This was our one chance, as a Town, to send a strong letter asking Mass Housing to deny the eligibility of the project.  A project that WILL:

 

• Increase our population by 3%+

• Be the largest residential project Ipswich has ever seen

• Strain our already struggling infrastructure & resources (water, safety/fire, schools)

• Cause traffic & safety issues to an already impacted area due to recent developments

• Detrimentally impact neighboring wetlands and marshes

• Abut single family homes, on 3 sides with 4 story buildings at 57 feet high- 20 feet more than what is allowed for those homes.

• Create a dense area of disadvantaged housing in 6/10ths of a mile (already has 250+ units of affordable housing)

 

While the letter did address many good points, here is what also should have been done:

• State Ipswich could not support the conclusion of a 2005 letter from the town suggesting this site as suitable for a 40b.  Instead they left it standing as evidence of support of the project.

  • The report is 12 years old and does not address the drastic increase in residential & commercial development

  • The Selectmen identified density issues in the area in 2011 & wanted to discuss Zoning changes relative to that density

  • The Open Space Committee identified the parcel & tried to include it on the open space list at the 2015 Special Town Meeting (owner asked for it to be withdrawn)

  • The original author of the letter stated this project is unsuitable for this site.

               

• Not negotiate a New or Modified Proposal by suggesting modifying building stories & height.  This portion should have been deleted or reworded to identify the height & story limitations of the surrounding area.  You don’t start negotiation at the start line. 

  • On April 18th, Senator Bruce Tarr recommended to not negotiate in this forum.

  • Members of the BOS agreed to not negotiate.

  • The height recommended of 47 feet exceeds the rural neighbors (on three sides) by 10 feet.  The Grade on which these buildings are positioned will further exaggerate the height. 

 

• Not negotiate a new or Modified Proposal by leaving in the sentence suggesting removing one of the buildings.  The sentence should have been deleted. 

 

• “Raise the volume” on the Traffic Study by stating there will be significant traffic and safety issues resulting from the proposed development in an area that already has a service level of F.  We do not believe a project of this scale will be able to mitigate the detrimental impact to the area and intersecting roads.  Instead the letter suggests to monitor the resulting traffic and mitigate at that point by putting a light at Essex and County. 

  • The intersection at County and Essex already has a rating of F

  • This development expects an additional 1,300 daily vehicle trips.

  • The surrounding intersecting roads are heavily used as cut thru’s due to the light at Powderhouse/YMCA and increased development in the area.

  • These intersecting roads are scenic byways and barely safe for residents and their children, walkers, runners and bicyclists.

  • This development adds 2 egresses to an existing 6 (not counting residential) within 930 feet on a major thoroughfare.

​​

• Had a better and more thorough mechanism by which to describe our Efforts to Create Affordable Housing.  Instead we offered number that do not reflect our true SHI (Subsidized Housing Inventory)   & did not include quality quantitative data. (Note:  SHI list is what measures against 10% threshold)

  • The SHI does not include 9 units from a 40B finished in 2011. 

  • Where are the LIP (Local Initiative Program) units accounted for?

  • Are the following (non SHI) affordable units included in any of the numbers:  3 Stone Bridge Cottages (Caldwell Nursing), 6 Turnerhill, and 8 at Riverbend?

  • We do not quantify pending units (10 at Primrose/Locust, 1 at Old Town Hall)

  • We do not mention how many units or if applicable, how much payment in Lieu we have received from the following three actions (which are not included in the SHI):

Adoption of an inclusionary housing zoning regulation that requires that all multifamily housing projects creating fewer than ten units to either make a payment of $10K per unit to the Affordable Housing Trust or make a unit affordable. For multifamily projects that create ten or more units the developer is required to make one unit affordable for the first ten units and then either make the payment or provide a unit for the additional fractional units. 

 

Adoption of a Great Estates zoning regulation that allows non-traditional development (to preserve estate properties) but requires that 10% of all dwelling units be affordable

 

Adoption of a zoning provision whereby the Planning Board may, by special permit, allow a density bonus in multifamily developments if the developer provides an affordable housing (units(s) or payment) or public recreational benefit. This provision has resulted in the creation of several new affordable housing units and helped make certain multifamily housing projects economically viable.