To the Editor:
I have sent the following text to members of the Great Barrington Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board:
I am concerned with a number of issues regarding the affordable housing (or 40B) proposal for 45 units on 2 acres at 100 Bridge Street. It is encumbered by unresolved brownfield remediation plans and dependent upon assumed but unsupported commercial developments. These are outlined in other letters, so I am focusing on concerns of the Town’s community development and the fate of potential residents at the proposed location.
I understand 40B asks that affordable housing not be placed where market based housing would not be. By placing the 40B on 2 acres butted right against the wastewater plant in high density buildings (so that the other more attractive acreage could be accessible to other commercial development) conflicts with the principles of 40B.
I also understand 40B housing should be integrated with the rest of the neighborhood. The proposed design is not. We don’t have 4-story, urban-style buildings here, and most of the housing are residential buildings, single or 2-3 family homes.
While the simultaneous goals of remediating a brownfield site and building 40B units are laudable, the costs of the remediation unfairly burdens the 40B units, in terms of density and unfavorable siting. With no parking or recreational areas, the 40B residents would be at the mercy of commercial developments to fund these necessities.
Here are some scenarios…
What if there are no significant commercial developments on the other 6 acres? The touted “anchor tenant,” the Berkshire Co-op, has not signed on after over 5 years of this presumption. Other “interests” have been anecdotal, and no market research appears to substantiate these grand plans. For example, market-rate housing has shown demand in town, but this assumption cannot be assumed at a brownfield site next to the wastewater treatment plant and high density housing.
Without commercial investments, will there be ANY development of recreational facilities and parking lots that are assumed in this conceptual plan since there are none contained within the 2 acre 40B proposal, regardless of the drawings? This should be a requirement for approval within a given timeframe.
Otherwise, will there just be 3- to 4-story buildings standing alone in a brownfield? Under this scenario, will the CDC then “firesale” the 6-acre lot or sell it to a “friend” of the CDC? Or, will it try to sell the 6 acres back to the Town to prevent such a travesty? Will the Town end up with another “old Firehouse” situation?
The Select Board asks that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until the whole site is fully remediated. It seems even a building permit should not be issued until the entire site has been fully remediated and certified. After all, most financing is contingent upon completed remediation.
The Master Plan and I personally support affordable housing. However, with so many dependent variables, I recommend you deny this proposal.
Instead, wouldn’t it be a better to plan and approve expeditiously much-needed affordable housing projects that are NOT on brownfields at this time? We have delayed addressing affordable housing goals for too long with this project.
Or, let commercial interests commit (in writing) to fund a fair portion of remediation costs and develop the assumed amenities that the 40B residents need. It would substantiate commercial interests and remediation risks rather than use the 40B project as the guinea pig with undue risks
The real question is: If a 40B is proposed on two acres next to the wastewater plant on a brownfield adjacent to and dependent upon 6 acres of unremediated land, would you approve or recommend it?
Sharon Gregory
Great Barrington
