Stow Road is the latest site proposed for housing under the state’s affordable housing law, Chapter 40B. The site joins a roster of developments recently presented to the Harvard Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for Shaker, Littleton, and Ayer roads. Now, on Stow Road, R. Carter Scott, principal of Townsend-based Transformations, Inc., plans to build 24 units on a 20-acre parcel across from 265 Stow Road. Ten homes will be affordable, yielding a 40 percent affordable rate, better than the state-required minimum of 25 percent. The additional affordable units are courtesy of a $100,000 contribution from Harvard’s Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund, with funds contingent upon the developer’s receipt of “all local and state approvals for the project,” according to a letter from the trust fund to Scott. [Fourteen homes will be sold at market rates.]
The trust fund is an independent entity whose members are appointed by the selectmen. At the ZBA’s Feb. 27 hearing for Pine Hill Village, Town Counsel Mark Lanza emphasized that the group is not a town board. It came into being through the Community Preservation Act, the law that allows Harvard to tax real estate transactions and plow the money, preservation funds, back into the town. Preservation funds, by law, must be spent on open space and historic sites, affordable housing, and recreational facilities. The trust fund is in charge of the affordable housing piece. Its policies and procedures are posted at Harvard.ma.us/townboards.
While the board said it welcomed the idea of extra affordable units, it is less enthusiastic about the developer’s plans for well and septic. In fact, Scott and the board are at an impasse.
At question is Scott’s motive for sub-dividing the property into five lots and selling four of them to “independent third parties not owned or controlled by Transformations, Inc.” Is the move designed to circumvent state Title 5 regulations, as the ZBA fears? Or is the developer’s plan for five wells and five septic systems—each under separate ownership—meant to avoid the potentially harmful chlorine treatment that might be required if the wells were subject to the DEP’s “public water supply” rules? On Tuesday, Scott denied that his plan sought to avoid the more expensive systems that state law would mandate if the wells were under common ownership.
“I want to avoid chlorine for the wells,” said Scott, citing studies that advise a cautious use of the element.
At the Feb 27 hearing, ZBA Chairman Chris Tracey said his board will take no further action until the DEP decides whether Scott’s plans comply with Title 5 and other 40B requirements, adding that he is wary of any plan that could amount to an end-run around health regulations.
Meanwhile, neighbors are concerned about run-off and the viability of septic systems on a parcel that is wet for most of the year. Warren and Barbara Henderson, who at 265 Stow Road live across the street from the proposed housing, described a dramatic springtime thaw on and near the parcel, complete with brimming fire pond, rushing brook, and overflowing culverts. They documented the abundant water caused by thawing or torrential rain in photos that they gave to the board in January. Also in January, abutter Bob Lapierre warned of septic failure similar to that of the Codman Hill condominiums. He showed the board a condo association memo that assessed each member more than $11,000 to replace their failed septic system. A similar fate, he said, could befall the systems on the Stow Road parcel because of what he said were its similar soil and water conditions. In response, Scott pointed to newer, more advanced systems for Stow Road.
Hearings for Pine Hill Village will resume on April 23 at 7:30.
