Letter to Mass. Housing Finance Agency
Update July 26th 2001 Webmasters notes;if you have followed our saga, you are aware that this story is in dire need of a hero to save the day. Many big names have had the chance, but they all choked, as you can read below. But now when all hope was dashed, there appears gleaming on the horizon, the golden helm of Mary French, Andover selectman, charging to the rescue. Read on...
Town of Andover
Massachusetts
Town Offices
36 Bartlet Street
Andover, MA 01810
(978) 623—8200
www.town.andover.ma.us June 13, 2001
Nancy Andersen, Manager of Multifamily Development
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108-3110
Re:Powder Mill Square, Andover, MA — MHFA #SA-01-001 (Additional Comments under extension letter dated May 10, 2001)
Dear Ms. Andersen:
Please accept this letter in response to your communication dated May 10, 2001 allowing the Town of Andover additional time to submit comments on the Powder Mill Square Site Approval Application.
You indicated that you had requested the developer to meet with town officials to present their revised plans for the Powder Mill site. You also indicated that the developer had informed you that there had been meetings with the Andover Town Manager, and the Andover Planning Director, and further they were to make a presentation to the Andover Housing Partnership Committee on May 14th
On May 10th the developer of the Powder Mill Square project did in fact have a "one-on-one" meeting with the Andover Town Manager. It is our understanding that the developer informed the Town Manager that there were no changes to the previous 72-unit proposal other than an addition of 42 units and an additional floor on the residential structure. There were no plans presented to the Town Manager at that time.
On May 2lst the developer appeared before the Andover Housing Partnership Committee and described the project, however, the revised plans for the 114-unit proposal were not presented to the committee. Instead the developer used the site plans for the 72-unit project that had previously been approved by the Andover Planning Board. The developer informed the committee that with the exception of the additional 42 dwelling units, and the corresponding additional floor on the residential building, there were no changes to the site plan (meaning the 72-unit plan).
The developer also informed the partnership committee that the new project would be an ownership development. The committee pointed out that the previous project (72-units) had been rental, and that rental was preferred. The developer told the group that he had been informed by MHFA that the 72-unit rental proposal was not financially viable, and indicted that the rental/ownership issue could be discussed at a later time.
We are concerned with the developer's statement (if it is true) regarding the viability of the 72-unit project, particularly given the fact that this developer had obtained a site approval letter from your agency for that project. In any event, in your letter of May 10th , you stated that the developer was required to identify a particular MHFA financing program. It would appear that the developer has not yet complied with that requirement.
The feelings of the housing partnership committee on the May 2lst meeting are reflected in the attached article that appeared in the May 31st edition of The Andover Townsman. The partnership committee provided the Selectmen with the following comments:
•The committee believes that 25 percent affordability should include the square footage in the commercial building, as well as the residential space. Therefore, at a minimum, 25 percent of the 114 residential units (29) plus 25 percent of the possible units in the 65,000 square foot of commercial space (14) should be affordable. This project should not be approved unless at least 43 units are permanently affordable.
•The committee prefers a balance between families and adults without children. It is a concern that there are no 3-bedroom units.
The committee prefers rental units in this development, not owner occupied units.
•Neighborhood impact: The committee is concerned about the potential for flooding. If there is not enough garage space for all residents to park their cars on the second level (out of the flood hazard area), the committee is concerned that the affordable units will be given parking spaces that will flood. There is no space appropriate for outdoor recreation, especially for middle school age children.
•Density: The committee understands that 20 percent of the 72 residential units previously approved by the planning board were designated affordable. Without significantly increased housing affordability, it makes no sense to approve this larger project. The developer presented the 72-plan previously approved by the planning board, so the committee did not have an opportunity to review the project as designed for a comprehensive permit.
In addition to the foregoing, the chairman of the housing partnership committee stated that he has reviewed detailed materials provided by a local resident, Mr. Peter Hadley, without the benefit of any rebuttal by the developer. In those materials the chairman notes strong concerns about potential neighborhood impact given the historical usage of the site, and how the natural and frequent flooding has been handled in the past. The chairman indicated that the resident fears that the developer has not taken this history and the infrastructure and substructure of the site into sufficient account.
In our previous comments we had expressed a concern that the 114-unit proposal appears to eliminate substantial on-site recreational area that had been provided for in the 72-unit plan. During the developer's presentation to the housing partnership committee he explained that indoor recreational area was in fact still being provided in the 114-unit proposal in the form of a "community space" consisting of a 1,836 square foot room on the first floor of the residential structure.
We would point out that the 72-unit plan provided nearly 10,000 square feet of space in the form of a lounge, large function room, library, card room, craft room, billiard room, exercise room, music room, and even a "roman bath." Virtually one entire floor of one wing of the building would have been devoted to indoor recreational use in the 72-unit proposal. Logic would dictate that additional residential units on this site should require more recreational space, not less.
In our previous review of the project before you, we raised concern that virtually all of the land area of this site would be covered by structures, parking areas, and driveways; leaving little, if any, room for outdoor activities by the residents. The logic suggested in the previous paragraph regarding the ratio of on-site recreational space to the number of units applies here also.
We are therefore concerned that the "courtyard" area that had been programmed for outdoor recreation on the 72-unit plan remains unchanged (no increase) on the 114-unit plan. We had previously pointed out that there are no public areas in the irnmediate vicinity of the proposed development for active or passive recreational pursuits.
The planning department has pointed out to us that the 114-unit Site Plan (drawing A1 .0) shows less building footprint and area than is shown on the residential building floor plan (drawing A1 .1). We would assume that the developer does not intend to eliminate nearly a dozen residential units from the project as shown on A1 .1, therefore the courtyard area and building massing shown on A1 .0 would be incorrect.
The presentation made to the Housing Partnership Committee on May 2lst gives rise to most, if not all, of the same concerns raised in our previous letters to you dated April 2nd and April 11th. We would therefore, strongly reiterate all of the concerns previously forwarded to you regarding the proposed 114-unit development on this site. We attach those letters for your convenience.
If you have any questions, or if you desire an additional response or clarification of any of our comments, please feel free to contact Stephen Colyer, Andover Planning Director, at (978) 623-8310.
Very truly yours,
Mary N. French, Chairman Board of Selectmen
Attachments
cc:David Hastings, Chairman, Andover Housing Partnership Committee
Paul Salafia, Chairman, Andover Planning Board
Daniel Casper, Esq., Chairman, Andover Zoning Board of Appeals
Stephen Colyer, Planning Director
Back