Nov. 3, 2000
Gatehouse files appeal

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Gatehouse has asked the state to overturn the Zoning Board of Appeals rejection of its proposal to build 300 apartment units at Route 1 and Pine Street.

In its 13-page filing with the state Housing Appeals Committee, the developer maintains that the ZBA cannot prove the validity of its concerns about pedestrian safety and water and sewer service.

Nor can the ZBA prove that those concerns outweigh the need for affordable housing in Walpole, the Gatehouse filing maintains.

Gatehouse has proposed the 300-unit complex under the state’s anti-snob zoning law, which allows a developer to bypass most local reviews and requirements in return for setting aside some units as low- and moderate-income housing.

If Gatehouse’s appeal is successful, the state housing committee would order the ZBA to give the go-ahead for construction. In the state hearings to come, the burden will be on the ZBA to prove that its reasons for rejection are valid.

Under the law, the ZBA was required to limit its review largely to matters of health and safety. So while town officials testified about the complex’s impact on Walpole’s finances and on the schools, the ZBA rejection is focused on adequacy of water and sewer service and on the safety of what the board said would be 400 to 600 children in an isolated area next to a high-speed roadway with no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings.

In its appeal to the state, Gatehouse says that "with regard to pedestrian safety, the Development will create no greater safety issues than those created by many other similar market rate multi-family developments that have been permitted near or adjacent to Route 1 and roadways similar to Route 1. In fact, as an example, the (ZBA) has within the past seven months or so permitted an unsubsidized multi-dwelling dormitory project (at the Iorio Arena) on Route 1 in the immediate vicinity of the Development on the northbound side of Route 1," Gatehouse’s appeal states.

It continues: "One would assume that if pedestrian safety issues along Route 1 in the area of the Development were a major concern, the unsubsidized project would not have been allowed."

In response to the town’s contention that stadium traffic would hinder emergency vehicles, Gatehouse states that the concern has not resulted in other developments being turned down. Further, Gatehouse notes, Walpole Town Meeting this spring rezoned the area to limited manufacturing. "Presumably, if the Town was not able to provide adequate emergency services to the Site, it would not want any use located there."

On the water supply issue, the ZBA said that 300 units opening close together in time would strain an already overburdened system. Gatehouse’s appeal indicates to the state that at most, there might be an outdoor watering ban for the year or so between the opening of the complex and bringing an additional well into service.

Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson informed the ZBA that because of the distance to the complex, its type of construction and the number of units, there would be heavy demand on the water system in the case of a fire. The developer responds that the town’s own fire engineer says water flow at the site meets state code.

On sewers, the ZBA said Gatehouse’s plan to use a pump system could overburden downstream mains. In response, the Gatehouse appeals says, "As with its concerns regarding water supply and traffic safety, the (ZBA’s) conclusion regarding the concern relating to a force main (pumped) sewer connection is based on speculation, not hard engineering data."

Gatehouse asks the state to order the ZBA to direct the sewer and water commission to provide the requested hookup.

The Gatehouse appeal notes that as of the 1990 census, two percent of Walpole’s housing is "affordable." The state’s goal is 10 percent.

"Affordable" does not refer only to price. To qualify as "affordable" under the state law, the units must be built with some sort of a state or federal subsidy.

The Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency has agreed to provide the subsidizing, provided Gatehouse installs fences, has adequate public water and sewer service, approved access to Route 1 and complies with the Wetlands Protection Act.

In its rejection, the ZBA maintained it was entitled to information about the fences and Route 1 access so that it could make informed judgments on their safety impacts. But Gatehouse in its appeal states that the fencing and access are matters for the developer and the state, not the town.

In the rejection, the ZBA states that Gatehouse cannot guarantee adequate water and sewer service to the site. So, the board maintained, the developer cannot meet the conditions imposed by the MHFA and therefore does not have the subsidy commitment required by the anti-snob zoning law.

In its appeal, Gatehouse responds that it "must attend to these requirements" before actual funding, but "that is a matter between the Applicant (Gatehouse) and the MHFA."

The state Housing Appeals Committee is expected to call together lawyers for Gatehouse and the ZBA within a month.

Oct. 20, 2000

Gatehouse will appeal

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

The Gatehouse developers will appeal the town’s denial of their application to build a 300-apartment complex at Route 1 and Pine Street.

Dean Harrison, the firm’s vice president for development, said he is "disappointed" that a resolution was not reached with the town. The developers attempted to work cooperatively with local officials, he said.

Gatehouse’s appeal will be to the Housing Appeals Committee, the panel that oversees implementation of the state’s anti-snob zoning law. The law allows a developer to bypass zoning and most other local controls in return for setting aside a percentage of units as "affordable."

Gatehouse applied to the Walpole Zoning Board of Appeals for a comprehensive permit under that law early this year. The ZBA rejected the application two weeks ago.

The ZBA’s decision said the application was rejected in part because the complex would require town water and sewer improvements in an unrealistically short time and because of safety issues along Route 1.

The ZBA had an alternative of granting approval with conditions, Harrison noted. If the board had gone that route, it would have been up to Gatehouse, if it appealed, to prove to the state that the conditions were unwarranted.

But with outright rejection, the burden of proof is on the town, Harrison said.

Within the next month or so, the HAC will call a meeting of the lawyers involved, he said. Then members of the state committee and other interested parties will meet in Walpole and tour the proposed site.

The HAC will then convene one or more meetings in Boston before deciding whether Gatehouse will build on the site.

Oct. 13, 2000

ZBA rejects Gatehouse

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

The zoning board of appeals has unanimously rejected Gatehouse’s proposal to build 300 apartments on 20 acres off Route 1 and Pine Street.

Because the proposal was submitted under the state’s anti-snob zoning law, the developers now have the option of appealing the Walpole ZBA’s decision to the state’s Housing Appeals Committee, which advocates for affordable housing. At least 75 units would be set aside for households that meet income guidelines.

As of mid-day yesterday, the town had not been notified of any appeal of the ZBA decision. Gatehouse executives were unavailable for comment. The developers have until early November to file an appeal.

In its decision voted last Wednesday and filed Friday, the ZBA gives reasons for rejecting the proposal similar to concerns raised by town officials during a public hearing that began in April and ended after five sessions on Sept. 13.

Some of those concerns are reflected in the conditional offer of a loan guarantee by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, the ZBA decision notes. MHFA told Gatehouse in June that it would provide a loan if the developers showed adequate water and sewerage would be available, fences would be erected to safeguard residents and that acceptable Route 1 access would be provided.

The MHFA loan is essential for the complex to move forward under the anti-snob zoning law, which requires a project to be backed by a state or federal low- and moderate-income housing program. But Gatehouse failed to show how it would address the MHFA’s conditions, thus leaving the ZBA without information it needed to judge the proposal, the board’s decision says.

Gatehouse has maintained it is obliged to provide such information to the MHFA, but not to the town. The ZBA disagrees:

"The location of fences has a direct impact on firefighting, and the fire chief has had no opportunity to comment on that issue.

"The layout of deceleration and turning lanes on Route 1 has a direct impact on site safety, yet those details are not before the board.

"The applicant has not submitted any evidence from which the Board can conclude the applicant will be able to secure public sewer service, given the applicants unwillingness to make the gravity connection to existing mains which (the town’s sewer and water commission) is likely to require.

"Finally, the applicant has not presented credible support for the proposition that sufficient public water will be available to the project.

"Accordingly, although the applicant has presented a site eligibility letter from a public subsidizing agency, the Board cannot find, on the evidence before it, that the conditions contained in the letter will be met by the applicant. Therefore, the Board cannot find that the project is eligible for funding," the ZBA says.

Lack of eligibility for funding is one of the few reasons the anti-snob zoning law allows for rejection. Public safety and public health are others, while financial and school impacts are not.

In its decision, the ZBA notes that Route 1 traffic at the Pine Street intersection averages 59 mph and that the lights there do not have a pedestrian cycle. There are no crosswalks or sidewalks along the divided four-lane highway.

"It may be safely estimated that between 400 and 600 children of all ages will live in this Project, if it is constructed. A substantial number of those children will be enrolled in Walpole schools. Those children will be required to travel to schools that are located on the west (opposite) side of Route 1. They will make friends with children who live on the west side of Route 1. Their athletic events, extracurricular activities, playgrounds, club meetings and the like will all be taking place on the west side of Route 1. Adult residents, as well, will find that the core of the Walpole community is on the west side of Route 1," the ZBA states.

"The applicant candidly admits that it would be extremely unsafe for anyone, particularly a child, to attempt to cross Route 1 as it is presently configured. Indeed the applicant goes as far as to say that it is unwilling to do anything that would make it more safe or convenient to make that crossing, for fear that by ‘inviting’ such use, it might invite disastrous accidents," the board writes.

"The applicant’s traffic study evades confrontation of this issue by simply declaring that this is not a pedestrian area. The Project, however, will create the pedestrian traffic, including traffic to Funway, an amusement facility located on Route 1 within one-half mile of the site," the board says.

"Because the applicant refused to even discuss possible mitigating safety measures, the Board cannot find that local safety needs could be met by the addition of pedestrian facilities at the Pine Street intersection," the ZBA says.

Noting what events at the Foxboro stadium do to traffic, the ZBA states that fire and other emergency services would take considerable time to get to the site and while there, would be remote in case of need elsewhere in town.

On the health issues – water and sewer service – the ZBA finds that the town could not meet demands of a complex that is to open all 300 units 18 to 24 months after permits are granted.

At best, it would take three to five years to provide such service, the board says.

And while the developers maintain that there is adequate water flow for firefighting to satisfy the state code, the fire chief says considerably more water would be needed "to fight a fire in light-framed, three-story wooden structures," the ZBA states.

"The Board finds that the rapid construction and occupancy of 300 dwelling units located in a single water pressure zone would outstrip: (i) the Town’s ability to supply adequate water to all area residents for domestic use; (ii) the Town’s ability to maintain adequate reserves for pressure maintenance and (iii) the Town’s ability to furnish adequate streams for fire fighting purposes for all locations within that zone. The Board further finds that development of adequate water supplies within the applicant’s time frame is neither technically nor environmentally feasible," the ZBA decision says.

The board notes that the developers plan to pump sewage into the town mains even though the town’s sewer master plan calls for gravity feeds as less expensive for the town to maintain and less trouble-prone.

"The board finds that there is a significant public interest in having all extensions to the sewer system constructed in a manner which makes the best use of existing resources, and minimizes the risk of overusing the existing capacity which must be shared by all landowners equally… The proposed connection of the Project to the public system by a force (pumped) main presents an unacceptable risk of adverse impact on public health and the environment," the decision states.

The ZBA concludes that whatever the local need for affordable housing, that need is outweighed by:

· "the failure of the applicant to meaningfully address … the issue of pedestrians and/or bicyclists traveling near or across Route 1;"

· "inaccessibility of the Project to public safety forces, particularly during stadium events;"

· "the importance of managing the water resource that all existing water users must share."

Aug. 25, 2000

Gatehouse scales back

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Gatehouse has cut the number of units in its proposed apartment complex off Route 1 and made several other major concessions to address concerns raised during hearings on the project.

Submitted under the state anti-snob zoning law, the proposal now calls for 300 units, 44 fewer than the recent plan and 108 fewer than the number originally proposed in March.

The revised proposal calls for 18 of the site’s 42 acres on Ganawatte Pond to be turned over to the conservation commission or a private preservation trust.

A further four acres, fronting on Route 1, would be cut from the site and made available for commercial development.

Earlier this summer, Gatehouse proposed negotiating an agreement with the Zoning Board of Appeals – an offer that the ZBA rebuffed in favor of continuation of a formal, open public hearing. The Gatehouse concessions, made in a letter this week, come entirely at the initiative of the developer – without negotiations outside of the formal process.

Gatehouse principal Marc Plonskier wrote that the latest reduction of 44 units (72 bedrooms) "will noticeably reduce any of the fiscal impacts... It will also reduce all other impacts proportionately, including traffic, population, impervious area, water and sewer use."

As now proposed, the complex would have 72 one-bedroom units, 180 two-bedroom and 48 three-bedroom units.

The separation of the four acres on Route 1 offers an opportunity for commercial development that would bring the town additional tax revenue, Plonskier wrote, noting that town officials repeatedly have said they want that sort of use.

A zoning board hearing session scheduled for last night has been postponed until Sept. 13. It’s hoped the September session will be the last before the ZBA makes its decision.

The anti-snob zoning law is intended to encourage low- and moderate-income housing, especially in suburbs. Under the law, only one town permit is required – from the ZBA acting for itself and on the advice of other town officials whose approval would be required for a conventional application.

The ZBA can approve, approve with conditions or reject the application. Conditional approval or rejection would entitle the developers to an appeal to a state board that is an advocate for low- and moderate-income housing.

In the ZBA hearing, both the developers and the town have worked to prepare a record they can utilize on appeal if necessary.

In addition to giving town officials some of what they have been seeking, the Gatehouse concessions strengthen the developer’s legal position.

Beyond cutting units and making land available for conservation and commercial development, Gatehouse has agreed to cut the number of parking spaces, as suggested by a traffic consultant reporting to the town and paid for by the developer.

The original number of spaces, in line with what the town calls for, is excessive and an unnecessary encroachment on an area close to the source of the municipal water supply, town officials have said.

Responding to strong reservations expressed by Conservation Commission Chairman Brian Fiske, Gatehouse has agreed to move its Pine Street access away from what Fiske maintains is legally a river leading to wellfields.

The offer of conservation land, Plonskier wrote, is "an opportunity to provide permanent protection of and control over the pond, the wetlands, much of the riverfront area and the nearly six acres of upland boarding the wetlands."

Gatehouse now agrees to build three bus shelters within the complex. School officials had said that the alternative of one large pick-up area on Route 1 would be a safety hazard. And with more than 100 children there at a time, it would be difficult to control, they said.

Responding to another point raised by the traffic engineer, Gatehouse now proposes to create a big enough turn around area to permit buses and large trucks to get in and out of the complex without backing.

Responding to concerns raised by Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson, the developers have agreed to reduce the grade at some buildings. Erickson had told the ZBA that steep drop-offs behind buildings would make it difficult and dangerous for firefighters to raise ladders.

In his letter, Plonskier noted the reduction in the number of units will cut the complex’s water and sewer needs from 71,000 to 63,000 gallons a day.

Sewer and Water Comission Chairman Steven Davis told the ZBA earlier this year that the town could not supply adequate water and sewer service to a large complex in a remote area in anything like the timeframe envisioned by Gatehouse.

Gatehouse also provided considerably more detailed plans covering all aspects of the project. At earlier hearings, the developers had maintained that all they were required to show the town were preliminary plans.

Planning Board Chairman John Conroy and other town officials complained that those preliminary plans did not show enough detail for them to make an informed decision on what Gatehouse might have in mind.

Not mentioned in Plonskier’s letter is a concession several town officials have fished for: an agreement to spread out the period of time during which the apartments would be rented.

Town officials. especially school officials, have warned that the impact from so many apartments opening within a year or so of each other would be an enormous strain on Walpole’s ability to provide services, not just to the complex but throughout the community.

At a previous hearing session, a Gatehouse representative told the ZBA it would not be financially feasible for the company to spread out the construction schedule.

Aug. 4, 2000

Gatehouse claim to site is challenged

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Offer to negotiate is declined

July 28, 2000
Town lawyer suggests questions about Gatehouse

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Attorneys for the town question whether the proposed 344-unit Gatehouse complex off Route 1 qualifies as affordable housing under the state’s anti-snob zoning law.

While Gatehouse itself might propose to follow income-eligibility guidelines for tenants, the program that would provide the financing might not meet the language of the law, according to Town Counsel.

Under the vision when the law was enacted in the 1970s, a public agency was to be the sponsor of the housing development. But Gatehouse’s financing is to come through Fleet Bank via the New England Fund, created and controlled by banks.

The Fund’s income guidelines in effect when Gatehouse filed its application are far more generous than what the state sets as the ceiling, Town Counsel writes. Thus NEF, and as a result, Gatehouse, might not have standing under the anti-snob zoning law, Town Counsel indicates.

That standing is essential if the complex is to be built as proposed. Without it, the developers would have to satisfy Walpole zoning requirements and other local regulations that would sharply limit or rule out the complex.

Town Counsel notes that in the first case of its kind, a state agency ruled this spring that the New England Fund does satisfy the law. That agency, the Housing Appeals Committee, would decide on any appeal brought by Gatehouse if Walpole cuts or rejects its application.

But that HAC’s decision, involving a Hyannis case, was based in large part on a court decision now cast into doubt by the U.S. Supreme Court, Town Counsel writes.

"In light of the doubtful validity of the NEF program, the Board of Appeals should closely examine whether Gatehouse qualifies for a comprehensive permit," Town Counsel writes.

The letter, sent to the zoning board of appeals at the request of selectmen, was expected to be discussed at a Gatehouse hearing last night.

In the letter, Town Counsel raises several other points that the ZBA might look into further.

While the anti-snob zoning law removes most town oversight, it leaves intact reviews required by state law, the letter says. Pine Street, on the north side of the Gatehouse site, is a designated scenic road and under state law cannot be reconstructed without approval of the planning board, Town Counsel writes. Gatehouse wants the ZBA to sign off for the planning board on the road, but that’s beyond the scope of a comprehensive permit from a zoning board, the letter says.

Town Counsel maintains there are precedents for the ZBA to use in requiring Gatehouse to explain how the town is to provide municipal services to the complex. Gatehouse’s assertion that it is up to the town to figure that out is "overly simplistic," the letter says.

(Also scheduled for discussion last night was a letter from Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson saying the latest tests show water for firefighting at the site is "woefully inadequate.")

In the letter, Town Counsel suggests the ZBA look into whether Gatehouse has rights to the full use of Hilltop Street, its proposed link to Route 1.

The ZBA, the letter says, has the authority to require Gatehouse to turn over documents, specifically what town officials claim is an analysis made by the developer of the financial impact of the complex on Walpole.

After repeated requests failed to produce that document, ZBA members said they are prepared to use their subpoena power. That is unheard of, a Gatehouse attorney responded.

July 28, 2000
School committee expresses concerns about Gatehouse

By Olivia Beam
Staff writer

School officials expect that the proposed Gatehouse housing complex could force a school budget increase of five percent and require hiring 13 more teachers.

With 344 units, the Gatehouse complex would bring about 260 students that will result in budget and staff increases, according to school committee estimates.

School committee members said last week that the Gatehouse complex is expected to have younger children in the elementary level at the outset. However, with amenities like a swimming pool and tennis courts, the complex over the long term could result in a level increase of 20 or so students a grade pre-K through 12, they said.

School committee member Nancy Gallivan said that in Plainville, where a similar complex is being built, officials expect 1.64 students per housing unit. Using that number, Walpole would face 564 new students from Gatehouse.

School Committee member Ed Thomas said, however, 260 is a realistic number for Walpole. As urged by town officials, Gatehouse reduced the total number of units from what was originally proposed, cutting back on the number of three-bedroom apartments.

In addition to an increase in classrooms, school committee members said the plan would also create a need for two more school buses.

"Nowhere else do we see this concentration of units coming in… This outweighs the balance we have had," School Committee member Richard Smith said.

"Walpole with this project is going to look somewhat different than Walpole without this project," Smith added.

Superintendent Paul Livingston said there is a concern about the safety of children getting on and off buses on Route 1. Buses would not enter private property to pick up children inside the complex under current policy.

Gallivan said that a pick-up area on Route 1 would not be her first choice and preferred Pine Street.

"This is a recommendation by the town engineer," Livingston responded. "The town engineer did not feel the Pine Street area would be appropriate."

July 14,2000
Commissioner says test shows inadequate water flow for firefighting

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Water availability near the site under consideration for 344 apartments is less than what the chief says would be needed for fighting a fire at the proposed Gatehouse complex, according to the sewer and water commission.

Flow tests made last week at Pine Street and Route 1 came up with "very low numbers," commission Chairman Steven Davis said Monday night. The numbers, Davis said, are below what Chief Kenneth Erickson has testified his department would need to combat a fire in one of the proposed multi-story buildings.

Water Superintendent Rick Mattson said the numbers came from tests conducted by the developers’ own consultants.

The Gatehouse apartment complex is being proposed under the state’s anti-snob zoning law, which generally allows a developer to bypass local controls. Public safety, however, is one area in which concerns can justify a local decision scaling back or rejecting a proposed development.

Because of their significance, the Zoning Board of Appeals pressed Gatehouse last month to come up with the pressure tests. Gatehouse replied the tests were being delayed because the water department did not respond to its requests to open hydrants so pressure could be tested.

Citing Gatehouse’s potential adverse impact on water pressure throughout South Walpole and on the drinking water source for the entire town, the commission voted Monday night to call on the state to require a full environmental impact report from the developers.

Isolated from the rest of the town water system by its high elevation, the South Walpole storage tank has an effective capacity of 300,000 gallons to serve 1,500 existing homes and businesses, according to the letter. The peak demand from Gatehouse could be 200,000 gallons a day, according to the letter.

The town’s five-year plan does not call for expansion of South Walpole water storage capacity, the letter notes. But adding up to 1,000 people in Gatehouse would in a short period of time be the equivalent of five years of growth for the entire town, according to the report.

In its letter, the commission notes that the town has mandatory odd-even outdoor water restrictions in effect.

The zoning board’s next Gatehouse session will be at 7:30 p.m. July 26 with water and sewer, school and traffic issues on the agenda.

July 7, 2000
MHFA says site appropriate for housing

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

The Gatehouse developers have received site approval from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency for a proposed 344-apartment complex off Route 1 at Pine Street.

In a June 20 letter, the MHFA says it has determined the site is suitable for a housing development.

The approval letter notes the developers are now free to seek a loan commitment from the state agency.

As of Monday, the developers had not advised the town’s zoning board of appeals of any change in financing for the complex. At the first ZBA hearing on the proposal this winter, Gatehouse told the board financing will come from Fleet Bank.

The apartment proposal is being submitted under the state’s anti-snob zoning law, which allows a developer to bypass zoning and most local controls in return for providing low- and moderate-income housing.

Gatehouse initially indicated to the ZBA that it wanted to keep its options open on whether to finance the complex through Fleet or the MHFA, a state agency.

But the zoning board pushed Gatehouse into choosing Fleet late in the opening session of the hearing. Without the source of financing specified, the ZBA said, Gatehouse’s application would be considered incomplete.

The ZBA has taken a position that the town has considerably more of a say over what gets built if the financing comes from Fleet. That position is based on a recent decision by the state that a community is entitled to a bigger role when the funding comes via a for-profit entity rather than a public agency as envisioned when the anti-snob zoning law was enacted in the 1970s.

Because Gatehouse picked Fleet, ZBA board members said they can consider the financial impact of the complex on schools and other municipal services. Town officials maintain that Walpole just does not have the ability to pay for all of the costs such a large complex would impose, especially with all of the units to open within months of each other.

If Gatehouse chooses to go with MHFA, normally the ZBA’s review would be restricted to the few issues permitted by the state law, notably public health and safety.

However, in its site approval letter, the MHFA tells Gatehouse that a loan application must "provide evidence water and sewer services will be made available to the proposed development."

At the last ZBA session, sewer and water commission Chairman Steven Davis told the board that he cannot assure adequate service to the site under Gatehouse’s compressed schedule.

Providing those services is possible, but it would take years, Davis said. He also said Gatehouse should pay the multi-million dollar cost of water and sewer connections, something the developers say they have no obligation to do.

Davis also noted that it is up to Town Meeting to decide when and where water and sewer service is expanded.

As an added complication, members of the zoning board have said that a change in the source of financing in this case would be such a major alteration that they would want a fresh application – a step that could mean more months of hearings. The next ZBA hearing is scheduled for July 26.

At the last hearing session, a Gatehouse attorney told the board the process has been going on so long that it is reaching the point that the developer will have to turn to the state. Under the anti-snob zoning law, a developer can appeal to the state if a proposal is rejected or cut back by the ZBA.

June 16, 2000

Gatehouse, town disagree about water 

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

The town cannot guarantee adequate water and sewer service to the proposed 344-apartment Gatehouse complex in anywhere near the timeframe envisioned by the developers, the new chairman of the sewer and water commission told the Zoning Board of Appeals this week.

What’s more, it will be several years before the town would be able to come up with enough water for the complex, Steven Davis said, recalling that a year ago Walpole had to ban outdoor water use.

In response, a Gatehouse attorney told the board that state law does not permit a town to reject or limit a proposal under the anti-snob zoning law on the argument that the community is not able to provide services. If a community were able to use that argument, Atty. Walter Spiegel said, then the state law would be ineffective.

As the latest round in the already months-long Gatehouse hearing again approached midnight, ZBA Chairman Gerald Blair asked Spiegel to explain, really, how the town is to provide major water and sewer services to the site at Route 1 and Pine Street in less than two years. And where will the town get the water, Blair asked.

Spiegel responded that "it would not be legally acceptable" for the town to continue allowing homebuilding elsewhere while turning down an anti-snob zoning project on the water argument.

Gatehouse expects the same accommodations from the town that are being provided a single-family subdivision down Pine Street and a 50-bed dormitory to be built at the adjacent Iorio ice rink, Spiegel said.

"We are entitled to water just as any non-subsidized (development) is," he said.

The state law allows a developer to bypass most town controls, including zoning.

Because the complex would not be subject to a provision in the zoning bylaw that limits the number of new dwellings in any one year, Gatehouse is considerably different from other developments, Blair noted.

Gatehouse plans that all 344 units open at about the same time, 18 to 24 months after a permit is issued. In comparison, Walpole issued 71 home-building permits in all of 1999, Blair said.

Under the anti-snob zoning law, a developer is allowed an appeal to a state agency if the ZBA rejects or cuts back a proposal for subsidized housing. In keeping with state policy, a quarter or more of the Gatehouse complex would be below-market units reserved for households meeting income guidelines.

With the next session hearing set for July 26 and the likelihood of at least one more after that, Spiegel indicated that time might be running out for a decision to be made locally rather than by the state.

Davis, newly elected to the sewer and water commission, was voted its chairman Monday night and then sent off to the ZBA hearing.

His presentation emphasized that Gatehouse’s density at the headwaters of the School Meadow Brook aquifer, the major source of the town’s drinking water.

He showed photos taken by his brother-in-law of a Gatehouse complex in Florida with a sofa and bedsprings resting against walls, litter and parking spaces discolored by oil. "We can’t have this… in this location," he said.

Gatehouse representatives called the presentation of the photos "unfair and irresponsible." There is no way of telling where, when and what the circumstances were, they said, saying the furniture might have been placed against a wall temporarily by people moving in or out, they said.

Davis went over plans submitted by Gatehouse in detail, maintaining at point after point that essential information is missing. The sewage for the complex would be pumped from the site, but there is no indication on the plans that there would be a backup pump or a standby sewage holding tank, he said.

The gaps in the plan are troubling, he said. "It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of this area to the town of Walpole and to our water supply," Davis said.

H. W. Moore, engineer for Gatehouse, responded that of course there will be a backup sewage pump and most of the other features cited by Davis. What has been submitted to the ZBA is only a preliminary plan, not the final one, he said.

A final plan will not be prepared until after the complex is approved, Moore said, so that it can be based on a final agreement.

Spiegel, the Gatehouse lawyer, said he understands Walpole officials’ frustration in having to make a final decision without a final plan. But that’s the way the state law is written, he said.

Unlike the case with any other type of development, he said, local boards are not entitled to a final plan for an anti-snob zoning project.

In a process that can involve considerable back and forth with a community, the state’s intent is to save the developer money on plans, he said, in keeping with the goal to make housing affordable.

Instead of seeking approvals from a number of town boards, a developer following the anti-snob zoning route applies to a community’s ZBA for a comprehensive permit. In its application, Gatehouse specifies that it is exempt from the water and sewer commission and entitled to a waiver of connection and other initial fees normally charged by the commission.

Davis estimated that connection fees for 344 dwellings could be as high as $3 million, about what it would cost the town to provide the extra capacity needed to serve Gatehouse.

ZBA Chairman Blair said his board believes Gatehouse will have to deal with the sewer commissioners on the fee issue.

On water supply, Davis said, because of its high elevation, South Walpole is basically its own district, served by one storage tank. There already have been low-pressure problems and they would be significantly worsened by Gatehouse, he said.

Davis noted that Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson has testified that low water pressure would make fighting a fire at Gatehouse difficult.

Davis noted Gatehouse did not submit data about water pressure at the site. Gatehouse responded that it has asked three times for the town to perform the test, which requires the opening of a hydrant.

With time and money, Davis said, the Gatehouse water and sewer problems could be solved. But, he added, the anti-snob zoning law does not bypass the way Walpole authorizes any major water or sewer project.

Under that process, he said, his commission could initiate a plan, but it would have to be reviewed by several town boards and ultimately approved by Town Meeting. The state also could get involved.

And because Walpole has a federally designated sole source aquifer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would get involved if federal dollars were to be used in a way that would pose risk to the community’s only water supply, he said. The subsidy for the affordable housing units would come in the form of federal tax incentives for investors, according to the Gatehouse application.

In responding to Davis’ contentions about the impact of so many apartments at the head of the aquifer, Gatehouse representatives noted that Walpole Town Meeting has just rezoned the area for light manufacturing. That zoning permits twice the impermeable cover Gatehouse plans, they pointed out.

June 9, 2000
Is prison 'affordable' housing?

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Town Meeting representatives, some of them with a chuckle, called upon the state last week to count inmates at MCI-Cedar Junction in calculating Walpole’s affordable housing.

The resolution by Town Meeting last Wednesday is no joke, according to Sen. Jo Ann Sprague. A similar move in neighboring Norfolk headed off an "affordable" housing complex in that town, Senator Sprague, R-Walpole, said.

The Town Meeting resolution is aimed at the proposed 344-unit Gatehouse apartment complex at Route 1 and Pine Street. Because Walpole falls short of meeting the state’s affordable housing goals, developers can bypass most town reviews and appeal directly to the state if their proposal is rejected locally.

Sprague said she was involved in that Norfolk effort three years ago. The state secretary of communities and development, shown the three correctional facilities there, decided that Norfolk was already doing its share, she said.

Walpole is host to the state’s only maximum security prison and that has an impact on the town’s daily life, its infrastructure and its budget, Sprague said.

Forwarded to the town’s legislators, the Town Meeting resolution "raises an interesting issue," she said.

In the ongoing Gatehouse hearing before Walpole’s Zoning Board of Appeals, town officials have maintained the housing complex would drain resources and increase costs. Town Meeting members last week made the same points about the prison.

In a recent decision, the state agency that decides on appeals from developers under the anti-snob zoning law has ruled that housing generally meets the definition of "affordable" if it is subsidized and available to persons with below-average income. Affordable housing has evolved considerably from the days when sponsors were governmental housing agencies, the Housing Appeals Committee said, adding that the 1969 law and subsequent court decisions give it considerable leeway in deciding what housing is to be counted toward a town’s 10 percent "affordable" goal.

Senator Sprague said the Town Meeting resolution was discussed Monday at an annual breakfast meeting of lawmakers and officials from the state corrections department.

Corrections Commissioner Michael Mahoney told Sprague there’s at least one problem with the resolution: While the main entrance to MCI-Cedar Junction is in Walpole, the cells actually are in Norfolk.

Made by Mary Jane Brady, the motion to ask legislators to do what they can to have Cedar Junction counted as affordable housing came during discussion of the second of two warrant articles on last Wednesday’s special Town Meeting warrant.

MCI-Cedar Junction "is part of our contribution toward affordable housing," Brady said.

"Absolutely right," seconded Susan Maguire, calling the maximum security prison "our gift to the commonwealth."

"They are sizeable population that causes a drain on the community," Maguire said, maintaining that town deserves more in return than "the occasional fire truck."

Town Meeting Representative Clifton Snuffer sounded a note of caution: If inmates are counted as Walpole residents, they could end up voting in town, he said.

Town Meeting representatives approved an appropriation of $12,500, to be matched by an equal amount from the Kendall Fund, to hire a consultant to produce an affordable housing plan. The lack of such a plan has left the town especially vulnerable to proposals under the anti-snob zoning law, town officials have said.

Town Meeting Representative Steven Davis said the creation of such a plan was recommended by state housing officials when a delegation from Walpole met with them to get advice on "how to resist" Gatehouse.

Vote for the article, Davis said, "if you want any chance at all for defeating Gatehouse."

After some Town Meeting representatives suggested the Kendall Fund pay for the whole $25,000, Betty Nashawaty of the planning board said the Kendall money is for planning and that the consultant really should be paid by the housing authority.

But housing authority Chairman Joseph Dinneen said his is a state agency and the state forbids such a use of funds.

The $12,500 appropriation was passed on a strong voice vote with some dissent.

June 9, 2000
Chief criticizes Gatehouse

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

In the continuing public hearing on 344 apartments proposed off Route 1, town officials last week said they have concerns that the complex would pose public safety problems.

The Gatehouse complex is proposed under the state’s anti-snob zoning law, which limits a community’s ability to place restrictions on a developer. Public safety is one of the areas where the law allows community concerns to have a bearing on how and even whether a project gets built.

At the hearing before the zoning board of appeals, Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson indicated a combination of factors made him concerned about Gatehouse.

The site on the Foxboro line is distant from the fire station and especially so when stadium events block Route 1 traffic, he said.

As currently proposed, the land behind some of the buildings slopes enough to prevent fire trucks from reaching the backs and to make it difficult and risky to try to raise hand ladders to the third floors, he said.
The truss type of construction proposed for the buildings leaves long cavities through which a fire could spread quickly, the chief said. The proposed sprinkler systems, he said, do not cover those spaces.

Fighting a fire in one of those buildings would take 3,500 gallons of water a minute, but the town water system is capable of delivering only 2,200 gallons a minute to the site, he said.

If a fire get into those voids, he said, it could involve the entire building in eight minutes. If fire got into a truss void, firefighters would be ordered out immediately for their own safety, he said.

The chief said he did not want to have to respond to such a building, 24 apartments and perhaps more than 100 occupants, with the handful of firefighters that constitute his department’s first response.

Gatehouse’s response to his concerns so far, the chief told the ZBA, is that the problems are the town’s, not the developer’s. The chief acknowledged, however, that the plans meet the state’s building code.

On the issue of reaching third floors from the rear with hand ladders, ZBA Chairman Gerald Blair asked Gatehouse representatives why it appeared they were resisting changes suggested by the chief.

A Gatehouse attorney responded that in similar cases, the state Housing Appeals Committee has ruled in favor of developers.

The HAC is the state agency created by the anti-snob zoning law to which developers can appeal when their project is rejected or restricted by a community. Under the state law, Walpole’s ZBA is to accept, reject or approve the proposal with conditions.

Responding to Gatehouse’s contention that it has precedents on its side, ZBA member Kevin Donnelly said those cases came before a key HAC ruling this spring. In a Hyannis case, the HAC said a town has a bigger role when a project is sponsored not by a traditional housing agency, but by an entity controlled by a bank. The bank in the Gatehouse proposal is Fleet.

At the previous hearing session, Gatehouse representatives disagreed strongly with Donnelly’s interpretation of the Hyannis case. At last week’s session, they were silent on the subject.

Other town officials said they are concerned about the lack of sidewalks along busy Route 1. Noting the complex would house dozens of children, Town Engineer Margaret Walker said that "they can’t go anywhere… There’s really no safe place for them to walk."

While some Gatehouse representatives were appearing before the ZBA last Thursday night, others were before the conservation commission.

With his meeting complete, Conservation Commission Chairman Brian Fiske told the ZBA that Gatehouse and his board were working out a way to repair damage done within the wetland buffer on the site when soil samples were taken.

The conservation commission has set July 26 as the next meeting date on that matter, Fiske said, noting that the ZBA traditionally awaits word from the conservation commission before acting on an application.

A Gatehouse attorney, however, said that under the state law, the ZBA is not allowed to wait for the conservation commission to finish its review.

The ZBA hearing will continue at 7:30 p.m. June 12.

May 12, 2000
Town Meeting rezones Gatehouse site

By Olivia Beam
Staff writer

Following recommendations in a report prepared by an economic consultant last year, Town Meeting has changed the zoning of land off Route 1 near Pine Street from rural to light manufacturing.

The land includes more than 40 acres that are the site of the 344-unit Gatehouse apartment complex. Because that proposal is made under the state’s anti-snob zoning law, the rezoning does not block the plan.

Ken Fettig, chairman of the Economic Development Committee, told Town Meeting Monday night that the area was identified last year by consultant Larry Koff as one of the most promising for business development. The development committee "really feels this property could produce significant tax revenue for the town," Fettig said.

The area is especially economically promising because of the Patriots Stadium next door in Foxboro, he said.

"Contrarily, if it’s developed as a housing complex, it will have a negative tax impact," Fettig said. "With all of the stadium development," he added, "the land as housing is less desirable."

Koff came to Town Meeting Monday night to reaffirm findings from last year’s study on the importance of the southern end of Route 1 as a revenue-producer for Walpole.

Selectman Ronald Mariani said the plan to re-zone the land came up before the Gatehouse proposal. When (Gatehouse) is defeated, we will have a prime piece of real-estate."

The article passed 83-23.

April 28, 2000
Commission seeks answers on impact on water, sewers

Through town counsel, the sewer and water commissioners are asking the developers of a proposed 344-unit apartment complex off Route 1 to provide an analysis of the project's impact on an adjacent aquifer.

The commission is basing most of its questions on recommendations from its own consultant, Woodward & Curran.

In a report to the commission, the consultant says the proposed Gatehouse development "is located within the School Meadow Brook Aquifer Zone II Boundary delineation. This is one of the town's current well supplies. Therefore, a complete review of the proposed drainage system for this site is required to ensure compliance with town design standards and appropriate environmental practices for such an area."

At their meeting Monday, commissioners voted to go beyond the questions submitted by their consultant and seek a commitment from the developers to limit use of salt, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals.

Commissioners said they are especially concerned that the site's closeness to Ganawatte Pond and wetlands could lead to widespread pesticide application near the aquifer.

Woodward and Curran also recommends that the Gatehouse developers provide information on sewer capacity and pumping, and pressure for fire fighting.

The consultants said they will review the Gatehouse proposal once they have received detailed responses to their questions from the company.

Under the town's interpretation of state guidelines for dealing with the Gatehouse proposal under the anti-snob zoning law, Walpole can require reasonable studies at the developer's expense.

Gatehouse representatives have challenged the town's interpretation and maintain the zoning board already has enough information to provide the comprehensive permit for the complex.

Later in their meeting Monday night, commissioners changed the charges for water hookups for new construction.

When the new system takes effect, builders will pay $3,000 for each unit to be connected. The existing system bases the charge on the number and size of pipes connected to the town main, which can mean savings for a multi-unit building.

Commissioner Pat Fasanello said the new system will be fairer, maintaining that multi-family units can use as much water as a single-family house.

Commission members noted that the new charges would add up to a big bill for the Gatehouse complex. Gatehouse, however, maintains that the state anti-snob zoning law exempts it from such charges.

Tom Glynn

April 21, 2000
Town officials cite Hyannis case

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

A ruling in a Hyannis case gives Walpole additional leverage in responding to a proposal for 344 apartment units submitted under the state's anti-snob zoning law, town officials believe.

The tone of last week's first formal town hearing on the proposal turned icy when Walpole officials brought up the Hyannis case. Developers' representatives who began the hearing by saying how much they wanted to work with the town ended it at midnight with a formal objection that the zoning board did not reach a decision that night.

In the Hyannis ruling last month, the state's Housing Appeals Committee said that in a situation where a bank, rather than a governmental agency, is to be the "regulator," then the affected community can consider broader impacts than usually allowed.

Gatehouse Group of Mansfield proposes the 344 units of Route 1 near Pine Street under a state law that allows developers to bypass most local controls in return for setting aside a percentage of units as "affordable" housing.

Under the Gatehouse application, the regulator, as that function is defined in the anti-snob zoning law, would be Fleet Bank, financial backer of the development. The bank, and not a public agency, would be responsible for seeing that the developers lived up to their agreements and obligations.

In the days before the Gatehouse hearing got under way, town officials expressed concern that another large tract of land in town was to be proposed for "affordable housing."

In making their presentation Thursday night, Gatehouse representatives told the ZBA that under the state law, the town board must limit the range of issues and could deny the application only if concerns within that limited range outweighed the town's need for "affordable" housing.

The state law says housing is "affordable" if and only if it is developed with some form of government subsidy. With an "affordable" housing stock of 2 percent of the town's total, Walpole is farther away from the state's 10 percent goal than almost all of its neighbors.

That low percentage, Gatehouse representatives reminded the ZBA at the start last Thursday, would make it very difficult for the town to convince the state that it has concerns that outweigh its need for "affordable" housing.

If the ZBA rejects Gatehouse or approves the complex under a set of conditions the developers believe are economically unrealistic, then they can turn to the state Housing Appeals Committee, which can overrule the town.

The ZBA hearing started out along the lines of discussions at earlier informational sessions before other boards. Gatehouse representatives said their proposal is attractive and necessary; town officials responded it was too dense, inappropriate for the site and overly burdensome on schools and other municipal services.

Gatehouse lawyers and representatives repeatedly reminded town officials that impacts on the town's finances and on school spaces needs are not issues that the ZBA is allowed to consider under the state law. A court reporter hired by Gatehouse kept a verbatim record of the hearing.

Acting within the traditional guidelines for anti-snob zoning proceedings, the town's position was focused through the testimony of two officials on major areas that the state law allows to be considered: health and safety.

Citing risks to the town's water supply and to children on Route 1, Health Board Chairman Paul Millette said his board does not approve of the plan in its present form.

Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson said the complex would double the number of three-story dwellings in town "overnight" and double the number of the department's runs to South Walpole. Because of the distance of those runs, the complex would cut into the department's overall ability to protect the town, the chief said.

Erickson said he did not want to be in the position to responding to a burning three-story, 24-unit building, with five firefighters, the first response in an understaffed department.

While the impact on the schools is not a permitted field for discussion under the law, Gatehouse representatives said, estimates from the town that the complex could increase enrollment by 400 or so are untrue. Their own estimate, they said, is the complex would house 61 school-age youngsters.

Midway through the hearing, zoning board member Kevin Donnelly pointed out to the developers that their application did not nail down whether the complex would proceed under the bank program or under the auspices of the state housing finance agency.

Developers declined to specify a choice until Donnelly warned that their application could be considered incomplete. Gatehouse representatives then said they are applying under the bank program: the New England Fund (NEF).

That program is at the heart of the Hyannis decision, reached by the state Housing Appeals Committee last month. The case, Walpole officials said at last week's hearing, appears to establish a precedent on how the state appeals committee will view other applications under the new NEF approach.

In Hyannis, the developer got a loan commitment from a local bank drawing on funds the institution pledged to the NEF for "affordable" housing. The proposal calls for a development on prime harborfront property zoned for marine uses in which the market rate units would go for $350,000 and the "affordable" units for $69,000.

Noting that NEF is owned entirely by its member banks and that the local bank would be the statutory regulator, the town rejected the proposal as not falling within the anti-snob zoning law.

The developer appealed to the state. In its decision last month, the Housing Appeals Committee said the proposal does fall under the anti-snob zoning law.

But because a bank and not a public agency will be the regulator and because "the bank's interest may conflict with the public's interest," the state housing committee said the local zoning board can consider a wide range of new issues.

The housing committee sent the proposal back to the local zoning board, saying the ZBA now "has the authority to address a multitude of design, pragmatic, financial and monitoring and enforcement issues."

Walpole officials said the language of the decision now allows the town to take the impact of Gatehouse on the schools and the town budget into consideration.

And as midnight approached, town administrators lined up before the zoning board to sign on to what they see as another major opportunity offered by the Hyannis decision: the ability of a town to assess the developer for reasonable costs for outside studies of the proposal.

Gatehouse officials said they would be willing to have the town sign on to its application to act as a guarantor that agreements are kept.

Gatehouse representatives generally disagreed with the town's interpretation of the Hyannis decision. And they said specifically, they would not pay for studies of matters they do not believe are properly before the ZBA, including Gatehouse's impact on schools and the town's finances.

Gatehouse attorney Walter Spiegal noted pointedly that selectmen had rejected the possibility of a $10,000 state grant that could be used for the same studies town officials now are asking the developer to fund.

Before they objected to the ZBA's inability to reach a decision in one night, Gatehouse representatives asked that the board schedule a special hearing session as quickly as possible.

But noting his board has a busy schedule of other hearings, Chairman Gerald Blair set June 14 as the next date for Gatehouse.

April 21, 2000
ConCom views Gatehouse site

By Olivia Beam
Staff writer

Heavy equipment appears to have been used too close to wetlands on the site of a 344-unit apartment complex off Route 1, according to Conservation Commission Brian Fiske.

Fiske said the commission will consider issuing an enforcement order to the developers, a step taken when there appears to be a violation of state or local law.

When they walked the site Saturday morning, commission members discovered ruts and uprooted vegetation within 100 feet of wetland markers around Ganawatte Pond.

Accompanied by neighbors and a Times reporter, the developers' environmental consultants, LEC, and members of the conservation commission, took the walk to confirm the wetland boundaries and buffers.

The conservation commission's authority to limit the impact of a project in or adjacent to wetlands is one of the few areas of local jurisdiction not taken away by the state's anti-snob zoning law.

After viewing an area where it appeared heavy equipment was used recently, Fiske said, "I believe that it’s a violation because it is within the buffer zone."

"I was told no work would be done within the buffer zone," he said.

By law, there has to be a 100-foot buffer zone between wetland markers and the construction area to ensure a level of protection, Fiske said.

On March 8, Mario DeCristofaro, who owns a home next to the site, said he called the conservation commission to complain of the damage the construction was doing to the woods behind his home.

The conservation commission contacted the developers and told them of the complaint, and they responded by saying that no construction crews were within the buffer zone, Fiske said.

Fiske said the conservation commission "will get together and it looks like an enforcement order will result from this." He did not say what steps the developers might be ordered to take if a violation is determined to have occurred.

Despite an objection from Gatehouse representatives weeks ago, the conservation commission waited to walk the site until mid-April so that members could identify vegetation that grows in wetland.

Amid the black flies, the walk began at 8:15. Consultants quickly discovered that a number of the red tags they had placed to indicate wetlands had been removed by someone unknown.

Conservation Commission members agreed with the consultants on the placement of a number of wetland markers, but did not approve all of them, Fiske said.

To confirm a wetland area, Amy Ball, a botanist from LEC, used an auger to retrieve soil samples. The condition of the soil is an indication whether the sample comes from a wet spot.

After touring an area near the Foxboro line, the commission and LEC walked towards the north end of the pond near Pine Street.

There was some discrepancy between the consultants' plans and how the conservation commission perceives the Pine Street end.

LEC and the commission agree that School Meadow Brook there is indeed a stream. But Fiske said consultants do not agree that another brook to the west is also to be classified as a tributary stream.

If the west brook (the one closer to Route 1) is not deemed a main stream/tributary, it would decrease the amount of property that is protected under the Rivers Act, Fiske said.

The conservation commission’s purpose in the walk was to confirm wetland areas to ensure that construction does not come within 200 feet of a riverway, including a stream/tributary, or 100 feet from wetlands.

"The (state) wetlands act changes every year," Fiske said. "And there is generally a trend for more protection."

Fiske added that he wished every developer would do wetlands delineation. "By doing wetlands delineation you save yourself money in re-designing your proposal."

In addition to confirming wetlands, Fiske said that he wants areas of the property cleaned up and tested.

A few trash heaps were found on the property. There were empty paint and oil cans, as well as bottles and an old, rusted car.

"If contaminants are found, I want them cleaned up because of our drinking water supplies," Fiske said.

The finding of the field visit will be discussed at a hearing scheduled April 26, Fiske said.

While the developers have sought the commission's wetland delineation, they have yet to submit a notice of intent to the commission showing what they intend to build, Fiske said.

March, 2000
Gatehouse cuts number of apartments
By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Formally filing for a comprehensive permit under the state's anti-snob zoning law last week, Gatehouse Group has cut the number of apartments it proposes to build off Route 1 from 408 to 344.

The reduction, the company said in its filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals, comes in response to town officials' concern that the original number would have overwhelmed schools and municipal services.

Gatehouse said it is cutting back the number of proposed three-bedroom units significantly to reduce the number of school-age children in the complex. A consultant working for the school department on space needs had warned recently that it could take the equivalent of a new school to accommodate youngsters from the complex.

As now proposed, the complex would have 15 apartment buildings, two less than in the original plan. There would be 14 three-story, buildings with 24 units each and a two-story building with eight units.

Bounded on the north by Pine Street, the complex would cover most of its 50-acre site along Ganawatte Pond. An environmental section of the filing notes the site is now fields and woods, with a vacant farmhouse and barns.

In the filing, Gatehouse names the complex "Hilltop Preserve" and refers to it as "the Preserve."

It describes the complex as "a luxury residential community of apartment homes set upon the banks of the tranquil Ganawatte Farm Pond."

The ZBA has scheduled the first session of its public hearing on the comprehensive permit request for 7:30 p.m. April 12.

Under the state law, the developer is allowed to bypass most local controls. The law's intent is to encourage affordable housing in the suburbs where zoning ordinances can make it difficult to build apartments.

At least 86 of the units would be set aside for tenants of low and moderate income, 80 percent or less of the median income for metropolitan Boston.

In addition to a comprehensive permit from the ZBA, the complex has to clear the Conservation Commission on wetland issues.

In its filing, Gatehouse lists the specific Walpole bylaws and regulations it believes are pre-empted by the state law.

The claimed exemptions include all planning board rules and regulations, health board rules and "any rules or regulations requiring the payment of impact fees, system improvement fees, connection fees or the like."

Sewer and Water Superintendent Rick Mattson said earlier this month that the sewer system in the area does not appear adequate to serve what was then a 408-unit complex. The sewer and water commission intends to hire a consultant to evaluate the impact of the complex.

The Gatehouse filing with the ZBA lists 25 sections of the town's zoning bylaw as pre-empted by the state.

In rules it adopted last week for comprehensive permit requests, the ZBA says it can approve, disapprove or approve with conditions "that do not render the construction of such housing uneconomic."

If the permit is disapproved or approved with conditions unacceptable to the developer, the developer has an administrative appeal to the state, the ZBA noted.

The goal of the state law is for communities to have at least 10 percent affordable housing, that is, housing built with the help of a governmental subsidy in some form. Gatehouse plans to use a federal program that offers incentives to private investors.

In its filing, Gatehouse provides a list of what percentage of affordable housing each community provides, as defined in the state law. Walpole comes in at just under 2 percent, one of the lowest figures in metropolitan Boston. Foxboro offers 4 percent; Canton, 9.5 percent; Norwood, 7 percent; Medfield, 5 percent and Norfolk, 3 percent.

Gatehouse, which moved its headquarters from Boston to Mansfield this month, has signed purchase and sales agreements with the owners of the two parcels that make up the Preserve site. Both agreements are contingent upon Gatehouse winning approval for the complex.

One agreement calls for MJM Realty Trust to be paid $1.4 million for 45 acres, the former deCristofaro farm.

The other calls for Donald Rodman to be paid $600,000 for five acres on the Pine Street side.

March 2000
Apartments seen offering some advantages to town

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

A proposed 408-unit apartment complex off Route 1 would provide some advantages to the town, the developers told a skeptical planning board last week.

The affordable housing would allow more teachers and municipal workers to live in town, representatives of Gatehouse Development said. The apartments also could provide Walpole homes for young people who grew up here and cannot yet afford a house of their own, the Gatehouse representatives added.

Further, approval of their plan would bring the town close to the state's goal that 10 percent of its housing stock be classified as affordable. As a result, the town would not face as much pressure from the state to approve other such complexes in the future, they said.

The developers propose to build the complex near the Foxboro line under the state's anti-snob zoning law. The statute, designed to promote low- and moderate-income housing in the suburbs, allows a developer to bypass most town reviews.

Joseph Santos, a Walpole attorney who represents Gatehouse, told the planning board he is proud to be associated with the proposal because the housing is badly needed.

According to state figures, Santos said, less than two percent of Walpole's housing stock is classified as affordable as defined in the statute. The state law counts dwelling units as affordable if they operate with some sort of a local, state or federal subsidy. The definition is not based on the price of the apartment or house.

At least 25 percent of the proposed 408 apartments would be classified as affordable. And because it is an apartment complex, rather than individually owned dwellings, all 408 units would count toward meeting the state's 10 percent goal, the Gatehouse representatives said.

As counted by the state, Walpole has 138 "affordable" units out of a total housing stock of 6,982, Santos said. The 408 additional units would result in close to eight percent of the town's housing stock being classified as affordable, he said.

As a community gets closer to meeting the 10 percent goal, the state is more likely to listen to its arguments contesting a developer's application under the anti-snob zoning law, Gatehouse staffers said.

(At a recent zoning board hearing, the only resident who spoke in favor of a proposed Osco said better to accept a drug store than risk a low- and-moderate income development on the lot.)

At last Thursday's planning board meeting, Gatehouse staffers noted that former Gov. Michael Dukakis signed an executive order giving preference for state grants to communities that achieve the 10 percent goal. Every governor since then has renewed that order, they said.

Santos built a case that Walpole's shortage of affordable housing is not entirely an accident.

Ever since zoning was enacted in 1956, he said, the only type of dwelling that can be built in town by right is a single-family house. Even a duplex requires going through a town board, he said.

The lot sizes for single-family homes have remained unchanged since 1956, he said. But the amount of lot space needed for one apartment unit has increased to 10,000 square feet, almost triple what it was when zoning was enacted, he said.

Walpole, Santos said, has one of the lowest percentages of affordable housing in eastern Massachusetts.

The subsidy for the Gatehouse development would come in the form of federal tax credits for investors. The credits allow the developer to charge below-market rents for some of the apartment units.

The "affordable" units in the Gatehouse buildings would be on the order of $550 for one bedroom, $750 for two and $950 for a three-bedroom unit, staffers said.

There is no direct subsidy to renters, who undergo thorough background screening before they are accepted, Gatehouse staffers said.

After hearing the Gatehouse presentation, planning board member Elizabeth Nashawaty told the representatives, "You've got to understand, you're foregoing local controls. You can't expect us to be too friendly."

Board member Ed Forsberg said the proposal would "put quite a burden on the town."

"We're at our limits now," Forsberg said.

Under the anti-snob zoning law, Gatehouse requires a comprehensive permit from the zoning board of appeals and conditions from the conservation commission on wetland issues.

Gatehouse representatives said they were appearing before the planning board as part of their effort to get local input. They expect to be meeting with other town officials, they said.

In many communities, a zoning board will solicit advice from other town boards and agencies before reaching a decision on the comprehensive permit, the staffers said.

Boston-based Gatehouse, which has developed and manages complexes in four states, recently broke ground for apartments in Plainville, a year after first approaching the community.

Nashawaty told the Gatehouse representatives that her initial reaction to their proposal for 408 units on 43 acres is, "My God, it's too dense."

Santos responded that the density is relatively low for proposals for comprehensive permits. In Norwood, he said, a proposal for 40 units on 2.5 acres appears ready to go.

March, 2000
Family member objects to trust's land agreement

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

Most of the land proposed for a 408-unit apartment complex off Route 1 is being sold by a family trust against his wishes, according to the one beneficiary who still lives on family land.

Speaking outside last week's conservation commission hearing on the project, Mario deCristofaro said that it came as a surprise to him that the lawyer acting as trustee for the family trust would sell the land to Gatehouse Development for apartments. He had been led to believe that 22 or so homes would be built on 24 acres, he said.

Gatehouse proposes to build the complex under the state's anti-snob zoning law, which allows a developer to bypass most town review requirements.

DeCristafaro said he found a letter informing him of the apartment plan next to his home when he returned from a winter vacation.

The sale price is $1.4 million, he said. While he still lives where he grew up, he said, the other beneficiaries are two sisters, one of whom lives in Milton, the other in Jamaica Plain.

He and his wife Emma live at what has been referred to as the deCristafaro homestead at the corner of Hilltop and Sunset drives. The area runs from just north of the Foxboro line to Pine Street on the east side of Route 1.

Showing the conservation commission an old aerial photo of the family land, deCristafaro spoke fondly of the land and recalled how more than 50 years ago, he and Parker Perry, a neighbor, built the dam that created Ganawatte Pond. The dam came through the 1938 hurricane fine, he said.

The dam and several acres of the pond are on the site proposed for the apartments.

DeCristaforo said he had wanted to deed the dam to the conservation commission if the land was to be sold. "But Mr. Blasberg says otherwise," Emma deCristafaro told the commission, referring to the trustee, Boston lawyer Arthur Blasberg.

Outside the hearing, Mrs. deCristafaro said that she and her husband intend to talk to their own lawyer about the situation.

She and her husband long have sought to buy some of the land in question to add to their own piece of the original family holdings, she said.

Mr. And Mrs. deCristafaro own the land on which the Walpole Motel and Savastano's restaurant. That land, which sits between the proposed apartment site and Route 1, was not discussed with Gatehouse, nor will it be, Mrs. deCristafaro said.

With authority over wetland issues, the conservation commission is one of two town boards that have jurisdiction under the anti-snob zoning law. The other is the zoning board of appeals, which must either approve or deny a comprehensive permit. If that permit is denied, a developer has an administrative appeal to a state agency. The law is intended to encourage the development of low- and moderate-income housing in the suburbs.

Last Wednesday's conservation commission hearing was on the developer's proposed delineation of the wetlands on the property.

The developer's representatives asked that the commission make the site visit that's part of that process this month. Noting that it's important to see vegetation to determine wetland boundaries, commission Chairman Brian Fiske scheduled the visit for mid-April.

The next hearing session on the delineation application was set for May 24. "We're booked," Fiske said of the commission's schedule until then.

Once a wetland line has been established, the developer is expected to come in for an order of conditions governing work in proximity to the wetlands.

At the hearing, neighbors said they are concerned about the impact of the project on surface water and on town wellfields. Fiske said those issues are not part of the current hearing, which is limited to delineating the wetlands.

Fiske read into the record a letter sent by selectmen to Gatehouse, setting forth that board's objections to the proposal.

"After careful review, our board has a number of concerns regarding your proposal. While the board recognizes that the goal of providing more affordable housing is an important priority, our community at the present time simply cannot absorb the impacts of such a sizable development," the selectmen wrote.

"Our community has sustained rapid residential development over the past 20 years which has outstripped our ability to maintain basic services. Our water demand during summer peaked and exceeded our ability to pump sufficiently to meet that demand; so much so that our sewer and water commissioners have not yet lifted the restrictions imposed from last summer.

"A second example is the current overcrowding of our public schools. Due to a grade reconfiguration, our two middle schools now have grades 6-8 with adequate space. However, all of our other grades at the elementary and secondary levels are currently overcrowded.

"A third example is a current lack of revenue to adequately fund our operating and capital budgets, which adversely affects our ability to maintain current service levels, including public safety, public health, public works and education.

"In addition, the specific site proposed raises issues related to the environment, sewerage, drainage and traffic. The magnitude and timing of your proposal simply cannot be accommodated by our community. We are unable to support this project at this time," the selectmen wrote Gatehouse.

January, 2000
Plan for 408 apartments gets chilly reception

By Tom Glynn
Staff writer

A proposal to build 408 apartments off Route 1 at Pine Street drew a chilly reception after it was presented to selectmen Tuesday night.

Gatehouse Management of Boston intends to submit a version of the proposal under the state's anti-snob zoning law, which permits the developer to bypass town zoning and building regulations. Eighty percent of the one, two and three-bedroom apartments would have market rents ranging from $950 to $1,300 a month; 20 percent would rent for between $650 and $900 to singles and families who meet income guidelines.

Town officials responded that the project is too big and would impose costs on a community already hard-pressed to provide municipal services, including schools.

"I'll be blunt," Selectman Ronald Mariani said. "I'm a lot less than enthusiastic to receive this proposal."

Before formally submitting a request to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the comprehensive permit, Gatehouse President David J. Canepri told selectmen he wants to meet further with town officials to see if a mutually acceptable version of the plan can be worked out.

Emphasizing that the proposal is only conceptual and subject to revision, Gatehouse executives showed a plan for 18 three-story buildings clustered on 42 acres between the Walpole Motel and Ganawatte Pond, close to the Foxboro line.

Under the 1970s state law, a developer has an automatic appeal to the state if a zoning board rejects a request for the comprehensive permit. The law is intended to encourage the development of affordable housing, especially in suburbs like Walpole where a low percentage of housing units are covered by federal or state subsidies.

The 20 percent of Gatehouse units that meet the state affordable definition would do so by participating in a 1980s federal law that provides federal tax breaks to developers who set aside units for income-qualified persons.

Gateway has just broken ground for a similar complex in Plainville at the intersection of Routes 106 and 152. After negotiations that began a year ago, the company received unanimous approval of the zoning board, Canepri said.

Gatehouse has developed and manages major apartment complexes in Florida and one of its historic restorations in Rhode Island has won a national prize for the quality of the work, he said.

Similar-sized Florida developments cost $30 million to build, Ganawatte Pond will cost more, he said.

The complex will be taxable by the town at full value, with no discount for the below-market units, he said.

His company has been in the apartment management business for 25 years, Canepri said.

He stressed Tuesday night that under that federal program, single tenants can earn $26,000 a year and families in the upper $30,000-low $40,000 range. The complex is not for persons with Section 8 and other direct subsidies, he said.

Gatehouse is rigorous in its selection of tenants, he said. The process involves credit and other background checks, home visitations and then twice-yearly inspections of the premises. Under the federal program, Gatehouse is required to maintain ownership of the complex for 15 years.

"We are very careful about who we accept," Canepri said.

The proposal "addresses a need that very clearly exists in this area … high-quality apartments that working people can afford," he said. The apartments are aimed at those who eventually will buy their own homes elsewhere, he said.

With vaulted ceilings and wired for the Internet, the apartments all are "very high end," he said. The clubhouse will contain computer rooms as well as exercise areas. Outside, there will be basketball and tennis courts, he said.

The buildings will be oriented to take advantage of a major attraction of the site, the view of the pond, he said.

The main entrance would be via Hilltop Drive with secondary access on Pine Street. The land, which also includes eight acres of the pond, is under option from Rodman and DeChristofaro ownership, Gatehouse executives said. The Walpole Motel and Savastano's restaurant are not part of the proposed site.

Fire Chief Kenneth Erickson and Town Administrator James Merriam objected to the size and location of the complex. It's a long way away for ambulances and fire engines, the chief said. Housing development there would thwart town efforts to capitalize on business growth anticipated near Foxboro stadium, Merriam said.

Selectman James O'Neil said the proposal would impose a whole new layer of complexity to the town's effort to plan growth and provide services. He noted the town still has a water ban in effect; Merriam said the town sewer line that would serve the parcel already has problems.

The next steps will be meetings with the planning board and further discussion with town administrators, Canepri said.

Copyright 2007 The Walpole Times