Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board tables $2.6 million acquisition request for 50‑unit senior housing at 545 Main Street
Summary
Falmouth Housing Corporation and Affirmative Investments asked for $2.6 million from the town’s Affordable Housing Fund to acquire 545 Main Street for a 50‑unit, senior (age‑restricted) affordable housing project. Board members raised concerns about funding at acquisition stage and the project’s senior-only restriction and voted to table the request to July 27 for more analysis and funding options.
The Select Board on July 13 postponed action on a request for $2.6 million in town Affordable Housing Fund support for the acquisition of 545 Main Street, a proposed 50‑unit, 100% affordable senior development presented by Falmouth Housing Corporation and Affirmative Investments.
Project representatives described a new four‑story, one‑bedroom building proposed on the site of an aging round structure that the developers say contains asbestos, mold and other constraints that make reuse infeasible. The team proposed 50 one‑bedroom units targeted at seniors (30% and 60% of area median income) and estimated the total capital stack at roughly $44.5 million, with the $2.6 million acquisition request representing about 8% of the financing.
Tara Mizrahi of Affirmative Investments explained that the particular state and federal tax‑credit resources the developer seeks are more readily available for age‑restricted senior projects and allow a financially feasible one‑bedroom unit mix. "Only when you're doing age‑restricted housing can you build one‑bedroom units" with the funding levels they target, she said.
Several board members and public speakers urged more exploration of alternatives that could add workforce or family units instead of age restriction, and questioned the risk of committing acquisition funds before a full financing package and permitting are complete. Opponents also argued for exploring historic‑rehabilitation tax credits to preserve the existing building; proponents countered that rehabilitation costs would far exceed the building’s fair value and that the proposed plan meets documented senior demand.
After extended public comment and debate, the board voted to table the request until its July 27 meeting and asked applicants and staff to pursue alternative funding scenarios — including outreach to state legislators — and provide more detail on permitting, local preference and the feasibility of an age‑unrestricted or mixed project.
