Above: Boards and committees have a range of comments on the proposed project next to Breakneck Hill Conservation Land (image of project rendering from materials presented to the Town)
A comment letter issued by the Select Board to Mass Housing states Southborough may now be 77 units short of its 10% Affordable Housing stock requirements. (That’s 11 more units than calculated in 2020.) Until those are filled, the Town remains vulnerable to unwanted 40B housing projects.
Ferris Development has been pitching that their two small scale 40B proposals are a good fit for the Town to help meet the thresholds and could safeguard against a less desirable project. The board agrees with them on at least one of those projects, even urging it be scaled up.
Here’s my update on their comments, residents comments, and those from other committees who were less enthusiastic about having a project sited close to abutting Conservation Land (on land that had been promised to Conservation in 2019).
Town boards and committees have been putting together comments on the proposed 40Bs in time for Mass Housing’s deadline this Friday, August 18th. Since, as I posted yesterday, Town officials were notified changes were coming for the 250 Turnpike Rd project, I’m only covering the discourse around the 120 Turnpike Road project for now.
Last week, the Select Board voted to support the 120 Turnpike Road. Their letter notes an attached memo from the Stewardship Committee, but it doesn’t not that Stewardship’s memo is in opposition to the project or indicate that they share any of its concerns.
Instead the board focused on the benefits to the Town. Those included: progress toward meeting the 10% requirement a site that “appears to be well suited for controlled growth” with minimal impacts on neighborhoods and backroads, access to sidewalks and the developer’s “deep roots in our community”.
The Select Board, which includes two former members on the Zoning Board of Appeals (Andrew Dennington and Sam Stivers), opined that issues raised about this and another 40B should be addressed after Mass Housing approves site eligibility. They referred to the concerns as a standard part of the 40B permitting process the ZBA will oversee.
The board also didn’t raise any questions about the legality of a project at the site. Members opined that Mass Housing would likely just punt the legal questions to the ZBA anyway.
On Monday night, Planning Board Chair Meme Luttrell noted that a Southborough 40B (Park Central) was one only two 40B permits in the state that have been overturned by the courts. She noted the importance that Town officials follow legal process correctly this time. And there have been questions raised about Special Permit with variances which had been granted for the site and state that a third building wasn’t “permitted”.
Bonnie Phaneuf served on the Select Board when the Park Central 40B project first went through ZBA hearings, embroiling her and other officials in controversy over the Town’s handling of it and related issues. Last night she commented that the Town should learn from its mistakes. She recommended the Planning Board flag the legal issues to get a written legal opinion from Town Counsel before the projects ever get to the ZBA.
Luttrell said that they already had some back and fort with Town Counsel on the site restrictions. He opined that the developer would need to seek a subdivision permit from the ZBA in order to split the properties and use the back parcel for a 40B. Noting the subdivision bylaw triggers a 10% set aside of open space, Freddie Gillespie* asked how that would work if a subdivision was used to allow a 40B. Luttrell agreed that was a question worth asking.
During the discussion of their comment letter, Planning members discussed incorporating Stewardship’s concerns as ones they shared. Those included the potential environmental impacts on the Town’s abutting Conservation Land. Members want to ensure the project includes “Dark Sky” lighting conditions to minimize the impacts to wildlife. They also referred to “running water”, a potential seasonal stream that Gillespie captured in video and photos that purportedly runs across where the building would be sited.
At the Select Board meeting, Mike Ferris assured that Ferris Development is a customer of a native Planet trust committee and wants to support initiatives that make sense for the environment.
Despite Phaneuf’s advice, she was mostly supportive of the 120 project in her comments to the Planning Board. She spoke about the need for more rental options for seniors downsizing who want to stay in town. She also highlighted the walkability for residents via the sidewalk that connect the parcel to nearby restaurants and a pharmacy. The residents would help support those businesses and economic growth. Plus resident seniors could stay active by enjoying the abutting conservation trails.
James Nichols Worley spoke in favor of both 40B projects in both the Select Board and Planning Board meetings. (Though he was more enthusiastic about project at 250 Turnpike Road.) He noted that projects for single family homes don’t get nearly as much scrutiny from the public. (You can read his position letter on that topic here.)
Luttrell responded that her personal position on both projects was neutral. She just believes certain issues need to be raised and addressed.
The Select Board’s meeting packet last week included letters submitted by Conservation Agent Melissa Danza to Mass Housing on behalf of the Conservation Commission. The Commission didn’t take a position for or against the project. Instead they listed issues that should be addressed (likely during permitting). It highlighted a previous permit that the developer received a partial Certificate of Compliance for but hasn’t officially withdrawn yet. The same work came up in the Planning Board’s discussion.
Under approvals granted in 2019 for a parking garage to be built on the site, a condition dictated that the developer would donate a a 6.2 acre of open space to the Conservation Commission. According to Luttrell the developer used the site plan to construct some walkways on the site, but then let the approval expire in 2020. (Clearly, market conditions changed for office parks during the pandemic.)
The work wasn’t completed, and the land was never donated. According to Conservation’s letter, that is the spot now targeted as the site of the 40B. The letter specified the need for the developer to close out that permit.
Referring to the retracted land gift (and perhaps the project at 250 Turnpike as well), Gillespie noted last night that residents should know going forward to pursue a Conservation Restriction or Deed Restriction rather than relying on special permit conditions.
Planning member Debbie DeMuria also expressed upset related to the legal situation with both parcels. In each case a developer received approvals granted based agreeing to certain conditions. Years later, buildings that were enabled still exist, but the new owner is trying to ditch the land use restrictions by dividing up the parcels. Speaking during comments for the 250 site she questioned, “If a condition of approval is not taken seriously, then what is it that we’re all doing?”
If the project can legally proceed, most of the commenters would like to see it reduced in size. Phaneuf’s one criticism was allowing a 4 story building in Southborough. She thought should be capped at 3 stories. Planning members also noted criticism of the height. To ensure the public is aware of the visual impacts of a 4 story building in that location, the Conservation, Stewardship and Planning all call for balloons to be flown at the proposed height.
In addition to reducing the height, Gillespie said she had asked the developer to consider scaling down the project to move it further back from Breakneck Hill.
Conservation didn’t specifically comment on the building size, but did have issues with the plans that show grading up to the wetland boundary rather than a “no touch” 20 ft buffer that the Town adheres to. (That wouldn’t impact building height, but could impact the footprint.)
In contrast, the Select Board’s letter urges the developer to increase the number of units in the project (if feasible) to get them closer to their housing goal.
In their August 8th discussion of the comment letter, member Kathy Cook urged telling Mass Housing their board “unconditionally” supports the project. Dennington opposed using that language for any development. He noted that simply supporting a 40B project is pretty rare. You can read their letter, and the Stewardship Committee attachment here.
You can read Conservation’s letter and view their attachments here. Town Planner Karina Quinn said she would draft their letter based on members comments, then send it to members (with a reminder not to reply to all).
*Gillespie is a Stewardship member and the Chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission, however she specified that her comments were her own.
Unwanted housing. Southborough wasn’t that snotty when I was a kid. We need more than the McMansions that have sprung up over the years
When I say unwanted housing, I mean projects that residents and officials believe aren’t suited to their neighborhood. That can be snotty. It can also relate to safety concerns and other issues.
Some claim that residents opposing Park Central opposed having a big housing project near them. But neighbors defend that their main issue is the traffic either through a neighborhood where kids play on the streets or a narrow, tree lined back road without sidewalks where many residents walk, run and bike.
Please join me in complementing Ferris Development — for finding excellent sites for new, high density, affordable housing projects, at both 120 and 250vTurnpike Rd. (Rte 9).
Opposition to new affordable housing typically comes from nearby housing, in reaction against the following issues:
1. TRAFFIC PROBLEM ? — Dont build new housing on sites where the cars must travel along LOCAL roads, past existing houses. SOLUTION ? — Find sites where the cars to the new affordable housing will enter and exit the sites off Route 9.
2. ZONING PROBLEM ? — Don’t build housing on industrial or office zoned land. SOLUTION ?—- Build housing on Residential Zoned land.
3. SEPTIC PROBLEM ? Don’t build housing on poorly drained land. SOLUTION? Build new housing on sites where a septic system already exists, such as a system previously installed for offices which have since become vacant.
HOW DID THE DEVELOPER FIND SITES MEETING THESE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ? By searching for vacant office uses along Rt 9, where the offices have been vacated and then converted into different uses, such as storage or warehousing , which do NOT require either parking or septic . Any existing parking or septic can then be re-used by the new affordable housing.
And lastly … find industrial or office Zoned sites along Rte 9, where the back of the property is Zoned residential and is therefore vacant.
CONCLUSION — Instead of complaining about these developers, I suggest we congratulate them on being so creative — by proposing these rare sites, which are able to fill our urgent needs for sites suitable for new, dense affordable housing — sites which do NOT harm existing nearby housing.
Thank you Ferris Development.