Officials tread carefully to preserve 40B status

After years of contending with both “friendly” and “unfriendly” affordable housing projects in an effort to meet the state’s 10 percent threshold as required under Chapter 40B, the town of Canton has finally earned the right to be selective in the types of developments it approves — and officials intend to keep it that way, according to Selectmen Chairman Bob Burr and his colleagues on the planning and zoning boards.

With a series of housing developments up for possible consideration in the near future, members of all three boards have begun to take a closer look at the town’s total housing stock and the impact that the new projects could have on Canton’s affordability ratio, which was exactly 10.0 percent as of May 2012.

“We’re not looking to put the town in a situation where we’re vulnerable to another 40B proposal,” insisted Burr in a recent interview. “Our goal is not even to be close to 10 percent.”

Under the provisions of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Permit Act (Chapter 40B), communities with less than 10 percent affordable housing can be forced to accept high-density projects that do not conform to local zoning bylaws. Developers in these instances are also entitled to appeal unfavorable decisions to the state Housing Appeals Committee — as was the case in 2003 when the Canton zoning board rejected a bid by the Roseland Property Company to build a 220-unit project on the Randolph town line.

The HAC ultimately sided with Roseland, and the ruling was later upheld by the state Supreme Judicial Court, which determined that Canton was not at 10 percent at the time the developer had filed the initial permit application.

A large portion of the property was later sold to Avalon Bay Communities and the project was reduced to 196 “townhouse-style” apartments following negotiations with town officials. The zoning board and selectmen also managed to secure a nearly $2 million mitigation package from the developer; however, both groups remained, in the words of ZBA Chairman Paul Carroll, “absolutely and unequivocally” opposed to the project.

“It is too much for that part of town; it is too much for Canton in general,” Carroll told the Citizen in 2010, adding that the town had already gone “above and beyond the state requirements for 40B.”

Selectmen expressed similar sentiments when announcing the mitigation deal this past October, with John Connolly calling it a “shotgun marriage” and Avril Elkort lamenting the project’s future impact on the schools, roads, and local public services.

At the same time, the new project is also expected to provide the town with a substantial cushion for its affordable housing inventory, as the entire development is eligible to be counted toward Canton’s affordability ratio.

In fact, once it obtains building permits, Avalon will instantly become Canton’s largest 40B property — exceeding both Windsor Woods (159 units) and the Arboretum apartments (156 units) — and will push the town’s affordable housing percentage to almost 12 percent.

A figure that high would place Canton 16^th in the state (out of 351) and first in all of Norfolk County, putting its affordable housing percentage in line with larger cities such as Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford, and Worcester.

As it stands, Canton is one of only 40 municipalities in Massachusetts at 10 percent or greater and currently has the third highest percentage in Norfolk County behind only Holbrook (10.2), Randolph (10.8), and Dedham (10.8).

Yet even with the cushion from the Avalon project, town officials are keeping their eye on a handful of new proposals that could impact Canton’s percentage one way or the other — including a possible 350-unit housing development on the former Plymouth Rubber property on Revere Street and a 200-unit senior housing complex at the site of the AA Will Sand & Gravel pit on Turnpike Street.

The developers of both projects have submitted a new overlay district for consideration at the May town meeting, and in the case of the latter proposal, none of the units would be set aside as affordable housing.

Submitted by attorney Richard Staiti on behalf of his client, Brightview Senior Living, the proposed project would consist of a three-story housing facility for residents 62 and older who “do not need placement in a hospital or nursing home.” The building would include approximately 75 to 100 independent units, 30 to 50 assisted living units, and 30 to 50 memory care (Alzheimer’s) units.

Click the image to view the Planning Board meeting, courtesy of CCTV.

As detailed by Staiti in his presentation to the Planning Board on February 20, the proposed facility offers a “special kind of housing” that is rich in services, from meals and recreation to transportation. He said it would therefore not be economically feasible for his client to offer affordable units, nor did the state have this type of housing in mind when it crafted the 40B legislation, he said.

Staiti noted that only the independent living units would impact the town’s affordable housing percentage; however, he acknowledged the board’s concern in that area and suggested a “creative” solution in which the developer would provide a cash contribution to the town in lieu of the affordable units.

He said he has seen the cash option used in other communities and suggested that the town could even consider earmarking the funds for the recently adopted Community Preservation Act, which has an affordable housing component.

“It really comes down to the town’s decision,” said Michael Glynn of Brightview Senior Living. “Do they want this modern assisted living [facility] that’s giving $300,000 a year in property taxes, not impacting the schools, and beautifying the site significantly, and the negative to this is, yes, our independent living units would be a slight detriment to the [affordable percentage] for sure.”

Planning Board member Jeremy Comeau, who initially raised the concerns about the project’s lack of a 40B component, said the cash would only be helpful if it was used specifically to promote affordable housing, while fellow member George Jenkins said he would prefer that the funds be linked to the project in question, as opposed to being given a “hunk of cash” with no oversight.

As for the Plymouth Rubber project, it is not yet clear how many of the 350 units would be set aside as affordable, although more is expected to be revealed in the coming weeks following the completion of an independent study on the project’s impacts.

According to Burr, a full report of the study’s findings will be presented to selectmen at their March 19 meeting, and a Planning Board hearing on the proposed rezoning was scheduled for last night, March 6.

Burr, who is part of a committee that is working with the developer, said the study was slow to get off the ground in part because the developer (Napleton) had not completed all of the necessary environmental testing that was required of the 40-acre site.

“If it has to go to another town meeting or even a special town meeting, so be it,” said Burr. “The important thing is to make sure the public is fully informed and the town boards are fully informed. We have no intention of shortchanging anyone in this process.”

In terms of the impact on affordable housing, Burr said it is “always a factor” with any development that comes up for review, whether large or small.

“We will be looking at affordability ratios with regard to both of those projects (Plymouth Rubber and Turnpike Street) and others,” he said. “The concern for the ratio of affordable housing will be a concern for selectmen no matter what percentage we currently stand at.”

In the meantime, the zoning board was also expected to keep the town’s affordable housing position in mind during a recently scheduled meeting with old foe Roseland, which sold its apartment project to Avalon but retained a portion of the land to build 24 single-family homes. Originally part of the 40B proposal, Roseland is seeking to remove that designation and construct the project as a standard subdivision.

As ZBA member Greg Pando told the board last month, “I know the [modification] would have some effect on our affordable housing stock — a little bit, but it would still have some impact.”

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=19337

Posted by Jay Turner on Mar 7 2013. Filed under News, Town Government. Both comments and pings are currently closed.