Another 'affordable' Homeland housing plan denied
Updated 5:23 pm, Wednesday, September 19, 2012
An application to create an "affordable-housing" unit as part of a controversial project on Homeland Street was again rejected by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission on Tuesday night.
The commission was unanimous in its denial of another proposal from James Sakonchick for property at 206 Homeland St., which called for construction of a duplex and a single-family home on 5,000 square feet of property that currently is the side yard for 214 Homeland St. -- the site of its inground pool and part of its porch.
For TPZ members, the latest Sakonchick application was a non-starter because they said the property at 206 Homeland St. was merged long ago into the parcel at 214 Homeland St.
"I think it's clearly one lot," said TPZ Vice Chairman Seth Baratz, adding that finding was made to clear to Sakonchick by zoning staff verbally and in writing.
Chairman Bryan LeClerc said not only is the property a single lot, the application was incomplete, lacking any testimony from experts on traffic or drainage.
Another commission member, Douglas Soutar, said the state law regarding affordable housing requires that there be at least one unit for those making 60 percent of the median income and another one for 80 percent of the median income. Sakonchick's proposal would have provided only one unit.
TPZ member Sally Parker at one time was a member of the town's Affordable Housing Committee. Sakonchick's proposal, she said, did not impress her and would do little to increase the town's affordable housing stock. In fact, she said, Homeland Street is already densely developed and provides "a lot of lower-priced or moderately priced housing."
Sakonchick has previously tried to get approval for a single-family home at 206 Homeland St., an application denied because it was not, zoning officials said, a separate lot from 214 Homeland St. Next, he filed an application for affordable housing that included the existing house at 214 Homeland St. and provided for a new single-family home with a small apartment as the affordable component. That, too, was denied and led to the latest version, which suffered a similar fate.
email@example.com; 203-556-2771; http://twitter.com/GreillyPost