A central topic was the Deo property’s untapped potential for affordable housing. Although owned by the town for approximately 12 to 15 years, the land has not been marketed for sale, primarily due to its acquisition through tax default. The committee expressed concern over the lack of progress in disposing of the property, despite interest from developers that has not materialized. Recognizing this, members considered exploring innovative building designs, potentially accommodating up to 40 units, to maximize the site’s use. However, this ambition is tempered by existing zoning bylaws, which impose a height restriction of 35 feet, limiting the possible number of stories. The idea of waiving this restriction was floated, contingent upon further investigation with the community housing department.

The committee also deliberated on the need for a robust wastewater management solution to support increased housing density. One suggestion highlighted was the potential use of mechanical treatment units, which offer a smaller and more efficient alternative to traditional septic systems. Insights from a conversation with a company specializing in this technology were shared.

While the Deo property was prioritized, the committee also considered the potential of a second parcel located at the end of Lel Drive, adjacent to I-91. Discussions revealed challenges, including wetland boundaries and floodplain issues, complicating potential development. Despite suggestions to approach the current landowner for a possible partnership, skepticism about the feasibility of this option persisted, with members expressing reluctance to expend effort on properties not owned by the town.

The focus then returned to the Deo property, which was seen as having more promise due to its established status and prior consultancy work. Committee members agreed that concentrating efforts on this property would be more productive, given the limited time and resources available. The possibility of generating revenue through its development was a key consideration, contrasting its current non-productive status.

Concerns about environmental contamination, particularly from an existing septic field, were raised, acknowledging the need for cleanup efforts before development could proceed. The use of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds for this purpose was discussed, though such use would require approval from the Community Preservation Committee (CPC).

In tandem with site-specific considerations, the committee discussed broader funding opportunities for affordable housing projects. A member shared insights on various financing mechanisms, including state and federal grants, tax credits, and other state-level resources. While acknowledging the tightening of federal funding, they noted that opportunities still existed for securing necessary financing.

Additionally, the meeting touched on the Blue School housing project, where a developer is converting the building into apartments. Delays in the project were attributed to utility approval issues, rather than funding or construction progress. The project’s market-rate nature positioned it outside the committee’s primary focus on affordable housing, but its implications on local funding and competition for resources were noted.