Committee begins public scoring of two Affirmative Investments proposals for Orange Street, Vesper Lane and Bartlett Road

Members of the Nantucket Affordable Housing Trust evaluation committee met in public to begin scoring two development proposals from Affirmative Investments for three town-owned sites: Orange Street, Vesper Lane and Bartlett Road. Committee members said the two submissions must be evaluated and scored separately, and they asked Affirmative Investments to return with a focused presentation on Proposal 2 at a follow-up meeting.

The two proposals would deliver rental units across the three sites: Affirmative’s materials submitted 28 units (47 bedrooms) for Orange Street, 17 age‑restricted units (55+) for Vesper Lane and 12 units for Bartlett Road. Committee members praised the design work, site landscaping and efforts to retain a large elm at the Orange Street site but repeatedly raised concerns about parking waivers, permitting constraints and the projects’ financing.

Why it matters: the committee emphasized that units that qualify under the town’s subsidized housing inventory (referred to in the meeting as the “shy list”) would count toward the town’s SHI goals. Committee members said adding these units would be significant for the town’s affordable‑housing targets and that financing questions will likely determine which proposal the trust supports.

Discussion highlights

- Evaluation process and legal requirements: Staff reminded the committee that Massachusetts Chapter 30B, Section 16 requires public evaluations for disposition of real estate and said the trust must complete separate scorecards for each submitted proposal. A deputy procurement officer told the committee she will separate the two proposals in the town’s procurement system so they can be scored independently.

- Design and permitting: Several members called the three site plans thoughtfully laid out and compatible with Nantucket design expectations; members singled out the bus pull‑off at Orange Street, underground utilities and stormwater measures. Leslie Snell, a committee member, cautioned that "parking waivers always bring up a lot of discussion," noting Orange Street proposes 28 units with approximately 47 bedrooms and substantially fewer parking spaces than the bylaw baseline. Members also discussed a requested height waiver and expected Historic District Commission (HDC) review; the HDC may permit solar on pitched roofs but decisions are case‑by‑case.

- Affordability and unit counts: Several members said the proposals meet the RFP’s affordability requirements and that units in the response should count toward the SHI, subject to final program eligibility. Committee members noted the proposals include a mix of income levels and unit sizes and that the Vesper Lane submission explicitly targets residents 55 and older and ADA compliance.

- Sustainability: Affirmative Investments representatives described an intent for all‑electric buildings and roofs sized for solar but said they could not yet guarantee net‑zero performance for every building at this stage. The committee requested clearer detail on passive‑house alignment, raised‑equipment and flood‑mitigation measures for coastal resiliency.

- Financing and subsidy levels: The committee identified financing as the principal difference between the two submissions. Members reported that one financing option requested nearly 40% of total development costs from the Affordable Housing Trust (described in committee discussion as approximately $18.8 million), while the alternate proposal asked for a substantially smaller town subsidy (committee members referenced a figure near 26% in their scoring notes). One committee member highlighted a low developer equity figure in the proposal package (approximately $300,000) and said that combination made the larger subsidy request difficult to support without additional detail. The committee has engaged Hilltop Securities, the town’s financial adviser, and expects Hilltop’s affordable‑housing team and bond counsel to analyze pro formas and debt capacity before any commitment.

Direction and next steps

- Committee members agreed they will continue work in at least one additional public meeting to finish scoring both proposals and to review Hilltop Securities’ comments on financing.

- The committee asked Affirmative Investments to give a focused presentation on Proposal 2 (the lower‑subsidy financing option) at the next meeting, including a detailed financing pro forma, schedule/timeline options and clarification on whether the three sites would be built as a single transaction or in phases.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of the agenda: motion made and seconded; roll call recorded multiple ayes and the agenda was approved.

- Adjournment: motion to adjourn carried on recorded ayes.

Ending

The committee paused scoring to gather Hilltop Securities’ financial review and requested a focused presentation from Affirmative Investments on the alternate financing plan. A follow‑up public meeting will be scheduled once committee members’ availability is confirmed.