Reading the proposal for the “Village Courtyard” project, there’s a difference between what they say and what we see
What they say…
What we see…
This is a 40B Housing Project
The builder is exploiting the law to build large, high-end condominium townhouses and throwing in some affordable units in order to by-pass the town’s zoning restrictions.
The affordable unit owners will have to pay $350 condo fees and heat/cool over 2300sf of living space.
The affordable units are the interior units, making them the least desirable.
Following the letter of the law but not the intent is irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.
“Provides needed market rate and dedicated affordable housing…”
They are building units at the higher end of the market ($1M+), which are not consistent with affordable housing needs.
One could argue we do not need more million dollar homes being built in Dennis. Houses of the proposed size and finishes are continually driving up the housing market.
Shutting our working class families and individuals and skewing our demographics to an older population is irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.
Development “not within an environmentally-sensitive area”
Development “not within an environmentally-sensitive area”
Clear cutting 2 acres of vegetation to build a housing complex is not environmentally prudent.
Covering 53.5% of the lot with asphalt parking lots is not environmentally prudent.
Providing septic for up to 88 residents just 800 feet from an important waterway could be very hazardous to our environment.
Disrespecting our natural environment is irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.
“Provides alternative townhouse living options in lieu of detached single family homes”
What does this matter if the “townhouses” are more expensive than the median sale price in Dennis? Or as large as a single family home?
Filing shows this is a condominium complex. Are these townhouses or condominiums?
This seems to follow the Dennis Housing Production Plan intent but falls short in execution which is irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.
“Contributes to reinforcing the Route 6A streetscape and landscape while respecting the architectural patterns within the OKH Historic District.”
How does clear-cutting the land, building a large, dense housing complex, paving great swaths of the property, and providing minimal landscaping reinforce what exists or respect our historic district?
The developer, by pursuing a 40B zoning variance, indicates a disinterest in the historic significance of this area and its strict zoning requirements which is irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.
“Promotes compact, pedestrian-friendly development…” (from MA “Sustainable Development Principles” (SDP))
The SDP also calls for:
Remediation and reuse of existing structures rather than new construction in undeveloped areas.
Conserving the land and protecting historic resources.
This housing complex strips undeveloped land that is within a designated Historic District. This is irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.
“Build homes, especially multi-family, near jobs, transit and where services are readily available” (From SDP)
This housing complex is designed to be for 55+ people who can afford a $1M house. What jobs are available for that demographic? What transit is readily available? Which services? There is no bus service in the Village. Owners will have to use personal vehicles. There are no sidewalks on Hope Lane which is the entrance and egress for both portions of the proposed housing complex. There isn’t even a safe place to cross 6A to get to the library.
Developer is not truly meeting any of these points except multi-family which, again, side-steps the intent of the SDP, is irresponsible, and not what Dennis should be about.
“Expand housing opportunities in a way that is compatible with a community’s character”
By building an age-restricted development, the builder ignores the SDP call to “advance equity,” include “all abilities, income levels and household types,” and “ensure the interests of future generations are not compromised by today’s decision.”
This project is exclusive, short sighted, and, we would contend, not aligned with our community’s character. We see this as irresponsible and not what Dennis should be about.