Senior housing proposal sparks concerns over height, affordability

By Jay Turner

After managing to win over all five selectmen and most of the voters at last year’s annual town meeting, the developer of a proposed 160-unit senior assisted living facility on Turnpike Street has run into a few roadblocks during the permitting process, fueled by ongoing concerns over the height of the structure and the absence of an affordable housing component.

The proposed Brightview facility on Turnpike Street (image courtesy of CCTV)

While neither issue is expected to derail the project entirely, the applicant, Baltimore-based Brightview Senior Living, could ultimately be forced to make concessions on both fronts — perhaps even abandoning its “cash in lieu of affordable housing” arrangement — in order to satisfy the demands of various stakeholders, most notably the Zoning Board of Appeals.

As ZBA Chairman Paul Carroll indicated at last month’s hearing in reference to both issues, “It looks to me that we’ve got to go back to the drawing board folks,” while later adding that the board still had a “long way to go” and was “not even close” to rendering a decision on the project.

Carroll, incidentally, made his remarks less than 24 hours after the Planning Board voted 3-1 to send a negative recommendation to the ZBA, citing both the height (42 feet) and the lack of affordable units as two of the determining factors in their decision.

At least three of the Planning Board members said they actually had no problems with the technical aspects of the site plan itself, which calls for a three-story, 174,000-square-foot building to be constructed on the eastern edge of the 32-acre AA Will Sand & Gravel site, oriented parallel to Turnpike Street between Sunnybrook Lane and Randolph Street.

The building as proposed would be located in the newly created Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD), a zoning overlay drafted by Brightview attorney Richard Staiti and subsequently approved by a wide margin at the 2013 town meeting. Brightview Development Director Michael Glynn said the project has also gotten “strong support” from many of the neighbors, although they have yet to satisfy their closest abutters on Red Tail Run, who continue to be concerned about the height and overall bulk of the structure.

One of the residents, John Finn, described the proposed structure as “massive,” while Joe Spadea called it “monstrous” and suggested that it might not fit with the neighborhood.

Neighbor Tom Morrissey provided both the planning and zoning boards with an image of Fenway Park’s Green Monster and claimed that the Brightview building would be almost double the size.

Planning Board member Chris Connolly seemed to share the neighbors’ concerns with the proposed height and with the developer’s apparent unwillingness to consider alternative designs.

“It’s a three-story building with 160 units,” Connolly said. “Literally it’s in someone’s backyard. This is a big project and I’m not saying we’re rushing through it, but a lot of the questions that I’ve asked, the answer is you just don’t want to do it because it doesn’t fit with the model of your business.”

Representatives for Brightview, however, insist that they have always been sensitive to the needs of the neighbors and have already made several changes to the plans, including moving the building as far away from Red Tail Run as possible given the environmental and engineering constraints of the site. Glynn added that they are prepared to make a “significant investment” in landscaping and buffering in order to minimize the view of the building in the fall and winter months.

As for their insistence on a three-story structure, both Staiti and Glynn said it is for the betterment of the elderly residents as it greatly reduces walking distances to common areas. Glynn also stressed that the Brightview project would be less impactful than the nearby Orchard Cove community, which is four stories tall with a much greater density.

Brightview did seem amenable, however, to a recent suggestion by ZBA member Greg Pando to lower the roof height in certain parts of the structure — a change that Pando believes would “go a long way” toward satisfying the neighbors.

With respect to the affordable housing question, Glynn said the developer is “open to a lot of ideas,” but they have already struck a development agreement with the Board of Selectmen that would have them sending $705,000 to the town in lieu of affordable housing units.

“It’s just a matter of trying to satisfy all parties,” Glynn said. “Right now we’ve satisfied the Board of Selectmen with the arrangement that we have.”

Several members of both the planning and zoning boards are already on record opposing the cash option, including ZBA member John Marini, who suggested last month that they scrap the development agreement and focus on providing affordable units.

Planning Board Chairman Jeremy Comeau said he actually voted against the project at town meeting last year due to the agreement with selectmen. “That’s my big issue,” he said. “I prefer the units and not the money.”

Pando also shared his colleagues’ concerns and suggested that the developer at least consider putting the cash contribution into an annuity that could be used to offset rent for a specific number of units.

“I think a lot of this hinges upon the issue of affordability,” said Pando, “and I think that some of the Planning Board’s concerns and this board’s concerns are that cash payments to the town of Canton tend to disappear or are put into discretionary uses that are not necessarily to the benefit of that [particular issue].”

Glynn said that Brightview would be willing to consider any number of suggestions. “If we get a solution that gets more buy-in, I’m all for it,” he said. “It’s an ongoing issue that we’re happy to discuss with the ZBA. Right now we’re struggling to come up with a solution that works for all parties, but we’re still looking at it.”

Despite the challenges they have faced to date, Glynn said Brightview is proud of its proposal and remains hopeful about the prospect of an approval. The developer was due to meet with the Conservation Commission on Wednesday, March 12, and will meet again with the zoning board on Thursday, March 20.

Glynn said if all goes well and a solution is achieved, then the company would need approximately five months to complete detailed design work before breaking ground sometime in the fall of 2014.

Correction: The above story misstated the views of Zoning Board of Appeals member John Marini with respect to the development agreement signed between the Board of Selectmen and the developer. The article stated that Marini was opposed to the developer’s cash contribution in lieu of providing affordable housing units. Marini, however, suggested that they could keep the agreement while also setting aside some units as affordable.

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=24632