Three Falmouth abutters hired an attorney to argue against a proposed 16 single-family home 40B housing development proposed for Percival Road.
The site, 5.5 acres of undeveloped land, is near the intersection of Percival and Sandwich roads behind the Cape Verdean Club.
The developer presented a new site plan to the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals February 11.
Attorney Brian J. Wall of Sandwich and the neighbors he represents said the applicant has not identified the waivers needed to secure from town regulatory boards. He said the project is inconsistent with local needs and local concerns and does not meet the housing needs of the community. Lastly, the neighbors oppose using Pervical Road, a private, gravel way, as access to the development.
The project, called Rose Wood Estates, has been filed under the state’s Chapter 40B regulation, which allows projects to bypass zoning regulations if at least 25 percent of the project is sold as affordable housing.
Edwin A. Monteiro of Eco Land Development, LLC, wants to build eight three-bedroom, two-story, Cape Cod-style single-family homes and eight three-bedroom, one-story ranch-style homes ranging between 1,400 and 1,800 square feet. The proposed density of the development is 2.9 units per acre.
Mr. Monteiro and his attorney, Stephen O. McKenzie, are seeking a comprehensive permit from the ZBA.
At the hearing, the attorney presented an updated site plan that moves the access road to within the 5.5 acres and uses Trotting Park Road as the entrance point. Originally, the applicant planned to widen the section of Percival Road that would abut the development to accommodate proposed water and gas lines.
The applicant learned he does not have rights to Percival Road as it is a private easement located entirely on the abutters’ properties.
However, the revision was met with criticism for being incomplete and confusing as it showed notations from the first version.
“The new site plan is unclear,” said abutter Patricia A. Harris of Percival Road. “I can’t tell where the new road would be and what is being depicted here. There are no dimension listed or scale,” she said.
Board member Kenneth H. Foreman agreed.
“We need clear information. We need clear road designs especially since there is a possible land transgression,” he said.
“We need measurements and sideline setbacks on here too,” said board member Robert Dugan.
Mr. Wall suggested that the revised site plan go back to the planning board, fire department and the conservation commission for review.
After the applicant made his presentation, Mr. Wall laid out the reasons he said the development is inconsistent with local needs and concerns.
About 2,600 feet away from the Long Pond water supply, the property is located within the Zone B Water Resource Protection District and the project does not meet the lot size requirements. It is in the Coastal Pond Overlay District where a shared wastewater facility for a project of this size is required and in a wildlife corridor and should have dedicated open space for wildlife, Mr. Wall said.
The proposed three-bedroom houses are inconsistent with the town’s 2018 Housing Production Plan that identifies a strong need for one and two-bedroom homes. It was criticized for not conforming with the local comprehensive plan that requests that development locations be determined by walkability, available infrastructure, schools and services.
The proposed location, however, is more than a mile to the nearest store, school or park, and many stretches do not have sidewalks, according to the project eligibility letter.
Another point of contention is the lack of waivers presented by the applicant, Mr. Wall said.
A comprehensive permit requires the applicant list the waivers sought from local regulatory requirements.
Mr. Wall said he believed only three waivers have been requested, but 12 are needed for the project to go forward. Mr. Wall outlined in a December 8 letter to the board the waivers that are needed including the requirement to submit subdivision plans to the state department of natural resources because it is in a wildlife corridor.
Mr. McKenzie agreed to revise the plan for clarity. The board continued the hearing until April 8.