Strongly divided opinions about housing proposal

SALISBURY — The first session of the public hearing on the proposed affordable housing apartment building in Lakeville began on Monday, March 8, with Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Chair Michael Klemens asking each commissioner and alternate if they had already reached a conclusion on the Salisbury Housing Committee’s application; were they willing to listen without partiality to the testimony in the hearing; and did they have a financial and/or personal stake on the proposal?

All the commissioners and alternates answered no, yes and no.

This unusual action was in response to a March 2 letter from attorney William Grickis (representing Lakeville business owner Seth Churchill) to the commission. One section of the letter addresses the “possible bias of the Planning and Zoning Commission.”

Grickis pointed out that Commissioner Allen Cockerline is on the board of directors of the Falls Village Housing Trust, and expressed concerns over remarks from other members during P&Z meetings.

(The letter and all other documents pertaining to the Salisbury Housing Committee application are available on the town website, www.salisburyct.us.)

Klemens then reminded the commissioners not to discuss the application in any manner outside of the hearing or commission meeting.

The Salisbury Housing Committee submitted an application for the larger building at the same site (11 Holley St. in Lakeville) last year. (The site is now a parking lot and the small Bicentennial Park.) The organization subsequently withdrew the application, modified the proposal, and submitted the new application last month.

P&Z questions
on the new plan

The application was presented by Jocelyn Ayer (speaking for the Salisbury Housing Committee), architect Jon Tunsky and traffic engineer Joseph Balskus.

The building is 15,300 square feet (compared to 16,400 square feet in last year’s withdrawn application).

The original proposal had 13 apartments: eight one-bedroom, two two-bedroom and three three-bedroom, on three floors.

The new proposal is for 12 apartments: seven one-bedroom, four two-bedroom, one three-bedroom, on three floors.

The building has a substantially different look from the original proposal. 

Ayer said that 12 apartments represents the smallest number of units that is economically feasible.

The commissioners had a few questions for the applicant: lighting in the parking lot, laundry facilities for residents, drainage, fire lanes, where do children get on the school bus, where do people put their bicycles, what will the impact of construction be on the neighborhood, and parking.

The commission took a five-minute break and then started hearing from the public.

Concerns
about parking 

Grickis reiterated his concerns about possible commission bias. He also said his client has made “substantial investments” in the Lakeville village area with the understanding that satellite parking, including the parking lot at the 11 Holley St. site, was part of the deal.

Balskus, the traffic engineer hired by the Salisbury Housing Committee, energetically defended his traffic analysis from last year and reiterated his opinion that the apartment building will not create traffic or safety problems.

Public comment continued, with opinions about evenly divided between the pro and the con.

Parking was a recurring theme. Some said there is not enough parking now, and the loss of the 11 Holley St. lot will have a negative impact on nearby businesses.

Others said there is plenty of parking now and the apartment building will help revitalize Lakeville.

There were concerns about cutting down trees at Bicentennial Park. Another person said there is no shortage of trees in Lakeville. 

One commenter said he believed the concern about parking was overblown. Another wanted financial information that would guarantee the apartment building would not require taxpayer funds. Another wanted to know if the construction would use local contractors. Another individual wanted to know why affordable housing couldn’t be built on the Pope property instead. Someone else said affordable housing should be built at both locations. 

At around the three-hour mark the public comments were done and the question was: Should the hearing be continued on Monday, March 22, as originally planned, or should it be pushed back two additional weeks?

Attorney Daniel Casagrande, representing a group of Lakeville residents who have petitioned for intervenor status, fervently expressed his wish for the extra time, saying he needed it to be fully prepared and to deny it raised questions of due process for his clients.

But the commission stayed with the original schedule. The applicant will respond to the questions raised on March 8, at the hearing on Monday, March 22, 5:30 p.m. on Zoom.

This article appeared first online at www.tricornernews.com.