Asking for a ridiculous break in development fees is not the way to embark on a new development in a community. That is exactly what the proponents of a new seniors’ housing facility to be located on Legacy Lane in Huntsville are proposing.

They are asking to be given “a break” because their low-rise building – which according to their plans, will contain 101 units – is not standard in that each unit will not contain a full kitchen.

Site plans show there will be a common kitchen and dining room to provide meals for the building’s residents.

While attainable housing for seniors is infrastructure required for our aging population, there are certainly mechanisms in place for the waiving of such development fees if those units fall within the realm of affordable housing.

To suggest that a 101-unit low rise building should pay no more development fees than a single-family dwelling is laughable.

The argument that such a development would require less services because it would contain one large common kitchen from where its occupants would be fed rather than 101 kitchens, does not hold water.

Ambulance, fire, police, garbage pickup and disposal, road maintenance and water and sewer services will still be required by its occupants.

At a time when the district and the town of Huntsville struggle to hold down their budgets, giving development “a break” at the expense of the overall property tax base would be irresponsible.

Water and sewer costs have already increased by more than 60 per cent over the last four years and are forecasted to increase by another 50 per cent over the next five years.

Rural residents are up in arms over the thought of having to help pay for the infrastructure, and here we have a new development requesting a break?

Certainly having more users on the system would help carry the burden, but giving development a break when the district is carrying a $90-million debt load to support about $700 million worth of infrastructure is not good business.

While a development charge category for these types of projects should be more defined, the idea of charging its proponent as if it were a single residential dwelling is a stretch we cannot afford.

T.d.V.