Neighbors have filed an appeal of the 12-unit housing Chapter 40B development off Locustfield Road. The developer, in the meantime, has broken ground on the project.
Daniel C. Maclone, doing business as Locustfield LLC, plans to build nine market-rate, three-bedroom homes and three affordable, three-bedroom homes on a lot off Locustfield Road. The project was the subject of multiple zoning board of appeals hearings in which neighbors raised concerns about proximity of the development to their property lines, lighting, traffic safety, and density of the build.
Neighbors William Marston and Joseph Bento filed an appeal, arguing that the appeals board should not have issued the comprehensive permit. It was filed in Barnstable Superior Court through their attorney, Paul Revere III, on July 16.
“The ZBA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, constituted an error of law, constituted an abuse of discretion, exceeded the authority of the ZBA, was against the weight of evidence presented at the public hearing, and was otherwise harmful,” the document reads.
The appeal also alleges that the, “ZBA’s decision unlawfully postpones a determination of substance with regard to multiple determinations by approving the permit application, but requiring the submission of multiple plans later.”
Despite the pending litigation, the lot was clear cut and Mr. Marston said he and Mr. Bento received letters alerting them to the start of work on the property.
The development has the support of the board of selectmen and gained letters of support from the Affordable Housing Committee and the Falmouth Housing Trust.
On July 1, the zoning board of appeals issued a comprehensive permit for the project that included 45 conditions. Among the conditions were six-foot stockade fences along the length of the northerly and southerly lot lines from the road to the electrical easement, as well as a looped water main.
Mr. Maclone may start work on the property at his own risk. The zoning board of appeals comprehensive permit notes, “Any person exercising rights under a duly appealed Comprehensive Permit does so at risk that a court may reverse the permit, and that construction performed under the permit may be ordered undone.”
Mr. Maclone did not immediately return a request for comment.