Opposition To 40B Development On Percival Road Increases
Residents abutting a proposed condominium project at Percival Road voiced their stark opposition to the project during the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Thursday last week.
The Rosewood Estates project is proposed to convert 5.5 acres of undeveloped land into a 16 single-family-home 40B housing development near the intersection of Percival and Sandwich roads behind the Cape Verdean Club.
Edwin A. Monteiro of Eco Land Development, LLC, proposes building eight three-bedroom, two-story Cape-style single-family homes and eight three-bedroom, one-story ranch-style homes ranging between 1,400 and 1,800 square feet. Four of the homes would be designated as affordable housing.
While the board did receive one letter in favor of the project, most were against it. Abutters have an array of concerns with the proposal, including conservation of the wildlife corridor, increased traffic and construction on their privately owned way, and proximity to already heavily populated areas.
“I’ve resided [here] for 24 years and owned property for half that time,” said Heidi Ingraham of Trotting Lane, in a letter to the board. “My concern with this construction of the 40B residential area is the proposed site is already a heavily congested area with three daycares operating off of Trotting Lane and Harness Drive.”
Ms. Ingraham said that the three daycares, which are operated by herself and other family members, already generate a great deal of traffic that would only be exacerbated by the 40B project. She also cited two recent and similar projects that have been constructed less than a mile from the proposed site.
“I think it would be a great disservice to the Falmouth taxpaying individuals that reside in this area to allow yet another 40B construction site to be built in an already heavily congested area,” Ms. Ingraham said.
The layout of the homes themselves is also an area of contention. Three abutters, who retained attorney Brian J. Wall of Sandwich to make their arguments against the project, wrote a letter to the board outlining four reasons for their opposition to the project. The letter presented the argument that the three-bedroom homes do not meet the needs outlined in Falmouth’s Local Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wall said Falmouth is in need of one- and two-bedroom housing, not three-bedroom condominiums.
Early in the approval process for the proposed development, vice chairman Scott P. Zylinski asked the developer if he would consider one- and two-bedroom homes, which the developer was not willing to do. When asked the same question again at the August 19 meeting, Mr. Monteiro affirmed his position to construct three-bedroom homes instead.
“The density of the project is not six units per acre, it’s only 2.6,” he said. “It would be an economic hardship for me to sell a one-bedroom house and then to sell a one-bedroom market-rate house. The values would be down for the market-rate ones. You’ve got to realize, when they’re talking one-bedrooms and two-bedrooms, they’re not talking single-family homes. They’re talking apartments. If there were more units, then I might be able to do it. This is the bare minimum I can work with, and I can’t afford to do any one-bedroom houses.”
Mr. Wall said that while it is the board’s duty to weigh local concerns against the town’s need for affordable housing, it is the applicant’s burden to show that the development meets that balancing test. He argued that the lack of a clear narrative for this project is its own biggest inhibitor. Mr. Wall requested that the board deny the developer’s application for a comprehensive permit because of safety hazards for the proposed roadway, adverse health and safety impacts that may result from overly dense overlay districts, and elimination of all open space designated for local wildlife.
Yet another point of concern for abutters was the use of Percival Road itself. Earlier this year, the developer was informed that he did not have rights to Percival Road because it is a private easement located entirely on the abutters’ properties. Changes were made, but the proposed street layout is still confusing and convoluted to abutters. Part of the plans given to the board prior to the August 19 meeting show impermissible plantings in the middle of Percival Road to act as a lane divider, hazardously narrowing an already narrow roadway. It was decided that the plants must be removed, but plans for use of the roadway are still in disarray.
“This plan cannot be proceeded upon, and the developer has to remove those plants from the way,” Mr. Wall said. “But deeper than that, why are we talking about such crazy things such as plants in a way to separate two roads that are overlapping each other? It’s because the developer came forward with an application that presumed to use a road that they did not have the right to use. And now what they’re doing is they’re on the fly in an ad hoc manner, coming up with different proposals.…The bottom line is the board—all boards—you review plans, not ideas. So until they come back with a plan, it’s just an idea.”
Mr. Wall asked the board to consider his clients’ complaints in earnest because if approved, this project is “something they have to live with every single day.”
Mr. Monteiro expressed his frustration with the approval process and by the end of the hearing, tensions were running high.
“It’s just another excuse to keep prolonging this hearing,” Mr. Monteiro said of the requested changes to his plans. “Let’s face it, no one wants to see developments going up. But what you don’t realize is that the three abutters just don’t want the project there. That’s fine. This 40B project, I thought I put a lot of thought into it, especially for the density and the roadways coming in. They didn’t want it on their property, it’s self-contained, that’s what you have. Any more of these details…it’s really a moot point. Either you like the project, or you don’t. It doesn’t need to satisfy the board and I accept that, but to keep going on having these hearings weeks after weeks…it’s really not necessary.”
The board voted to continue the hearing until September 23.