By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — A preliminary concept for a “friendly 40B” affordable housing project in the Montrose area got a generally favorable reception from the Town Council last night.
With his client Alex DiPietro alongside, attorney Brian McGrail introduced the idea of a possible “friendly 40B” project at 484 and 504 Salem St. (the area behind Dunkin Donuts).
“My clients are interested in working cooperatively with the Town Council for both parties to determine if it could be beneficial to my clients and the Town of Wakefield for the properties to be developed into a modest 24-unit multifamily rental building pursuant to a friendly MGL Chapter 40B through the Local Initiative Program,” McGrail said.
“Six of the units would be affordable dwelling units,” he noted. “Also, since it would be a rental building, all 24 units would count toward Wakefield’s Subsidized Housing Inventory.” (The SHI is used by the state to measure a community’s stock of low-or moderate-income housing for the purposes of reaching 10 percent pursuant to MGL Chapter 40B. Once a town reaches 10 percent affordable housing, it has greater control over 40B projects.)
McGrail said that the project could be mutually beneficial for both the town and the property owner. It would provide needed housing but due to its location, it would have minimal impact on the neighborhood or traffic.
The properties at 484 and 504 Salem St. currently contain a three-family dwelling and a two-family dwelling for a total of five units. Those buildings would be removed as part of the project, McGrail explained.
He also noted that the Dunkin Donuts at 518 Salem St., which is in front of the subject properties, is owned by a relative of his client and would provide legal access to the properties with the added benefit of an existing traffic light on Salem Street.
The properties at 484 & 504 Salem St. are zoned mainly in the Single Residence zoning district, with a small portion in the Business District.
McGrail discussed what a “friendly 40B” means as contrasted with a conventional 40B.
The Local Initiative Program, he explained, is known more informally as a “friendly 40B.”
“Submitting the plan to the Town Council is the first step with a friendly 40B development and this highlights one of the main differences between a friendly 40B development and a conventional 40B development that you are used to seeing,” he said.
“A Conventional 40B development goes to a subsidizing agency first — either Mass Housing or the Massachusetts Housing Partnership — for a letter of eligibility, he pointed out. “As part of that process, the developer comes to your Council for comments, which you provide and historically, notwithstanding your comments or objections, the subsidizing agency issues a letter of eligibility allowing the developer to proceed with the Board of Appeals for their project and your involvement is done.
By contrast, he explained, a Friendly 40B development is significantly different in that it involves the Town Council and the developer working together without Mass Housing or Massachusetts Housing Partnership being involved in the process at all. The Town Council and the developer can work cooperatively to develop plans and conditions together that would eventually be sent to the Board of Appeals.
If, after working together, the Town Council or the developer determine that they do not like the direction of the project or determine it is not in their best interest to proceed there is no obligation for either party to move forward.
If, however, after working together, the Town Council and the developer determine that they each like the project and want to move forward, they both execute and send a Local Initiative Program application to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (“EOHLC”) for approval, McGrail explained. If EOHLC approves the Local Initiative Program application the developer would then be able to proceed before the Board of Appeals for the project.
“Unlike a Conventional 40B development, a Friendly 40B development allows municipalities to remain in control of all aspects of project including design and construction,” McGrail said.
He noted that that, due to its location, the 9.5-acre site is almost entirely hidden from public view.
McGrail outlined the next steps that would occur should the Town Council be receptive to the idea.
Town Councilor Michael McLane said that he liked the idea of a friendly 40B and advocated moving forward with the next steps.
Councilor Edward Dombroski said, “I think every 40B should be a friendly 40B. I like being able to maintain local autonomy and control. I don’t see much impact on abutters or traffic.”
Town Councilor Robert Vincent asked if, should the “friendly” option not work out, would the developer pursue a conventional 40B at the site.
DiPietro said that he would not do that. If the friendly 40B option didn’t work out, he said that he would continue to maintain and possibly make upgrades to the existing homes.
There was discussion about forming a Town Council subcommittee to be named at a future meeting to work with the development team on the next steps.