Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Zoning Route9 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers say inclusionary requirements strain Route 9/Post Road projects; trust sets limits and asks for revised proposals
Summary
Developers of two Route 9/Post Road apartment projects told the housing partnership committee Sept. 12 that the town’s inclusionary-zoning requirements make their 395-unit proposal financially difficult; trustees outlined acceptable tradeoffs, warned against reducing certified affordable below 10%, and asked developers to return with proposals consistent with specified 'levers and limits.'
Developers pursuing two Route 9/Post Road apartment projects—together about 395 units—have told the Town of Westborough they cannot meet their financial return targets under the town’s existing inclusionary zoning, a trust member reported Sept. 12.
Ed, who presented the developers’ analysis to the Housing Partnership Committee, said developers originally proposed deep buy-downs of up to $50,000 per unit but that the bylaw’s formula implies a much larger average buy-down (the trust cited a figure of roughly $177,000 per unit under the bylaw’s methodology). Developers asked whether lower buy-down amounts or changes in the share of units at different AMI levels would make the projects feasible.
Trust members and staff discussed several alternative options: reducing certified SHI affordable percentage from 15% to 10% while increasing the moderate-income component, shifting the AMI average slightly (trust suggested evaluating 75% average AMI scenarios), or combining 10% affordable and 10% moderate targets. Trustees emphasized they will not entertain cuts below a 10% SHI-certified floor because that risks the town’s 40B compliance.
Board members also flagged non-housing constraints. One trustee noted sewer-allocation implications and questioned how many bedrooms the projects would consume against the town’s remaining capacity; another urged that any trade for reduced affordable requirements must be offset by clear, verifiable public benefits such as road improvements or agreed design commitments.
Committee members agreed to present a set of acceptable levers and limits to the developers and asked them to return with a concrete proposal the town can evaluate and—if acceptable—recommend to the planning board. The chair said the planning board retains final authority on permitting but the working group will advise the planning board and seek commitments that protect affordable-housing outcomes and the town’s long-term needs.
Trust members also cited recent local experience on subsidies and buy-downs; the chair noted the statewide average subsidy for an affordable housing unit is around $300,000 in recent projects, reinforcing the committee's insistence on defensible, market-based buy-down valuations.
Next steps: developers to return with revised financial proposals and the trust’s working group will continue pro forma modeling with staff (including Ken and Hank) to test different mixes of market-rate and affordable units before any formal planning-board recommendation.
