Reactions mixed for proposed housing development at former Safeway site

EASTON — Following a June 17 town council hearing, mixed reactions have poured in concerning a 33-unit development proposal at the site of the former Safeway on North Washington Street.

Miller Development Corporation and Lane Engineering are proposing to the Town Council to build 24 partially-connected townhomes and nine standalone units at the property, which has been vacant since 2017.

Some residents have called for a grocery store to occupy the lot ever since 2017. However, Ryan Showalter, an attorney representing Miller Development, told council that hopes for a grocery store will not be fulfilled.

“It’s become abundantly clear that there’s no circumstance in which Safeway will sell this property in a manner that allows it to be occupied or redeveloped as a grocery use,” Showalter said June 17.

Safeway still owns the property. Safeway’s parent company, Albertsons, also owns ACME, which has an Easton location on Marlboro Avenue.

Tom Alspach has an office on Bay Street, and is “sympathetic” towards the need for a grocery store, as he often watches downtown residents trek to ACME.

“There’s a constant brigade of grocery cart pushers going back and forth there,” he said. “People are having to go walk over to the ACME and push grocery carts back from there in order to shop if they are downtown and don’t have transportation.”

Ward 3 Council Member David Montgomery said he understands that a replacement grocery store will likely not happen at the site based on what the council has been told.

“There’s not necessarily a market downtown that would sustain a grocery store,” Montgomery added.

He and other council members praised the planned unit development proposal and its designs at the June 17 meeting. The council is expected to discuss the proposal again Monday, which may lead to a vote.

“I think it’s a well-thought out plan,” Montgomery said in an interview with The Star Democrat. “This was conceived by the architect, designed … thinking about the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood.”

PARKINGDesigns of the PUD proposal include two parking spaces per unit, with most of those in townhome garages. Ward 4 Council Member the Rev. Elmer Davis expressed concern about having enough parking for visitors at the proposed development.

During the June 17 public hearing, Ward 1 Council Member Maureen Curry and Montgomery each vowed that the town has its own issues with creating sufficient downtown parking.

“If we’re thinking about the downtown as a place where we want to promote denser development like this … it’s going to have to be tight,” Montgomery said in an interview. “ … Parking is going to be an issue across the board. But I think two parking places per townhouse or single-family house here should be ample.”

“It would’ve been nice to have the town buy the property, and just pave it, turn it into some sort of public parking,” resident Bobby Cordes said. While Cordes feels the proposal is a solid idea for the currently empty lot, he believes “33 townhouses is probably a bit much for that area.”

AFFORDABLE HOUSINGAnother point of discussion at the last council meeting came from Davis and Ward 2 Council Member Don Abbatiello, who each suggested the council consider requiring developers to make affordable housing or open space contributions.

Montgomery, however, feels it’s better for the town to focus on encouraging affordable housing projects instead of adding requirements for other developers.

“I just don’t think it’s worth it, trying to convince this builder to give us enough money to build one, maybe two affordable units somewhere else,” Montgomery said. “We keep hearing from developers, especially on our affordable housing task force, what a pain it is to come into Easton and try to do something, because everybody keeps throwing new requirements into what the developer’s expected to do.”

During the June 17 meeting, Miller Development principal Robert Miller said his team is “threading some really close needles” on the project.

Meanwhile, resident Heather Page says she would prefer something to “benefit everybody, not just the 2%.” She pointed out that this development will likely not fix housing problems for teachers and first-time workers.

“I don’t mind change, but I’m a realist on what this town can handle,” Page said.