The Harvard Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a comprehensive permit to a Townsend-based developer for 24 units of housing on a 20-acre parcel on Stow Road, between Finn Road and Hillcrest Drive. The permit was granted under the state’s affordable housing law, Chapter 40B, which offers developers a streamlined permitting process—and significant density bonuses—in exchange for devoting at least 25 percent of a housing project to affordable homes.
The comprehensive permit granted to R. Carter Scott of Transformations, Inc., however, sets some conditions that differ significantly from those sought by the developer.
Conflict centers on the water and septic systems for the parcel, which contains roughly five acres of wetland, an intermittent stream, and is in state-defined watershed protection and flood zones. The ZBA found that Scott’s failure to submit sufficient data for the systems and his offbeat subdivision of the property signaled an intention to circumvent state regulations governing drinking and wastewater. The board denied the waivers that Scott needs to be exempt from local Board of Health regulations for the water and septic systems he wants to build, but granted him the ability to submit new plans. On Tuesday, ZBA Chairman Chris Tracey said the board denied the waivers for lack of evidence that the waivers were necessary.
“They were denied because of the requirement for the development to be in compliance with Department of Environmental Protection and Board of Health [regulations] for public water supplies and sub-surface disposal systems. Neither of those elements were represented in the submission, so the waiver requests were not applicable.”
The special permit expands on Tracey’s explanation.
“The primary…reason for the applicant’s proposed five-lot land division scheme for the proposed development is avoidance of the installation of a public water supply system in accordance with [DEP drinking water regulations],” the Oct 29 permit stated. DEP requirements for public water systems kick in when more than 24 people draw from wells on a commonly owned lot. On one lot, the 58-bedroom development would require wells to be built and maintained as public wells, subject to rules more strict than those for private wells. But if the wells are owned separately, the DEP requirement could, conceivably, be avoided.
The permit found similarly for the septic systems, stating that the separate ownership proposed by Scott for each of five “wastewater disposal facilities” was “arranged in part to circumvent” DEP regulations for re-circulating sand filters.
The conflict over the wells surfaced early in the hearings through several detailed letters from the Harvard Board of Health objecting to the plans it had, and demanding additional information. The requests for more information persisted over a period of roughly eight months. Scott addressed the matter definitively in September, saying that he would provide the additional information “once the comprehensive permit is issued and the necessary waivers to the local Board of Health regulations are granted.”
A letter from DEP only added to the uncertainty. Scott contacted the DEP, asking whether his plan to sell a number of the parcels to other parties was a legitimate avenue for “requesting that MassDEP not regulate each well as a public water system.” DEP concluded that it could not make a decision until it had “detailed information regarding ownership.”
Scott has never denied that he would prefer to avoid the public wells, but noted that one of his motives was to avoid the chlorination that might be required for public wells, which he believes is potentially unhealthy.
Neighborhood concern
Critics of the development point out that the 20-acre property, acquired by Scott in 2002 for $200,000, should not be allowed such density. They cite a history of problems with percing the land. For instance, at a September Board of Health meeting, Nashoba Associated Boards of Health sanitarian Ira Grossman reminded Scott that in May of 2003 he had come before the Planning Board with a six-lot subdivision. At the time Grossman told Scott, “Westgate [a previous proposal] was having trouble for only two single-family properties. You have failed percs throughout, and there’s a lot of ledge in back, with a lot of Title 5 problems.”
Abutters Barbara and Warren Henderson typified the concerns of many neighbors. They entered into evidence photos of water rushing from the property, questioned whether the wet Stow Road property can support 24 homes, and feared contamination of their own wells from runoff or from the five large septic systems proposed for the property. In September, Barbara Henderson told the Press that Scott assured her that his drainage systems would stem runoff. “But we can’t be sure of that, because he never showed the plans at the [ZBA] hearings.”
At one ZBA hearing, neighbors were reminded by the chairman that affordable housing law lets a zoning board deny a comprehensive permit outright only if the project would jeopardize the health and safety of residents of the town, if 10 percent of the community’s homes are already state-certified as affordable, or if the town is on track toward that goal. Being on track for Harvard would mean that the town was adding 16 affordable units each year.
Project may provide 40 percent affordability
Assuming that kinks in the permit can be worked out, the Pine Hill Village project will exceed the state-required, 25-percent minimum of affordable units, with 10 affordable units instead of six. (The development would consist of 10 affordable and 14 market-rate units). The increase came through the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which in January offered to subsidize four additional affordable units. However, the subsidy is contingent upon Transformations’ “receiving all local and state approvals for the project.”
A January letter to Scott notes that the funds “cannot be considered an endorsement of your project, but rather a cooperative effort to maximize the benefit of your project to the community.” The main local approval has been received with the comprehensive permit. State approval will still be needed under provisions of Title 5 and the Wetland Act.
An affordable unit is likely to consist of a 980-square-foot unit with two bedrooms and one bathroom. It would sell for $171,000, according to figures provided by the developer and calculated according to Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines. ZBA-hired consultant Edward Marchant thought that price was probably too high in the current market, given the small size and the single bathroom.
“I think selling these units will take some time and marketing skills,” he said in a presentation to the ZBA in September.
Next step
On Tuesday, Scott declined to say whether he would appeal the parts of the decision to the state or submit new plans to the ZBA.
“We will just continue to take this one step at a time,” he said.
Note: Kathy Bunnell contributed to this report.
