Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Road Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing partnership committee debates developer proposal for Post Road, urges stronger affordability and benchmarks
Summary
At a joint session, Westborough committee members reviewed a developer’s Post Road proposal (roughly 400 market-rate rental units) and discussed inclusionary zoning and buy-down options; trustees recommended pursuing alternatives such as a 10% affordable/10% moderate mix and asked for benchmarking on typical subsidy per affordable unit.
Members of Westborough’s Housing Partnership Committee spent a substantial portion of the Nov. 14 meeting reviewing a developer’s Post Road proposal and discussing the project’s affordable-housing components.
What the committee reviewed: The developer’s official submission seeks changes that would reduce the town’s required affordable-component share; according to committee discussion, the developer’s initial ask would have reduced the SHI-affordable contribution substantially (trustees said the submission included a proposal for 10% affordable and 5% moderate). The developer also offered a $1,000,000 buy‑down as mitigation.
Trustee recommendations and reasoning: Trustee Speaker 1 said the committee’s preferred alternative — developed in prior meetings with the developer and planning staff — would be “10% affordable and 10% moderate” with a lower per‑unit buy‑down cost. Trustees urged the planning board to consider lower per‑unit buy‑down rates when units are shifted from market to moderate income, and asked staff to prepare benchmarking data on buy‑down and subsidy costs (citing MassHousing and other communities’ practice). Speaker 2 encouraged staff to compile past local buy‑down examples (Lyman Street, Connector Road) and contact benchmark communities and the Massachusetts Housing Partnership for local comparables.
Why it matters: Committee members said the composition of affordable and moderate units affects SHI accounting, financing thresholds, and the scale of subsidies the trust would need to provide. The committee discussed the tradeoff between preserving deeper affordability (lower AMI targets) and the developer’s financing and construction costs.
Next steps: Trustees will continue work with planning staff, request comparative buy‑down data, and return to discuss further at the trust’s December meeting; the developer will proceed through the planning board’s public hearing process.
