Speak Out
Affordable Housing Plan critic responds to plan creator's defense
Colin Balogh Ashburnham

I'd like to correct several errors and misleading statements made by Mr. MacMillian in his Dec. 15 response to my Dec. 1, 2006 Speak Out piece.

First, my comments regarding the committee's main thrust in drafting the Affordable Housing Plan was to block, or at least stymie, 40B developments was not based on news reports but on the actual public presentation by the committee members. Most of the committee members stressed adoption of the plan would be important in stopping 40B developments.

Second, Mr. MacMillian states the Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) bylaw allows two-family dwellings by right and therefore provides for multi-family development. In fact, two-family dwellings are only allowed by special permit and not by right. This is a significant distinction. Planning boards are notorious for denying special permits or placing onerous conditions on approvals. In addition special permitting can add significant time to the development process which increases cost.

Even assuming the board approved twofamily dwellings, the OSRD does not appear to allow for greater development density. Both Sections 5.132.1 and 5.135.1 state the maximum number of building lots shall not exceed that of the underlying zoning district The OSRD does provide for very modest density bonuses if more than half the site is dedicated for open space and/or age-restricted development. The only reference to affordable housing is, if more then 10 units are constructed, than 10 percent must be affordable. This is an excellent example of maintaining affordable units as new development continues.

The OSRD zone does little to alleviate the affordable housing deficit.

The above issues are significant misstatements, or lack of understanding, of the zoning bylaws by Mr. MacMillian, an over- 20-year veteran of the board.

Third, while technically correct that twofamily dwellings are multi-family units; most knowledgeable real estate participants do not consider buildings with less than five or six units to be multi-family.

Fourth, Mr. MacMillian's comment about how the plan addresses rental housing relies on the 101 instances of the word "rental" in the plan. The vast majority are in descriptive data analysis, a few refer to the need for more rentals, but limited solutions are put forth.

As far as Mr. MacMillian's assertions that there isn't a no-growth faction on the Affordable Housing Committee, he may have a point. Maybe a better descriptor of this group is the "as little growth as possible without the town having to fight lawsuits for restraint of trade" group or maybe mingrowthers for short. (The negative response by some selectmen to recent request that the town provide for building inspections within the state-mandated 48 hours rather than the two to three weeks now required, is another example of this element.) Town officials should realize allowing growth will help the town financially and aesthetically. Towns that have embraced a reasonable growth strategy have often prospered well beyond those that have fought development.

Smart growth in this instance is tied to the Commonwealth's 40R legislation, which provides funding to towns in exchange for allowing higher density development. The reality is that the program is under-funded and few grants will be allocated statewide. Smart growth is not a magic bullet solution to affordable housing.

I am not an armchair critic. I have more than 30 years of experience working in different aspects of real estate across the country and have a doctorate in the field.

There is a crying need not only for affordable housing for low-income families but also for middle-income families The economics of real estate development dictate that land per unit must be reduced to cut the cost of housing and to reduced land amounts zoning must be changed. Affordable housing has become a critical issue in the state's future economic growth.