Despite an apparent lack of public interest, the lines are clearly drawn in the GAN debate with Dunstan residents feeling the town’s proposal for 288 units is too large and the developers saying it is the “bare minimum.”
In a pair of discussions over the past week, a small group of residents said they wanted the zone scaled down to allow 200 units. And Great American Neighborhood developer Elliott Chamberlain told the Current 288 units is the “bare minimum” and he would not accept anything less. He feels the parcel, including 120 buildable acres, is better suited as an R-3 or R-4, which would allow three or four housing units per acre, respectively.
Last Thursday the Town Council met with seven Dunstan residents for a workshop where opinions could be discussed more openly than during a regular Town Council meeting. Council Chairman Jeffrey Messer said the meeting was not a negotiating session.
The town has proposed a zone change is in response to a lawsuit filed by the Chamberlains arguing, among other points, that the town’s zoning ordinances are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. In February a judge ruled in the Chamberlains’ favor and ordered both sides to submit a proposal to the court by May 31.
Currently under discussion is a proposal called the Dunstan Village Residential District, which was developed by the council and town staff. The new zone would change the 140 acres owned by the Chamberlains from a RF zone to a R-2 zone and allow for extra units, called bonuses, if the Chamberlains meet some affordable housing requirements and provide for preservation of nearby property. In total there could be up to 288 units on the property, if the proposal is approved
Apart from those who participated in the meeting and Great American Neighborhood developers John and Elliott Chamberlain, only one member of the public attended last week’s council workshop. During the meeting, the residents told the council the proposal does not provide sufficient details and it was too large.
“If it’s the comprehensive plan we’re trying to satisfy we’re going over and above it with this proposal,” said resident Mary Angis.
Without saying why, some of the neighbors said they would agree to a project that entailed 180 units with bonuses, which would total 198 units, the number developed during court-required mediation sessions in 2003.
“Both in the mediation and in the referendum that’s what the vast majority of people wanted – 200 units,” said resident Peter Angis.
But the Chamberlains did not agree to the mediation proposal and continued with their lawsuit against the town. Now that they have won the main aspect of it, the Chamberlains, Messer and others believe it is unreasonable for them to accept the mediated number.
Additional concerns about the plan included the impacts on the Dunstan intersection, schools and public safety. More specific concerns regarding the plan included parking, the exclusion of senior housing, and low requirements for open space around buildings. Some neighbors also felt the proposal was being rushed through the process without sufficient deliberation.
The Chamberlains said they would not agree to any deadline extension and Messer questioned if it could be done.
“I don’t that it is at all possible legally, at this point,” he said, adding that the judge made his ruling in February, which has given the town time to develop a plan.
The Planning Board held its public hearing on the proposal on Monday night and the only resident who spoke was Elliott Chamberlain.
Chamberlain defended many of the issues that had arisen during the Town Council workshop. He said the purpose of the proposed small lot sizes, with larger areas covered by buildings, was to create higher housing density that in turn would allow for more open space and provide flexibility in construction.
He said he expected only a few lots would be the smallest possible size, 5,000 square feet, and none would be 60 percent covered with buildings, as would be allowed. He also thought few of the development’s roads would be as narrow as 20 feet.
“The idea of cramming a lot of structures together is probably not inviting to a lot of people,” Chamberlain said. “We still have to sell this thing to the public.”
During Thursday’s council workshop Councilor Patrick O’Reilly pointed out that the density of the proposed plan is less than the newer development on Orchard Street and would be similar to what is now found on Dunstan Avenue or Church Street.
Councilors sympathized with the residents’ concerns regarding the traffic impact of the project, but said traffic is a problem everywhere in town. In fact, the Oak Hill intersection is just as bad if not worse than Dunstan, yet the council recently approved a zone change that will allow for a 222-unit development to occur in the area, some councilors said.
To help alleviate some of the traffic issue a left turn lane is slated to be added at the Dunstan intersection in the near future.
Neighbors also questioned what happened to some of aspects that were negotiated in the initial contract zone, including the open space offset provision. All of the provisions are excluded from the new Dunstan zone because they were initially negotiated as part of the contract zone.
“This is not a contract zone, so we can’t negotiate,” Messer said.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
