East Falmouth 40B Brings Out Affordable Housing Stereotypes | Falmouth News

Plans for a Chapter 40B development on Brick Kiln Road sparked tension between members of the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals and the public last Thursday, August 17, when some neighbors voiced concerns about the perceived negative impacts of having affordable housing in their neighborhood.

The proposed rental development, named Brick Kiln Place, would include 20 units contained in 10 ranch-style duplex buildings on 3.66 acres of land. Developers John J. DeSangro and Dana J. Wessell of Northstar Construction, doing business as Northstar Place, LLC, submitted plans for the project in January.

The proposed development is unofficially located at 123 Brick Kiln Road, and would sit between two residential subdivisions on Sophie Lane and Jamie Lane, built between 1960 and 2000.

Zoning consultant Stephen O. McKenzie, representing Northstar Place, noted that Mr. Wessell and Mr. DeSangro live off Brick Kiln Road themselves, and chose to build the affordable housing development “right in their own backyard.”

“This is something that’s important to them,” he said during a zoning board hearing last Thursday.

Other neighbors, however, did not have such a positive outlook on the project.

Russell M. Stevens of Sophie Lane asked about the vetting process for tenants, specifically asking whether the property owners would conduct credit checks or ban pit bull-type dogs.

“Who’s going to be living 20 feet from my house, basically?” he asked.

Jane E. Tobey of Wyndlea Circle, who operates a licensed home daycare business, echoed his concerns about tenant criteria, and asked whether the development would be Section 8 housing.

“I’ve got children in my house. I’ve got to keep eyes on all windows while I’m watching my kids, so it’s a concern of mine,” she said.

She also expressed concern that drug dealers would use a proposed cul-de-sac in the development as a drop-off point, which she said had previously been observed on the Wyndlea Lane cul-de-sac.

Mr. McKenzie said that landscaping on the cul-de-sac would be maintained at a low height and the area would be well-lit to deter illegal activities.

Mr. McKenzie also clarified that no portion of Brick Kiln Place is proposed as Section 8 housing. Section 8 is a federally subsidized housing voucher program in which participating tenants spend only 30 percent of their income on rent to private landlords, while the US Department of Housing and Urban Development covers the difference.

The state Chapter 40B law, on the other hand, allows developers to build projects with greater density than allowed by zoning bylaws, in exchange for providing at least 25 percent of the units as affordable. Although a portion of the rents are set at a lower rate, tenants do not receive housing vouchers.

“[The tenants] all have jobs and earn an income,” Mr. McKenzie assured the neighbors.

Zoning board chairman Kenneth H. Foreman also noted that the federal estimate for 50 percent of the area median income for a four-person household in Barnstable County is $45,100. The affordable apartments would be rent-restricted for households earning 80 percent of area median income, which is currently about $63,000 per year.

Still, zoning board member Kimberly A. Bielan openly took issue with some of the neighbor’s comments.

“Personally, I think it is a little offensive to say, ‘Is this Section 8 housing? Do we have to keep our eye out the window?’” she said. “These people are people who deserve housing. They’re hardworking. A lot of people are teachers… They’re no different than the other people who would buy property next to your house.”

Ms. Bielan added that such statements were contrary to the intent of Chapter 40B, to combat “anti-snob zoning.”

A few individuals in the audience huffed and gasped in reaction to her statements.

Neighbor Mr. Stevens countered that he did not want to see his neighborhood become like Gosnold Grove affordable apartments in East Falmouth, and asserted that any of the zoning board members would feel the same if they had property abutting the proposed development.

“That’s not snobby,” he said.

Fueling some of the concerns, multiple residents reported that there had been a history of police activity in the surrounding neighborhoods due to drug-related issues. In particular, residents noted Jamie Lane and Homestead Lane as areas of concern. Homestead Lane is located directly across from 123 Brick Kiln Road.

“We see our neighborhood in the police blotter quite a bit,” Mr. Stevens said, and he worried that the apartments would exacerbate the issues.

Zoning administrator Sari D. Budrow clarified that Gosnold Grove is not a 40B development. The development has a Section 8 contract with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Ms. Budrow invited those in the audience who did not understand Chapter 40B zoning to visit her office in town hall, and she encouraged the neighbors to look at other 40B projects in town. The zoning department keeps a list of all 40B developments in town on its website.

“Don’t hesitate to drive by them…you will not be able to tell that these are affordable,” she said.

Wyndlea Circle resident Mckeen C. Kessell asked whether Brick Kiln Place could be maintained as a smoke-free development, in hopes that the restriction would decrease the likelihood of attracting tenants with drug- and alcohol-related issues.

“We have good family people in there,” he said.

However, Mr. McKenzie said the developers would likely not impose such a restriction.

“These are people who are in need of housing and we’re trying to provide housing for people that need it,” Mr. McKenzie said. “Smoking is a right if somebody chooses to do it.”

Neighbor Mr. Stevens questioned whether the developers’ motive was really to benefit low-income families.

“I think this is more about capitalism than it is about altruism,” he said.

Mr. McKenzie and project engineer Michael J. Borselli presented details on the proposed Brick Kiln Place apartments during the meeting as well.

The units were designed in a Cape Cod style to match surrounding dwellings, with wood cedar shingles, painted trim and asphalt roofing. Each duplex would measure 19 feet tall, meant to remain largely out of sight from the streetscape.

According to plans filed in the zoning office, estimated total development costs for the project come in at $3,517,500.

Five of the units would be rented at affordable rates in perpetuity, including one three-bedroom apartment and four two-bedroom apartments. The remaining 15 units would be rented at market rate, but all of the apartments would count toward the town’s subsidized housing inventory.

The property would be buffered on the southeast border by a line of trees, and on the northwest property line by a fence. Plans include a lamppost for each residence, as well as several posts lining the driveway.

Plans originally included a community playground area as well, but that was removed in response to concerns from abutters that the area would aggravate neighborhood noise. Instead, revised plans provide each of the apartments with an individual backyard space for recreation, with setbacks ranging from 35 to 65 feet from neighboring property lines.

The property would include two parking spaces for each apartment, as required by existing zoning regulations, as well as 10 additional guest parking spots, to make a total of 50 parking spaces.

All proposed setbacks, lot dimensions and coverage requirements either meet or exceed the current zoning requirements.

As proposed, the development would cover 9.9 percent of the land with structures and 29 percent of the land by structures and paving, both well within existing zoning regulations of 20 percent and 40 percent respectively.

The project would require a waiver to allow multi-family housing in an agricultural district and to allow increased density. The project proposes 5.5 units per acre, where only one unit per acre is allowed under existing zoning regulations.

However, the proposed density would still be less than what is allowable in a multi-family housing district, Mr. McKenzie noted.

One of the only suggestions made by the board was to add plantings along the proposed fence, and Mr. Mackenzie said his client would be amenable to the addition.

The zoning board continued the hearing to September 14 at 6:30 PM in the town hall selectmen’s meeting room.