Supporters and opponents of the Great American Neighborhood development are waiting to see what comments members of the public bring to town officials, and what the officials’ reaction is, before deciding what action to take on the town’s proposal to allow up to 288 units on the Dunstan parcel.
The proposal from town officials, unveiled last week, would change the zoning on 142 acres in Dunstan owned by brothers Elliott and John Chamberlain from R-F, which allows one home on every two acres, to R-2, which allows two units per acre.
The proposal would also allow two “density bonuses,” allowing 24 more units per bonus to be built on the parcel if the developers agree to certain conditions. The first condition would be to make some of the housing units qualify as “affordable,” and the other would be to preserve other nearby land from future development.
Generally speaking, town councilors support the proposal, which could settle a lawsuit the Chamberlains have filed against the town, saying the 2003 citizens’ denial of approval for the GAN violates the comprehensive plan.
The Chamberlains want denser zoning, and residents who opposed the GAN are waiting to see where the proposal goes while it is under review by the town, which is holding a series of public hearings and meetings on the issue.
On Wednesday, April 6, at 7:30 p.m. at Town Hall, the Town Council will hold its first reading of the proposal. On Monday, April 25, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on it. The proposal then return to the council for two readings and a final approval. Town officials want the process to be completed by June 1, one day after a court-imposed deadline for an agreement.
Elliott Chamberlain believes the area should be zoned either R-3 or R-4, which would allow three or four housing units to be built on each of the parcel’s 120 buildable acres. No matter what the zone becomes, any project built on it would be subject to town approval.
Chamberlain said the town’s comprehensive plan specifies that Dunstan be designed to accept a significant amount of the town’s future development and noted that the abutting properties are zoned R-3 and R-4. He said the R-2 zone is now defined as a low-density growth pattern and therefore is not consistent with what is outlined in the comprehensive plan.
“I would contend that it should be more of a higher density,” Chamberlain said. “R-4 probably gets a bit up there, but certainly R-3 to me is more what it should be.”
Chamberlain has not met with the town to discuss its proposal since it was unveiled last week, and said he will wait and see what the town’s final decision is before deciding on his next steps.
Chamberlain also has taken offense at comments at last week’s unveiling that he is just profiteering with the project. If that were the case, he said, he would have built the project under current zoning and sold it. Instead he feels that this project is the right thing for both the town and the lot.
Meanwhile, some of the more vocal opponents of the GAN plan expressed their displeasure with the town’s proposal when it was discussed last week. Some still feel that the R-2 zone with the bonuses is still too large for the area.
But there is no word that the loosely knit anti-GAN group called “No GAN” will renew its efforts in fighting the proposal. They too are waiting to see how the proposal comes out of the town before making its decision, according to members.
“It’s really too early to say,” said Denis Netto. “It’s just a workshop and I would hope the town officials were listening this time around to what the citizens were commenting on.”
Netto said he would rather have seen the town start with the number of 197 units, reached during a mediation process between the Chamberlains and the town, but never formally agreed upon. Netto said he was not clear why the town’s proposal didn’t start there.
However, “it was indicated it was a work in progress and we’ll see,” he said.
Town officials and the council developed the proposal. While some councilors said it was too much and others not enough, most felt that the proposal was reasonable and works as a good starting point.
The major difference between this proposal and the Chamberlain’s GAN proposal is that this is a zone change and the previous approval was done with a contract zone, which allowed the town to force the developers to take additional actions in order to receive approval.
Under the contract zone the council approved in 2003, the town would have received $2.5 million in state transportation funds, $1 million from the developer to retain open space, a park area within the complex and a community building that would be available to the town. In addition, the town could have had some increased input with the design of the project. All of those things are now off the table.
Councilor Sylvia Most said the town lost a lot when the contract zone was nullified by the referendum vote. She said she was a proponent of the contract zone and her opinion has not changed.
But the town is in a difficult position. It must not only satisfy a judge, but also residents, many of whom seem at odds with the proposal at this point. While no one knows what would happen if the judge does not accept the town’s proposal, one option available is voiding the zoning. This will leave the area unzoned and allow the developers to build whatever they would like. But the town would rather not see the judge make the decision.
“We really want to keep control of this decision in local hands,” said Council Chairman Jeff Messer.
Messer said he personally felt 288 units was on the high side and thought 240 to 264 units would be acceptable.
Other councilors have similar feelings.
“I think it’s just about right,” said Councilor Steve Ross, adding that he anticipates he will vote against one of the two density bonuses, but declined to specify which one.
Councilor Shawn Babine said he is comfortable with the number so far, but is waiting until hearing more from the public before making his final decision. However, given the judge’s decision, he feels that the Chamberlains are permitted to build more than the 197 units that were discussed during the mediation session.
Babine said he thought it might be difficult for the developer to reach the developable land density bonus since there is very little land in the area that is for sale, which reduces the total by 24.
Councilor Patrick O’Reilly said he found it peculiar that the rest of the land around the project is zoned R-3 and R-4 and yet people are still saying that the R-2 zone change would make the land too densely zoned.
O’Reilly also said it is disingenuous for people to bring up the 197 units considered during mediation. That number was not accepted and now it seems that the Chamberlains have won the lawsuit, he said.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
