A Message from PCF Co-President in charge of Housing

Dear Fellow Residents,

Like many of you, I grew up in Chelmsford.  I take great pride in this community. As part of my work with PCF, I have made a few observations that I would like to share. Chelmsford’s growth has mimicked the substantial growth of the MetroWest suburbs over the last 40 years. Despite state laws such as 40B that blanket the communities of the Commonwealth with a generic mandate, individual communities like ours have worked in earnest to develop planning guidelines that are specific to the environments of own towns.

Over a decade ago, Chelmsford created a Master Plan developed by experts, parents, residents, elected officials and concerned citizens.  The important work that went into developing the Plan was meant to give direction to Chelmsford’s policies and planning into the next decade.  Whether good or bad, eleven years have passed and we have not revised the Master Plan for the coming years.  With ten years of hindsight aiding us, I would like to raise several areas of concern:

1)      The town has not followed Plan guidelines for town-appropriate density in housing development. The results are units whose size dwarfs their neighbors and in additional vehicles that have contributed in excess of 60% increases in town traffic.

2)      The town has been unable to review the impacts of proposed developments before allowing them to move forward, a practice that restricts our ability to select a preferred option.

3)      The town has been forced to expend significant resources to combat increases in traffic, despite warnings about traffic-impact scenarios raised in the Master Plan (e.g. Chelmsford continued to develop beyond not only the recommended growth scenario but beyond the “worse case” high-development scenario as well.)

4)      The town continues to fail taxpayers who are paying for sewer implementation but who also continue to wait for sewer connections while new developments are tied-in to the system before they are.

5)      The town has witnessed increases in housing units beyond the expected “full build-out” at the same time that our population has not grown as predicted (in reality, the only growing demographic are residents age 65+ who have grown 38.9% between the 1990 and 2000 census - the important “professional” and “family” demographic has decreased substantially.)

6)      The town has been unable to coordinate 40B developments in a manner that allows us to reach .75% growth in one year in order to earn a one year reprieve from 40B proposals. This would allow the town the necessary time to develop a strategy that provides for a town-centered plan to create affordable housing. 

PCF wishes to be a resource for town residents and a sponsor of forums where ideas can be shared to create policies that work for our community. All things considered, I would suggest the following efforts be closely considered and implemented:

1)      Mandate financial data supplied by developers through the Local Initiative Process (LIP) to be “verifiable.”  This simple change would help the town combat abuses as detailed by the MA Investigator General. By having full disclosure during the proposal process, the Selectman would be empowered to make requests based on actual data, not data that provides unwarranted wiggle room for extra developer profits.  In return, the Board of Selectman and town should show good faith by ensuring that the LIP is the expedient process it was designed to be in order to save developers time and money. 

2)      Mandate the use of linkage fees/impact fees/set-aside fees to offset the financial impact of development in town.  Such fees have been utilized in highly successful practices by municipalities across the country and will help balance budgets and limit negative impact on town services (particularly public safety, water, sewers and schools)

3)      Mandate that new developments cannot connect to town sewers unless they pay for the excess needed to supply residents who are currently waiting (and paying) for town sewer services.  Recent reports indicate that Chelmsford will exceed its sewer capacity and will need to seek out opportunities to supplement current capacity for residents.

4)      Require 40B developments in Chelmsford to have higher percentages of affordable units and lower density.  Legal precedent is clear in allowing (even encouraging) this effort so long as any standards required by the Selectman or Board of Appeals does not make the project “uneconomic.”  This would provide more (much needed) affordable units in less disruptive ways while still allowing for a fair profit to be earned by developers.

These efforts would represent huge strides in making progress to maintain and preserve the wonderful community we live in.  I encourage all residents who share these concerns to call or write their elected representatives.  I would also like to thank those town officials who work diligently to handle town housing issues.  40B developments in particular take up a disproportionate amount of time from appointed and elected officials.  Recognizing this, I propose PCF as an avenue by which residents can assist the town in coordinating these efforts. It is my wish that through diversity, hard work and alliance-building, we can confront the important housing issues facing this town. 

 All the best,

 Fred Marcks