by Frank Schroth

Planning Board members, principally Chair Whiteside and member Kelly, lambasted the draft of the Housing Production Plan produced by a consultant. Their primary objection was with regard to listing current 40B developments under consideration (Milton Mews, Hendries) as goals. Whiteside said, We want the housing production plan to prevent Milton Mews and this states it as a goal.” With regard to discussion of the Hendries property at 131 Eliot he said, “That is not a goal. . . a 40B would be a disaster.” He went on, “the reason for a housing production plan it so we can avoid and stop these things. He argued that the plan needed some process. Kelly in commenting on the identification of lots said a resident’s natural reaction might be “how dare you?” His concern being that the plan would blindside the public with “goals” that had not been given a public hearing. Town Planner Bill Clark emphasized that it was an early draft. There was discussion of the need for a map of town owned properties. Whiteside said the board should specifically voice its disapproval of identifying any “non-towned owned land” for affordable housing. “The fact that somebody proposes something does not make it a goal”, he said. Emily Innes said she had not yet read the draft. The board had received it shortly before the meeting. Members Lynch and Duffy had not comments.

In a related issue, Chair Whiteside had asked that the 40B being considered for Hillside Street be added to the agenda. He prefaced the discussion with a review of his involvement regarding the property. The property, owned by the Fandrey Trust, is under agreement with Todd Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton sought an open space special permit which was denied by the board (Innes and Duffy in favor, Kelly and Lynch opposed). Mr. Whiteside had recused himself from that discussion (as chair, not as resident) and vote as he is an abutter to an abutter of the property and could be viewed to have a financial interest. He since had an appraisal done which he claimed validated that he had no financial interest. Hamilton and his attorney do not agree and Whiteside said he was being sued by McEttrick. Whiteside said, it would “take a myopic mind to say I have a presumptive financial interest” in the property. Regardless, he also said there had been some subsequent development and that the ethics commission was reviewing the matter. To be on the “safe side” he will continue to recuse himself until such time as commission renders a decision. Mr Duffy asked if recusal required leaving the room. Whiteside replied that leaving the room was viewed as a best practice but not required. He stepped away from the table, sat in the front row of gallery, and Ed Duffy took over.

Bill Clark said that a proposal had been sent to the Selectmen. There were 3 40B scenarios: a) 31 houses b) 60 duplexes c) 72 – 78 townhouses. The proposal(s) were sent with notion of the development being a friendly 40B. The developer’s preference is for the townhouses. The open space permit would have put 3 houses on the land; but that was denied. The developer is expected to file in February which would be the end of the “cooling off” period (A developer cannot file a 40B application on a property within a year of being denied a special permit.) If the town accepts the proposal as a friendly 40B then the lawsuit against the town will be dropped. Hamilton filed a suit against the town after being denied the open space special permit.

The Planning Board has no jurisdiction in this at the moment. Ed Duffy said the board would not “adjudicate this.” The 40B, if filed and approved by Mass Housing, will go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.