[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Maria Burstein, Freddie Gillespie, Trish Priozi, and Jim Wadddell.]
To the Editor:
We are a group of residents living near the two lots proposed asking for support to vote no on Article 8, MBTA Communities Overlay Districts. We are asking for a pause. We believe the town is better served by waiting for the State Supreme Court’s decision on the Milton case, which could change what we are required to zone for. If we vote NO, the town still has time to come back with another proposal before the December 31st deadline.
This would allow the town to join with other communities that haven’t passed the zoning and go to the state together to advocate for reasonable changes to the requirements. The One-Size-Fts-All approach for the half-mile districts near the T stations is not a valid approach. Southborough is not like Framingham and Marlborough or Newton where they are already urban areas and have the infrastructure and existing amenities to support such dense housing near their stations.
Southborough’s Half-Mile District is in the most affordable and most densely built section of town with small lots, the historic mill homes and existing multi family homes. There are limited sidewalks and no sewer. It is in one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of town as mapped by the state in their BioMap, whose purpose is to “guide strategic protection and stewardship of lands and waters that are most important for conserving biological diversity in Massachusetts”. The proposed dense development butting up against that mapped area will have negative consequences to the biodiversity the state advocates for protection. For all these reasons we think we should ask the state for concessions and that other small towns like us would partner with us if we asked. We are opposed to the inclusion of the two lots on Southville Road on many fronts, one major objection is that they do not meet the State mandate’s requirement that it must be suitable for families. These lots are possibly the worst location in town for families with children
- There are no sidewalks on the south side of Southville Road where the development will be. Due to wetlands and stream crossings, it is unlikely to ever have any.
- Walking to a park or to the stations will require crossing a busy road where cars typically drive 50+mph
- The lots are sandwiched between industrial uses which are not conductive to residential family use of any greenspace that will be on site.
- The lots directly abutt the train tracks. Studies show that living near trains with diesel exhaust increases asthma and other respiratory illnesses for all, with children critically vulnerable. This is a major concern in environmental justice work.
At 6.3 acres, while the state credits the town with only 80 units, the parcels are zoned for 94 units and the property owner likely will apply for a zoning variance on height and setbacks to accommodate the full 94 units. But whether 80 or 94 units, the traffic is a major concern not just for Southville Road, but for all the feeder roads on the southside of town. We understand that a traffic study would not be done for a project that hasn’t been planned, but for these two lots, looking at the traffic impacts was warranted. Unlike the other properties outside of the Half-Mile District that were specifically chosen so they won’t be built in our lifetime, the Planning Board knows that the property owner of the Southville road lots is ready to build as soon as we pass the zoning. Therefor some amount of consideration of the impact of these lots should have been done before choosing them. The best information we could get was from a traffic expert who estimated 7 car trips daily per unit, that’s a potential of 658 additional car trips daily.
We also question why the Planning Board chose the only lots that are ready to build are on the south side of town. If they wanted to fulfil the intention of the state’s mandate, there were better options elsewhere in town. Additionally at the mapping session where all the residents in the original Half-Mile District were sent post cards to attend, those residents chose lots that met the state’s requirements in the compliance model. Lots that wouldn’t be built right away and lots that wouldn’t result in 94 units, by right, ready to go. If the planning Board was looking for a lot to be developed immediately, they should have looked town-wide for an area that could support the housing and the existing and future residents. Where the negative impacts to the current residential residents would not be so devastating drastic.
As a final note, if the town votes yes for the bylaw and subsequently the State Supreme Court were to reduce or change the requirements we could choose to go back and change our bylaw. However, the 94 units would still get built because any application made after the Town Meeting would be grandfathered in and allowed. In closing we are asking for a NO Vote as a pause, to allow us the benefit of knowing the State Supreme Court decision, to allow the town to work with the state for a more equitable requirement in our unique half-mile district, to give the us time for the Planning Board to revisit the lots chosen.
We attach our revised Opposition Power Point as the one posted was a rough draft. We urge you to look at this one as unfortunately we won’t be allowed to show it at the Town Meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maria Burstein – 16 Darleen Drive
Freddie Gillespie – 78 Southville Road
Trish Priozi – 21 Darleen Drive
Jim Wadddell – 21 Darleen Drive
