SALISBURY — On Wednesday night, April 14, after a third session of the public hearing on an application to build affordable housing in Lakeville, the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission closed the hearing.
Deliberations will begin on Wednesday, April 28, at 5:30 p.m. (on Zoom).
Like the previous two sessions, the April 14 meeting ran well over four hours.
P&Z Chair Michael Klemens began by explaining why the commission was not using the “chat” feature.
“We cannot have a second stream of unrecorded public comments,” he said.
Dan Casagrande, the attorney for the intervenors objecting to the Salisbury Housing Committee’s proposed housing at 11 Holley St., summarized his arguments.
He said approving the application would be an “unnecessary tragedy” because it would involve building on Bicentennial Park and would cause harm to the historic area.
He said there are other, more suitable sites available for affordable housing, including the Pope property and 414 Millerton Road.
He said the application does not meet the technical requirements of the regulations, and he said the Salisbury Housing Committee provided incorrect information on an application for funding.
He said his clients do not oppose affordable housing.
“All they are saying is this is the wrong site.”
Chris Smith, attorney for the Salisbury Housing Committee, disputed the claims of harm to the Historic District, and of the definition of what is and isn’t defined as “historic.”
He said the burden of proof is on the intervenors and that they had not met that burden.
Smith said the application complies with the requirements for a special permit.
The meeting featured lengthy remarks from the attorneys, assorted experts and public comment.
Issues that came up during the discussion included: parking; the prospect of delivery trucks parking outside the new building on Millerton Road (Route 44); the differences between federal historic status and the town’s Historic District; feasibility of other sites; the height and bulk of the building from different vantage points; the size of the building that existed on the site until it was demolished in the mid-1960s; the intent of the donors of the property; feasibility of other sites; the federal style of architecture; possible bias of commission members; the Salisbury Housing Committee’s application for funding; and satellite parking rights.
