Bay Watch Realty was hoping that the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals would close the hearing on its modified affordable housing project on March 8, but while progress was made, several outstanding issues led the board to continue it until March 22.
Nevertheless, much ground was covered at the second hearing on Bay Watch’s latest 40B proposal – which would include two buildings with 30 affordable rentals and 36 freestanding homes (96 units total)– located off Route 105. Third-party consultant John Churchill reviewed a lengthy list of engineering concerns, but by the end of the hearing the developers and Churchill indicated that all issues could be resolved.
Some concerns raised at the first hearing on January 26 inched towards reconciliation. In particular, the developers had met with Building Commissioner Scott Shippey and the Fire/Police Departments regarding emergency access to the project – leading to some design changes.
Bay Watch engineer Ed Gless said they had widened pavement at several points in the site, including the main cul de sac, to facilitate the movement of fire apparatus. Also the developer agreed to show documentation that the proposed 75-foot wooden bridge into the project passes the muster of a structural engineer.
Shippey also signaled a need to identify an additional emergency exit route, but Bay Watch would require an easement or other agreement with abutter Sherman Briggs to make that happen.
The biggest wild card in the project is the fate of the main roadway into the project. At the hearing, Selectman Jon Henry spoke of his plans to ask the town to make the roadway public. A two-thirds vote would be required at town meeting for this to happen.
“It won’t fly in town meeting,” cautioned board member Betsy Dunn.
“You may be right, you may not be right. I see it as a necessity so that we can exert control over the road, including the maintenance, sewer, and utilities,” said Henry, noting that the town is in the process of taking over three sewer systems due to poor management.
“We need to embrace the project. I think it would be better for us get our hands around all the utilities, and do so at town meeting,” he said. “As far as a burden on the town, it’s not that big of a deal.”
The logistics of how children at the development would catch the bus would be solved if the roadway went public. Buses typically do not pick up children on private ways, thus the current plan could require them to catch the bus on Route 105. Board members had questioned if buses picking up children along Route 105 would back up traffic and create serious safety problems.
Ken Steen of Bay Watch said they could reach out to the school’s bus contractor to arrange for them to pick up the kids inside the development – but some members on the board felt this would not work.
“If they come inside, it would solve issue in a heartbeat,” Steen said. However, Henry said the town has an “obligation” to maintain the road.
Town Counsel Jon Whitten pointed out that the roadway could not be taken by the town until it is actually built – thus urged Bay Watch to work with the town’s third-party engineer to ensure they meet the town’s roadway specifications as much as possible.
“We tried to design all roads as closely as we could to the town standards given the restrictive nature of site and layout. We’ve done all we can do to get as close to standards as we can. That being said, we’ll take another took at that and see if there are a few things to tweak,” said Steen.
Another major outstanding issue was whether the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development would consider the project as viable affordable housing stock. Bay Watch had originally asked to keep all 36 single-family homes non-affordable, but in recent months the Selectmen expressed the desire for Bay Watch to have at least 25 percent (or eight or nine homes) marked as affordable – which is a typical requirement of the state. All rentals units at the project would be affordable.
Paul Haverty, counsel for Bay Watch, said that DHCD “has not yet given a definite answer” and that the agency requested 30 days to respond to this policy question.
“After looking at the big picture, and weighing in comments from the Select Board – what we’d like to do is offer two units of the 36 [single-family homes] for sale at 80 percent of the median income, to allow the town to count them towards its 10 percent inventory,” Steen proposed.
“If DHCD makes the decision that more units would be required, we would obviously provide those. We would be willing to accept the decision locally that no less than two units be provided,” he added. The sale price of a single-family home in the project would be $340,000; at the affordable rate the price would be reduced by $140,000 to cost $200,000, he said.
“We do have a certain comfort level. We don’t think they are going to require more than two,” said Steen.
Under the advice of Town Counsel, the board opted to wait until they hear from the DHCD on the matter. Bay Watch had wanted the ZBA to close the hearing that night, but Whitten insisted that the board give the public an opportunity to weigh in on this aspect of the project in an open hearing.
Whitten also urged the ZBA to ensure homeowners’ documents are fully detailed prior to approval. These associations would ensure maintenance and upkeep of the grounds, in particular the roads.
“That is a serious issue … All those documents need to be in place to make sure the bifurcated project has been protected,” he said. Mr. Steen said that Bay Watch already has a plan to allocate costs, with the 36 homes responsible for 47 percent and the rental units responsible for 53 percent of maintenance costs of the common roadway, sewer pumping station and utilities.
In the end, Chairman Wedge indicated that progress is being made, and told Bay Watch developers that the board is working diligently to complete the process.
“Even though [the Bay Watch 40B proposal] has a history of 11 years, virtually everyone on our board is new, but we’re not going to be dragging any heels at this end,” he said.
By Laura Fedak Pedulli
I understand the developer is looking to go back to the 192 units if the town doesn’t approve this thing at the next meeting. The town is about to screw this whole thing up because the developer has the right to back to the original number of units. they won in housing court. I’ll be rippin. Tka ethe projext as is and get it over with or we’re gonna take it in the rear