Approve an affordable housing project at a density less than the 16 units proposed for an acre off North Salem Road? Or just deny the Eppoliti Realty application?
“What we’re all struggling with is density on that site,” Joe Fossi told his colleagues on the Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday night. “That’s what it gets down to, for me: I’m not comfortable with that many units.”
He added, “I don’t want to get dragged down the rabbit hole of denying the project, and not having it stand up in court, and spending a lot of the taxpayers’ money.”
After approving a wetlands permit needed by the project, the commission talked itself out on the zoning issues Tuesday night and opted to schedule another meeting next week to discuss it further.
The Eppoliti project will be the subject of a special meeting next Tuesday, Nov. 29, at 7:30 in the town annex.
“It’ll be the only item on the agenda,” Chairwoman Rebecca Mucchetti said.
Members were acting as the Inland Wetland Board, separate from their duties at the Planning and Zoning Commission, when they granted a wetlands permit required by the project.
The wetlands approval was for the “alternative” plan proposed by the developer to accommodate concerns raised about harming a wetland on the nearby Christiansen property off New Street. The alternative plan that won approval involves relocating a planned building at the back of the Epploiti site, placing it about 19 feet from the rear property line.
Significantly, the approval included provision for revising the wetlands permit, should the affordable housing project be substantially changed during the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval process.
The zoning aspect of the Eppoliti project was discussed for more than an hour Tuesday.
The legal constraints the commission has under the state’s affordable housing statute, 8-30g, loomed over the discussion, with commission attorney Tom Beecher in attendance, offering guidance.
Major “health and safety” issues the commission was troubled by included:
Sight lines at the driveway onto North Salem Road, near the “Joe’s corner” intersection of Routes 116 and 35, do not meet state requirements. The state Department of Transportation revoked a permit granted in the mistaken belief the driveway was to serve one house, not a 16-unit complex.
The plan is short of parking space requirements and the commission worries that, with the lot overfilled, access by fire trucks would be difficult — especially if there were piles of plowed snow in the ‘dead end’ lot with only one driveway in and out.
Excessive storm runoff has been documented in the area, and the hours of testimony by competing engineers for the applicant and neighbors left a concern that test holes weren’t dug deep enough to assure that the highly engineered drainage system would work as its supposed to.
There is also concern that the state’s Storm Water Quality Manual recommends that the water infiltration system be located farther from the foundation of one of the proposed buildings than the plan proposes.
Some commissioners seemed interested in an outright denial, but state law tells commissions to modify and approve projects, when possible, rather than simply rejecting them.
Mr. Fossi suggested the commission consider reducing the plan’s density from 16 to perhaps 12 units on the one-acre site, which would make it easier to address many of the other concerns.
“With 12, we solve the parking issue, we solve some of the impervious surface issues, runoff issues,” he said.
Commissioner Phil Mische said the density reduction wouldn’t solve what appears to be the application’s most serious problem: the sight line with the driveway.
“Knowing the potential for danger around this intersection, right there it’s not a down-size, it’s a denial,” he said.
Though still torn as to what they should do with a project they’re clearly not comfortable with, by the end of Tuesday’s meeting commissioners felt they were making progress.
“We’re circling,” Chairwoman Rebecca Mucchetti said. “We’re getting closer.”
没有评论:
发表评论