Developers and planning board spar over yield, density and inclusionary housing at 187 Main Street pre-application

A pre-application conference on Jan. 6 produced a detailed, sometimes contentious discussion about the basic maximum number of dwellings and how West Newbury’s OSPD rules apply to a proposed development at 187 Main Street.

John Sarcus described his concept as a clustered open-space preservation development intended to preserve the front edge of Main Street and provide a mix of unit styles. He told the board he wants "the most valuable open space to the community at large" along Main Street and said the plan would cluster housing toward the rear while preserving the front view. Sarcus said he and his team—including his son John Luke, Hancock Associates engineer Jay Packitz, landscape architects and an architect team—had prepared a yield plan and an OSPD concept showing 13 building footprints labeled as duplexes.

Hancock’s engineer showed the existing-conditions plan, wetlands delineations by CCAP Environmental and a conceptual yield plan that labeled 13 building footprints (13 lots) and noted "duplexes" as the unit type, producing a conceptual total of 26 residential units. The consultant described septic testing, preliminary drainage basins sized conceptually for one inch of runoff and a proposed drip dispersal septic area sized conservatively.

Board members focused on three linked issues: how the board should count the yield plan (13 buildable single-family lots versus 26 units if duplexes are counted as separate dwelling units), what the planning board can lawfully treat as the "basic maximum number" under Section 9.1.8 of the town bylaw, and how the town's inclusionary-housing rules apply (must affordable units be on-site or can a fee-in-lieu or off-site provision satisfy the requirement?).

Ray Cook, Brian Murphy and others pressed the point that the yield plan as presented shows potentially 26 dwelling units if duplexes are built, while other members warned the bylaw language is ambiguous and asked for a legal reading. "I'm comfortable with the 26 based on the preliminary information we have in front of it," one member said during the discussion, but the board agreed to seek counsel and review the bylaw language before making a binding determination that will inform applicant calculations.

The applicant asked whether inclusionary obligations could be satisfied by fee-in-lieu for the entire requirement or only fractional units; several board members and the board’s affordable-housing representative said the bylaw appears to require on-site units except for fractional-unit payments, and that they would get a legal opinion on that point.

Other items the board asked the applicant to provide before resuming the conversation included: an explicit conservation-area map and calculation of qualifying open space (the plan’s dark-green open space met the 60% minimum on the drawing but much of it is wetland/backland), photos showing sightlines and headlight impacts across Main Street, confirmation of hydrant locations and fire-department acceptance of the turnaround, exact building footprints with separation measurements relative to the 20-foot requirement between structures, and clearer unit-size and bedroom counts tied to any proposed density bonuses.

The board and applicant agreed to reconvene; the applicant asked to be on the Jan. 20 agenda and the board agreed to refine the legal questions (basic maximum number and inclusionary-housing options) before that session.