1 Pleasant Street Plan Reverses to Rentals, Bolstering Cohasset's Housing Count

Key Points

  • The Planning Board approved reverting 14 residential units at 1 Pleasant Street from for-sale condominiums back to rental apartments.
  • This decision allows Cohasset to count all 14 units on its Subsidized Housing Inventory, a significant boost to the town's affordable housing stock.
  • While all 14 units count toward the town's inventory, four will be deed-restricted as affordable rentals in perpetuity.
  • The Cohasset Affordable Housing Steering Committee and the Affordable Housing Trust both voiced strong support for the modification.
  • Board members discussed potential use conflicts with the ground-floor childcare center and confirmed parking was sufficient under village district zoning.
  • The applicant's stated motivation for the change was related to the property's financing structure.

COHASSET — The Planning Board on Wednesday unanimously approved a pivotal change for the 1 Pleasant Street development, reverting its 14 residential units from for-sale condominiums back to rental apartments. The decision marks a significant win for the town’s affordable housing goals, allowing all 14 units to be counted toward Cohasset’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI).

The applicant, One Pleasant Street Cohasset LLC, sought to modify a 2024 decision that had allowed the switch to condos—a move made when the property was being considered as a potential new town hall. With that plan defunct, the developer’s attorney explained the project was returning to its original vision. While four of the 14 units will be deed-restricted as affordable, state law allows the town to add all 14 to its SHI because they are rental units. Planning Board Chair Kevin Heine sought to confirm this point, asking, "All 14 units would be designated as affordable housing under this amendment... Is that right?" The applicant's representative clarified that while only four are deed-restricted, "the town would have the benefit of counting all 14 as satisfying its affordable housing inventory."

Board members conducted their due diligence on the proposal. Vice Chair Clark Brewer suggested a linguistic clarification for legal consistency, noting, "for affordable housing we use the term rental or ownership... I think you want to stay consistent with the language that's used in state law." Amy Glasmeier raised concerns about potential use conflicts, given the building’s commercial tenant. "The downstairs area of the building is now a child care center," she said, adding, "we have to be mindful of the fact that we have a situation in which we have a dual use facility." Meanwhile, member Birgit Schmidt-Wesche questioned the developer's motivation for the reversal. "I would still like to ask what motivated this move," she inquired. "There must be another reason than just being nice." The applicant's attorney suggested the change was primarily driven by property financing requirements. Deirdre Hobson looked to the future, asking about the permanence of the affordable units. "What if the building gets sold? What happens then?" she asked, receiving assurance that the deed restrictions would remain with the property.

The proposal received strong backing from local housing advocates. Paul Kier, Chairman of the Affordable Housing Steering Committee, spoke during the public hearing, calling the switch back to rentals "vital for us." He explained, "Having apartments is the most critical thing for us because the state counts all the units towards your affordable housing stock." Following the brief public hearing and board discussion, a motion was made to approve the change.

Motion Made by Kevin Heine to "modify the decision from last year to have the project be all rental, not condominium or sales, as was in the original decision of several years ago." The motion was seconded. Motion Passed 5-0. In other business, the board approved the release of unused engineering deposit funds back to several former applicants. Motion Made by Amy Glasmeier to "return the unused funds as outlined in the agenda of applicants." The motion was seconded. Motion Passed 5-0. The board also approved the minutes from its August 20th meeting.