‘Salisbury Square’ Issues Debated at Info Session

‘Salisbury Square’ Issues Debated at Info Session By Sandy Vondrasek

Would Randolph benefit from the development of 36 units of affordable, green-design housing, just a block or two from Randolph’s Main Street?

Many of the 20 or residents who attended a March 25 informational session on the Salisbury Square project said they liked the idea of green housing and cleaning up an industrial site just fine, but felt that the development—with 14 rental units in three buildings and 22 small homes—is just too much density for a 4.4-acre-lot. The hearing was one of several sessions Randolph Area Community Development Corp. has held to inform the public about its efforts to build housing on the site of the former Ethan Allen furniture plant, between Weston and Salisbury Streets.

“Why not just one apartment house and reduce the number of homes?” asked Letitia Rydjeski at last Wednesday’s session.

RACDC Executive Director Julie Iffland repeatedly explained that the numbers and the rental/home ownership mix in the project represent what is needed, financially, to clean up the blighted site and to support development of the entire planned unit development (PUD).

She said RACDC has been listening to community feedback and had already made some modifications. The number of rental units has been reduced to 14, and the total number of rental bedrooms cut from 30 to 24, she said.

“We’ve done the best we can do,” she said. “We wouldn’t do this if we didn’t think it wouldn’t be attractive and fit into the community.”

Iffland and two project consultants from Hartland Group, Chuck Lief and Justin Dextradeur, noted that state and federal tax credits and loans available for rental portion of Salisbury Square would pay for infrastructure development of the entire parcel.

Pati Braun, one of several landlords present, challenged the notion that Randolph needs any more apartments. She noted that the latest Herald of Randolph lists 38 apartments for rent (although not all of those are in Randolph).

Hartland Group’s Lief noted that Salisbury Square would be built in stages, with the first of the apartments 18-24 months away from being ready to rent. A market study indicated the need would be there, he said.

While many at the informational session questioned the need for 14 more apartments in Randolph, two village residents emphasized the need for more small, easy-to-maintain homes in the village.

Retired Gifford radiologist Bill Arnold, who lives in a larger and older village home, indicated he and his wife are looking for a smaller, affordable home that would still be in walking distance of the downtown. What they’d found so far was out of their price range, Arnold said.

“These might be in the range of what we could afford,” he said of the Salisbury Square homes.

Young professionals are looking for small, easy-to-maintain homes or condominiums in Randolph as well, said village resident and attorney Kelly Green.

Green said she has friends who are barely keeping up with the costs of heating, maintaining, and paying the mortgage on their “rambling old houses.”

Iffland added that RACDC had also consulted with realtors, who stressed “newer, greener homes,” from 1000-to-1400-square-feet in size, “are what people want.” Energy use in the houses, she said, would be “50-60% less than the average new home construction.”

Champy’s Concerns

Randolph Town Manager Gary Champy raised several concerns about the project.

He repeatedly warned that the roads in Salisbury Square would never be taken over by the town. That would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging other “homeowner associations” to seek town maintenance of their private roads, he said.

Lief noted costs for property maintenance, including road maintenance, would be built into rents and homeowners’ association fees.

Champy also voiced concerns about the rental units, suggesting “it would be prudent to put a covenant on them (restricting them) for seniors.”

Having tenants such as Clara Martin Center clients move in, he charged, “will change the makeup of the neighborhood.”

That comment raised some eyebrows.

“Are you talking about mentally ill people?” Atty. Green asked incredulously.

Several village residents came to the session to voice support for RACDC as a housing developer.

Abbe Meiling, abuttor to RACDC’s Pearl Street development, told attendees that the session was reminiscent of hearings she had attended about Pearl Street.

Meiling said she had grave concerns at the time about privacy, impact on the neighborhood, noise, and other issues.

“In the end, though, I was very impressed,” she said. “RACDC came through for us.”

The project is screened by plantings, well maintained, and quiet, she said.

“I just don’t know it’s there.”

Iffland ended her presentation with a project status report. An asbestos clean-up on the site is complete, she said, and a contaminated soils clean-up is underway. Demolition of existing factory buildings and debris removal on the site will proceed gradually, she added.

RACDC is ready to move onto the permitting stage, and the project is on the agenda for the Randolph Development Review Board’s April 28 hearing. An Act 250 permit will be needed as well.