10/19/2021 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Minutes

Home Browse Search

Affordable Housing Committee Page 3 Minutes of October 19,2021 2. Considering Future Sites for Habitat for Humanity. Now that Mendes Way is near completion, Chairperson Isbitz said he would like the Committee to consider how to help Habitat find new sites in Mashpee for future homeownership projects. He suggested inviting Bud Abbott,the past Chairperson of the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr.Abbott was a strong support of the Habitat homeownership program and made efforts in past years to identify land parcels that would be suitable for Habitat use. Ms. Pina said she felt that was a great idea. Mr. Abbott could tell the Committee exactly what he did to identify new parcels for Habitat that we might also want to do. Mr. Willard also expressed his view that Mr.Abbott would be very pleased and honored to be invited to speak about his role in supporting Habitat. Public Comment Arden Russel Cadrin. Ms. Cadrin had two points she wanted to make about the affordable housing concerns of the Committee. The first was about the Mashpee Commons project. She wanted to know why the Committee agenda keeps referring to a 52 unit Chapter 40B project when Mashpee Commons has a 40B permit for 382 units. Isn't Mashpee Commons obligated to produce 382 units, she asked,not just 52 units of which they have only built 32 to date? Mr. Isbitz responded that there seems to be confusion about the various approvals that need to be obtained on a project,and at what point does a proposed project become an approved one that the developer is obligated to carry out. He pointed out that the Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit is only the beginning of many steps a developer has to achieve before a project becomes frilly approved. Mashpee Commons did obtain an approval from the Mashpee Zoning Board of Appeal for 382 units,but chose to begin to implement that plan by proceeding to get the rest of the required approvals, including the necessary financing,for only 52 units,which they referred to as phase 1. Phase 1 had a number of other approvals, including infrastructure funding for roads and subsurface utilities, as well as executed project agreements that together compose a complete project the developer has a legally ability and obligation to cagy out. The remaining phases the developer intended to implement did not receive all the local and state approvals and financing necessary to achieve a complete and executable project. This means that Mashpee Commons legally and technically does not have the ability to completely implement a plan for 382 units,and is therefore not obligated to do so. If they choose to seek changes to the Chapter 40B permit before they fully implement it they have a legal right to seek these changes, which they are in the process of doing with their application for a Development Agreement through the Cape Cod Commission. However,Mr. Isbitz continued,phase I did have all the necessary approvals for 52 units, and the project agreements allocated significant local and state financing for infrastructure improvements assuming Mashpee Commons would construct a fully approved project consisting of 52 units. Mashpee Commons could conceivably change their mind,through a legal technicality,and redefine the project by assuming the remaining obligation within a much larger revision defined by a CCC Development Agreement,that is at least confusing in light of the original terms of the Chapter 40B permit and the financing that was allocated to carry it out its first phase. This confusion is not only one that Mashpee voters might have,but one that state and local officials would bear, as well. The Chairperson continued with his view that Mashpee Commons has an obligation to complete the original phase 1 project in the face of the several agreements that they signed and the public financing that was committed toward its completion. Failure to do so would at least raise a performance concern among the agencies that relied on the ability of Mashpee Commons to