Proponents of a new overlay district that would allow dense development on a 16-acre parcel on Ayer Road have asked in a letter to the Planning Board to close the hearing on the proposed enabling bylaw so they can have time to revise it for reintroduction at Fall Town Meeting.
But fearing the “unseen consequences” of closing the hearing, the board voted at its April 3 meeting to continue it and to ask the proponents, landowners Lou Russo and Tom Kurian, to withdraw the bylaw at the board’s next meeting, April 24. The town’s attorney, Mark Lanza, was not present to say whether closing the hearing would commit the board to some unwanted course of action or give proponents an advantage in the process, which were two of the board’s reservations about simply closing it.
The bylaw was first introduced in mid-February by Russo and Kurian as part of a plan by Minco Development for 239 rental apartments in three buildings, across from Dunkin’ Donuts. According to the plan, 21 or 22 of the total number of apartments would be affordable; 44 apartments would be restricted to ages 55 and older; and 120 would be rented at market rates. Four market-rate duplexes would also be built. (The number of apartments has changed slightly from February, when the plan was first presented).
The development cannot be built without Town Meeting first passing the bylaw, labeled by proponents as the “smart growth overlay district,” though members of Russo’s team said at the Planning Board’s first hearing on the bylaw, March 20, that they would rename the district after conceding it did not align with requirements of the state’s Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District law, 40R. At that same hearing, former and present members of the Select, Planning, and Zoning Appeals boards, as well as residents, criticized the bylaw as misleadingly named, allowing for excessive density, and riddled with loopholes.
The request to close the hearing was foreshadowed at a presentation organized by Minco last Wednesday at Town Hall in which Minco executive Eric Loth told the approximately 20 attendees that the bylaw “needs work” and the timeline for getting it in shape for the April 29 Town Meeting was too tight. He spent most of the 80-minute meeting responding to questions and comments from the audience—almost all concerning the development Minco wants to build, rather than the bylaw needed to enable it or any other project made possible by the bylaw.
There is no guarantee that Minco would build on the site, Loth said. But, he added, “If a zoning overlay is passed we’ll likely be the ones to build.”
Minco executive Eric Loth addresses approximately 20 residents at a sparsely attended information session, March 29 in Town Hall. (Photo by Lisa Aciukewicz)
Too few affordable units, ‘rushing’ to fulfill multifamily requirements
Chief among the concerns expressed at the March 29 gathering were what people thought were too few affordable units. The bylaw does not mandate any, and the proposed development calls for 21 or 22.
Rick Dickason, a 23-year resident with a background in construction and development, said having less than an eighth of the units be affordable did not fill the town’s need for authentically affordable rentals. Dickason noted that a 40B development, where at least 20-25% of all units on a permit must be affordable, would better serve the town. Loth said doing that was not economically feasible, citing the cost of materials and interest rates as factors.
Despite the relatively few affordable apartments, however, Loth said the project could still help Harvard meet the state’s mandate that 10% of the town’s homes be affordable to people earning no more than 80% of Worcester County’s average median income. This could be the case if affordable units already in the works are built, and if the data used by the state to calculate percentages, which is to be released in May, aligns with the numbers Minco apparently used in its calculations. In any case, state regulations allow all 85 of the apartments in the building that contains the affordable units to count on the town’s subsidized housing inventory, which helps explain why the relatively few affordable dwellings included in Minco’s project could edge Harvard over the 10% point.
Attendee Cameron Caroom pressed Loth on the point, but Loth said Minco could not commit to many more affordable units, though there could be “some flexibility.”
Liz Joyce, who moved here with her family a little more than a year ago and lives on Ayer Road, told the Press after the meeting that she believed the people of Harvard wanted diverse housing, but “the issue is the scale and impact,” of an “outsized” project. It seemed, she added, as if the landowners proposing the bylaw and the developer were “in each other’s pockets.”
Select Board member Charles Oliver challenged the urgency Loth seemed to assign to meeting the state’s new MBTA communities requirement for multifamily housing. It was a good reason, Loth said, to embrace the 120 market-rate rental apartments, which would likely fulfill Harvard’s obligation. But Oliver said Loth made it “seem like a rush” when it wasn’t. The multifamily zoning must be enacted by 2025, but there is no deadline for building the units.
The bylaw versus the development
After an hour of back-and-forth among Loth and attendees, Harvard Climate Initiative Committee Chair Ellen Sachs Leicher implored attendees to focus on the bylaw, not the development or developer. Residents will be stuck with the bylaw if it were to pass, but the developer and the project could change at any time, she cautioned. Soon after, ZBA member Steve Moeser challenged Loth’s claim that the apartment buildings would “be attractive.”
“That’s not what your bylaw says,” Moeser responded, noting the height, proximity, and mass of the buildings as allowed in the proposed overlay district.
In an email to the Press, Ken Atwell, who lives in Harvard Green, a small housing development on Lancaster County Road that abuts the proposed development, said conflating the bylaw with the project was easy to do. “It’s hard to tease them apart given that the bylaw was conceived solely to enable the project,” he wrote.
Just before the board voted to continue the hearing until April 24—after about an hour of debate on the best way to end the hearing—resident Nessa Hedberg reminded the board that at the March 20 hearing, not a single resident spoke in favor of the bylaw. The whole town was against it, she said. Not so, said Planning Board member John McCormack. “Clearly the whole town isn’t against it because a town member proposed it,” he said, referring to resident Lou Russo.
