Doubt Cast on Hancock Village Studies

Neighbors are raising new questions about how a major residential development in South Brookline/Chestnut Hill could impact the town, particularly on the already-crowded .

At a packed community meeting on Dec. 13, neighbors sought to cast doubts on two studies showing that re-development of Hancock Village, an 80-acre suburban rental community on Independence Drive, could bring in new tax revenue for the town while having little impact on the overburdened school system. The developer, Chestnut Hill Realty, is seeking to increase the size of the development by 466 units.

The location falls within the 10th Suffolk District region, which also encompasses all of West Roxbury.

The  for the site, released last October, calls for 172 one-bedroom homes and 48 two-bedroom homes scattered around the Brookline side of the property, as well as 260 one- and two-bedroom units in a larger building open only to residents over the age of 55. A pair of fiscal impact studies have shown the project could eventually bring in $374,000 to $514,000 in new taxes for the town each year, despite the cost of providing town services for the new residents, including 24 to 33 new school-age children.

Chestnut Hill Realty changed its plans to include the age-restricted housing after analysts found that an earlier proposal could cost taxpayers $511,000 to 763,000 a year to pay for new services, driven largely by the cost of accommodating 88 to 118 children. They say the 260 age-restricted units in the new proposal are unlikely to draw any new children in to the town at all.

But neighbors and even some town officials say they have serious doubts about the conclusions of the most recent studies, especially the finding that only 33 school-age children would live in the 466 new homes.

"It's going to be a much more favorable situation to raise kids," said Alisa Jonas, a Town Meeting who lives on Russett Road, which is partly in West Roxbury.

Even town officials are questioning the assumption that no school-age children would move into age-restricted housing on the site. In a recent memo, the town's top lawyer noted that even if the developer restricts residency of one building to residents over 55, at least 20 percent of those could eventually be opened to families under the states fair-housing laws. With the latest proposal, that means that an additional 52 homes could eventually be rented to families with children.

And Jeff Levine, the town's planning director, has argued that no studies have yet considered the cost of building new classrooms to accommodate the addition of 33 new students in Brookline's already-crowded schools. He estimates that building space for those children could cost taxpayers between $356,000 and $663,000 a year for nearly two decades.

If the school building costs are counted in, Levine said, Brookline would lose money on the Hancock Village development for the first 18 years after the developer breaks ground.

"As far as I'm concerned, 18 years means forever," he said.

Neighbors also worry that any restrictions put on the property could eventually be reversed by the town if the developer struggles to find tenants, particularly for the age-restricted housing. If the restrictions are imposed through a zoning change, it would require a vote of Town Meeting to change them.

Skepticism on the part of neighbors has been largely fueled by a shared feeling that Chestnut Hill Realty had backed away from longstanding agreements protecting green spaces and limiting development on the Hancock Village site. Town lawyers have said no record of such a deal exists, and would likely be unenforceable by now if it did.

The neighborhood is particularly incensed by the developer's plans for building homes along the northern edge of the property, where an undeveloped stretch of land currently creates a park-like "buffer zone" between the Hancock Village buildings and residents on Russet and Beverly roads. The developer originally floated the idea of building a parking lot in the area, but is now proposing a series of 60 one-bedroom units instead.

"We had heard a number of people say they'd rather see houses behind them than parking behind them, and that's what we're proposing," said Joe Geller, a former selectmen and landscape architect who often represents Chestnut Hill Realty at public meetings.

Neighbors have made it clear they're not satisfied with the new proposal for the buffer zone.

"What you've got here is pavement and buildings with little trees once in a while," said David Day, a Russet Road resident and member of the town committee reviewing the project. "Changing what is paved doesn't address the core issue."

Last night's discussions are likely to be just one more stepping-stone in the long toward any future development at Hancock Village. Before it could building its proposed development, Chestnut Hill Realty would need to seek a change in zoning on the Brookline side of the 80-acre site, which woud require a two-thirds vote of Town Meeting, and win approval from the town's planning and zoning boards. And it's unlikely any of that would occur before the developer brokers some kind of deal with neighbors.

Representatives for Chestnut Hill Realty have frequently claimed that the developer could build a less attractive development on the Hancock Village site without seeking a zoning change or the approval of Town Meeting, but it has never been clear what that project would look like.

"Unfortunately, that's an impossible questions to answer," said Ken Goldstein, a Brookline selectman.

Selectwoman Nancy Daly said the town will likely hold another public meeting about the project soon in order to "see if there is any common ground we can explore." Town planning officials say they also plan to review the methodology in the latest studies.