<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">In the staff memo (p.3), it is stated that the developer wishes to retain the option of requesting cash-in-lieu to fulfill his community benefit obligations, yet on p. 32 of the annexation agreement the developer acknowledges, without qualification,
that cash-in-lieu is not an available option and that the 5 affordable units will be built to the specifications provided in that document. Please be prepared to explain the discrepancy, as the annexation agreement has already been executed, and the Planning
Board unanimously suggested that there be a clear obligation to provide the on-site, deed restricted housing.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">BTW, what would be the cash-in-lieu payment required for these 5 units? I inquire, because it is likely that 5 additional market rate units of 3,300 square feet are likely to sell at anywhere from $2.5-3.5MM, for total additional revenue
to the developer of $12.5MM-17.0MM. That is a lot of additional revenue and profit, and if the option exists, it is more than possible that the cash-in-lieu option will be exercised. It seems to me that the executed annexation agreement should control. What
is the argument for giving the developer the cash-in-lieu option and not following the suggestion of the Planning Board?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>