Advisory subcommittee discusses land‑use scenarios, housing targets and traffic concerns for MCI Concord site

At 2:00 p.m., the MCI Concord Advisory Board Subcommittee met to discuss land‑use scenarios, zoning implications, housing targets, traffic and reuse of existing buildings for the redevelopment of the former MCI Concord site.

The meeting brought together the subcommittee, town staff and consultants from a contracted “agency” team to identify issues the consultants need to address while preparing scenario analyses and public engagement materials. The discussion covered a range of matters members said will shape any master plan: whether Junction Village should be considered as part of the site, the future of the wastewater treatment facility, reuse of existing buildings, preservation of historic resources, how to increase the town’s commercial tax base, and neighborhood concerns about egress and traffic flow.

Consultant Rhiannon, part of the agency team, said the consultants had been reviewing town documents and zoning and that the work raised many technical questions: “we have 1,500 questions about the complexities of your codes,” she said. She asked the subcommittee which topics the consultants should prioritize for follow‑up and community outreach.

Members agreed that several on‑site buildings appear well suited for adaptive reuse. Mark Howell, present as staff, identified the vehicle maintenance building and a combined gym/classroom/library structure as likely candidates for reuse, saying they “look a whole lot like a public works building now” and “have...community and education center written all over it.” Several members said those existing structures should be assessed early to inform scenario planning.

The wastewater treatment plant was a recurring concern. Subcommittee member Linda said retaining and upgrading existing capacity might mean the town would not need to acquire additional capacity, while expanding it could create a rationale for municipal acquisition. Another subcommittee member warned the public works plan remains in parallel and is not finalized yet; members stressed the treatment plant’s size and location will influence what portions of the site are developable and how the team frames scenarios for the public.

Affordable housing and targets drew extended comment from Keith Bergman, who identifies himself as Concord’s representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council and chair of the Concord Municipal Affordable Housing Trust. Bergman described the redevelopment as “Concord’s one shot at having a huge economic benefit for the community,” and urged a strong affordable housing goal. He said the town’s subsidized housing inventory is “hovering closely around 10%” on a countable basis, but that deed‑restricted affordable units total about 7% of year‑round housing. Bergman proposed aiming for “10% affordability” (noting this would require “a couple of hundred units”) and referenced ongoing technical assistance from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership and local home‑rule petitions for funding mechanisms such as a transfer fee or building permit surcharge.

Several speakers urged the consultants to analyze scenarios both with and without Junction Village because a deed restriction currently limits allowable uses on that parcel to affordable housing (the subcommittee discussed whether that deed restriction can be reduced or lifted). Linda noted the deed restriction’s limits would “have a lot of bearing on really what we can do or might envision doing with the property.”

Traffic and access concerns emerged repeatedly. Subcommittee members and consultants discussed the need to evaluate ingress and egress locations relative to Route 2, Commonwealth Avenue and neighborhood streets such as Winthrop/Winford Street. Members said neighbors’ largest concern is vehicle access and the risk of cut‑through traffic in adjacent residential streets. One member called for the consultants to coordinate with MassDOT studies (including a paused roundabout study) and the town’s traffic work so scenario options reflect feasible intersection and access changes.

Environmental and open‑space issues were raised in relation to Warner’s Pond and the Assabet River corridor. Mark (task‑force member) noted a public meeting scheduled for April 3 on alternatives for Warner’s Pond (maintain status quo, dredge, or dam removal), and described a potential link between dredge‑material handling and Department of Correction land availability. The group also noted that Junction Village’s deed restriction currently permits open space uses, which may influence what recreation can be sited there.

Historic‑preservation interests were raised. Members said the Historical Commission is exploring protections for the Warden’s property and the White House on or near the MCI site; Elizabeth Hughes, town planner, said the commission’s staff are preparing a detailed contextual history memo for distribution to advisory board members.

Consultant Jamaica (an architect/planner on the agency team) and Rhiannon asked the subcommittee to assemble single‑slide summaries of priorities for their respective committees so the consultant team can use those items in upcoming scenario work and public workshops. The consultants said they plan to present initial analysis and visioning to the full advisory board in April and to use the town’s April 19 celebration as an outreach opportunity; they also mentioned a likely first public workshop the week after the celebration.

Formal action during the meeting was limited to approving the minutes of the Feb. 18 meeting. A motion to approve the Feb. 18 minutes passed on roll call (Linda — yes; Aaron — not present; Scott — yes; plus the chair’s recorded vote in favor), and the subcommittee agreed to circulate the consultants’ materials and coordinate follow‑up meetings with working groups.

The subcommittee did not make final decisions on any master‑plan elements; members and consultants repeatedly emphasized further technical study, public engagement, and coordination with DCAM (the state Division of Capital Asset Management), MassDOT, and town departments would be required before the group could recommend concrete zoning or acquisition actions.

The consultants and staff left the meeting with a list of follow‑up tasks: gather single‑slide committee priorities, complete assessments of candidate buildings for reuse, coordinate with public works on the wastewater facility capacity and site needs, and refine access/traffic scenarios in coordination with town and MassDOT studies. The subcommittee scheduled outreach and a full advisory board presentation in April.