The Planning Board covered a lot of ground during their 12/13/12 session: they debated the merits of a housing production plan, approved a special permit for a subdivision of the Boyle Estate (683-685 Brush Hill Rd.) and one on Wolcott Road, almost approved the Milton Hill House expansion, received an update on the status of the Master Plan visioning initiative, and also debated the assisted living article.
The Planning Board members discussed the merits of the town developing a Housing Production Plan. This was a topic taken up by the Board of Selectmen (BoS) earlier in the week, and the Chairman of the BoS Tom Hurley was present at Thursday’s session. Towns with a Housing Production Plan get a one year reprieve from 40B developments if they meet the criteria outlined in the plan. There are a number of criteria that need to be specified. One identifies the number of affordable housing units the town will make available in a year.
[Note from Dept. of Housing and Economic Development (DHED): A Housing Production Plan (HPP) is a community’s proactive strategy for planning and developing affordable housing by: creating a strategy to enable it to meet its affordable housing needs in a manner consistent with the Chapter 40B statute and regulations; and producing housing units in accordance with the HPP. Learn more here.]This number is a function of total housing units in the community and how far below the 10% affordable housing requirement a town’s inventory is. Town Planner Bill Clark pegs the number of units Milton would need to provide a year at 48. In addition, the town needs to identify specific locations within town where units will be located. The issue is front and center for town officials due to a potential 40B proposal at a location on Brush Hill Road across from Fuller Village. Mr. Whiteside recommended that the Master Plan Committee, which is in the process of developing a visioning statement for a Master Plan, review and take up the matter. Ms. Innes, Chair of that committee, anticipated that request. She has asked the firm assisting with Master Plan effort, Brown Walker Planners, to prepare an estimate for an HPP. Innes said it will likely be between $10 – 30K and take 3-6 months. Bill Clark had given a similar estimate to the Selectmen last week. Any HPP would need to be ratified by both the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen.
[Note from DHED: Chapter 40B is a state statute, which enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules if at least 20-25% of the units have long-term affordability restrictions. Learn more here.]Tom Hurley reiterated that the Selectmen are in support of an HPP. Speaking for himself, he said he supports a “plan if done for the right reason . . . [one that will] allow -not defeat- affordable housing.”
Chair Whiteside recommended drafting an article for spring town meeting that would provide funding for such a plan. Member Kelly challenged the value of pursuing an HPP. Whiteside said, ” Just doing the work will be useful.” Kelly continued to question the value. “Milton is built out.” He argued that Milton would be spending money on something that “is virtually in place.” Kelly was referring to the fact that Milton has an affordable housing plan. Kelly also highlighted consequences of failing to meet the plan requirements. He noted that we could pay for the plan but if we failed to meet the 48-unit criteria a developer could build anyway. He characterized trying to identify how the town might be redeveloped in the future and identify possible sites as “a ridiculously impossible task.” Multiple times, Kelly initially referred to these developments as “public housing” and corrected himself to say “affordable housing.” Whiteside, echoing comments Innes had made earlier, responded, “[If we] just sit around and wait and let developers take pot shots at us this is what we are going to get.” (i.e. Brush Hill proposal that is against wishes of neighbors and arguably too dense for the area. Whiteside voiced his concern about it earlier in session). Kelly continued saying he would “hate to spend the money on this great plan” and then not do it. “It certainly doesn’t hurt Mike,” was Whiteside’s response. Members Lynch and Duffy were silent throughout the discussion. They made no comments and asked no questions.
Coverage of the other issues discussed will be summarized in a future post.