For the third time in as many years, affordable housing developer CHOICE plans to begin construction “in the fall” on the site of the former Great Elms farmstead at 105 Stow Road. This time, the annual assertion by the nonprofit developer may well prove correct, now that it has secured permits and completed a downsizing of the project, renamed “The Elms.” CHOICE, the development arm of the Chelmsford Housing Authority, bought the 4-acre property from North Middlesex Savings Bank in 2013 with plans to redevelop the affordable apartments that had existed on the property for more than 25 years. The plan was to replicate all of the nine apartments lost when Great Elms and its sister property, The Inn in town center, were foreclosed upon in 2011 (see timeline below).
Plans to replicate the nine units remain intact, allowing Harvard to keep the apartments on its state-certified inventory of affordable homes. But the project to be built will differ significantly from the original plans, which were operational at public hearings between 2013 and the summer of 2015. Originally, the farmhouse (minus its ell) and backyard cottage were to be renovated, and three new clapboarded farmhouse-style structures, complete with double-hung windows, were to be built in proximity in a compound layout. Now, the cottage and farmhouse will be razed, and two identical vinyl-clad buildings will house the nine apartments.
Delays, expensive well equal redesign
According to Maura Camosse, a development manager from the Women’s Institute for Housing and Economic Development who works with CHOICE, the reason for the delay and subsequent redesign comes down to time and money. The two-year permitting process saw costs escalate for engineering, architectural, attorney, and consultant services, she said. And primary to that delay was CHOICE’s failed negotiation with the Board of Health to get requirements waived for a public water supply system and instead be allowed to build a conventional well. According to Camosse, this public water supply would have been especially challenging to construct, requiring as it did easements on abutting private property and conservation land. “We felt it would have been very difficult to obtain the easements and would have continued to delay the project,” she said, basing her opinion on meetings with abutters and the Board of Health, where neither group “appeared particularly supportive.”
To avoid the need for a public water supply altogether, CHOICE reduced the number of bedrooms on the property from 17 to 12. The smaller, simpler design canceled the renovation in favor of demolition and new construction, eliminating details that had been described by the project’s architect in June 2013 as contributing to “a farmyard feel.”
A place to call home
Last week, an email from CHOICE addressed the new look of the development, alluding to frustration with the process and the town’s refusal, after several requests over three years, to contribute to the project, apart from waiving $20,000 in building, plumbing, and electrical permit fees. The statement read:
“We had hoped for a more collaborative relationship with the town. However, there were some very strong personalities that had a very negative view of what affordable housing is, and nothing we said or proposed would change their mindset. Overall, this housing is for the people who need it. They will be grateful for the opportunity to have a safe place to call home—even if it has vinyl siding instead of wood. Even if it is a simpler design. Even if it doesn’t mirror a farmhouse. It will be a place for them to call home.”
The apartments will range in rent from $950 to $1,200, but on a subsidized voucher system, where low- and very-low-income tenants will pay 30 percent of their income toward those rents. CHOICE will provide onsite management for the apartments and offer supportive social services for some tenants.
Letter of the law
Meanwhile, speaking from an office at Town Hall, Nashoba Associated Boards of Health sanitarian Ira Grossman disputed the notion that CHOICE might have been cut more slack, given that it—in the words of CHOICE Executive Director Connie Donahue—“came into Harvard to rescue nine units of affordable housing and have incurred great costs to do so.” Grossman dismissed the idea that the Board of Health, for whom he acts as “a consultant, to make sure they stay in compliance with local and state regulations,” might have shown more flexibility in its dealings with CHOICE.
“If the goal is to protect people’s drinking water, then why make an exception? Why lessen your standards for a certain population?” he said. The regulations for wells, he added, are something like geometric equations. “There is only so much room for flexibility in the equation,” he said.
Homes will ‘look nice’
With permits in hand, financing on solid ground, and the downsized design complete, Camosse is optimistic about keeping this year’s prediction to break ground in the fall. Reflecting on the project, she conceded that the original design was “more in keeping” with the town, but added, “I think the project will still look nice and will certainly withstand the test of time.”
Great Elms at 105 Stow Road: A timeline
1985: The circa 1720 farm consists of about 134 acres, including a slate-roof barn, a farmhouse with an apple house in the backyard, and a small stable across the street. Owners receive $1.2 million in compensation from Harvard in a land-taking for payment of back taxes. Over two years, the town carves out Great Elms, a 4-acre parcel with the house, barn, stable, and cottage. Conservation-restricted lots are sold, allowing Harvard to recoup most of its expenditure. The town keeps 69 acres in permanently protected land, according to the Harvard Open Space Plan.
1987: Knowing that it already owns affordably priced apartments at The Inn in the town center, the town asks the privately held Harvard Conservation Trust to buy Great Elms and preserve the five affordably priced apartments there. The Conservation Trust creates Harvard Trust Nonprofit Properties, an entity legally separate from the Conservation Trust, to own and manage Great Elms and The Inn. The purchase price is $75,000; 30-year affordability restrictions are placed on the Great Elms deed.
May 2010: At Annual Town Meeting, Harvard Trust Nonprofit Properties asks permission to re-examine deed restrictions at Great Elms, explaining it is running out of money to maintain Great Elms and The Inn.
October 2011: Harvard Trust Nonprofit Properties defaults on the mortgage covering both properties. Prior to and during the course of foreclosure proceedings, the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust contributes $15,222 to cover a mortgage payment (for both Great Elms and The Inn) and to move tenants from The Inn.
May 2012: The Inn is sold at auction on a bid of $226,000 to a Harvard resident, who within seven months rehabilitates and sells the apartments as market-rate condominiums. Great Elms remains the property of the bank: Unlike The Inn, its deed is encumbered by an affordability restriction, making it less attractive to buyers.
September 2013: The nonprofit development arm of the Chelmsford Housing Authority, CHOICE, buys Great Elms from North Middlesex Savings Bank for $1, paying about $100,000 in various liens on the property and relocation benefits to existing tenants.
November 2013: Municipal Affordable Housing Trust turns down first of three requests to fund Great Elms redevelopment, citing the $1 million mortgage it holds on a 30-acre Littleton Road site that it had hoped to develop for affordable homes, and a bank balance of about $300,000.
May 2014: After four months of hearings, Zoning Board of Appeals grants comprehensive permit for nine affordable apartments, thereby replacing all the units lost in the 2011 foreclosure of Great Elms and The Inn.
June 2014: After a heated debate, selectmen vote to grant CHOICE up to $20,000 in waived permitting fees as a signal of support for the affordable units.
January 2015: Board of Health grants permit for septic system at Great Elms, granting a waiver allowing CHOICE to avoid building an expensive wastewater treatment plant. “The local regulation was actually created with larger projects in mind,” then Board of Health Chairman Tom Philippou said at the time.
June 2015: Board of Health rejects CHOICE bid to waive requirement for public water supply well, declaring the developer’s proposed work-around to building the public water supply—which was to limit the number of occupants onsite—as unenforceable.
August 2015: Zoning Board of Appeals amends comprehensive permit, allowing for smaller project: 12 bedrooms instead of 17, two buildings instead of five, and all-new construction instead of rehabilitation of the cottage and the circa 1720 Deacon-Fairbank farmhouse.
June 2016: In preparation for a meeting with state officials to finalize funding, CHOICE asks the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust for a donation in any amount. The trust declines the request, again citing mortgage obligation and limited resources. CHOICE declares an intention to break ground in the fall.
