Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Road Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westborough trustees present negotiation options for 388‑unit Post Road project; authorize revised memo to planning board
Summary
The Trust’s working group presented three mitigation options for the Post Road residential project (388 units). The committee debated tradeoffs between preserving SHI‑eligible units and mitigation money, and voted 5–0 to authorize the Chair to revise the working‑group memo recommending options 2 and 3 for the planning board’s negotiation.
Trust members on Friday reviewed a working‑group report on the Post Road residential development — a two‑parcel proposal totaling 388 units — and discussed three negotiation options for the project’s inclusionary zoning obligations.
The developer had proposed reducing the SHI‑compliant affordable share from 15 percent to 10 percent (reducing SHI units from 59 to 39) and keeping a 5 percent moderate‑income component, along with a $1,000,000 buy‑down (about $50,000 per lost SHI unit). The working group presented three options: (1) a negotiated buy‑down near $3.5 million that would reflect full buy‑down value; (2) a 10% affordable / 10% moderate mix with a reduced buy‑down near $1.86 million; and (3) a 10% affordable (80% AMI) / 10% moderate (120% AMI) mix with a $950,000 buy‑down plus other negotiated mitigation (including MassWorks matching funds or infrastructure contributions).
The proposals prompted a sharp discussion about financial feasibility and community objectives. One committee member criticized the developer’s offered mitigation as too low, saying, "it costs a 150 to $200,000 a unit to provide a unit of affordable housing," and argued that a $50,000‑per‑unit buy‑down would not allow the town to replicate lost SHI units. Others urged a holistic view: several members noted that the project could generate matching funds for intersection improvements and lessen school impacts relative to other developments.
Trust leadership framed the working‑group options as negotiation frameworks for the planning board. After debate about whether to put a hard number in the memo or provide a range for negotiation, trustees voted to authorize the Chair to edit the memo so the planning board receives options 2 and 3 as viable negotiating positions depending on the broader mitigation package. The motion passed 5–0. The Chair said the memo would be revised and circulated immediately so it could be included in the planning board packet for the next hearing.
