The Select Board – September 17th

The Select Board discuss two potential housing developments in town.

Selectman Holland opened the evening discussions by clarifying there would be no voting at this Select Board Meeting. They were gathered to discuss possible housing developments in town.

87 Vernon Street Middlesex Green Realty Trust 40B LIP – Local Initiative Program- Discussion

First on the agenda was a 40B local initiative proposal for 87 Vernon Street. In attendance was Ryan Douglas, who spoke on behalf of Middlesex Green Realty Trust, and Brian Geaudreau, with Hancock Associates of Chelmsford, MA. Douglas reiterated, “We’re not here tonight for any type of approval process. That’s going to be later down the road with the ZBA [Zoning Board of Approval], this is a formality, but it’s one that we’re excited to have.”

Their project aims to maintain Tewksbury’s 10% affordable housing threshold by developing eight single-family lots, with two affordable units and six market-rate units. Mr. Douglas noted Tewksbury is currently teetering at the 10% mark, with a small excess of four units above the 10% threshold. The proposal was introduced as a “LIP project” that would help maintain that buffer “in a way that is benign and open to community input”.

The prospective site, an abandoned VFW building and parking lot, was reviewed by Hancock Associates’ team of civil engineers, wetland scientists, and land surveyors. They surveyed the homes abutting the approximate two-acre 87 Vernon Street lot and proposed eight single-family lots, ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet. Satellite imaging of the neighborhood, an R-40 district which mandates one-acre zoning, showed that none of the surrounding lots were a full one-acre as they abided past zoning law. After assessing the density, they proposed the concept plan of eight units should include “some sort of amenity or kind of public space that could be brought into a part of the project.”

Mr. Geaudreau referenced a landlocked parcel at the end of Joy Street that could be earmarked as passive recreation for the project. Their plan outlined some walking or nature trails which would not disturb the existing tree canopy. He noted the low-lying wetlands, as they were aware this would be a big topic with the board, and referenced that their goal was, “not maximizing the density, if you will, but reserving some of the natural features of the site.”

He also highlighted that another advantage of razing the site was that the new development would include full stormwater management and treatment. This would mitigate and control the existing water troubles in the neighborhood.

On behalf of residents who may not be familiar with the terminology, Eric Ryder asked for clarification on the terms “40B” and “LIP.” Mr. Douglas explained, “LIP” stood for Local Initiative Program, which would enable a developer and the town to work together to create additional affordable units under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B. He compared this to a classic 40D development, where there would be less input from the local community and a lot “more bulldozing that can occur at the state level.”

Ryder also inquired if the three lots where the walking path was proposed were all town-owned lots. It was confirmed only one of the three parcels is currently town-owned. Mr. Montuori noted they would need approval from Town Meeting to sell them through the proper process, with abutters having Right of First Refusal. Lastly, he clarified that the lot of 89,000 square feet, as it currently stood, could fit one or two single-family homes on the parcel, depending on the frontage and lot sizes.

Jayne Wellman asked about the size and style of homes that would be built. Mr. Geaudreau replied they were very preliminary in the process to comment, however, he shared lot sizes a range of 1,800 square feet – 2,200 square feet were to be expected. Architecturally, they would be a style that coincided with the smaller footprint and would fit into the neighborhood. She also questioned infrastructure improvements, particularly with local stormwater issues. “Absolutely, we are going to be doing stormwater management”, replied Geaudreau. The properties would include a series of dry wells, with underground storage and subsurface infiltration. Wellman reiterated this area floods frequently and gets icy, bringing challenges. Wellman ended in favor of the project, which was in-scale and respectful of the existing neighborhood. She indicated she looked forward to continued community conversation on the project. 

James Mackey wished to confirm the recent zoning bylaw changes passed to prevent affordable housing from falling below the 10% threshold. Community/Economic Development Planner Alex Lowder highlighted that previous iterations of the zoning bylaw allowed for two key provisions. First, they permitted a waiver of the 15% minimum affordable unit requirement for all multifamily developments in exchange for a fee. Second, the ORSD provision allowed for the waiver of the 10% minimum affordable unit requirement. This provision enabled single-family homes to bypass the one-acre minimum lot size if they preserved open space. Therefore, the formally 325 Marshall Street, was developed during a time when the fee and provision were still in place. Effective as of May 2022 those two abilities to waive were removed. Mr. Mackey thanked Lowder for her clarification.

Mr. Mackey requested consideration to increase the size of the lots, as he was unsure that eight would fit. “We don’t want to jam as many houses as we can onto this lot.” Overall, he was not opposed to the concept proposed as long as they were cognizant of the wetlands and flooding situation. Mackey also asked if a community outreach meeting was held before this plan was developed, and the answer was no as the project was still in preliminary stages. He encouraged both Douglas and Geaudreau to reach out to the abutters and neighbors for input before any formal decisions were made. He concluded his comments by expressing appreciation for the conservation of green space.

Mark Kratman agreed with Mr. Mackey’s concerns about the project density. “Eight, I think, is really pushing it down there, especially for the condition of the lot, [and] the infrastructure down there.” He asked the Town Manager to speak to the waterline and roadway progress. Mr. Montuori commented on the recent paving improvements in the neighborhood and noted that the remaining paving would occur after the waterline pipes were fixed, which was expected to happen within the next three years.

The residents in the audience disagreed with Montuori’s details of paving progress and nodded in agreement with Mr. Kratman’s concerns. He asked Mr. Montuori to query the necessary departments for an update on the poor roadways and waterlines.

The presenters confirmed this was a high-level discussion, and they have not begun any discussions requesting to use the town land for a walking trail. Kratman remarked that this part of the proposal included a promise that may not receive approval due to the marsh area. While he supported more housing, he emphasized that it shouldn’t come at the expense of creating additional problems in this challenging area and strongly urged discussions with the DPW and local residents. It was clarified the residents would have a say on this project when it was moved forward to a public meeting.

Mr. Holland also expressed concerns about the density but was hopeful that this project provided an opportunity to finally address the ongoing infrastructure problems in the neighborhood. In response to Ms. Wellman’s question about the size and style of the houses, Mr. Holland asked whether there would be notable differences between the properties. The presenters clarified that all of the houses would be similar, and it would not be apparent which units were affordable versus market-rate.

Mr. Holland also queried how the new ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit- law could influence the project. Alex Lowder confirmed it would be no different than the family special permit rules they have now. The potential eight single-family homes would need to reasonably fit an ADU on their property.

The Trahan Elementary School Redevelopment Proposal Discussion

David Edison, Executive Director of the Chelmsford Housing Authority, and Bethany Moody from Icon Architecture came before the board to discuss designs for the old Trahan Elementary School building, hoping to create forty-six units of affordable senior housing. They were accompanied by Keith McDonald, VP of Development and Acquisitions at Stratford Capitol, and Sr Director of Operations at Chelmsford Housing Authority, Kirk Fulton. Edison highlighted his excitement to respond to the RFP, noting they had previously partnered with Tewksbury, working with the Tewksbury Housing Authority, Solider On, amongst other projects. Before he passed along the presentation to Moody, he noted whatever local funds were provided, they would bring in an additional $20 million from other resources.

Moody referenced Icon’s 25-year tenure, alongside their 10-year partnership with Stratford Choice Group. She laid out an overview of multiple local success stories of Massachusetts Historic School Reuse Projects, which embraced unique historic spaces and transformed them into treasured residential spaces. The Cody School project created sixty-five units of affordable senior housing and the Oxford school, similar to their Trahan plan, included a sensitive addition.

As a design concept, the Trahan school was reimagined with mid-century modern architecture, emphasizing the strong connections between indoor and outdoor spaces. She explained the existing building supported the idea of a large outdoor courtyard, which would provide active outdoor spaces for making connections befitting the neighborhood and community. Possible outdoor amenities mentioned were gardens, a walking trail, pickleball courts, and a playground. The old classroom wings provided a nice layout of spaces, offering direct exterior access to potential private patio spaces, and an opportunity to engage with the courtyard. Moving forward, the team planned on maintaining the original entry and utilizing existing spaces, such as the former cafeteria, for community activities.

Lastly, she highlighted the existing tunnels under the building had reuse potential for electric hot water systems. Ms. Moody explained they could continue the legacy of the building by better serving the community with “the right number of units, the right fit for the population, and the right affordability mix.”

Mr. Mackey asked, “if I may, what was the intent of the funding and timing slides?”

Mr. Edison confirmed that they would be requesting some local funds and would then submit an application to EOH HLC. He explained there would be a lot of time involved with low-income housing tax credits and other funding sources. “We’re doing ten subsidized units at this point, thirty-one that are going to be affordable without a subsidy, and then five market-rate units.” It was noted this is what was presented but it could be later negotiated or changed.

Edison continued to explain that if the town of Tewksbury decided to move forward with the proposal before the end of this year, design zoning applications to the HLC would need to be submitted, typically in February. Therefore, the estimated timeline for an HLC application would be February 2026, which would likely need to be re-evaluated and re-presented in February 2027, with a decision expected in August 2027. It would take about six months to secure both bank and financial resources, followed by an additional three months for the closing process. In conclusion, the project would likely be finished by the end of 2028 or early 2029. “I always want to be honest, direct, and forthright about how things work,” he said. From concept to people moving in, the timeline would be three to five years.

Before turning the conversation over to the board, Mr. Holland complemented the presentation. He asked if the new bond bill for restoring municipal buildings would be something they would apply for to receive funding. Mr. Edison responded, “We’re not going to be able to have our cake and eat it too.” He explained his understanding of the bill. There are existing pockets of funds such as the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the National Trust Fund. “They may add a new pocket to incentivize communities to reuse old buildings but it doesn’t mean we will get more money overall, just maybe speed things up.” The average cost to build an affordable housing unit is currently $700,000. He reiterated that if there was funding available, he would be the first in line to request it to build housing.

Mr. Kratman thanked the panel for their upfront honesty and enthusiasm for these projects. While he expressed worry about density during the prior conversation regarding Vernon Street, Mr. Kratman explained he did not have those same concerns for Senior Housing at the Trahan site. He noted how there are always apprehensions about increased traffic in densely populated areas; however, senior citizens living in these communities typically won’t contribute to rush hour traffic and often have fewer cars in their driveways. In fact, some residents don’t have any cars at all.

Kratman continued, noting the eighteen-year to twenty-five-year estimated waitlist for senior housing in the community, marking this a priority. He highlighted the importance of local preference, as seniors usually wished to remain in a familiar community where they had raised their families.”We have the land, the location, and the ability to do it.”

Mr. Mackey commended that it was clear the panel was very passionate and thanked them. He asked the team to clarify the funding that would be asked of the town. Mr. Edison replied the ask was “not to exceed ” $4.75 million, with an initial ask of $500,000. He observed many sources of money, such as the historic tax credits, may only be issued in amounts of $100,000 each quarter. The more quarters, the more opportunities to collect, potentially lowering the $4.75 million dollar ask.

Edison expressed there will be other factors at play, as Tewksbury has not been certified as a MBTA community, so the project may not be eligible to secure funding sources from the HLC.

Initially, Mr. Mackey wasn’t sold on the idea of reusing this building but admitted the plan was growing on him after the presentation. He felt forty-six units was a lot for that site and acknowledged that was the proposed maximum, but wondered if there was a more realistic ask versus a maximum ask? 

Mr. Edison commented they could cut to forty units, but that would be a missed opportunity for six local seniors who would still need an affordable place to live. If the units weren’t included in this project they would have to start the process over elsewhere, in another neighborhood, cutting down more trees, and spending additional time and resources. Additionally, the more units in their project the less resources spent on meal programs or nursing services. Mr. Mackey agreed.

Mackey also confirmed that the new addition would not include the patio spaces, due to cost alone, as they were considered luxury items. He also established they would maintain the green buffer for the abutting properties.

Ms. Wellman fondly recounted how both her children went to the Trahan School, and how familiar she was with the building. Even still, originally she was in favor of bulldozing it. However, she was very pleased with their presentation and excited about the possibilities this proposal offers. As a daughter of aging parents, she was aware of the great need and long waitlists. Wellman has received many calls, particularly from older women who had outlived their husbands and were in danger of losing their housing. She believed this project was a compelling solution and hoped they retain a community feel to the space.

She noted how the surrounding neighborhood could currently walk in from the back of the property to use the playground and walk their dogs. With the increased pedestrian traffic, “I liked that you had this perimeter walking path that might be restored.” However, she acknowledged that the pickleball court could create a noise issue that should be reconsidered.

Edison recognized, “This is not only our project, it is a community project, an abutters project.” They want to hear peoples issues, concerns, fears, and desires as they go through the permitting process.

Wellman pointed out that while the planned extension was two stories, the school property sat slightly lower than the abutting properties, which hopefully reduced the massing on the neighbors. Lastly, she declared this project would be a good use of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Ryder expressed concerns about the requirement for the project to be all-electric and noted that the town of Tewksbury does not have its own electricity. He wondered whether there would be a need to increase the grid in this unstable environment. Seniors on a fixed income can not tolerate more than a 2.5% increase in costs each year, with utilities meeting 3% to 5% increases.

It was confirmed they needed to follow state guidelines for going 100% electric, including heat & hot water. They would rely on engineers to make this transition work. Ryder liked the design but was concerned about the blended spaces and the seniors’ need for quiet time in the evening.

Keith McDonald confirmed the financial requirements pilot would be fifteen years long – the life of the tax credit program.

Mr. Holland requested the rent details for an affordable unit. Ten units would pay 30% of their income, including all utilities. The remaining units are expected to cost $1,547 with utilities or $1,200 without.

Before the board closed, Kratman noted they either pay $2.5 million to tear the lot down or pay an additional $2 million to build housing for seniors. This would be an investment in the community. Ryder also noted that the funding was already sitting in accounts slated for affordable housing, and would not impact the taxpayer.

Wellman reminded the board that the housing waitlist isn’t just for Tewksbury residents but it was regional.

Mackey observed Tewksbury was not yet eligible for some of the discussed funding due to the MBTA community piece, and he inquired if it would make sense to wait and see how being incompliant effected funding, in order to potentially save half a million dollars. Due to the timing of the Massachusetts Historical Awards needed to apply for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), it was determined waiting for the MBTA results may not be an option. October/November timeframe was determined a decent timeframe for a decision.

Kratman and Holland suggested the board tour some of their other residences.

MCO & Associates did not present before the board for their Trahan Elementary School proposal.

The motion was made to adjourn. The next Select Board meeting will be held on September 24th, 2024.