Above: Is the placement of a proposed 40B next to conservation land the “perfect location” or a destructive one? It depends on who you ask. (image left from presentation, right edited from Town Maps)
Last night, the Zoning Board of Appeals held the opening hearing for the proposed 40B Project at 120 Turnpike Road. Much of the discussion focused on disputes about the legality of the application. Some residents also continued to voice concern over the proximity to Breakneck Hill Conservation Land.
The hearing is continued to 7:00 pm on February 6th. In the meantime, the applicant, Ferris Development, has agreed to submit a site plan for the development, and ZBA Chair David Williams has been authorized to select Peer Reviewers to vet the application.
Legal Questions and Advice
On December 19th, the Planning Board will attend a Select Board meeting to request access to special counsel to advise them on legal questions about the application and process. The Planning Board believes that Town Counsel is “conflicted out” from advising them. Members are concerned that Attorney Jay Talerman had previously asserted that he is obligated to defend the positions of the Select Board. Members and others have publicly worried that Talerman’s advice is biased towards the Select Board’s support of the project.
At the hearing on Wednesday night, Town Counsel Jay Talerman advised the ZBA on legal issues flagged by the Town Planner/Planning Board. In public comments, Planning Chair Meme Luttrell reiterated questions about whether the lot can be legally subdivided for its existing commercial use and a new residential 40B.
He noted that some of the concerns raised by Planning were “interesting”. He acknowledged “there’s room for some disagreement”. He supported some, but not all, of Planning’s arguments. He agreed that the applicants’ attorneys were wrong in stating that the ZBA had authority to grant them an “Approval Not Required” division of the parcel. Referring to supporting case law and prior decisions by the Mass Housing Appeals Committee, he opined that the ZBA can permit a subdivision for the 40B section of the parcel. Responding to a point raised by Luttrell, he said the applicant would need to submit a site plan for that.
One of the developer’s attorneys, Louis Levine, disagreed with Talerman’s opinion but said they would follow the requested process.
Project Suitability
In his presentation introducing the project to the ZBA,, Brian Charville, COO and Gen Counsel for Ferris Development Group, stated:
We think it’s a perfect building at a perfect location. it’s secluded but at the same time has direct access onto state Route 9 or Turnpike Road. It also will have very limited impact on secondary roads. . .
there are no direct line of sight residential abutters. It’s a very very unique site in that way, and there’s plenty of land to do this project.
There weren’t many public commenters, but those who did speak passionately disagreed.
Stewardship Committee member Joyce Greenleaf, and residents Freddie Gillespie* and Paul Carter objected to siting the large building right up against the Town owned Conservation Land at Breakneck Hill. They worried about the impact on wildlife.
All three, and Luttrell, also said that a 4 story building isn’t appropriate for Southborough.
Carter claimed that the 4 story building would “destroy” the view on the land. He also worried about the drainage and stability. He described that the the project was being cut into the side of the hill about 15 feet and to create a plateau and fill in another 15 feet to bring it up to level at the side of a 60 foot elevation hill where water would drain down towards it. He argued that using one of the existing office buildings would make more sense.
Members assured they would be considering all of the concerns. Williams made clear that the ZBA was just at the start of its process. He promised there will be Peer Reviews, and that the board will be breaking the project down into “critical elements” in future meetings so they can dig into the details.
Alternate Member Doug Manz told the applicant it would be helpful if they would be providing written responses to the detailed comment letters from the Stewardship Committee and the Open Space Preservation Commission.* He also asked them to provide more clarity in their explanations for their requested waivers to regulations.
You can find the presentation and other materials on the ZBA’s dedicated page, where future materials will also be uploaded and schedules will be posted.
*Gillespie is Chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission but said she was speaking as a resident. In her comments, she pointed the ZBA to a comment letter from the OSPC that MassHousing had missed and neglected to initially include in the packet to the board.
The writeup states that Freddie Gillespie, “… is Chair of the Open Space Preservation Commission but said she was speaking as a resident.”
Then, Gillespie, “… pointed the ZBA to a comment letter from the OSPC that MassHousing had missed and neglected to initially include in the packet to the board.”
Isn’t this something that someone *in* this position would know? I get that perhaps Freddie’s stated opinion is personal to her/them, and not necessarily the board/commission they are on. But this also seems like information that only a person ON said commission would know one way or the other about. I dunno – I see this phrase used often and wonder how much impartiality it really provides. (for the record, I don’t have a public opinion one way or the other on the proposed project)
From this and past meetings where Gillespie has spoke “as a resident”, my impression is that she is clear that her view is influenced and informed by her position. But, when the commission hasn’t voted to authorize her to make certain comments on their behalf, she wants to clarify that – and that other members may not agree with all of her comments.
Meanwhile, the Planning Board posted an agenda to hold a meeting to participate in the ZBA Meeting, and the board had previously discussed the concerns that Chair Meme Luttrell was raising. So, she was acting in her role as Chair of that board when she made her comments. And I believe Joyce Greenleaf was reiterating comments made in the Stewardship Committee’s letter.
I serve on the Select Board and other boards in town but the following comments are mine and mine alone.
I regularly disagree with Ms. Gillespie but she has every right to speak on her own behalf. Yes, she, like me are “insiders”. She has gained knowledge about town operations, policies and practices by volunteering to help us govern ourselves. You can’t unlearn these things when you bring your personal views into the public forum nor should you pretend to do so.
Like me, Ms. Gillespie has a point of view and strong opinions on what the right course for the town is. Each person who serves on a board of commission has these views and we should encourage the lively discussion of those views. There is a misconception that people volunteer to serve the Town must take some sort of “Oath of Silence”. It is not so. We need people to engage on the issues of the day both formally and informally.
I appreciate Ms. Gillespie’s public involvement and participation even as I try to negate many of the policies she advocates.
Finally, the barriers to becoming an insider are very low. There are many opportunities to volunteer and help us govern ourselves. Here is how to apply
https://www.southboroughma.gov/777/Boards-and-Committee-Volunteer-Applicati
Damage to Breakneck Hill Park and possible remedy.
Readers please note the NEW and accurate statements in the news article above. I previously wrote a letter with no objection, but I now have to withdraw those comments in light of this new information, which demonstrates serious and avoidable damage to Breakneck Hill Park. This is
the LARGEST Town-owned Parkland . But it is now threatened by a huge intrusive building which will overlook the park, and will completely destroy the glorious view of countryside without intruding buildings, when you are inside the park.
Here are the two people (acting independently) who have raised this new issue.
1. Paul Carter, licensed civil engineer and land surveyor …. He spoke to the ZBA last week (see above article). His suggestions are new and serious. Carter is an expert in 40 B housing reviews, because he has represented numerous other towns in 40 B cases
2. Freddie Gillespie , Chair of OSPC , an expert in natural landscape and our most important spokesperson for protection and expansion of public open space.
As for me, I am also qualified to speak as an Architect and City Planner. I not only support their comments but also go further.
The developer is proposing his 40B housing be located to the far rear of his very large property, which now has two large (mostly vacant) office space, and destined for yet more “storage” cubicles. (When there is now an excess of storage!)
Paul Carter suggests moving the large housing building further away from the Park. I go a step futher … move it completely off the forrest parcel into the abuuting sites of the vacnt office buildings down to Rt 9.
Then donate the forest parcel to Breakneck Hiil Park. The reward ? … A much larger site for MORE housing, where building size does not matter so much.
To fully understand this, please read the news article above, which explains the comments by Carter and Gillespie.
THIS PROPOSAL COULD CREATE a WIN – WIN.
1. The developer gets a much larger and better site for housing, suitable for more of his large buildings.
2. The Town expands it’s most valuable park.
** PS to Editor Beth Melo.This subect would be more understandable if you would kindly provide an area map showing ALL of Breakneck Hill Park, plus nearby office buildings along rt 9.
Anyone can find that on the Town’s GIS map here: https://www.mapsonline.net/southboroughma/index.html