State office requests Langwood scale-back
Published on January 11th, 2006
A state environmental agency demanded last Friday that the developers of the Langwood Commons project create a scaled-back plan consistent with the character of the Middlesex Fells Reservation.
Responding to a proponent-based Notice of Project Change (NPC) application filed with the Mass Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) on Dec. 7, EOEA Executive Secretary Stephen Pritchard refused to accept two determinations requested by the developers last week.
In addition to denying the developers' wish to have the 450-unit housing project declared as environmentally "insignificant", Pritchard similarly rejected a second request seeking to label the Boston Regional Medical Center (BRMC) redevelopment plan as a "reduced-build alternative."
"I have determined that the project cannot as currently proposed be considered by the MEPA office to be a 'reduced-build alternative that can be built without adversely affecting the character of the parkways,'" Pritchard ruled.
"I acknowledge that the proponent has presented a new development design that reduces some project impacts. However, an appropriately scaled reduced-build alternative amounts to more than a numerical reduction of the impacts from the previously proposed project."
"In this case, as MEPA has previously stated, the appropriate scale is contextual, and will be determined by the relationship between the size of the project, the scope of measures necessary to mitigate for unavoidable impacts, and the capacity of the Middlesex Fells Reservation to accommodate that mitigation," the EOEA Secretary concluded.
The property's Burlington-based owners, the Gutierrez Company, were ordered to draft a "reduced-build alternative" proposal by Pritchard's predecessor after a failed bid to construct a 914,000 square foot office park at the site in December of 2003.
After joining with Colorado-based housing firm, Simpson Housing, LP, in 2004, the development team had always labeled the newest mixed-use affordable housing proposal - which has already been scaled down from 600 to 450 dwelling units since its introduction in the spring of 2004 - to meet that "reduced-build" demand. The Langwood Commons proposal would have also reutilized the 250,000 square foot hospital building at the site for a commercial use. Responding to last Friday's EOEA decision, Simpson Housing spokesman Bill Caulder remarked that the Langwood Commons project, as proposed, would not be withdrawn by the company for consideration. Characterizing the ruling as a little disappointing but not unanticipated, the project proponent believed that the applicants had to do a better job of describing and detailing the development's adverse environmental impacts and how proposed mitigations would alleviate those burdens.
"It really wasn't worse than we anticipated, but it didn't knock our socks off either," said Caulder. "In the future, we have to do a better job clarifying what we put forth. But this was as we expected, and it falls in line with what we have discussed previously with [the Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)]."
"We don't currently have in our mind, a reduced-build project [plan]. At this point, we're going to focus on what we presented and update our analysis," the development manager added.
According to outspoken project opponent Mike Ryan, a Melrose-resident who also serves as the Executive Director of the Friends of the Middlesex Fells, his interpretation of Pritchard's decision leaves the developers with no option but to scale the proposal down. Praising the EOEA Secretary for the recent ruling, the environmental activist further argued that should the applicants refuse to downsize the affordable housing plan, Pritchard's order for new traffic counts, studies of failing intersections, and vehicular trip predictions will prove that the current Langwood Commons project is too detrimental to the area. "They're telling them to go back and start from scratch. And this is now the fourth time the state has told them to scale down the project. So I'm thrilled with the MEPA decision. It puts the burden directly back on the developer," Ryan commented in a phone interview this Tuesday.
"This time, they're [EOEA] asking for a lot more detail from the proponent. And if they do provide that detail, I think it will show that they can't build this project as big as it is," the environmental activist added.
According to Finance Board member Richard Gregorio, who served on a town committee to study the financial benefits of the Langwood Commons proposal, Stoneham officials might have to reconsider their endorsement of the mixed-use plan if a downsized project is introduced. Agreeing with the Finance Board member, Selectmen John DePinto and Cosmo Ciccarello felt that any reduced-build alternative that reduces the number of proposed housing units at the BRMC site will require town scrutiny.
"Probably, if it significantly diminishes the fiscal impact," speculated Gregorio, when asked if he believed the endorsement should be reconsidered. "But that would really depend on what types of units get reduced."
"It could. We'd have to have a mitigation expert tell us what those impacts are. So I guess it would depend on what units they would have to scale down," said DePinto in a separate interview. "I will say that I'm very disappointed with the state. With all their emphasis on housing, here's a project they put on the slow track instead of the fast track."
Emphasizing that the developers currently have no plans to downsize the development, Caulder believed that it's too early to speculate on what any reduced-build alternative might look like. Believing that amendments to the project itself might not be necessary, the Simpson Housing spokesman's opinion differs from Ryan's in terms of Pritchard's request for more traffic study and review.
Instead of rendering the project unbuildable, as Ryan maintains, Caulder believes the additional scrutiny will not only confirm the developer's previous assumptions about historical and present traffic patterns, but also show that the impacts can be adequately mitigated through various measures.
"There is an existing use out there that does create 2000 trips per day. And we'll now have to verify that with additional traffic counts," said Caulder. "The way I read this certificate, we need to figure out what the roadway can hold, while mitigating and minimizing the impacts to the roadway."
"There may be alternate means to mitigate our impacts that may be within the existing character of the Fells. So we're not convinced yet that a reduced-build needs to take place until we complete that analysis."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!