Background
People in Chelmsford overwhelmingly want our town to remain a high quality place to live, with pleasant neighborhoods, reasonable traffic, excellent schools and attractive open space. But our current leadership and the Affordable Housing Plan support growth-oriented strategies that will produce at least 13% growth over the next five years, eliminating the opportunity to preserve Chelmsford's quality of life, while predictably contributing to spiraling taxes. Rapid growth is not the best way to keep good things we have.

Chelmsford is at a point in its development as a town where slow growth is appropriate and achievable. Chelmsford has been growing furiously for the last 40 years, with policies that foster faster growth (for instance, emphasizing new development of affordable housing on open space in preference to improvements or buy downs of existing properties). Town planners appear to accept the view that rapid growth is inevitable and unstoppable due to Chapter 40B "affordable housing" development, and accept an unnecessarily high rate of development both in real terms and in the Affordable Housing Master plan. It is now the ideal time for the Board of Selectmen, the Planning Board, the office of the Development Coordinator, and the Town Manager to adopt a slower growth strategy.

Description/History
The Board of Selectmen, Planning Board and Town Manager accept an affordable housing plan that does not adequately address the need to assert more local control over affordable housing developments, and will likely lead to at least a 13% increase in the number of units in Chelmsford within the next five years.

• That's about 1300 to 1500 additional housing units, leading to some 3000 additional automobiles. It's clearly not in the town's best interest to foster such growth, which will lead to ever-increasing taxes to meet the need for services from schools, fire, police, water, sewer, and other departments.

In summary, the current reactive planning will promote rampant overdevelopment, increased population, more cars, congestion and pollution. The town's historic character will erode and the natural environment will suffer irreparable losses.

• Quality of life for residents will decrease. The strategy of growth is based on misguided expectations and myths.
• Projections that growth would reduce tax rate hikes have always proven wrong.
• The town has proposed selling off "marginal" town-owned parcels for development of affordable housing that would require exceptions to existing Conservation Commission bylaws causing reductions to watershed area and existing wetlands.
• At Bentley Lane, this created a direct threat to abutters in the form of flooded basements due to reduction in watershed and altered underground flow. This approach disregards the welfare of existing town residents, but much worse, it is misguided in the long term with respect to the budget and especially with respect to local control over development.  Thankfully, due to robust citizen action, the Bentley Lane proposal has been shelved.

The town cannot sell off a town-owned parcel explicitly for development with exemptions from local Conservation Commission guidelines, and then try to apply those same Conservation Commission guidelines to future private transactions involving 40B proposals. The Conservation Commission would essentially be rendered impotent. The attempted sale of the properties at Bentley Lane presents a triple threat: unnecessary growth, emasculation of the authority of the Conservation Commission in the eyes of the state, and direct threat to the surroundings that require that drainage system.

Most importantly, the efforts to build on town land wherever possible indicate that the Town's plans contradict what local residents want and what the 1996 Master Plan calls for - slower growth. The lack of attention to alternative strategies to meet "affordable housing" goals and the lack of a consistent policy with respect to Chapter 40B development will condemn us to a future we don't want.

The Affordable Housing Master Plan and the town master plan need to be amended to foster housing growth of under 1% per year. Such a growth path is both achievable and desirable. Our town officials need to understand that this is not only possible; it's a priority for the residents of Chelmsford. Some officials favor growth, others do not favor growth but believe there is little that can be done about it. These positions are not in the best interests of the town, the region, or the state. A slow growth strategy is in everyone's best interest.

The Massachusetts State Inspector General has audited builders of Chapter 40B projects in various locations and determined that the law has created a "pigfest" of profitable building by these developers because of the pitifully low requirement of 25% "affordable" units in exchange for the state overriding localities that lack a coherent master plan.

• Chelmsford needs a coherent master plan that requires at least 50% affordable units (75% is more desirable) in 40B developments.
• Local Initiative Process (LIP) approvals by the BOS need to require more affordable units and a density closer to normal zoning requirements.

The Inspector General's findings confirm that such an approach, despite past objections by our government officials and of course the developers, is eminently feasible. It's also very desirable - not only would the creation of much-needed affordable housing proceed more rapidly, but the encroachment on open space, environmental degradation, traffic congestion and pressure on local services would be greatly alleviated. Chelmsford needs about 120 affordable units per year to satisfy state mandates for "affordable housing" development. At 25% affordable units per 40B development, that would result in some 2500 total units over the next five years. At a 75% ratio, that would result in only about 800 total units instead. The benefits to the town, to the affordable housing goals, and to the environment would be tremendous.

If you support slower growth in Chelmsford, please support the "Slow Growth Initiative" by signing the slow growth petition.

Click here to view and sign the petition.