The Select Board voted last night to send an application to the state Department of Housing and Community Development(DHCD) to qualify the project of 162 units of housing on Reed Road as a 40R development. There are some advantages to the town in having this project qualify as a 40R development. Namely that the state will provide funds to offset the impact of the development, MGL Chapter 40R section 9. The payment would be $200,000 for the project and $3,000 per unit of housing. The total is $200K plus $3K times 162 or $686,000. These funds are only available if the project is qualified as a 40R project.
The developer is asking that the Reed Road project ...
...be added as an amendment to the Lincoln Park Smart Growth Overlay District (LPSGOD) bylaw. The first step, which was initiated last night, is to have the DHCD qualify the project as a 40R. Then the Planning Board must approve an amendment to the LPSGOD bylaw in accordance with MGL Chapter 40A section 5. The Planning Board would recommend the LPSGOD bylaw amendment to Town Meeting which would then have to vote to approve the bylaw revision.
At that point, the developer would submit plans to the Permit Approval Authority(PAA) of the LPSGOD. The PAA is a special board created by the LPSGOD bylaw and is comprised of 3 members, one member of the Select Board, one member of the Planning Board, and one member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The current membership is Kathleen Horan McLean, John Haran, and Roger Tougas. I think that the Select Board needs to appoint a currently serving member to the PAA. This is no reflection on Ms. Horan McLean. The language of the bylaw is plain and says a member of the Select Board, not a designee. I think that having a serving member adds accountability to the PAA since a current member would be responsible to the voters for their actions on the PAA and I believe that was the intent of the bylaw as well. As Ms. Horan McLean correctly pointed out last night, the PAA has no role in recommending the project for qualification as a 40R project or formulating an amended bylaw. Their responsibility begins when the developer submits a plan for review. Under the bylaw, the PAA has the sole authority for review and approval of the development plans.
I am not in favor of this project because I believe that the development will overburden the infrastructure in the area. The developer could still go forward with the project as a 40B development. MGL Chapter 40B section 21 allows developers to bypass local zoning and planning boards by applying to the state for a permit. The bypassing of local zoning is allowed as long as a certain percentage of the housing is "affordable" as defined by state regulation. So this development could still be built under 40B and still create infrastructure problems for the town. Having a 40R designation would provide some funds to ameliorate the impacts, but not sufficient funds to cover most of the impacts to roads, schools, water and sewer systems. So the dilemma is, do you go along with trying to get a 40R designation and get some funds for impacts, or do you force the developer to try to go the 40B route, possibly still have the project developed and not get anything. I am willing to take my chances that the 40B project may not go forward, rather than definitely have a 40R project go forward.
There are several questionable areas for this project as a 40R project and it may not even pass muster with the DHCD.
The first is that is does not meet the density requirements. In order to show the required density of 20 units per acre for most of the townhouse units, the "zone" is the size of the building foundation. This is 162 units on 40 plus acres. A true look at the project is that the density is 4 per acre, not 20.
The purpose of a smart growth district is to encourage development were infrastructure already exists. That is not the case for this project. The infrastructure of roads, sidewalks, etc. would have to be built to support the project. this is the definition from the MGL 40R section 2 “Eligible locations”, (1) areas near transit stations, including rapid transit, commuter rail and bus and ferry terminals; (2) areas of concentrated development, including town and city centers, other existing commercial districts in cities and towns, and existing rural village districts; or (3) areas that by virtue of their infrastructure, transportation access, existing underutilized facilities, and/or location make highly suitable locations for residential or mixed use smart growth zoning districts.
I contend that the Reed Road location meets none of the three criteria.
What do you think about this project? Tell us in comments below
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Reed Road project sent to DHCD
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I think this project is a bad idea. We already approved and accepted money from the state for the Lincoln Park project and it has gone nowhere. That one is still on the table and we have no idea what the impact of this type of project would be. Now they want to extend it.
I think if we are going to go the way of 40R's, we should see what the pro/cons of one will be before approving another.
Dear Bill: Please resist this project with every fiber of your being.As we all know, with affordable housing comes unaffordable social and educational costs that will dwarf the receipt of any one-time cash inducement (some might characterize it as a bribe) received from the Commonwealth.
I also suspect that these potential costs will also far outstrip any additional real estate taxes resulting from the proposed "improvements" to the parcels in question.
It'd be one thing were these developments limited to adult seniors, say age 55 and older; however, as I understand Chapter 40R, no such favorable limitations are possible.
As I further undertstand things, our middle school and all three elementary schools are are already overcrowded. What, then, would we do with a immediate, large influx of new students to the system? The answer, I fear, would be additonal pressure to build more schools, something the Town can ill afford even in good times, much less now.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Bill, how about entertaining , with your fellow board members, a user fee for those who use the padanaram bridge??I'm not sure if it's lawful but it seems to be practical. The town has a user fee for everything else. A fifty dollar user fee sticker could be placed next to all the other town user fee's. The town beach sticker, the transfer sticker, the apponagansett launching sticker, the trash pick up fee ( PAYT) I don't expect you to answer this foolish post, but it's has your attention. Hmmmm
Don't expect to be re-elected, if you should dare to bring this up at a select board meeting. As a man from the North end of town, how many times have you crossed the bridge during a one year period??
Just the thought of this bridge fee makes me laugh.(:)Ho....Ho....Ho
There is just something about laughing that seems to make everything right...
We seem to have sporadic discussions in town about the need to care for our seniors and veterans, and yet they are the last to be given attention, especially the veterans, which is the utmost shame. Now at least, the old state police barracks is to be used for their housing.
IF a project should have been developed for Lincoln Park, too bad it could not have been for the veterans, although perhaps at the time it was conceived, there may not have been such a great need for it as I understand there is now. I did think it was once proposed for senior housing, though, and that apparently fell through.
Even if 40R had been proposed for housing for solely one of those two groups, it would have been better than what is being proposed now, if it could even be done, as Bill says the land in question may not meet the requirements for 40R as he sees it.
What a mess we are allowing our leadership to "lead" us into.
Can we as residents do anything to prevent this? What can be done at Town Meeting?
Mike - Why not have tolls booths at all points of entry into Dartmouth - Old Westport, Gidley Town, State, Faunce Corner, High Hill, Old Fall River Roads. Dartmouth, Hawthorn, Sharp, Allen and Rogers Streets.
We could hire retirees and offer them some type of tax relief in lieu of pay.
I am confused, is this the peoject that Mr. Cusson is working on?
We have 2 sets of apartment complexes, one affordable and one not so much. Are they full, turning people away all the time? I know Dartmouth Woods is not. What about CrossRoads?
I do not feel we need another apartment complex in this town. We have overcrowded schools and can't even afford to service the new developments/streets in our town with trash pick up(at their house) or plowing and sanding.
I think the Lincoln Park site was/is perfect for a indoor/outdoor sports complex.
If family recreation could have been developed in that space as it initially was, we could already be recognizing money for the town, I would think.
Plus it would be a great tourist attraction, something we could use in Dartmouth, other than our (expensive) beaches.
Kids do not always want to sightsee, even though FR and NB do have attractions and museums.
And a family park would be an excellent day trip for families out of town, as well as one for locals.
You can even add space for the little shops they had planned for and it would be a great space. All types of sports even roller hockey, ice is too expensive but maybe have a space for the winter for an man- made ice rink, that would be a safe alternative to small ponds, not to mention fun for the whole family.
I would support an apartment complex for the elderly and veterans to use jointly at a cost that is affordable, but not another complex for another developer to make money and we gain more of a burden if more kids move into the district. Not with 2schools closed, and an already over-crowded middle school.
I think joint usage for seniors and veterans sounds like a great idea. I think it could provide a great deal of comfort and stability to some who may feel or be alone in the community, and I would think both groups might well have lots in common.
I think it could foster a sense of family that otherwise might be lacking for some people.
Of course, it's too late to do anything about it now, I suppose. It's all about the money for some people.
I agree with the last two posts. This project will make a few people rich and will cost the residents of the town dearly.
A sports complex, elder housing, and veterans housing sounds like a great idea!
THINK. Our schools are overcrowded, the economy is in the toilet. We don't want/need this project!!
Is it too late to do anything about using either site for family usage? I know there is money that must be turned back to the state if the LPSGOD doesn't go through.
Is it too late to stop the further progress of 40R right now? I thought the SB could rescind their approval in the future.
This project can be stopped!
How, and what can we do? Is the only opportunity at Town Meeting?
Lara, Joe, Nat and Mike have already cast their votes to move forward. Only Bill is voting in the town's best interest on this one. Shame on the other four SB members.
I think this prject should not get approval. Not for the reasons some have stated (we dont need more kids in shool, we should have it for a park, elderly or veteran's housing etc...) but for the very reasons Bill stated in his citation of the rational behind 40r projects; i.e. infra-structure already in place.
The infr-structure does not exist and the pittance the town will receive in initial pay off and future taxes will not justify the burdun on the existing infra-structure.
Raise your hand if you think that Lara Stone or Mike Watson looked up ch. 40R in MGL before they voted Yay on monday night.
Thank you, Bill, for opposing 40R. What a shame it could not have been tabled for a week at least, while you and the others read through and digested the material regarding the project that was given to the SB just minutes before the project developers presented their information to you and then expected you to okay and give it approval because it needed to be "rushed," as they themselves admitted.
The poster above is right. Did Stone or Watson even know what the 40R project entailed and the conditions needed to meet such a project?
Shame on them and Joe and Nat for not tabling this until you all could read and digest the information.
The four of them did the residents of Dartmouth a great disservice.
Thank you for looking out for us.
As with most things, the devil is in the details. If the town makes it profit motive small enough for the developer to abandon the project, then maybe it can be killed. I'd like the old Lincoln Park remade, but I doubt that will happen
I agree with mom of 3, We could have a great park in North Dartmouth with a pavillion, benches, bike paths/walking paths,farmers market, etc. Of course, the developers wouldn't make any money on the project. Most residents don't want more development that will cost in more ways than one. The one time cash offer is a rotten carrot! We pay big time in the end!
Do you think the developers care?
Post a Comment