Quelle horreur: State board orders leafy Weston to allow a 180-unit apartment building on a 9 1/2-acre parcel

The state Housing Appeals Committee recently ruled that Weston, a town far from meeting its minimum state requirement of having 10% of its housing units be affordable, has to allow construction of an apartment building that locals have been fighting for years as the "Weston whopper" - a four-story, 180-unit building with 45 affordable apartments and 293 parking spaces on a 9 1/2-acre parcel that would also include a pool, a playground and separate dog areas for small and large breeds.

As first reported by Banker & Tradesman, the committee, which oversees appeals of local rejections of projects with affordable housing, basically said the town could have better spent all the money it spent on all the consultants who testified, because the committee concluded that the project met minimum state and federal requirements for water runoff, sewage treatment and driveway design and so would be unlikely to overwhelm nearby residences and the rest of the town with flooding, the stench of sewage and hordes of ill mannered drivers overwhelming the local scenic byways, with their children forced to suffer on an inadequate playground.

In a footnote, the committee dismissed town concerns, as highlighted by a consultant who no doubt came well prepared with 27 eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, that the proposed playground at the site would be too small:

Mr. Boehmer's testimony on behalf of the [zoning] Board that the proposed outdoor amenities are deficient and inconsistent with design industry standards was based upon the American Society of Planning Officials' January 1965 Standards for Outdoor Recreational Areas, which is not a local by-law or regulation, and which has not been updated for almost 60 years. Exh. 72. Furthermore, on cross-examination, Mr. Boehmer acknowledged that the 1965 Standards for Outdoor Recreational Areas was developed for the design of city parks and not apartment buildings.

The state committee concluded:

The Board's and Interveners' primary focus was on compliance with state standards, which cannot be waived by Committee decisions; their failure to focus on evidence necessary to persuade the Committee that the project as proposed would result in other than speculative adverse impacts upon wetland resources and land intended to be protected by local requirements and regulations ultimately leads us to conclude that the Board and Interveners have not met their burden of proving that a valid local concern outweighs the regional need for affordable housing.

Complete decision.