Sharon Economic Development Committee 24 July 2006
In Attendance
|
Eli Hauser |
Keevin Gellor |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Bill Heitin |
|
||
|
Rob Maidman |
Tan Lee |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Seth Ruskin |
7:30 Agenda review
Review of meeting notes from26 June 2006 meeting (Meeting notes reviewed and accepted).
Presentation by Brickstone Properties on proposed development for Rattlesnake Hill.
Subcommittee discussion on project approach and findings to date.
Revenue Targets
New Business: $250 - $500k on 15 parcels, 38 acres of undeveloped lands; $250 for 20 acres on S. Main.
New Revenue: $200 - $500 in new revenue or offset costs.
Development Loans: $200 - $300k in new taxes over next 10 years as businesses upgrade their facilities.
7:40 Brickstone Presentation
Background: Brickstone Development has purchased the 337 acres of Rattlesnake Hill with intent to develop a high end senior apartment development – more of a conceptual “resort community.” Anticipated development time of 5 – 10 years; anticipate developing 3 clusters of buildings over that timeframe with 6 buildings each. Underground parking with valet service. Par 3 golf course. Move away from “institutional” and try to go to resort complex approach – no long corridors, feel as if walking into a home with narrow buildings; limiting each building to 100 units per building. . Large open space in the middle with a common building for the cluster. Community services and amenities for the complex, including medical services, and so on, suitable for an adult community.
About 45 acres for housing; the balance to be conservation restricted or donated to Town (~50 acres at top of RSH). High levels of water conservation techniques. Revenue potential: $2.3M net to Town initially; $8.0M for full build out. $1.5M in one-time fees. They will contract for the on-going management of the complex. Will work with the Town to provide monies to the Housing Authority to purchase land, to then have a developer create affordable housing for the Town.
Approximately anticipate 1.25 person per home; for about 2,250 people, with no impact on homes; A traditional development would be 3.75 people / home for 6,750 people, including school children. Alternatively, 2,250 people at 3.75 person/home would be 600 conventional homes. Local demographics to support this type of facility is 5% in the income and age bracket.
8:30 Update from subcommittees
New Business: Keeven Gellor / Ben Pinkowitz –
Action item: David S. or Bill H. to speak with M. Intoccia to explore interest level to work 10 – 20 acres on S. Main.
New Revenue: Mike Bossin / Jeff Seul
Action item now is to
1). Bring in second wind vendor.
2). Bring funding proposal or at least funding process to closure so we know what needs to be done.
3). Perhaps begin to identify sites to use working with Peter O’Cain.
Development Loans: Alan Lury / Rob Maidman / Seth Ruskin
Action item: Rob to bring in Stoughton-experience consultant for 28 Aug 2006 meeting.
8:35 Next Meeting: 28 August 2006 @ 7.30pm
8:40 Adjourn