ZBA Approves Three Duplexes For East Falmouth Highway
Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals voted recently to approve construction of three duplex homes at 424 East Falmouth Highway, replacing the existing single-family home on the property.
Darmalle Corporation, represented by attorney Kevin Klauer, was before the board on May 19 for a special permit to add three duplex apartment buildings to the property. The three duplex buildings will each have two two-bedroom units of multifamily housing, for a total of six units.
“I don’t think it’s any secret that we have a bit of a housing crisis in town,” Mr. Klauer said. “We need more housing really of any type, but specifically, our housing production plan has talked about one- and two-bedroom units, and I think in situations where there can be infill of existing developments like this, it’s probably the best, easiest, and most cost-effective way of developing additional housing.”
Darmalle Corp. president Deborah Druly, the applicant, plans to maintain affordable rental prices for the units; however, none of the units will be restricted as affordable and will not count toward the town’s subsidized housing inventory.
Board clerk Robert Dugan asked if there had been any consideration to restricting one of the units as affordable, but Mr. Klauer said that doing so is a cumbersome process that the applicant would prefer to not go through if it is not a requirement. He assured the board that the intention is to keep rent as close to affordable as possible to achieve an overall positive outcome.
Currently, the 1.8-acre property at 424 East Falmouth Highway has four buildings: a long single-story building along the eastern property line; a rectangular mixed-use building at the rear eastern corner of the lot that Mr. Klauer said contains one studio apartment; and a mixed-use building in the southwest quadrant of the lot with a first-floor restaurant with three two-bedroom apartments above. The fourth building is a single-family home with a detached garage that the applicant plans to raze and redevelop as three duplexes.
The applicant also plans to add 12 additional parking spaces to the property and improve the configuration and traffic flow. Existing greenery will be maintained, and traffic flow will be safer, Mr. Klauer said, as vehicles will be able to exit the property onto Old Meetinghouse Road through a second curb cut on the western edge of the property that is farther from the intersection of East Falmouth Highway.
The project required a special permit from the appeals board because of the pre-existing nonconformity of the structures on the lot, as well as a permit to allow for multifamily housing in the B-2 district. This proposal does not fall within the recently approved Mixed-Use Residential and Commercial Overlay District.
Overall, the board was mainly tasked with considering whether the proposal reasonably conformed with the neighborhood and whether the public good is served by the project, which Mr. Klauer said it was.
“We’re adding sorely need housing stock,” he said. “Though this is not proposed to be restricted as affordable, the expectation is that the rent will hew fairly closely to the affordable range. The applicant intends to retain these properties as rental units. This will revitalize an underutilized, highly visible portion of the lot with an attractive functional use. The business-zoned area will not be adversely affected. The site as existing and as proposed will include both business and residential uses in an area that promotes exactly that. And the permitted uses in the district are not noxious to multifamily housing.”
The board was pleased with the project, with member James T. Morse specifically appreciating the project’s adherence to the town’s housing production plan, which emphasizes a need for one- and two-bedroom units.
Board member D. Scott Peterson did point out an inconsistency with the decision from the planning board earlier this year, in which it notes that the property has three existing units, not four as Mr. Klauer said. Mr. Klauer said he believes it was a typo but will clarify with the planning department, noting that the four existing units were mentioned multiple times during the planning board’s public hearings on the topic.
The board voted unanimously to approve the project.