Ayer Road 40B project is stymied by disputes
Tempers simmered at the May 23 Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on the commercial and residential development proposed for the Ayer Road site across the street from Old Mill Road. The ZBA’s insistence that developer Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corporation (MHOC) consult directly with the Board of Health about its 40B project was met with an equally insistent refusal: “There’s nothing in the regulations that requires us to meet with the Board of Health,” said Mark Bobrowski, MHOC’s lead attorney. In the end, Bobrowski reluctantly agreed to the meeting, but asked that the ZBA evaluate the board’s comments about the project’s septic system within one day.
ZBA members, at their May 23 hearing, said they want comments from the Board of Health before deciding whether to grant MHOC’s septic permits; however, they said, the floor plans provided by MHOC were inadequate for the health board’s review. Said ZBA Chairman Chris Tracey, “After meeting with the board myself, I tell you that they’re not sure what they are looking at. They will not comment on waivers based on these plans.”
Bobrowski responded, “They don’t get a vote, with all due respect.”
Under the state’s Chapter 40B law, projects need only meet the state’s Title 5 septic and well regulations, not local health regulations that may be more stringent. Also by law, the ZBA is the sole permitting authority for a 40B project.
“The bottom line is this: either we qualify under Title 5, or we don’t,” Bobrowski said.
Board of Health members have said they are troubled by the planned presence of lofts and walkout basements, which, they said, are routinely converted to bedrooms, violating health codes and causing septic failures. Without detailed floor plans, the board cannot verify the number of bedrooms and the total square-footage, which it must know to assess septic capacity.
A recent financial review of the Ayer Road project by ZBA consultant Edward Marchant seemed to bolster the Board of Health’s objections and demands for more information. Marchant’s report noted discrepancies among architectural drawings, engineering plans, and MHOC’s original application. For instance, the total square footage of the homes was impossible to verify, because “no square-footage calculations are shown on the architectural drawings,” he stated The bedroom count was also inconsistent: engineering plans showed 56 bedrooms, while a map of unit types showed 51. Skylights also raised questions.
Marchant’s report stated, “I observed that a skylight was included in the ‘attic’ space of the interior units. The applicant should confirm whether or not there will be habitable space in these ‘attic’ areas.”
Debate ended when MHOC agreed to “chase” the Board of Health for a hearing. Still, Bobrowski strongly objected, remarking, “The loft and basement issue is not our problem. It’s the town’s problem to enforce.”
Tracey turned to Town Counsel Mark Lanza for general advice about detailed floor plans. Lanza advised, “Yes, you should have the floor plans before the comprehensive permit is issued.”
Several strictly financial questions arose, too. For instance, Marchant’s report said that his request for more information about the site improvement budget was rebuffed. “The applicant felt that it had provided sufficient information,” the report stated, adding that MHOC had offered to ask its site engineer to speak with the ZBA’s consulting site engineer, Sandra Brock.
ZBA member Robert Capobianco was not satisfied: “I don’t understand why we can’t have this information,” he said.
Also at issue were prices for the state-defined affordable housing units, which Marchant said were too high. The maximum price allowed by the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development for an “affordable” one-bedroom unit in this project is $131,200, and a two-bedroom unit should be $146,800. MHOC’s current pro forma showed prices of $142,000 and $160,850, but said it would reduce the prices accordingly. Prices for market-rate units ranged from $379,000 to $529,000. Marchant concluded that these prices were “too aggressive.”
The hearing for the 40B project at 262–264 Ayer Road was continued to June 13.
