Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Prd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board hears PRD proposal aimed at modest workforce housing incentives
Summary
A presenter reviewed a proposed change to the Town of Concord PRD rules on Jan. 14, saying modest density incentives are meant to spur developers to build more moderately affordable units without large subsidies.
At the Jan. 14 meeting, a presenter reviewing a proposed amendment to the town’s Planned Residential Development (PRD) rules described the change as a modest incentive intended to encourage private developers to create moderately affordable units without large municipal subsidies.
The presenter said the amendment’s goals are to focus incentives toward moderately affordable units and reduce developers’ investment hurdles so more affordable units are built under market‑rate PRDs. The presenter said corrected calculations provided by Elizabeth Russell (Liz Russ) changed some earlier figures and that MassHousing and HUD formula quirks meant an “80% AMI” line in practice is closer to 87.5% under current federal calculations.
The presenter also ran a numerical scenario for Chapter 40B (the state affordable housing statute) and the town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI): assuming two pending 40B projects are built, the presenter estimated Concord would need about 4,000 additional market‑rate housing units to trigger 40B exposure again — a change equating to more than a 50% increase in town housing and, the presenter said, making renewed Chapter 40B risk unlikely under existing conditions.
Board members, housing advocates and consultants responded with technical and strategic questions. Elizabeth Russell, who worked on unit‑price calculations, cautioned that PRDs historically produced ownership low‑income units and that market‑rate PRDs have not been generating ownership moderate units in recent years. “Developers said this is a step in the right direction,” the presenter summarized after conversations with developers, but Russell warned the change might reduce an avenue for ownership units unless alternative PRD pathways remain available.
Discussion also touched on implementation friction: developers called PRD procedures “onerous,” and some suggested clarifying the density bonus language (for example, whether “up to two times density” should be worded differently to reduce uncertainty about what a developer can propose). Several board members said they would consult Town Counsel about the legal meaning of “up to” versus a fixed multiplier because ambiguous language can deter developers or lead to interpretive disputes.
No formal vote was taken on the PRD language at the Jan. 14 meeting. The board asked staff to continue outreach with developers and housing organizations and to refine presentation materials for the Feb. 11 meeting when the board is scheduled to recommend final warrant language for Town Meeting.
