Friday, April 13, 2012, 11:10am
Second Expiring-Use Development Preserved As Affordable Housing In Cambridge
By Colleen M. Sullivan
The former Norstin Apartments near Central Square in Cambridge will be preserved as affordable housing through an $8 million deal between the Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation (CEDAC), the city of Cambridge, and Cambridge-based housing non-profit Just A Start Corp.
The 4-story property lies between Bishop Allen Drive and Norfolk Street in Cambridge, has 32 two- and three-bedroom units, and will be renamed the Bishop Allen Apartments in the wake of the purchase. The city was particularly anxious to preserve it since demand for affordable housing with multi-bedroom units considerably outstrips supply, sources familiar with the project told Banker and Tradesman.
“[Cambridge] is really committed to making sure their affordable housing is preserved over the long-term,” Roger Herzog, CEDAC’s executive director, told Banker and Tradesman.
CEDAC provided a loan in the amount of $4.3 million. The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust provided approximately $4,000,000. The city of Cambridge added additional funds to cover carrying costs and predevelopment expenses.
The apartments are the second expiring-use project to be preserved in Cambridge. Earlier this year, the city and CEDAC, along with Homeowner’s Rehab Inc. were also involved in a deal to preserve the Chapman Arms in Harvard Square.
Both deals demonstrate the impact of the 40T statute passed by the state in 2009, Herzog argues. The law gives the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) the right of first refusal when a project that had been affordable housing is eligible to be sold or converted to market rate. The Chapman Arms project was the first where DHCD exercised that right.
“It’s two ways that 40T is working. In Chapman [Arms], we saw it work under the provision that allows DHCD to exercise a right of first refusal. In Norsten, we see an alternative approach,” said Herzog. The owners of the Bishop Allen buildings, aware that the city of Cambridge wanted to preserve the property as affordable housing, sought out the non-profit Just A Start himself and pitched the project to them.
Since putting it in Just A Start’s hands would preserve affordability, he was able to obtain an exemption from review of the sale by DHCD, Herzog said. “Either way, the project is preserved as affordable housing,” he added. “40T is making an impact.”
URL: http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news149559.html
Banker & Tradesman ©2012 All Rights Reserved
Category: CEDAC
CEDAC NOT MENTIONED:
Sunday, April 8, 2012
MetroWest towns focusing on family-friendly affordable homes
By Chris Bergeron/Daily News staff
For third-grader Aidan Bolger, the best things about his new house at Mayhew Court in Hopkinton are having a front lawn where he can play tetherball and his own bedroom.
After losing her house during a divorce, his mother, Jacinta Bolger, considers the three-bedroom apartment “perfect for the three of us,’’ — Aidan, her 10-year-old daughter Jade and herself.
A longtime Hopkinton resident, she was among the first occupants of 12 new two- and three-bedroom units in six duplexes developed by the Hopkinton Housing Authority to provide affordable rental homes for families.
“We’ve been in town for nine years and I really wanted to raise my kids in a nice community with great schools,’’ Bolger said. “We needed a break and this was it.’’
Across the region, housing authorities have been working with developers and funding agencies to build more multi-bedroom units for families who find themselves squeezed out of a pricey and competitive housing market.
In Holliston, the Housing Authority developed on its own land 30 affordable rental units named Cutler Heights that comprise 23 two-bedroom and six three-bedroom units. In Sudbury, the Housing Authority has razed four old houses and is building five duplexes with 11 multi-bedroom units on five sites throughout town.
But building affordable housing suited for families that compliments a community’s character is generally a complex process involving town boards, federal housing authorities, and, often, the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, a nonprofit that works with the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development to help promote affordable housing.
Hopkinton Housing Authority Director Linda Donahue said, “There’s always a need for family housing.’’
After making the new units available in February, she filled all 12, including a single-story unit modified for a handicapped occupant, by the month’s end. Under the development agreement, half the new units went to people who live or work in Hopkinton.
Noting the “secluded nature’’ of the site beside the HHA’s senior housing complex, Donahue said there had been no significant opposition to building Mayhew Court.
“One of the obvious benefits is (occupants) are able to stay in town,’’ she said. “Sometimes people need a start.’’
David Harrison, who directs the South Middlesex Opportunity Council’s energy and financial assistance division, said building multi-bedroom units to accommodate families is “more than a trend.’’
He estimated as much as 20 percent of the 100,000 people across the state who have applied for housing assistance would require two-, three- or four-bedroom units.
“It’s more than just a trend. It’s a real policy and a new avenue for the commonwealth to create affordable housing,’’ said Harrison. “There’s a huge and legitimate need. Families have got to live somewhere.’’
Clarke L. Ziegler, executive director of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, said, “There’s simply not enough building going on’’ to provide affordable housing for state residents at a time the market is being choked by a stagnant economy.
He said data shows 200,000 households across the state spend “more than half their income’’ on housing, which is considerably more than required in most federal housing programs.
Over the last 30 years for reasons that might be peculiar to Massachusetts, Zieglar said home prices in Massachusetts “have gone up more than in any other state.’’
He attributes the combination of housing shortages and cost increases to laws allowing every community “to make its own land use decisions.’’
“There’s a general perception at the local level that anything folks can do to stop development is a good thing,’’ said Zieglar.
Zieglar hopes to convince communities that working together to build more affordable housing can stimulate a more competitive economy that will benefit not just occupants but the towns and cities where they work.
A key element in that initiative would be to “produce housing where there’s job growth.’’ But Zieglar acknowledged many communities — prosperous or otherwise — still resist developing affordable housing from concerns that new occupants will drain town services, particularly the schools, and introduce crime or increased dependency.
At the Sudbury Housing Authority, Executive Director Jo-Ann Howe said the “public response (to the new units) has been mostly positive.’’ Yet she had recently taken a call from a man who was concerned that affordable housing for families was being built near his property.
A Sudbury resident who has been on the Housing Authority for 29 years, Howe said so many people have applied for housing in town the waiting list has been closed for three years.
She acknowledged that people in multi-bedroom units have more children who attend local schools. And she observed many people recently applying for larger units are divorced single mothers raising families.
“It’s good for a community to have a diverse population. The people applying for these units are no threats. It’s a misconception people living in affordable housing are ‘different.’ They’re people. They look the same. They just want to raise their families in a nice place.’’
The first person to move into a three-bedroom apartment at Mayhew Court, Hope Sheehan is happy to have found a place to raise her two children after her divorce in the town where she grew up.
She volunteers as manager of her son’s football team and belongs to the “Mom’s Club’’ at her daughter’s school. She can walk with her children downtown for a pizza and she’s only a short drive from her job as an administrative assistant.
Standing next to a framed picture in her living room that reads “Home, Sweet Home,’’ Sheehan said, “It’s huge to stay in town.’’
“We’re just like everyone else bringing up a family. I feel blessed to be in this house, this town,’’ she said. “The kids love it here. We’re good people. We just want to be part of the community.’’
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x140152533/MetroWest-towns-focusing-on-family-friendly-affordable-homes#ixzz1reYwvmza
Copyright © 2006-2012 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Community Care Services in Fall River
The February ribbon-cutting included, from left: Roland P. Valois, president and owner
of R.P. Valois and Company, Inc.; Stephen Peck, vice president at Bridgewater Savings
Bank; Janet Lebel, aide to Sen. John Kerry; Roger Herzog, executive director CEDAC;
Ken Willis, vice president/director of Housing and Community Development, Federal
Home Loan Bank; Fall River Mayor William Flanagan; Thomas Fisher, president/CEO,
Community Care Services; Andy Nelson, DHCD; Rob Smith, JMBA Architects; and
Robert Goldstein, executive director, Franklin Square House Foundation.
Community Care Services, Inc.
Celebrated its new subsidiary, Eagle
Community Care Estates, which was
developed in Fall River to provide affordable
housing for the region’s lowincome
and homeless residents. Eight
of the 17 units hold a preference for
military veterans. Nine other units
give preference to the city’s residents,
homeless families, households with at
least one member who will benefit
from supportive services, and households
that would benefit from handicapped-
accessible features.
Additionally, CCS, led by President/
CEO Thomas L. Fisher, was recently
awarded accreditation by the
Council on Accreditation (COA). For
Taunton-based CCS, the COA accreditation
highlights the organization’s
commitment to maintain the highest
level of standards and quality improvement
for delivering superior
quality services.
57 low-income elderly housing units unveiled in Dudley Square
March 23, 2012
57 low-income elderly housing units unveiled in Dudley Square
By Matt Rocheleau, Town Correspondent
ROXBURY – A $15 million housing complex with 57 one-bedroom apartment units for low-income seniors officially opened in Roxbury’s Dudley Square this week, officials said.
Developed by local nonprofit Central Boston Elder Services and built by Suffolk Construction, project officials said the 50,500 square-foot Dudley Elderly Housing Development Dudley, drew applications from more than 450 seniors who wanted to live there.
“What a heartbreaking day it was when we held the lottery to pick our new tenants and hundreds and hundreds of seniors showed up,” the elderly services organization director Catherine Hardaway said in a statement. “It truly points to the dire situation our low-income seniors in Boston find themselves in.”
The seven-story complex built next to CBES’ headquarters at 2311 Washington St. is reserved for residents 62 and older. It was formally unveiled at a ribbon-cutting Monday afternoon attended by Mayor Thomas M. Menino and other local elected officials and community leaders, officials said.
Rents range from $254 to $1,156 a month. Each apartment at the elderly housing facility is about 540 square feet with some larger handicapped-accessible units. There are private baths, kitchen and walk-in closets, the developer said. Common areas include a library and TV room.
“It has been a long-time coming,” Hardaway’s statement said. “Finally, after years of work, the day has come to watch our new tenants move in. The best part is the look on their faces when they see their new homes. What a source of pride for all of us.”
The creation included help from architect Chia-Ming Sze and five funders: the National Equity Fund, Inc.; the state’s housing and community development department; MassHousing; Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation and the city’s neighborhood development department, officials said.
“We are thrilled to help finance such a remarkable seniors’ development supported by one of Boston’s leaders in elder services,” said a statement from Deborah Burkart, vice president of specialized housing for National Equity Fund. “It’s so rewarding to partner with an agency that shares our vision of promoting seniors’ independence and quality of life.”
E-mail Matt Rocheleau at mjrochele@gmail.com.
—
© 2012 NY Times Co.
URL: http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/roxbury/2012/03/57_low-income_elderly_housing.html
CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Easthampton City Council fails to rescind funding for Parsons Village project
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Easthampton City Council fails to rescind funding for Parsons Village project, despite negative vote
By Diane Lederman, The Republican
EASTHAMPTON – While a majority of the city councilors present Wednesday night voted to rescind Community Preservation Act funding for the proposed Parsons Village affordable housing project on Parsons Street, there were not enough votes for the motion to pass.
Four voted in favor of rescinding the $200,000 the City Council awarded to the Northampton Valley Community Development Corp. in October 2010 and three against with two members absent. Due to a change in charter, such a motion needed five votes.
Council President Justin P. Cobb brought the proposal forward first to the Finance Committee, because he said, “a significant change has occurred,” since the funding was initially approved by a 6 to 3 vote.
At the time, the developer sought a special permit before the Planning Board, but that permit was denied. The corporation is currently seeking a comprehensive permit for the 38-unit housing project.
A comprehensive permit allows the Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under more flexible rules when a community has less than 10 percent of its housing as affordable. The city has just 6.3 percent affordable housing.
For an hour, the council took comments from those for and against rescinding.
Both Edward Quinn, the former chairman of the Community Preservation Act Committee and current chairman Robert Harrison opposed the move to rescind.
“If you rescind, you put the city in a very bad place,” Quinn said. He felt “It could make Easthampton have a bad reputation.”
“It’s an eligible project,” Harrison said. “Don’t treat the CPA as a pawn to derail the Valley CDC. That’s why we have a ZBA.” The proposal is now before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The hearing continues Thursday night.
Harrison said whether they sought the special permit or a comprehensive permit did not matter to him. Money from the Community Preservation Act can be used for affordable housing and open space and historic preservation.”
Mary Westervelt, part of the New City Neighborhood Association, who supported pulling the funding, said the project in fact would be taking away open space.
Cobb said Valley CDC’s move to proceed with a comprehensive permit after stating they would apply for a special permit “as a bait and switch.”
Resident Erica Flood who lives next to the proposed project supported rescinding and said the whole project should just begin again.
© 2012 MassLive LLC.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/valley_community_developoment.html
CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Diehard neighbors vow to fight homeless housing
March 05, 2012
Diehard neighbors vow to fight homeless housing
By Adrian Walker
Walter Pollard is clearly a man who’s not used to losing. That is a problem right now, because Pollard is in a battle in which victories have been hard to come by.
Pollard leads a small band of Jamaica Plain residents bent on stopping a popular project: a bid by Boston Health Care for the Homeless and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation, both nonprofits, to build 20 units of housing for sick and homeless people at the site of the old Barbara McInnis House on Walnut Avenue. The property is to be managed by the Pine Street Inn.
The project is backed by many neighbors, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and the mayor. A lawsuit by Pollard’s group was summarily rejected in January by a Suffolk Superior Court judge who dismissed it as speculative and unsubstantiated. Pollard, a downtown banker and lawyer who moved to the neighborhood in the 1990s, plans to appeal.
“This has been characterized as people who want to help the homeless versus people who don’t,’’ Pollard said last week. “That is patently false.’’ He said he and his friends would gladly raise money for the house, as long as it was sited somewhere else.
The idea of building permanent housing came in part from doctors and nurses who found that instability in the lives of the homeless greatly complicated caring for them.
On a visit a couple of years ago to the South End headquarters of Health Care for the Homeless, I met a young doctor named Jessie Gaeta who told me that the biggest reason her patients seldom saw sustained improvement was because their lives did not allow the consistent routine that chronic illness required.
The McInnis House has offered short-term care, usually a few weeks, but the idea was to make it a place some patients could call home. Since homeless people had been getting care at the same site for years, organizers assumed the neighborhood opposition would be minimal.
They were wrong.
Pollard works at the investment firm of Brown Brothers Harriman. He and his wife have painstakingly restored their residence, an old nursing home. He decries the popular characterization of opponents of the McInnis House project as heartless NIMBY nitwits.
Fair enough, but I believe he and his friends greatly exaggerate the negative impact of the project. And I believe they are wrong to use their considerable resources to try to wear down the supporters of the project and encourage them to look for another site.
In a January ruling, Superior Court Judge S. Jane Haggerty methodically demolished the plaintiffs’ various claims that the project would damage their property values, cause an unfair spike in traffic, block their light, or violate the zoning code. (Actually, it does violate the zoning code, but the BRA granted it a variance, which the judge said it was right to do.)
There are other neighbors, of course, and they see the project as a plus. Among them is Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission.
The neighborhood has already lost needed programs to help the most vulnerable, she said. “When I moved in, there was a nursing home on the corner and a facility for DYS kids who were aging out of state care, and both of those are gone. It feels almost unconscionable to me that this is being held up because a handful of neighbors want some other kind of housing there.’’
Pollard says that the project will degrade the quality of life in the neighborhood. Maybe that depends on how one defines quality of life. Perhaps who is kept out of a neighborhood is far less important than whom a neighborhood is willing to embrace.
© 2012 NY Times Co.
URL: http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-05/metro/31121780_1_homeless-people-zoning-code-pine-street-inn/
CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Easthampton Zoning Board to continue Parsons Village affordable housing hearing
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Easthampton Zoning Board to continue Parsons Village affordable housing hearing at monthly sessions
By Diane Lederman,
The Republican
EASTHAMPTON – The developer for the Parsons Village project presented plans at a the first of many Zoning Board of Appeals meetings last week while, the City Council Finance Committee voted 1 to 1 to rescind community money for that project.
Valley Community Development Corp. Executive Director Joanne Campbell presented an overview of the 38-unit project and the Zoning Board of Appeals took comments.
In January, the developer filed a request for a Chapter 40B permit to build the affordable rental housing at 69 Parsons St. after the Planning Board rejected it last year.
A comprehensive permit allows the Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing with more flexible rules – essentially to circumvent local zoning – when a community has less than 10 percent of its housing as affordable.
Just 6.3 percent of the city’s housing is affordable.
The process is expected to be a lengthy one, said zoning board member John Atwater. “There is no quick process,” he said.
The board will hold hearings once a month on the second Tuesday of the month for two hours beginning at 6:30 p.m. It will take comments at some but not necessarily all those meetings.
The board has up to 180 days to conduct the hearing from the day it began Feb. 21. The board then has 40 days in which to file its determination.
That takes the process into the fall before a decision would likely be made, he said.
The full City Council, meanwhile, will decide whether to rescind the $200,000 it approved for the project.
The Finance Subcommittee discussed the proposal and heard resident concerns at two meetings. But with just two of three members present last week, the vote was 1 to 1 with chairman Daniel Hagan voting to rescind the funding and Daniel Rist voting against it.
Council President and committee member Justin P. Cobb, who brought the proposal to the council, was absent from the meeting.
Both Hagen and Cobb oppose the project Rist supports it. With the tie vote, the project goes to the council without a recommendation, Hagan said in an email.
“I had numerous issues that led me to my vote, among them: language within their application, the fact that the project was turned down by the Planning Board (creating a change in the project), and the lack of clear case law in this matter.
I felt it important that all 9 Councilors have the opportunity to weigh-in and vote on this matter,” he wrote.
By a 6 to 3 vote in October of 2010, the council supported the funding recommended by the Community Preservation Act Committee. Committee members oppose the council measure to rescind it.
© 2012 MassLive LLC.
URL: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/02/easthampton_zoning_board_to_co.html
CEDAC NOT MENTIONED: Easthampton housing project opponents fight in new venue
February 24, 2012
________________________________________
Easthampton housing project opponents fight in new venue
By Rebecca Everett
EASTHAMPTON – Supporters and opponents of the proposed Parsons Village housing development were once again at odds as a second round of public hearings on the project started Tuesday.
The Valley Community Development Corp. is seeking a comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the 38-unit affordable housing development, which was rejected by the Planning Board in September.
A state law, Chapter 40B, allows developers to bypass zoning bylaws and receive a comprehensive permit when building affordable housing projects in communities that have less than 10 percent affordable housing.
At the hearing, Valley CDC Executive Director Joanne Campbell and project designers presented their vision for the $10 million, six-building development, which includes 52 percent open space. To prove that the development is a good fit for the area, they also offered the results of a traffic impact study and a map they created to compare the density of the development to that of the surrounding neighborhood.
As at the Planning Board’s hearings, opponents argued that the development would be too dense, would not fit the character of the neighborhood and could negatively impact neighbors by increasing traffic and water runoff.
Kirsten Morra of 25 Federal St. said she and her neighbors were not thrilled to be back in the conference room at the Municipal Building fighting the developer all over again.
“We didn’t want to come back, but we’re all committed to this,” she said. “What we have to remember is that the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals haven’t heard anything that we’ve said over the past year, so we have to say it again.”
Erica Flood of 61 Parsons St. said the CDC has not made much of an effort to respond to neighbors’ concerns throughout the two-year process. “They repeatedly ignored residents’ plea to drastically reduce the density,” she said at the hearing. “Forty units to 38 units is not a reduction.”
Project designer Peter Wells, of the Berkshire Design Group, noted that while neighbors decry the project as being too dense, it is nearly half as dense as the current apartment complex abutting the parcel to the south, which has more than 16 units per acre.
Jackie Brousseau-Pereira of the Easthampton Housing Partnership said her organization supports the project because the city’s master plan says the city must create more affordable rental housing.
Morra said the master plan also mentions creating owner-occupied affordable housing, and neighbors would prefer that Parsons Village include at least some owner-occupied units.
“I feel that creating stakeholders, not only for the area, but for the city, is paramount,” she said. “We’re setting a precedent for the city.”
Amy Heflin of 10 Pepin Ave. said she is concerned about the accountability of the future owners of Parsons Village, who could be “absentee landlords.”
“Who will our neighbors be?” she asked. “We were told investors, rich investors, probably from out of the area.”
Heflin asked the board members to consider the 40B application to be “unfriendly” because more than 100 residents of the New City section of Easthampton signed a petition opposing it, and to remember that the Planning Board denied it for a reason.
“The most glaring thing is that this has been presented # and it was reviewed and rejected,” she said.
The next hearing will be March 8 at 6:30 p.m., followed by a site visit on March 10 at 9 a.m.
Board Chairwoman Margaret Solis said the public hearing will be open for no more than 180 days, and hearings will be held on the second Thursday of each month from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. until Aug. 16. After the hearing is closed, the board has 40 days to either deny the permit, approve it or approve it with conditions.
Under Chapter 40B, the board has limited authority to deny the permit. For example, the ZBA could deny it on grounds that it violated health or fire codes or state regulations, but not for violating zoning, Campbell said.
If the permit is denied or approved with conditions, the CDC can appeal it to a state board.
The City Council is also considering a motion from Council President Justin P. Cobb to withdraw the $200,000 in Community Preservation Act funds the council approved for the development in 2010. Cobb argued that because the developer is seeking a different type of permit, the project has changed enough to warrant another vote.
The City Council will hold a public hearing on withdrawing the funds at 6:15 p.m. March 7.
________________________________________
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2012/02/24/easthampton-housing-project-opponents-fight-in-new-venue
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2011 All rights reserved
Bay State’s First 40T Project Finds Home In Cambridge
Monday, February 20, 2012
Opening The Door
Bay State’s First 40T Project Finds Home In Cambridge
Despite Being Two Years Old, Untested 40T Finds Early Success
By Colleen M. Sullivan, Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The state’s newest affordable housing law – Chapter 40T, passed in 2009 – recently chalked up its first victory, helping to preserve 25 affordable units in a 50-unit apartment building in the heart of Harvard Square in Cambridge.
The statute has several provisions aimed at giving tenants of affordable housing plenty of notice and resources if their landlord decides to pursue conversion of the property to market rate.
Perhaps the most important – from a development perspective – is a provision in the bill giving the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) the right of first refusal when a building with affordable units comes up for sale. DHCD doesn’t aim to buy the properties outright; instead it has a pre-approved list of affordable housing developers with whom it works to help acquire and manage the property.
Despite the fact that the law is more than two years old, the tight, slow, declining market has largely kept multi-family owners on the sidelines and state pocketbooks firmly buttoned – leaving untested a law many owners regarded warily, fearing state involvement could only delay a sale.
“A lot of the sellers were unsure [about the law]. They love to have a free hand when they want to sell their property,” said Peter Daly, executive director of Homeowners Rehab Inc., a Cambridge affordable housing developer brought in by DHCD for the Harvard Square project, located at 122 Mt. Auburn St. “I think sellers were anxious about the 40T legislation – would it work, and would it work with the timetable that they need.”
But this first 40T deal proves the statute can be used in a way that meet seller’s expectations, Daly said.
“It was a deal that was fair to all sides, and we had the resources held in reserve to help the buyer perform,” he told Banker & Tradesman.
‘A Foot In The Door’
It certainly didn’t hurt that the project was in Cambridge, a community with a long-time commitment to affordable housing preservation – 80 percent of the city’s federal Community Protection Act grant funds are dedicated to that goal, according to the city.
“The unified purpose of the Cambridge City Council was always to protect and preserve affordable housing in the city of Cambridge,” said Cambridge City Manager Robert Healy.
The deal required an $8.1 million acquisition loan from Community Economic Development Assistance Corp. (CEDAC), a quasi-public finance agency which aims to help community groups fund economic development projects. CEDAC created a dedicated $150 million loan pool and a list of expiring-use projects to help make non-profits and community development corporations aware of potential 40T sites in their area.
“The law is very strict in terms of the timeframes that DHCD and its designee are allowed to complete a complex purchase transaction,” said Roger Herzog, executive director of CEDAC. “CEDAC has the ability to move very quickly to meet those constraints.”
According to Herzog, the Harvard Square project was first put on the market in April 2011, at which time DHCD notified the sellers in of their interest. HRI was designated in May, and by December they had acquired the property.
This first implementation of the program has attracted watchful eyes from around the country, with representatives from national affordable housing network Neighborworks, a partner of HRI, attending a recent ceremony held to mark the successful deal.
Affordable housing advocates said they hope it will prove a model for future acquisitions. The bill “gave us a foot in the door…and that’s what we needed to move forward. Without 40T, I’m not sure this project would have been preserved,” said Daly.
http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news148706.html
Easthampton housing project may lose Community Preservation Act funds
CEDAC NOT MENTIONED
February 15, 2012
Easthampton housing project may lose Community Preservation Act funds
By Rebecca Everett
EASTHAMPTON – The City Council is considering rescinding $200,000 it pledged to the proposed Parsons Village affordable housing development, just as the project’s developer makes a second attempt to get a permit from a city board.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 21 will review a comprehensive permit request, known as a 40B, for a 38-unit rental development proposed by Valley Community Development Corp. for a vacant lot at 69 Parsons St.
The permit would allow the Valley CDC to complete the project without the Planning Board’s approval, which is a 40A permit, and which the Planning Board denied in September.
Meantime, the project may be out $200,000, as the City Council is considering rescinding the Community Preservation Act funding the council and CPA Committee approved for it in fall 2010.
At their meeting tonight, councilors are expected to discuss City Solicitor John H. Fitz-Gibbon’s warning that such a decision could land the council in court.
Council President Justin P. Cobb suggested at a Feb. 1 meeting that the council rescind the funds, saying that the project had changed from a 40A project and become an “unfriendly” 40B project.
“I see this as a significant change from what was approved,” he said. He said he is concerned that allowing funds to go to an altered project could “set a precedent.”
But Joanne Campbell, executive director of the CDC, disagreed with the characterization of the project as unfriendly.
“A friendly 40B is one that is keeping with the needs, goals and objectives of the community,” she said. “Just because there is some opposition does not mean it’s unfriendly.”
Chapter 40B is a state law that lets developers in communities with less than 10 percent affordable housing bypass certain zoning to obtain a comprehensive permit to build subsidized affordable housing. Easthampton has 6.3 percent affordable housing.
The CDC’s 40B application is for a six-building development on the 4.3-acre parcel, estimated to cost approximately $10 million. The buildings would include 38 rental units, ranging in price from $555 for a studio apartment to $1,000 for a three-bedroom unit, for tenants in the $26,000-to-$50,000 income range.
The city solicitor advised the council it could rescind the funds, but if the CDC can prove that its rights have become “vested” in the earlier vote, there would be grounds to take the council to court.
Campbell said Tuesday that the nonprofit is counting on the funds.
“We have relied on that appropriation in accessing funding from the state and also in negotiating with the property owner,” she said. “We’ve borrowed pre-development funds, paid architects and hired designers.”
A matter of ‘process’
Fitz-Gibbon also said that the council should consider whether or not the project has changed significantly. “The fact that the current application is under 40B, rather than 40A, is a question of process rather than of substance and this alone would not be sufficient to justify a vote to rescind,” he wrote.
Campbell noted that the CPA Committee and the City Council approved the funding for “long-term affordable housing at 69 Parsons St.,” which included no other specifications.
“When they voted, it was just a concept. We didn’t even have plans drawn up yet,” she said. “So you can’t really say the project has changed.”
Mayor Michael Tautznik has the right to veto any denial of the CPA money, and he said he “probably would,” although the council could override his veto with a two-thirds majority.
Cobb said he thinks the council must consider rescinding the grant. “I think it is our responsibility, as stewards of the taxpayers’ money, to have a full and open discussion about this and if we still want to support it,” he said.
Campbell noted that the City Council, CPA Committee and Easthampton Housing Partnership have all voted in favor of the project in the past, “so it isn’t like the city is fighting it.”
She noted that Cobb, as a member of the CPA Committee, the City Council and now the City Council’s finance committee, has been a vocal opponent of the project.
Long haul
Advocating for the project has been a long ordeal, Campbell acknowledged. After receiving the support of the CPA funding, the CDC defended for nine months its proposed development at a series of Planning Board public hearings where sometimes 100 residents attended to oppose the project. They said it was too dense and violated zoning, and expressed fears that it would bring crime, traffic and flooding problems to the neighborhood.
After the permit was denied because one Planning Board member voted no, the CDC appealed the decision.
The litigation is ongoing, but the CDC filed a 40B comprehensive permit application with the city Jan. 30. That application includes one more unit than the one the Planning Board denied, and also proposes traditional pavement, as opposed to the porous pavement that neighbors raised concerns about during the public hearings.
The ZBA’s usual seven members are down to four following former Chairman Sam Charron resignation last week. According to City Clerk Barbara LaBombard, the ZBA needs a simple majority of three votes to pass comprehensive permits.
Campbell said the CDC is “slightly disadvantaged” to not have a full board, but is still feeling good about its chances.
“Chapter 40B gives the ZBA less leeway to deny the permit, as long as it meets basic regulations like health and fire,” she said. The CDC could go to the state appeals committee if it is denied.
“We’re looking forward to getting a permit for the development, which we think is a good and well-needed project,” she said.
Rebecca Everett can be reached at reverett@gazettenet.com.
______________
Daily Hampshire Gazette © 2011 All rights reserved
Source URL: http://www.gazettenet.com/2012/02/15/cpa-funds-questioned-for-project