East Bridgewater Zoning Board Grapples with 40B Housing Project Concerns
Residents voice traffic, parking worries as East Bridgewater reviews large affordable housing proposal
EAST BRIDGEWATER - January 8 - East Bridgewater's Zoning Board of Appeals is reviewing a proposed 40B affordable housing project that would bring 320 new units to the town, sparking concerns from residents about traffic impacts and parking adequacy.
The board held a public hearing January 8, continued from December 11, to discuss the project, which includes both rental apartments and for-sale townhomes across multiple phases. As a 40B development, the project can bypass certain local zoning restrictions to create affordable housing in communities that fall below the state's 10% threshold.
Board Chairman Robert Looney explained that East Bridgewater currently has only 3.99% affordable housing stock, limiting the town's ability to reject 40B proposals outright.
"To some extent, our hands are tied, but we do have input on this, that's why they're before us," Looney said.
Traffic emerged as a major concern for residents, particularly regarding impacts on Winter Street. The developer's traffic study projected an additional 38 vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 46 trips during the afternoon peak.
Jeff Bandini, Senior Project Manager of Nitsch Engineering, said this translates to "a vehicle once every few minutes" exiting the site in the morning.
However, several residents expressed skepticism about these projections.
"If you go on Winter Street to get to Summer, it's a very dangerous spot," said Sharon Woodward of Winter St. "It also has Southeastern Regional drop-offs. You go to try to get onto any of these streets, it's very narrow. It's going to be a huge impact."
Parking adequacy was another key issue. The developer is proposing 1.33 parking spaces per unit for the rental apartments, below the town's typical requirements.
Lynne Sweet, a housing consultant hired to assist the town, noted this ratio is lower than most 40B projects she works on, which usually provide 1.5 to 1.7 spaces per unit.
"At 1.3 parking spaces per unit on the rental, even if they share them across the three of them, there is a concern," Sweet said.
The board's traffic peer reviewer, Steve Shekari from APEX, recommended against approving the current parking plan. He said more local data is needed to justify the reduced ratio.
In response to parking concerns, Peter Freeman, attorney for the applicant, said professional management would handle parking allocation. He added that the development team is open to identifying potential additional parking areas that could be built if needed in the future.
The project would be constructed in phases, with townhomes accessed from Winter Street built first, followed by apartment buildings along Route 18. Some residents worried about construction traffic impacts on Winter Street.
Kevin Fontana of Northridge Drive asked, "What about the construction vehicles going in and out while they're building this project? Are they going in and out of Winter Street?"
Freeman confirmed construction access would be via Winter Street, coming from Route 14.
The board is still reviewing requested waivers from local zoning bylaws. Freeman presented an updated list, withdrawing some previously requested waivers and providing more specifics on others still being sought.
Roy Gardner of the Planning Board expressed concern about the breadth of waivers being requested compared to previous 40B projects in town.
The hearing was continued to Feb. 12 at 7 p.m. at the Community Center. Board members indicated they would work to address resident concerns while balancing state affordable housing requirements.
"We're hearing what you're saying," Sweet told residents. "We've got a lot to do over the next month."