Select Board Meeting October 16th, 2024 – Town Manager Vote

The Select Board discuss an additional Trahan Reuse proposal and vote on the Town Manager position.

The Select Board met Wednesday, October 16th to discuss an additional Trahan Reuse proposal and vote on Town Manager. All members were present.

Trahan Reuse Proposal

Mark O’Hagen from MCO and Associates opened discussions with a brief overview of their qualifications. With over thirty years of experience in developing, building, and marketing affordable housing communities, MCO & Associates’ work primarily focuses on suburban areas and smaller communities, with recent projects in Harvard, Lancaster, and Stow. O’Hagen prefaced the discussion by noting that this project, featuring Cottage Communities, would be very different from the last proposal. After viewing the site, they deemed the old Trahan School not worth salvaging for a variety of reasons. Instead, their proposal featured a new and unique rental community for moderate-income individuals, families, and residents aged sixty-two and older.

It was described as a welcoming open space that will feature a playground and/or athletic court and a two-story elderly apartment complex, facing Salem Road. The apartment complex will be comprised of twenty-five simple one bedroom apartments averaging 600-700 square feet. The building will have a common space for hosting social activities and meetings. Behind these the street front amenities, will be a village of thirty-two detached cottage style rental homes. These individual homes will range from two to three bedrooms, approximately 1150-1400 square feet, boasting upscale finishes and broad front porches. Basic floor plans included a kitchen, dining space in the back, living room, laundry room, and two bedrooms upstairs. Three design options were highlighted that are suitable for people that may be in need of one-level living. These options will be able to accommodate a broad range of people. Design-wise, he explained, they are high efficiency buildings, all electric, well constructed and environmentally sound. “For the elderly housing, we’re looking at 50% of the median for the affordable units, below 1200 square feet.” The state formulas that they utilize and the allowances from the housing authority, place the rents at approximately $1,892 and $2,035 for the affordable rentals.

Additionally it was noted the development site plan will provide a nice flow of walking paths for the residents and public to enjoy, plus a village green and gazebo for community events, with ample parking for visitor usage distributed throughout the development. The perimeter of the property will be lined with plantings to provide a natural buffer for the abutting neighbors. The public spaces are out front of the cottages, but they will also have a little private space to access in the back of their homes as well. This will create a neighborhood that fits in with the surrounding properties.

This was proposed through the 40 B process, same as the other proposal, however one of the advantages as compared to the other site, was that this project could move forward without waiting on funding. From start to finish, this project would be permitted in fourteen to sixteen months, depending on how quickly the ZBA and the DHCD work.

In closing O’Hagen discussed how the economics of redoing an old building were substantially more expensive than building new. The prior proposal was roughly $20 million for forty-six units, using $4.5 – $5 million from the town’s budget, estimating $435,000 per unit for six hundred and fifty soft homes. MCO & Associates’ proposal offered fifty-seven units with substantially more square footage. On average these homes will cost $320,000 per unit – which is over $100,000 less per unit.

Per square foot it’s $665 to renovate an old building in poor shape versus $316 to build new. The proposal to retro fit the old school also requires $500,000 in design fees that would come from the community, whereas their plan was designed, engineered and approved by by MCO & Associates without risk capital from the community.

While their goal is for fifty-seven units, they are happy to adjust for concerns regarding density. O’Hagen noted they are open to different adjustments to tailor to the needs of the community. He shared a slide deck of images from their recent projects in Lancaster, Stow, Bolton, and Dunstable featuring similar cottages and amenities. 

Eric Ryder was the first Select Board Member to open discussion. Ryder liked the presentation and appreciated seeing two different perspectives on the potential development of the Trahan property. While he had a few minor concerns about the playground’s proximity to the street and the elderly housing unit, as well as the demolition costs, he had no questions for O’Hagen.

Jayne Wellman expressed that she initially opposed any development on the Trahan property, preferring to preserve green space for the community. However, after reviewing the last two proposals, she felt encouraged by the new potential. She praised O’Hagen for his innovative approach and beautiful adaptation of the cottage court concept. Wellman agreed with Ryder that some design elements may need adjustments but she believed the plan utilized open space in a way that aligned with her original vision. She appreciated the consideration for abutters regarding the perimeter and scale.

She also noted that the anticipated rental numbers were promising, and she valued that all units would be rentals contributing to the town’s SHI. As a parent of young adults aged twenty-one and twenty-five, she emphasized the importance of affordable housing for both this generation and older residents. Additionally, she supported the idea of reducing some rents permanently to achieve a 70% AMI. Wellman was very excited about this proposal and thanked O’Hagen for his outstanding work.

James Mackey reflected on his initial vision for a more straightforward approach to elderly-accessible housing and expressed his pleasant surprise at how the new proposal exceeded those expectations. Although he had a few minor questions and concerns, he chose not to dwell on the details since Ryder and Wellman had already addressed some of them. He echoed their interest in reviewing the calculations related to the number of units and AMIs. Mackey pointed out that since the existing structure wasn’t being utilized, there was greater flexibility to adjust the layout. Overall, he indicated that he supported the proposal at this stage of the process.

O’Hagen added that his experience has shown that senior residents often enjoy seeing children playing, which is why the senior housing is located near the playground and basketball courts. This proximity helps seniors, especially those with mobility issues or who don’t venture out much, feel more connected to the community. He also mentioned that placing the senior building closer to the street was intended to protect neighborhood views for the adjacent residents.

Mark Kratman expressed a more cautious stance compared to the previous board members. His primary concerns revolved around traffic and density in the area. He believed that while this development might be suitable in a more rural setting, the mix of families, singles, couples, and seniors could lead to excessive traffic in an already congested location. Kratman also pointed out the lack of a buffer between the senior housing and the cottages, suggesting that while seniors might appreciate some activity, they also value their peace and quiet. He anticipated complaints from residents about busy families coming and going in a densely populated area with a 15 MPH speed limit.

Kratman highlighted that Salem Street had recently been ranked among the top sixty most dangerous intersections in Massachusetts. Although some improvements were made to alleviate traffic, he was hesitant to contribute to the congestion in an already strained neighborhood. O’Hagen clarified that current traffic patterns were considered during planning, and emphasized that the senior entrance was separate from the main entrance for the cottages to minimize cut-through traffic. He also noted that traffic studies show an increase in traffic across thriving communities, attributed to the changing nature of work schedules over the last five years.

Kratman remained skeptical, insisting that the realities of this location outweigh any findings from traffic studies. He stressed that, while the board was united in their goal to provide affordable housing, he could not support a plan that would worsen the community’s situation. He suggested that a different area of town, such as Route 133, would be a more appropriate fit for this kind of development.

O’Hagen responded that this represented a philosophical difference, noting that traffic issues in one area do not diminish those in another. In conclusion, Kratman expressed his preference for focusing primarily on senior housing at this site to address the affordable housing issue while minimizing traffic impacts on the community.

Patrick Holland, while sympathetic to Kratman’s traffic concerns, noted the Trahan school was drawing a fleet of school busses, fifty+ teachers plus additional support staff, in addition to the parents dropping off and picking up through the school year. Holland liked the cost, the idea of not waiting on grants, and the minimal investment from the town’s Housing Trust Fund. He would like to review this plan more to see if there was a potential for property tax revenue to be involved in one plan verses the other. 

Wellman inquired about Richard Montuori’s recommendations, and he suggested that the board schedule another meeting—either as an addition to next Tuesday’s agenda or as a separate meeting—to discuss both projects. In the meantime, he advised members to review both proposals and the lease agreements, recommending that no decisions be made that evening. Mr. Mackey then made a motion to gather and review additional information related to both projects, which Wellman seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a 5-0 vote. Mackey requested that the follow-up discussion be added to the agenda for the Select Board Meeting on Tuesday, October 22, 2024.

Kratman asked for both proposals to be added to the town’s website so the residents could access and review the proposal directly. Ryder agreed this was necessary and important for the community to be involved in the review process. Montuori offered to get them added to the website the following day. Mr. Holland thanked O’Hagen for his time and presentation and concluded this discussion.

There were no residents in attendance who wished to speak before the board. 

Town Manager Appointment

Kratman opened the discussion noting he wanted to hold an open meeting to review the charter in regards to what happens when a candidate drops out. He did not want the current situation to come up again in the future, with the intended pool of three candidates dropping down to two. That situation aside, he was pleased with the two remaining candidates. 

Mackey appreciated the hard work of the search committee, and acknowledged there was nothing they could do about the withdrawal of the third candidate. While he would have loved a third option, he considered the two available candidates to be “rockstars.”

Wellman thanked Mr. Petrin for his work in the search process and validated the concerns of her colleagues, wanting three or more candidates to choose from. She petitioned for an update to the charter that would allow for more than three candidates moving forward, noting even with four or more options, drop out will continue to happen. She also shared her concerns that the interviews being capped at one hour each was too strict, and did not allow time for candidates to ask their own questions. Over the weekend, she reached out to both applicants and had excellent follow-up conversations, offering them opportunities to ask her questions as well. Wellman commended Kratman on his suggestion to wait a week before voting, siting it as good advice that she made valuable action on.

Ryder also reached out to Mr. Petrin, and both candidates following the interviews to allow them an opportunity to ask questions and engage in follow-up discussions. He confirmed these are two highly qualified candidates and thanked the residents and everyone that was involved in the search committee for their time and effort. He also thanked Mr. Montuori for guiding the process. 

Holland concured with his colleagues and thanked Petrin and the volunteers on the screening committe for their work. He asked John Petrin to introduce himself and speak to what his firm, “Community Paradigm”, had done throughout the search process. Petrin highlighted members of the firm, starting with their principal Bernie Lynch, for his work on the recruiting side of things, Jen Levitt for writing the position statement, and their communications expert, Sharon Flaherty. The four of them were involved in this search and noted the process was very smooth.

They complimented the great group of individuals that made up the screening committee and enjoyed working with them as well. Petrin did address they discussed the charters limit on providing only three candidates and cited that in this day and age having someone drop out is not unusual at all. In this case it was just two and a half hours before the interview. He did recommend a review of the charter and mentioned having three or four candidates was ideal, but five or more may become cumbersome.

He concluded by requesting that the following discussions and vote from the board focus on the positive attributes of each candidate, as the discussion and vote is public record. However Chairman Holland moved the meeting directly to vote and no comments about the candidates were made.

Mark Kratman made a motion to make John Curran the next Town Manager. James Mackey seconded that motion and it was followed by a unanimous 5-0 vote. Chairman Holland requested the board touch base with John Curran and Mr. Montuori to make arrangements for negotiations. 

The board moved into Executive Sessions to discuss the new Town Manager contract and concluded the public business for the town.