North Yarmouth is one step closer to having a townhouse subdivision, affordable housing.
North Yarmouth’s Planning Board voted unanimously Deacon Hayes Commons major subdivision application was incomplete following a public hearing on June 16. Residents had asked the Planning Board to deny the application.
Additional documentation needed includes letters from Yarmouth Water District and North Yarmouth Fire Chief confirming capacity to service the development, a written setback determination statement from Code Enforcement Officer (CEO), and an updated Home Owners Association agreement to include provisions for maintenance of septic systems and identifying affordable housing units.
Resident comments focused on issues ranging from concern about the groundwater protection overlay, impact on abutters, historical significance, and Land Use Ordinance (LUO) questions.
Alicia Dostilio thanked the Planning Board and the developer for the opportunity to share her concerns. “As an immediate abutter, I want to make it clear that I'm extremely disappointed in the current scale and scope of the proposed development.”
Dostilio questioned the parking lot layout, threat to the aquifer, and negative impact on the enjoyment of her property.
Deacon Hayes Commons is a 4-building, 12-unit proposed subdivision to be sited at the corner of Walnut Hill and Parsonage Lane. Bachelder intends to offer two of the units as “affordable housing.” The original Deacon Hayes house located on the 2.4-acre lot will be demolished.
John Farrell opposed “cram[ming] 12 families into the footprints of a single-family residence.” He also noted North Yarmouth’s lack of a police presence as an important consideration.
Dixie Hayes of the North Yarmouth Historical Society (NYHS) thinks the town should be doing more to preserve its historical features. She said, “The Planning Board, and the Select Board and the Historical Society and any other interested parties [need] to get our acts together and figure out what we need to do to motivate, incentivize, encourage people to preserve or repurpose or reuse the things that make our town special to begin with.”
A letter from Linc Merrill noted deficiencies in the application and questioned the project's setbacks and whether they complied with LUO.
According to Bachelder, the project meets current LUO setbacks based on conversations with the CEO. Ryan Keith interpreted LUO to apply to the project as a whole rather than to individual buildings. Keith claims front setback restrictions are valid along boundary with Parsonage Lane and Walnut Hill Road, and side setbacks need only be considered for the remaining two property lines.
Resident Mike Mallory disagrees. Mallory referred to problems in the LUO and asked whether the Planning Board was trying to make the LUO say what they wanted it to say, rather than following the written ordinances. He referred to Table 7.2 stipulations and noted the current plan did not meet side setback restrictions.
A procedural error with one of the annual Town Meeting warrants prevented changes to LUO Table 7.2 that addressed the side setback issue.
The plan’s townhouse design has changed since notifying abutters, replacing off-set units with an inline configuration to comply with LUO. North Yarmouth building standards require outer walls to be located in a single plane.
Residents do not like the change. Bachelder agrees and believes her original design was more attractive.
“I have to follow the land use ordinance, you know. I don't want a flat building there. But that's what the ordinance says. I wanted to bump out those buildings. I wanted to have different things. I don't want them 20 feet off the road. But I have to follow it. I don't want a huge parking lot out back, but I'm following the land use.”
North Yarmouth Historical Society (NYHS) President Katie Murphy noted North Yarmouth does not have an historic preservation ordinance or an historic district. NYHS may not know an historic structure is at risk until a demolition permit is issued. Bachelder said the house is in terrible condition and cannot be saved. She offered it at no cost to anyone willing to remove it.
Dostilio stated experts had advised her “the structure could be cost-effectively rehabilitated into a multi-unit housing option, which would meet the objective of adding housing to the town and crucially maintain the existing look and feel of their property.”
Jonathan Hall of Maine Preservation suggested the Deacon Hayes house is a good candidate for state and federal historic tax credits. “The federal and state historic tax credits can be used effectively on a project like this to save the Deacon Hayes house and have a good, a good new housing development. So they're not mutually exclusive.”
Final ruling on building cap and number of allowable permits will be handled by CEO. Questions on affordable housing units is still to be determined. Bachelder stated the minimum requirement to qualify would be 20% (2 units).
Bachelder explained affordable housing is not the same as low-income housing or workforce housing.
“Ultimately, we ask the planning board to reject the request for a change of use and to recommend the developers rehabilitate the existing structure and cap the housing unit at three. This would allow for the town to preserve a historic building, create additional housing units and preserve the character of the land at 521 Walnut Hill Road,” said Dostilio.
A revised site plan was distributed at the public hearing proposing to convey a strip of land to the adjacent property on Walnut Hill Road owned by Bachelder. The proposal was intended to allow the project to meet the 25’ side setback requirement and was suggested to the applicant by the code officer.
This is the 2nd Planning Board public hearing this year at which residents receive revised documents at the public hearing. Changes to proposed town meeting warrants were distributed at the April 12 public hearing.
Bachelder stated she wasn’t just a developer trying to build as many units as possible. “It's going to be its own community.” The plan includes a gazebo, shared gardens, play space, and benches.
“So I, again, I'm taking a lot of thought to this.” Bachelder continued, “I live 30 seconds from this property, I live right around the corner from all you guys. So and again, I live here, so I take it very seriously. I live here. And I want to add something to the community.”
Kimry Corrette noted that the LUO states setbacks are to be applied to structures. However, the preliminary interpretation from the code office conflicts, asserting they should be evaluated in the context of the project.
Bachelder acknowledged the town has work to do to fix the current LUO to clarify how they apply to the village center.
Although the LUO is ambiguous, it must be followed as written, said Rich Parenteau.
Residents asked to have additional opportunities to speak prior to final approval. It is at the discretion of the Planning Board whether to hold an additional public hearing.
The Planning Board could vote on the project's final approval at its July meeting.