CHR 40B Proposal #1— Residences at South Brookline 2013



June 2013: Chestnut Hill Realty filed a proposal with MassDevelopment to develop 192 units under MA Chapter 40B. The full proposal can be downloaded here (TownOfBrookline’s DropBox), and a summary is available at this link.

Key facts:
192 U, 404 BR. This includes 28 4 BR, and 28 3 BR. Only 39 affordable units.
A large apartment building (equivalent in sq ft to 98 single family homes) sited on a 2 story tall puddingstone outcropping.
12 “infill” buildings and roads covering the greenbelt. The average size of each infill building is more than 4 single family homes. They are located only 20’ from the property line.
Extensive re-grading that will result in tall retaining walls at the edge of the property and certain water issues for neighbors.


2013_40B_site_map


This proposal did not differ in substance from the 2012 40B proposal, which MassDevelopment was prepared to deny:

“...MassDevelopment has determined that the conceptual site plan is not generally appropriate for the site due to the Project’s complete elimination of the existing greenbelt buffer between the current Hancock Village residences and abutting single-family neighborhood homes; the Project’s inadequate setbacks; and the massing of the Project’s proposed five-story which is generally inappropriate for the site and not well-mitigated by topography or other means.”


In particular, this proposal shared the 2012 proposal’s obliteration of the greenbelt buffer, replacing it with buildings, roads, and parking. The five story building is now four stories tall, but continues to sit on a high rock outcropping and will tower above neighboring buildings. The number of units and size has been trimmed by ~25%, but the scale and density of the proposal remains excessive. The setbacks continue to be inadequate, with some paved areas even closer to property lines than before, so that massive buildings come as close as 20 feet to the property lines.

Brookline and the Hancock Village Neighborhood Conservation District Commission both viewed the proposal for what it was, a re-proposal of a deficient conceptual site plan. Their extensive and detailed responses, sent to MassDevelopment, can be found here (Town NCD). PreserveBrookline and the South Brookline Neighborhood Association provided a neighborhood response that likewise decried the negative effect this unwise development would have on the Town and the neighborhood.

Oct 8 2013: Surprisingly, despite no substantive changes to the flawed conceptual site plan, MassDevelopment found that CHR's proposal was eligible for 40B and could proceed to the next stage. Furthermore,it did not put any formal conditions on the approval. There are various aspects of this approval that raise some serious questions in our minds:
  1. How did CHR know to withdraw its application last year, RIGHT BEFORE MassDev was prepared to issue them a denial letter?
  2. Why did their new proposal, which failed to address any of the MANY AND SERIOUS substantive issues raised in the denial letter, get approved so quickly this time, with no formal conditions on the approval?
  3. The law firm of Goulston & Storrs specializes in representing large 40B developers. A director of Goulston & Storrs also sits of the Board of Directors of Mass Development. CHR's previous proposal was denied, and then CHR hired Goulston & Storrs for its new proposal. Is it a coincidence that this new proposal is suddenly and quickly approved without explanation? Why isn't this a conflict of interest?
  4. New 40B guidelines were adopted to make the decision process more transparent to the public. Yet this proposal was quickly approved and a180-degree reversal of its previous decision. This approval was made without any explanation of how the guidelines were applied or how a different decision could be reached on a substantially similar proposal. Furthermore, there was no mention at all of this proposal in MassDevelopment's meeting agendas to date.
  5. If Mass Development is required to follow its own 40B guidelines and Design Review criteria, why did their approval letter not address these very concerns, especially when this new proposal failed to address any of the substantive issues raised in the previous denial letter?

Nov 12 2013: The Brookline Board of Selectmen heard comments from Town Boards and Committees and the public on projected impact of the proposed development on Brookline. The meeting was recorded on Brookline access television and can be found here.
Alan Morse, Chairman of the School Committee, described the potential impact on Brookline Schools.
William Pu of PreserveBrookline summarized the recent history of proposed development at Hancock Village and its impacts on the neighborhood and Brookline.


Nov 19 2013: Brookline filed suit against Mass Development in Superior Court for its arbitrary actions in issuing its project eligibility letter. Several neighbors, including many participating in PreserveBrookline, were co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The issue of the 1946 contract preventing CHR from having adequate site control to propose the project. A press release on the lawsuit issued by Brookline is here. The judge in the case denied a motion for an injunction on the proposed development. Mass Development filed a motion to dismiss on 12/17/2013. In Sept 2014, the Judge Brady issued a flawed one page decision granting the motion to dismiss. An appeal will be filed.

Dec 2013: The comprehensive permit application for the 40B development (45 MB) was submitted to Brookline. This starts a 6 month clock in which Brookline’s Zoning Board of Appeals much complete its consideration of the comprehensive permit application. Meetings are currently scheduled for 1/16/2013 and 2/13/2014.

February 2014: The town’s Boards and Departments provided their input to the ZBA on CHR’s proposal. These statements, uniformly critical of the design of the proposal and its negative impact on Brookline, are available here.

March 2014: The public, including PreserveBrookline and SBNA, provided its comments to the ZBA. The meeting room was packed. See the video of the meeting, or read some written comments or the article on the meeting in the Brookline Tab. The PreserveBrookline-SBNA presentation can be downloaded here.

Mar 2014-Jan 2015: the Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals has been conducting a public hearing on CHR’s application for a comprehensive permit.Documents, presentations, and peer review analyses that have been presented at the ongoing public hearing, as well as transcripts of the hearing, can be found here on Brookline’s website.

Some notable documents:
Movies of the proposed development (computer generated by the developer).
Proposed site plan (zip of 3 files)
Letters to ZBA (link)
School Committee

The Zoning Board of Appeals met until January 2015. The ZBA made is decision to officially approve a project that was very much like the original project:
  • - 161 Units
    • 3-4 story building containing 109 units
    • 11 2.5-3 story bldgs
  • - 57 1BR, 59 2BR, 22 3BR, 23 4BR = 333 BR
  • - 33 affordable units (20%)
  • - 99 garage and 193 surface parking = 292 (1.8 parking/unit)

Legal Action
The Town of Brookline and several neighbors sued CHR and MassDevelopment on the following grounds:
  1. Development of the property was restricted by a public contract made between the original developer and the Town in 1946.
  2. The Project Eligibility Letter was not determined in a manner that was consistent with MassDevelopment/40B rules
  3. MassDevelopment is chartered to develop blighted properties and therefore has no mandate to sponsor development of this property
  4. The ZBA process was flawed.

Unfortunately point #1 was denied based on reasoning that does not make sense: that the agreement was not made as part of the public action to rezone the property.
Points #2-4 are under consideration in Land Court at this time.