Above: The proposed project at the corner of Newton St and Rte 30 downtown has a new look to reflect a new use. (image cropped from Planning Board meeting packet)
One of the Planning Board agenda items tonight that should draw public interest is a big change to the proposed mixed-residential and commercial/retail project at 2 East Main Street. According to the property owner, definitions under the Downtown District zoning bylaws “severely restrict project size to the point of economic failure”.
In 2019, the Planning Board denied developer Peter Bemis’ special permit for an office building at the corner of Newton Street. Bemis appealed the decision. Late last year, he came back with an updated version of the mixed-use project he originally sought to develop back in 2018.
The project proposed on the long vacant (and frequently unkempt) lot sparked a lot of public interest. The property is located at the point where westbound drivers on Route 30 turn to enter downtown. Many residents have urged development to make downtown more attractive and increase the commercial tax base.
But some residents and business owners with neighboring properties expressed concerns over specific projects proposed. Their objections alone could threaten a project. But now another wrench has been thrown into the plans.
While the development may “clean up” the parcel, it will no longer add downtown retail. That will be upsetting to those who advocated the need to bring more retail downtown. (Though, others who have advocated for adding more options to Southborough’s housing inventory might be pleased.)
Bemis describes the building as “slightly smaller” but it is still sited on the same corner and is now 3 stories instead of 2½.
Below are my recaps of why the project is changing, abutters’ publicly stated concerns about a big building on the parcel, details on the retail uses that had been proposed, and context related to Bemis’ previously failed attempt and the community’s interest in the eliminating a downtown eyesore.
What happened?
This morning, the Planning Board’s posted the packet for tonight’s meeting. It includes the developers’ responses to questions and issues raised by the board’s Peer Review engineers. That included a clearly angry/frustrated statement by Bemis, stating that he needs to revamp the project based on the Town’s restrictive zoning.
The change is prompted by Peer Reviewer comments that were Bemis said were confirmed by the Building Commissioner. They instructed that the proposed project did not comply with zoning bylaws for mixed-use developments.
The Peer Reviewer pointed to an exceeded cap on the residential use footprint. (The developer had missed that, since the restriction isn’t in the Downtown District zoning bylaw section of the Town Code. It is under zoning bylaw definitions in section 174-2.) Apparently1, the Downtown District zoning article passed in 2021, added to Southborough zoning code a definition for “Mixed Use Development” that includes:
A development that includes any combination of permitted nonresidential uses and one or more dwelling units within a single structure . . .The ground floor facing the street shall be used only for permitted nonresidential uses, and residential dwellings cannot exceed 40% of the gross floor area of the above ground level floor space of the building (no residential dwellings in the basement level).
Property owner Peter Bemis’ response to the comment included:
Just when you think it might be possible to actually put forth a successful mixed-use development in Downtown Southborough you find that another obstacle was ever present. . .
there is no interpretation of “Mixed-use” that includes residential use on upper floors that would yield a successful mixed-use development opportunity. Therefore, we must eliminate the planned 1st floor retail component and now proceed with a single-use multifamily residential building that contains 6 1-bedroom units. The Amended Site Plans are substantially similar, having now been updated to include the residential use recapitulation with a slightly smaller building and parking lot footprint with 21 total parking spaces provided.
The Downtown District zoning laws does allow use, by special permit, for up to 10 multifamily housing units. Some things that won’t change if it the new proposal passes:
- The building will include one affordable housing unit.2
- The main entrance will face East Main Street.
- Design elements like dormers and a cupula will be included to reflect a traditional colonial theme.
To view the new plans and Bemis’ responses to the Peer Review, click here. Unless the developer agrees to extend it, the board’s decision deadline is February 28th.
Abutters Comments
To get a Special Permit, Bemis needs to make a case that the project benefits for the Town “outweigh any adverse effects for the Town or the vicinity”. That means concerns publicly raised by abutters could cause him problems.
The board could decide some of the neighbors’ concerns are overblown or unwarranted. Even if they don’t deny the permit, they could include conditions restricting what the developer hopes to do in order to address the concerns. But if Bemis disagrees with conditions, he may appeal the decision or drop the project.
Most of the concerns raised at the December 2nd meeting that opened the hearing will likely still apply to the revised proposal.
There were three repeated themes among public commenters: the building size (which some complained was too large to be in keeping with the vicinity), the planned siting’s impact on the line of sight at the Newton Street intersection, and the potential addition to drainage and flooding issues in the high water table area.
Pete Mauro, owner of Mauro’s Village Cafe, kitty corner across the road, spoke about the “puddle” in front of his parking lot.
Jamie Falconi, who has a Newton Street residence “in spitting distance” of the project, objected to the developer using up “like 90% of the lot”. He spoke about drivers frequently “flooring it” from Main Street at that corner to get to appointments in the medical building. But he said the water was the main reason he was there:
There’s wetlands that you’re calling on your plan here that never used to be wetlands. The Town created those wetlands by letting the parking lots and the solar fields and all the stuff up the street and the medical center being built.
He said that despite having no rain in a while, his septic system was still running 24×7 “365 days a year” for about the past 10 years. He worried that the developer’s claims about being able to control the runoff from impervious systems was “inflated”.
John Walter, who resides directly behind the property, worried that the “dry year” they had wasn’t a “good barometer” for what is to come. He posited that an ice cream business could lead to “young people chucking their cone or cup, with trash clogging up the culvert under the road. He also said that the Town’s efforts to handle water in the area just essentially moved it.
Chris Robbins suggested that someone should speak to developer Tony Quan about his past offer to provide septic for the downtown area.
Bemis said that he had necessary approvals from the Board of Health and is going through the process for Conservation Commission approvals.
Planning’s hearing was continued to December 16th. I didn’t view the full discussion, but from the minutes. . .
At that time, Town Planner Karina Quinn told the board that the applicant needed more time since the Peer Reviewer hadn’t provided comments yet. She noted that they had received comments from the Fire Department on the project (which didn’t have issues with being able to safely access the building for fires/emergencies). But they hadn’t heard back yet from the Police Department (regarding traffic safety) or the DPW. Quinn had reached out to Cundiff for feedback related to the area drainage issues. (I didn’t see any comments from either department in today’s packet.)
Chair Meme Luttrell told the public that the Town has continued to seek getting drainage pipes installed under the railroad tracks. But they haven’t yet had progress in getting CSX to move ahead with the approval and work.
Falconi asked the board how issues raised about the cap on the residential units’ footprint would be handled. Luttrell responded that she expected Bemis would address that.
Since then, the hearing was continued two more times without substantive discussion (on January 6th and 27th). That appeared to still be based on the delay in receiving Peer Review comments and the applicant needing time to respond comments once they came in.
The hearing is scheduled to resume at 7:10 pm tonight, Monday, February 10th. You can find the full meeting agenda and packet here.
Downtown Eyesore Adds to Pressure for an Approved Project
For years prior to the 2019 proposal, residents complained that the property was a mess. The lawn was overgrown and there was no landscaping. The owner ignored outreach from Town officials who hoped to find a way to turn it into a temporary park or at least have it cleaned up.
The lot was temporarily cleaned up somewhat around the time when Bemis went before the Planning Board in 2019.
But in 2022, when road work was done on Newton Street, Bemis worked out with DPW’s contractor to have mounds of millings from ground up pavement dumped on his site. (Some of that was intended to eventually be used as fill for the project. But purportedly it was far more than would be needed.)
The mounds continued to sit there, even for months after a resident began pushing the Town to have the mess cleaned up in 2024. The complaints did eventually make there way to the Conservation Commission.
In July 2024, the commission discussed that Bemis’ previously extended Order of Conditions had expired and he didn’t have a permit that allowed storing the millings.
The commission agreed to give him a deadline of August 1st to reduce the size of the millings and install “erosion controls”. Over the next few months, Danza shared Bemis’ explanations for delays while new deadlines were repeatedly set and missed. Finally, in mid-November and December, Danza and the commission discussed progress made on relocating some of the millings and erosion controls put in place. They allowed for Bemis to continue storing millings (less than half of the original amount) to use in his project.
Recent Mixed-Use Proposal
In the December 2nd hearing, Bemis proposed a 2½ story building with a 3,000 sq ft footprint. It is described as having a “traditional colonial” themed façade with dormers and roof breaks similar to nearby homes and buildings. The front faced East Main Street (next to the point where it becomes downtown Main Street.)
The mixed uses would have included four upstairs residential rental units. Downstairs will be used for commercial/retail spaces. He expected it to be used by 2 only retail tenants but was seeking approval for the following permitted uses:
- Retail sales and services.
- Ice cream shop, sandwich shop, candy shop, other specialty food service establishment serving walk-in customers.
- Restaurant, with indoor seating and outdoor seating on an adjacent patio.
- Personal services such as barber shop, beauty salon, tailor, or shoe repair.
None of the uses allow drive-thru service. Presumably, these uses would have been in addition to the zoned “by right” uses that tenants could choose instead. (Permitted uses allow: Professional or business office, or bank (not including a medical or dental office); Custom manufacturing of custom goods sold primarily on the premises, such as a woodworking shop, shop for artisan or craftsperson, or bakery; Child care center; and Co-work center. It also technically covers the unlikely use of a Bed & Breakfast.)
One resident, Karen Connell, wondered if there could be unforeseen future uses once a project was approved. Luttrell and Quinn reassured that uses she worried about either weren’t allowed under the bylaws or would require coming back for a new special permit.
Prior Project Background
In 2018, Bemis proposed building a project for a building with retail on the street level and residential units upstairs. He succeeded in getting a Special Permit for a mixed-use project from the Zoning Board of Appeals for uses allowed under the Town’s zoning laws. That was based on the (former) Building Commissioner’s interpretation that the allowed use of hotel would cover the units as “non-transient hotel rooms”.
But, the developer didn’t pursue that version based on Town Counsel’s opinion and public comments from Planning Board member Meme Luttrell that disagreed with the commissioner. That threatened his ability to get a Major Site Plan Approval. So, instead, he applied to the Planning Board for a Special Permit to build an office building.
Even with the use change, the project ran into problems in 2019. That included residents who complained in Planning Board hearings along the same lines that came up this winter — the building’s size, impact on sight lines, and potential impact on stormwater and drainage.
In the end, Bemis failed to get the super majority approval needed for the permit. The two members who voted against the project, Meme Luttrell and Marnie Hoolahan, are still on the board. At the time Luttrell spoke in opposition to the visual impact to the area. Hoolahan’s comments focused on the site lines, urging Bemis to push the building farther back from the corner.
When Bemis brought the project back this fall, it looked remarkably similar. In fact, the only significant change I was able to determine is that the zoning laws changed downtown.
The public controversy over the project failing to get needed approvals prompted Town officials to collaborate on a new zoning by law adding by-right mixed-uses and additional uses by special permit for downtown. After a lot of debate and compromise between the EDC and Planning Board, that passed in the fall of 2021 — with amendments proposed by residents on the Special Town Meeting floor.
It doesn’t appear that Bemis immediately dropped his suit. (I’m not sure how that was resolved.) But this fall he brought his new concept to the Planning Board for discussion. (It was positively received.) He followed up with an application. It seemed that he was the first applicant who would finally put the new mixed zoning option to use.
- My recollection on the public debates and decisions around the zoning bylaw is too foggy at this point to know how well this restriction was understood. And I couldn’t quickly find anything describing discussion of that when I quickly looked this morning.
- Under the zoning, multifamily with 4-10 units must include at least 12.5% of the units as ones that qualify as affordable housing “eligible for the Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory” under state regs.
