about the open space, you are concerned about the common space."
Richard Schmidt: "No, we are concerned about the density, we are concerned about the traffic. In fact we even offered to videotape Main Street and bring it to the meeting tonight and for some reason we were not allowed to do that which I'm sure will be brought out later. We have only been concerned about density, we have only been concerned about traffic."
Fran Kehoe: "I lived in Concord before Concord Greene and I can remember that when as West Concord citizens, I and other people were a little concerned about Concord Greene, and that has now just become a very natural part of West Concord."
Richard Schmidt: "I think if you got sick every day, you learn to get used to that too."
Richard Loughlin: "I'd like to move that we authorize the town enter into a housing partnership with Mr. Smith for a fifteen-unit development on the Florio land to include nine units at market, four at $86,000, one at $110,000, with a donation of the existing house. And I have another motion but secondary to that."
Nancy Beecher: "I hear a motion. Is there a second to the motion? It is seconded. Any further discussion. All those in favor of the motion please so signify. Opposed. Mr. Rothermel indicated in earlier conversation that his position would be amenable to this project that he's been personally concerned about quite a number of issues of funding, finance, density, but in his absence he didn't want people to think something is being done that he would be in opposition to so he authorized me to convey that. It is then a vote. You had another motion?"
Richard Loughlin: "I would like to move that we authorize the town manager to work out the details between the Housing Partnership and the town."
Nancy Beecher: "Is there a second to that motion?" So seconded. Just before we go ahead with that vote do we foresee a process that the details will be brought back to this board at any time. Mr. Sheiffer, do you suggest that?"
Steve Sheiffer: "I believe the process would have to be handled the same way the Annex process is handled. We have a basic contract that we are drawing with the Annex developer that sets perimeters outside perimeters on the development in terms of the size of the units, the number of units, the town's right to review certain things and that agreement would be worked out and submitted to the Board for your approval. The other part of the Annex process is that agreement requires the developer going to the Planning Board. This one would require the developer go to the Board of Appeals because he would need comprehensive permission from the Board of Appeals for the project, that is my understanding. It still needs a comprehensive permit. The Board's vote is to authorize the partnership which we must also apply to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to approve the partnership the Board just authorized. So that sets the basis that qualifies the project to go for a comprehensive permit."
Nancy Beecher: "Thank you. Any further discussion on that motion. All in favor. Opposed. There are three in favor and one abstention, the motion is carried.
"We know that this is a difficult process for all of us. We hope that we're going to be able to go forward as a town in a very constructive fashion and we will do our best as we undertake this. Thank you all for being here and for your patience."
Ann Buttrick: "Did any individual member or members of the Board of Selectmen or other Concord committees involved with housing problems in general give Mr. Smith and/or partners strong assurances or positive encouragement to the extent that Mr. Smith and associates to pay more for the five+ acres of Florio land than for the land that is zoned for one acre house lots and if so, why are we going through this charade?"
Nancy Beecher: "The question is, did any member of this Board? I don't know about anybody else but certainly not I. I would say no, but we can't speak for all other boards. Mr. Sheiffer."
Steve Sheiffer: "The only involvement I had with the parcel, I have never discussed this matter with Mr. Smith prior to his asking this summer. In fact, on behalf of the town of Concord I wrote letters to the owner of the property asking for the opportunity to submit proposals for the town of Concord to buy the property. The property owner declined my written invitations to me for the town to buy it."
Anna Thompson, "May I ask then what is considered the time involved in the negotiations and future work that is involved in bringing this partnership to fruition and who is going to be bearing the expense?
Steve Sheiffer: "That's a subject for negotiation with Mr. Smith."
Anna Thompson, "It would be my suggestion that before you gave Mr. Smith this approval, it might have been well for you to have decided who was going to bear those costs upfront."
Nancy Beecher: "Let me respond in this way, Mrs. Thompson, that if we are going to achieve anything in this area of trying to expand housing stock in the town and have more variety, we're going to have to put a little effort into it and some funds into it and it will be part of staff time and that will be up to the town manager to provide for."
Anna Thompson, "What about legal expense?"
Nancy Beecher: "We have a budget for legal expense, but I think that is my response to you, I don't think that is something we should try to spell out in great detail at this point."
Steve Sheiffer: "Obviously there are going to be costs involved to negotiate this partnership as there are costs to the town for anything else we do. There is going to be staff time. There's already probably significant amount of my time into this project. I guess I've had two meetings maybe three with Mr. Smith. Traditionally, the town has had staff costs come out of existing staff members, I'm working on a budget now for next year. Legal costs which out of pocket are an issue that need to be negotiated but I will not sit here and tell you that we will not incur legal expenses, and if we do incur them, they will charged to the legal services budget of the town."
Anna Thompson, "Madame Chairman, I feel that the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen have been neglectful in not negotiating those expenses prior to taking a vote at this time."
Nancy Beecher: "I would suggest, Mrs. Thompson, that had we negotiated such things we might have been considered culpable in negotiating before we had decided to go through with it. It's a matter of judgment."
[Vote taken 4 to 1 (Cabot) on December 15. Vote reconsidered at
January Selectmen's meeting 3 in favor, 1 abstention (Loughlin) and
1 against (Cabot). Loughlin abstained because at the time he was
representing Richard Cotter, partner and lawyer with Roy Smith:, in
a real estate transaction.]
Nancy Beecher: "By way of background on item #7, I would just remind folks that this process of considering the possibility of putting on the warrant for the April town meeting next year one or more proposals to help us move in the direction of provisions for inclusionary housing which started back six or eight weeks ago. From Mr. Rothermel, he is pleased that it has moved this far and he supports what has come out. We had a further in depth discussion of the subject when we met on the third of December at the high school and asked staff to flesh out in full with preliminary drafts of some warrant articles of three proposals.
"The first one has to do with reservation of land for housing
in all subdivisions and include an additional section for residential compounds. The second one deals with planned residential
developments and the inclusionary housing requirement for those.
And the third one proposes that there be a Concord comprehensive
permit process which incidentally would put us in a good initial
position to move forward with greater authority when we begin to
talk with possible developers in the future relative to housing
partnerships such as we were just discussing. The issue before us
as a Board is whether we would like to proceed to put one or two
or three of these on the warrant for town discussion and hearings
for decision at town meeting."
Richard Loughlin: "My first initial comment I guess is that I'm still concerned about timing but I must applaud our Town Planner for getting us to this point in such a short time. I really think the four pieces of paper that we have considering where we started four or five weeks ago, we've climbed a mountain in a short period of time. This is still not cemented in my mind but I think we've come a long way and I appreciate Mrs. Chanoux's efforts. I think they are exemplary and outstanding in this fashion to get us to this point.
"I'm still concerned about timing but I think we're going to keep this process moving and I'm still not convinced that these four bylaws are the answer to everything but I think we set the process and -I think we have to continue. I have a direct question for speed. Has the town counsel reviewed these and the legalities? Are we walking on safe ground on all four of these bylaws or haven't we gotten to that point? We're doing some things here that get into issues that we've never done and that's my major concern is some of the restraint of trade issues?"
Steve Sheiffer: "Town counsel hasn't reviewed this because it
has to be decided how many dollars of legal fees do you want to
spend to have a review that the Board has not seen. You have the
Town Planner's understanding of Chapter 40A and Chapter 40B of the
Massachusetts General Laws which are the Zoning Enable Act and
they create authority. The Zoning Enabling Act says you will
reserve land if you pay fair market value and so that's the basis
of Article A. PRDs don't come by right, they come by expressive
privilege so theoretically they set the standard for a PRD.
Comprehensive permit is an incentive plan rather than mandatory
plan. Of course, what it's intended to do is to set up a comprehensive permit process that will encourage a developer to come
through our permit process which is lesser density rather than the
state process which is what happening to DeNormandie. What is the
competence factor, 65, 70, 75% competence that is legal but at
this point after tonight, they will go to town counsel for his
review before the warrant's done and then they will get the second
review which is the more important one which is we all listen to
questions and to hearings. Where everybody else's lawyers pick
them apart."
Richard Loughlin: "Since the beginning of the discussion, we've talked about these types of units and whatever section of the bylaws that someone might enact something like this, where do we put in that these properties when they do exist are in perpetuity?"
Steve Sheiffer: "That has to be dealt with with the permitting requirements. The way it works, the reservation of land doesn't produce any units, it just produces land, and of course, town meeting would have to vote to appropriate the money to buy the land. Then the Planning Board's approval of a PRD for the comprehensive permit would require for perpetuity and that would go into the contract agreement as well as the deed restrictions. You notice I said both because I would want to see it both. I would want to see a final contract between the Town of Concord and the developer. In fact I'm going to ask Mr. Smith to do it. I would also like to see the deed restrictions covered but it doesn't actually go into the bylaws, although they can. Legally it does not need to go into the bylaws. If you would like to put some phraseology in the bylaws for presentation purposes or for clarity purposes, we could certainly do that."
Nancy Beecher: "It seems to leave that open, Steve, and either we would have to have some guidelines for the Planning Board for this decision, and there are some guidelines here but that's not included, or there wouldn't be any guidance and we wouldn't be entirely assured about it."
Steve Sheiffer: "Well, I think that's the question for the Board. Traditionally, we have trusted the Board of Appeals. The Planning Board may put it in the permit for perpetuity. We can also put it in the bylaws."
Nancy Beecher: "The reason I feel more comfortable is I guess the same reason I feel more comfortable than I might otherwise in going forward with this housing partnership we just talked about. It seems to me we are going to gain a lasting benefit for the town and if we are not sure we're going to gain a lasting benefit I'm not sure that I want to go with these."
Richard Loughlin: "I have no interest if we're not going to gain a lasting benefit."
Steve Sheiffer: "We'll have it changed."
Nancy Beecher: "Actually this is one place that Terry Rothermel's absence presents a problem because he had some hesitation as to the perpetuity provisions."
Richard Loughlin: "I think he's reconciled to that now from what I read here."
Steve Sheiffer: "His problem was and I assume somewhere the issue of resale windfalls was taken care of. So I read that he wants perpetuity."
Richard Loughlin: "Another point, I took the liberty of talking with a developer today, not the one that just left, but other people that I know or trust, and I also have to applaud the Town Planner for this as it may not have come to light to the four or five of us is the 10% in a subdivision which is 10% of the total area issue. That kind of bothered me, what we would do with that. But after talking with somebody who's dealt with this, this particular developer has been burned in the past, I guess, because he did reserve it and then he sold it to someone else and they subdivided it. If you have the reserve land, you can always create another street making it a small subdivision and that is what the Town Planner has done here versus saying we want two lots, we want the tract of land which creates the addition of (?). That is a fine line when you talk with someone who will deal with us to see how they will look at it but I don't think it would have gone over all our heads. If you keep a 50 acre parcel and 10% of it is reserved, that 5 acres can actually create another little subdivision on the street once the other street is approved, that's what we doing."
Steve Sheiffer: "We can get much better design control over it when it's just a few houses."
Bill Sullivan: "I think the concern Terry would have is the social isolation of people driving down the road and saying, 'oh, yea, those are the...' I think she created this for that situation."
Steve Sheiffer: "She created the possibility because one thing you want when you create a little separate development is the function of what you're doing with the land. Because in some of these somebody might have one or two units and others you might be doing home ownership units and so it's in there. This was a broad form. All the articles are getting maximum flexibility.
"As long as we are that. The Board originally asked for more than 10%. It was for 10% over 10 acres and 20% under 10 acres. These are not mystical parcels, these are real parcels, real life examples, and what came out of that was that it didn't work. Trying to take 20% of the land under 10 acres was not workable and that's why it got changed back to a uniform 10% for under 10 acres and over 10 acres and that's why the escape clause we did here about a person ending up with less units than they would have by rights. In the real example, we ended up with all the units. That didn't seem fair.
"We tried to write the articles based upon all the discussion the Board had we could recount."
Bill Sullivan: "Is there a state maximum for the amount that we can go to?"
Steve Sheiffer: "That's a good question. We know that 10% complies but the question might be 20%. I can't answer that but the 10% does comply.
"Terry asked whether somebody could get into the escape clause where they didn't have to go through the program because they end up with less units then by right, whether or not there should not be a cash contribution to the land fund?"
Nancy Beecher: "By the way, speaking of the fund, somewhere here she wrote in that there would be, oh, yes, establishing a fund, this is in the preamble of Article Al. It should be stricken because we have the fund already, that's the land acquisition fund. I think the idea of a new fund was around the discussions of possibly making contributions to a housing fund that came up as part of an earlier discussion but we haven't gone forward with that."
Steve Sheiffer: "There's no need to have two funds in force."
Fan Cabot: "Is there any place where we could 20% instead of this 10%?
Steve Sheiffer: "There are a number of possibilities. You could get 20%. If we get 20% in the larger parcels, the density goes up significantly greater and also the Town Planner kept saying 'Is it fair to take more land from one owner than from another owner?' so is it fair to take 20% from one set of owners and 10% from another set of owners. She felt it was fairer to be uniform."
Nancy Beecher: "Terry has a question, Steve, on Article C. 'I'm not delighted with the five times density that applies to the whole tract.' So his question was whether the percentage applies to the whole tract or to a portion of the tract."
Steve Sheiffer: "I need to explain the purpose of the article. Those are not densities that we would normally prefer but this is a comprehensive permit which is intended to assume that the developer is going to go comprehensive permit under the state law. Would we rather not have him go comprehensive permit under a town bylaw where we have control and therefore how much in incentives do we have to offer to have him do that? That's where the five times came forth in that comprehensive permit and it's a judgment call. It's too high. But the reason she put it that way is that she figured if people were to commit for l0x density as has happened up on Fairhaven Hill and we set our comprehensive permit at double or triple density, they would ignore us. So she went fishing to see what was the line. And that is what the comprehensive permit is intended to do, it is a hooker to have someone come under the town bylaw rather than the state law."