What's Next for the Flea Market Site?

What's Next for the Flea Market Site?

By Jon Anderson, Town Council

Last week the Council unanimously voted against approving the 96-unit senior affordable and workforce housing project contract zone amendment that was proposed by South Portland Housing Authority.  For me, it is a great project, but simply in the wrong location.  I was concerned about the safety issues that could arise with that many units at that specific site. The infrastructure there just isn’t suitable for a project of that size.  I can also understand how many felt the scale of the project was out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.  I appreciated all the outreach and engagement with the Council.

We received a lot of emails and concerns about this project and I just wanted to share some information with residents that I hope you will consider related to this project.  

Affordable Housing: There were some people who thought that this project was for section 8 housing.  It was not.  It was for 60 units for 55+ income restricted housing for seniors who make less than 80% of the mean area income.  It also included 36 units for deed restricted workforce housing for people within 80-120% of the mean area income.  

Impact to Schools: Some expressed concerns over the impact this project would have on our schools.  The impact would come from the 15 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom houses.  If the proportion of students was the same as apartments at The Oaks off Gorham, that would be roughly 12 students added to our school system, that’s roughly one per grade.   When this project was at the Planning Board, there was also a 10 single family home new development in Pleasant Hill that would likely put more pressure on our schools, but nobody spoke out against that project.   A growth factor is built into enrollment projections and this project was within scope.  Additionally, current classroom sizes are well within the Board of Education class size policy and well below the State’s maximum classroom sizes.  The primary issue with the schools today is not classroom sizes, but that we have 60+ year old facilities that were not designed with modern education and safety requirements in mind, that currently have temporary structures at the end of their useful life that are in need of replacement.   The middle school was also built too small on day one, resulting in all of 6th grade being in a separate temporary structure.   Recent and future growth is not the primary driver for why we need new school buildings.

Growth: This project was going to operate within our Rate of Growth Ordinance and they were not seeking any exemptions.  Our Rate of Growth Ordinance allows for minimum growth based on state law; but does have a provision to allow for additional permits for deed restricted affordable and workforce housing projects.  There is a delay in the implementation of this ordinance and what people see.  Many of the projects we hear about today that are a concern were granted growth permits years ago.  It is a long process and takes time to see the full effect of the policy, but my hope is in a couple more years people will start to see the benefits of the current ordinance.   In our biennial community survey it is clear that growth management is a priority of our residents.  The top 3 issues are growth, property taxes AND affordable housing with 50% of residents saying income restricted affordable housing is growing too slow or much too slow.   These 3 issues are at odds with one another 1)  High Density growth in our designated growth areas helps us keep property taxes lower based on new tax value generated to the town and the lower cost to serve 2) Affordable housing likely will require some level of tax rebate (e.g. CEA) in order to get the needed federal financing to build a project and 3)  Towns with more restrictive zoning have higher mil rate increases year over year compared to Scarborough.  It’s a balance.

Tax Rebates: Many expressed concerns about tax rebates.   The Council this year developed a new Credit Enhancement Agreement (CEAs) policy that created new provisions for how we review and evaluate affordable housing CEAs.  I understand people have a hard time giving tax breaks to for profit developers, but most affordable housing projects are built by non-profits who are mission oriented and not simply looking to make money.   The financing for projects like this is difficult, sparse and competitive.  If we want diverse options in our community, we need to look at this as an investment in our community and not a cost.  There is also additional taxable value being generated and the goal is to use these sparingly so the net impact to taxpayers is virtually unrecognizable.   

Impact to the Environment: Many residents expressed concerns about the impact this project would have to the Marsh and to wetland impacts.  This project was going to exceed all environmental regulations on stormwater management.   The current site has no stormwater mitigation.  While I know it’s not intuitive, the plans for this project would have likely protected the Marsh more than it stands today.  

Traffic: While the 30 peak hour trips were a concern to folks, by right there are other uses that could be placed in that property that both the Council and Planning Board would not be able to intervene since they requested a contract zone.   If a certain type of retail went into the site it could draw the same or more trips and be worse for safety.  Without triggering a traffic movement permit there would be minimal improvements required by the State to the developer.  

Process: There was some perspective that this was moving too fast.   Like any landowner, you have a right to make an application for whatever it is you would like to do to your property and we need to listen and make a decision.  We held a workshop earlier in the year and gave the advice that traffic safety was a concern and would need to be addressed for the project to proceed.  Unfortunately they were unable to get access elsewhere, so at least I voted to not move it forward due to this fatal design flaw.

So what’s next for the Flea Market site?  I would like to see the landowner come back with a smaller senior affordable housing project. The trip counts would be much less that may make it more viable.  I don’t think there will be a better project that wouldn’t have more issues, and I don’t want it to be a dilapidated building that brings no taxable value to the Town.  I believe and value that we need to create more diverse and affordable housing options in Scarborough as part of our growth management strategy.  With an aging population, I think it’s important we create opportunities for our seniors to age in place in Scarborough. That means more diverse affordable housing for those who need or wish to downsize.  Ensuring we have diversity is good for all of our pocket books and I believe the government has a duty to appropriately intervene to look out for the general welfare of everyone.  I’m looking forward to our workshop on June 4th to discuss this and hope all of you will join us in the discussion and provide your thoughts on diverse, affordable and workforce housing options so we can create better policies that maximize the general welfare for all.
 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Scarborough Town Council.