Zoning Board of Appeals
Business Minutes of January 10, 2006
Present: Bruce Simpson, John Burke, Lorraine Sweeney, Robert Garrity, Martin Murphy, Elissa Flynn-Poppey, Michael Kulesza
Absent: No one
The duly posted meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals convened at 7:30 p.m. in room 105C at the Norfolk Town Hall.
The first order of business was to preview the special permit application of Brown Realty Trust. John Parmentier, P.E. from Dunn-McKenzie, Inc was present to represent the applicant. The Board reviewed the application submitted on December 22, 2005.
Mr. Parmentier stated that the applicant is seeking two special permits pursuant to Section D.4.c.3.f., the Aquifer Protection District Bylaw, to expand a use which will render impervious more than 15 % of the lot and Section F.7.P. to allow less than the required number of parking spaces.
Mr. Parmentier stated that the lot would become 28% impervious with the proposed addition. The lot is currently 27% impervious. The rear yard of Colonial Fence is currently used for storage. The applicant intends to convert this area to indoor storage. Mr. Parmentier stated that 100% of the drainage would be recharged into the ground. The Board recommended that the applicant be prepared to discuss traffic and its circulation. All the requirements for filing were submitted. Mr. Murphy made the motion to accept the application for a hearing to be scheduled for 7:46 p.m. on February 15, 2006. Mrs. Sweeney seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was unanimous. Mr. Parmentier amended the application as the improper Bylaw section was listed for the reduced parking
request.
The Board met with several members of the Norfolk Housing Authority and Special Counsel, Jason Talerman to discuss the lottery issue with respect to the affordable units at the Norfolk Commons 40B project. Representing the Housing Authority were Jan Moore, the Executive Director and Muriel St. Amand, the Assistant Director, Chairman Scott Dittrich and member Robert Shannon.
Mr. Talerman noted that the Housing Authority would provide two important services relative to the lottery issue for 40B projects. The first would be monitoring services that would require expertise or the hiring of people who have that expertise to conduct the lottery. The second is conducting the lotteries themselves, both the initial lottery and subsequent lotteries as units become vacant. He noted that some Housing Authorities are confused about the distinction between the monitoring services and the lottery services. The monitoring services involve monitoring potential buyers’ income, and profits and loss of the rental units. The lottery services involve pulling the names of applicants from
Business Minutes of January 10, 2006 Page 2 of 4
the lottery and ensuring that correct publishing has been conducted. This is not a particularly complicated endeavor. He noted that there is a format that has been approved by the state for the conduct of the services. Mr. Talerman noted that this endeavor is an additional job task for the Housing Authority. He stated that if the Housing Authority does not want to take on this responsibility the developer would do it. He noted that it can be a rewarding experience and the towns reap the full benefit of the 40B projects rather than leave this process to the developer.
Mr. Dittrich asked Mr. Talerman to name four communities where the Housing Authority has run the lotteries for the 40B projects. Mr. Talerman stated that Boxboro and Sandwich have done their own lotteries. He noted that some towns have ad hoc Housing Committees or some other type of group conducting the lottery process. Mr. Talerman stated that he would be able to put the Housing Authority in touch with the person who handles the lotteries for the Town of Boxboro. He noted that the Town of Blackstone had conducted a lottery using an outside source but the Housing Authority remained very much involved in the lottery. They used a group called the “Community Opportunity Group” to help them run the lottery and do the monitoring. Mr. Talerman stated that he could provide a list to the
Housing Authority of the towns that conducted their own lottery.
Mr. Dittrich stated that the Housing Authority interviewed a lottery agent at their last meeting. They questioned what kind of fee would be involved to run the initial lottery. Mr. Talerman stated that it depends upon the lottery agreement but all services are paid for by the developer including the administrative outlay of the Housing Authority. Mr. Dittrich questioned the dollar amount. Mr. Talerman stated that no matter what the fee, it would be the applicant’s burden to pay all reasonable expenses. Mr. Garrity suggested that Mr. Talerman provide a ballpark figure for these fees to aid the Housing Authority in the negotiation with a lottery agent. Mr. Talerman stated that an experienced lottery agent would probably have a fee structure in mind.
Ms. Moore stated that the agent that was interviewed conducted an affordable unit lottery and charged $10,000. The cost was 10 units at $1000 per unit. Mr. Talerman stated that this seems reasonable.
Ms. Moore also questioned the price of the affordable units for the Norfolk Commons project. Mr. Talerman stated that the price of the affordable units have not been technically set as yet until such time as the existing financial picture can be determined. He noted that this particular metropolitan area would probably see a price somewhere between $155,000 and $175,000.
Mr. Dittrich stated that the agent who was interviewed stated that the lottery agent should be starting this process at least six months before the completion of the units. He noted that the Borrelli project could potentially be finished within six months. He asked if there were any completion dates mentioned. Mr. Talerman stated that the lottery process is not running late in this matter. He stated that Mr. Borrelli had mentioned that he would not be commencing the construction of the project until he knew what the plans would be for the commercial phase of the project. He noted that Mr. Borrelli appears to be phasing the development and would not be pulling occupancy permits anytime soon. He is starting to frame the age restricted units.
Mr. Dittrich questioned the liability of running a lottery. Mr. Talerman stated that it would be hard to imagine any type of liability for the Housing Authority. He noted that the Housing Authority would have to have been purposely deceptive to incur any liability. The lottery process is step oriented and is a straight forward process. Mr. Talerman stated that he is not aware of any existing lawsuits. Mr. Simpson stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has required that 70% of the affordable units be given local preference. After the first lottery of 70% local preference, the remaining 30% would be put in the second lottery pool. Mr. Talerman noted that the buyer qualifications are based upon income and assets. He noted that the age restricted units would have a stricter set of
qualifications in terms of assets. There would be four age restricted affordable units and eleven family affordable units.
Mr. Dittrich asked if there could be different prices set for the family units. Mr. Talerman stated that if during the process, the lottery did not fill the units at the maximum price, Mr. Borrelli could offer lower prices for some of the units. Mr. Dittrich stated that the Housing Authority can foresee that some of the affordable units would be priced too high for single parent households. He noted that the CPC has a program to help certain people with the down payment for the affordable units. Mr. Talerman stated that the price for a two person household would be different than a four person household. The down payment assistance program would be factored into the income of the household. Basically there would be one single price for the affordable units unless Mr. Borrelli decides to drop
the price for some of the units in order to get full occupancy. Mr. Garrity noted that the maximum price would be set by a formula set by statute. Mr. Dittrich asked if the ZBA had the authority to negotiate a price that would be lower than the maximum price for some of the units. Mr. Talerman stated that the ZBA did not have the authority to negotiate a lower price.
Mr. Talerman noted that a $10,000 payment would be made to the Town for each unit sold to be used solely for affordable housing purposes. Mr. Garrity suggested that an affordable housing trust be set up so that the money will be used as intended. He noted that CPC funds could also be placed in trust. This subject should be discussed at greater length at another time. The monies could also be used to purchase a piece of property for affordable housing use.
Mr. Talerman stated that the Condominium statutes indicate that the affordable units would pay less money for association fees. He noted that the Chelmsford Housing Authority is a leader in conducting lotteries. He stated that David Hedison is very knowledgeable in that town on lottery matters.
Mr. Dittrich stated that he believed that all of the Housing Authority’s questions have been answered. He noted that they would probably charge an additional 1 ½ % in fees for the ongoing monitoring. He expressed concern that the Housing Authority could be swamped with hundreds of applications. Mr. Talerman stated that he will confirm the fee range for the Housing Authority. Mr. Dittrich stated that the Housing Authority believes that a professional should oversee the lottery process. He stated that the lottery should be conducted under the supervision of the Housing Authority. Mr. Simpson stated that the Zoning Board was hoping that the Housing Authority would take a role in the lottery process. He noted that there will also be another 40B lottery to conduct for the
Norfolk Landing project.
Mr. Simpson stated that he hoped that a working partnership could continue with the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Housing Authority and the 40B developers. The Administrative Assistant will forward the informal list of parties who wished to be notified when the Town is about to start the lottery process to the Housing Authority. The list contains the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons who either work or live in the community and wish to be made aware of when the lottery will be conducted.
The Board adjourned the business meeting at 8:15 p.m. to conduct the public hearing for the Norfolk Credit Union and Norfolk Landing (10:20 p.m.) and the deliberations for Mary Swantak (9:30 p.m.).
The Zoning Board of Appeals did not re-adjourn back into business at the conclusion of the public hearings and deliberations.
___________________________________,
Robert J. Garrity, Clerk
| 
