State's OK on condos appealed

Amesbury has appealed a state housing panel's decision that sided with a developer seeking to build 268 town house-style condominium units on a 155-acre site off Kimball Road.

Jonathan D. Witten, Amesbury's special counsel in the case, said he filed the appeal on the city's behalf Jan. 11 in Suffolk Superior Court.

The appeal seeks to overturn the state Housing Appeals Committee's December reversal of the Amesbury Zoning Board of Appeals's 2003 denial of a comprehensive permit that Meadowbrook Estates Ventures, LLC, sought for the project under the state's affordable-housing law, Chapter 40B.

Even as the case heads to court, Meadowbrook's attorney, Ted Regnante, said his client is willing to discuss a possible compromise under which Meadowbrook would reduce the number of proposed units and agree to cluster them, in return for the city allowing the developer to tie into its municipal sewer system.

Mayor Thatcher W. Kezer III said the city is "always willing to discuss. The question is whether a compromise gets to the point.... where both sides can come to an agreement," adding that the city's Zoning Board and planning office would evaluate the details of any possible settlement.

The condominiums, a subject of contention in the city for six years, would be built on undeveloped land between Lake Attitash and Meadow Brook, with 25 percent of the units at below-market rates. Currently, 7.3 percent of Amesbury's housing is considered affordable under state guidelines; the threshold for 40B projects, which allows developers to avoid local zoning rules, is 10 percent.

In addition to concern about the size of the project, the Zoning Board questioned the viability of the developer's plans for a waste-water treatment plant that would employ "solar aquatic" technology.

The city contends that the technology --in which effluent flows through a greenhouse where it is cleansed by aquatic plants -- has not been proven to work on the scale proposed.

The board also contended Meadowbrook's plans do not adequately provide for emergency access to the site, pose potential traffic safety hazards, and are contrary to the city's smart-growth planning goals of locating development near the town center.

But the Housing Appeals Committee found the Zoning Board failed to prove there is a "valid health, safety, environmental or other concern that supports the denial," or that "such concern outweighs the regional need for housing."

It vacated the Zoning Board decision, and directed the board to issue a comprehensive permit with conditions established by the HAC.

"We are very much pleased with the decision, since we were upheld on all of the contentions we made that this is an excellent project and meets all health, safety, and environmental concerns," Regnante said. "And we were especially pleased that the Housing Appeals Committee did not reduce the number of units proposed."

But Witten called the decision "a gross abuse of administrative discretion by the Housing Appeals Committee, consistent with past Housing Appeals Committee decisions illustrating a complete disregard of municipal concerns, environmental issues, and other public health and safety concerns.

"This was the poster child for a comprehensive permit that deserved to be denied," Witten added.

Phil Hailer, spokesman for the state Department of Housing and Community Development, said, "The formal decision of the Housing Appeals Committee speaks for itself." He said the committee, which comes under his agency, would have no further comment.

In its decision, the Housing Appeals Committee said any concerns about the proposed waste-water plant would be addressed by the state Department of Environmental Protection, from whom the developer will need a permit to operate the facility. The city has argued that the plant could pose a risk to nearby city water supplies.

It has refused to allow the condo project to connect to the city's sewer system because of concern that the tie-in would overburden the system in that area of the city, according to Kezer.

The Housing Appeals Committee said that the developer's plans for emergency access to the site were adequate, and would also provide "valuable emergency access to the Birches," an adjacent neighborhood.

The project's primary means of access would be a new road just over a mile long, beginning at Kimball Road.

Emergency access would be available on Birchmeadow Road, which runs from Kimball Road through the Birches, and Brookside Road, a dirt road that would be paved. From Brookside Road, vehicles would enter at the back of the site through an emergency entrance.

The Housing Appeals Committee rejected concerns about Birchmeadow Road's adequacy as an emergency route. And contrary to the Zoning Board's contention, it said the evidence "tends to show" the developer has the right to pave Brookside Road; to remove any doubt, the HAC set as a condition of the permit that the developer pave Brookside Road, and construct and pave the new emergency entrance.

Kezer said the city's opposition to the project does not reflect a lack of commitment to more affordable housing.

Noting that Amesbury has received an award from the governor's office for its smart-growth efforts, the mayor said, "We are one of the leading communities in Massachusetts in how we are developing housing, especially affordable housing. It's not a case where we are just blocking everything. We have worked with other developers to come up with appropriate sites."