Above: A developer is pitching 40B projects at two sites that would access route 9 through the abutting commercial property without backroad egress. (images from renderings and GIS Maps)
Tonight, the Select Board and Planning Board will hear from Southborough based Ferris Development Group about plans to apply for 40B projects on two of its properties.
Materials submitted for tonight’s meeting* show preliminary plans for a 60 unit apartment building at 120 Turnpike Road and a 56 unit building at 250 Turnpike Road. Each are a mix of 1-3 Bedroom apartments. (If both are built as proposed, they would add 116 residences: 73 1BR, 31 2BR, and 12 3BR.)
Both projects are on properties that currently have split zoning. The plan is to continue to use commercially zoned portion on Rte 9 for commercial purposes and to restrict the 40B projects to the areas behind that are zoned Residential A.
The benefits touted for the project include “controlled municipality growth in affordable housing with scaled downsized site development”. The Town’s Master Plan goals include one frequently advocated for by Town officials:
Encourage multi-family housing in appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale
Other benefits listed are:
- Direct access via Route 9 corridor for both proposed sites
- Minimal abutter impacts to traffic and stormwater management
It’s worth noting that those contrast with concerns that Town officials publicly raised over a controversial 40B project being proposed by a different developer. The Park Central project plans egress on residential backroads, and that developer previously was in legal disputes with the Conservation Commission over their interpretation of stormwater management regulations.**
The buildings would be 4 stories tall, which exceeds Southborough’s normal zoning restrictions. (40B laws can exempt eligible projects from the Res A zone cap of 2½ stories and 35 feet.) However, satellite maps indicate there are existing tree buffers on abutting properties and enlarged site plans indicate “Tree Canopy Above” in areas around the buildings. (I’m unclear on whether that will mitigate visual impact for nearby abutters of 250 Turnpike Rd, but I assume that will be addressed tonight.)
The presentation indicates the developer has already held a “Pre-application meeting” with MassHousing on these potential projects. Bringing the proposals to the Town boards prior to filing for Project Eligibility from MassHousing is the second step in their planned timeline.
The timeline shows the two projects proceeding on an overlapping schedule with 120 Turnpike proceeding first. Applications for MassHousing Eligibility Letters would both be submitted this month. The developer hopes to be able to file for a special permit for 120 Turnpike Road from the Zoning Board of Appeals by this November/December. The application for 250 Turnpike Road would follow in December/January.
You can preview the presentation here. Below are images of the proposed projects from documents submitted to the Town, plus images I cropped from GIS Maps to give more context on the site locations.
120 Turnpike Road
(Click on the following links for Preliminary Site Plan, Site Plan Close Up, and more renderings.)
250 Turnpike Road
(Click on the following links for Preliminary Site Plan, Site Plan Close Up, and more renderings.)
The presentation will take place at the Select Board’s meeting tonight at 6:30 pm in the Town House, over zoom, and streamed on YouTube. (You can find the agenda here.)
*I reached out to Select Board Chair Andrew Dennington about documents related to this agenda item. When the developer submitted them, he followed up to share them.
**A letter from the Select Board and other boards asked MassHousing to deny or make restrictions on the Park Central 40B Project Eligibility based on those and other issues. (That project was approved by MassHousing as eligible to apply for a 40B permit. It has yet to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.)
Updated (6/7/23 12:51 pm): I initially posted that 120 Turnpike Rd would have 56 units and 250 would have 56. It turns out that the presentation listed that in error. The plans showed (and last night it was confirmed) the numbers were reversed.
It was really great to see this presentation and hear that there is a possibility for solar on either of the two developments. As a young person heading off to college this fall, I’m glad to see potential development more accessible for me to move back. I’m looking forward to hearing more about the specific permitting for the site.
FINALLY, two affordable housing projects which do NOT have negative impacts on nearby single family homes. These are possible thanks to particular site locations … both projects have DIRECT ACCESS to Route 9, at locations where traffic entering and exiting from each site — is SAFE.
We all wish the Park Central project could do the same, and avoid using local roads for access — but it can’t — because of its location near I-495 traffic ramps. Park Central does have direct access to Rt 9, but that access is not SAFE, because traffic exiting Park Central gets into conflict with traffic on Rte 9 which is turning right, onto the I-495 north-bound ramp.
THIS REASON (the unsafe proximity of the I-495 on ramp) is WHY Park Central has been so difficult to solve. With access off Rte 9 prohibited, that leaves only ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION … which is to use Flagg Rd for access.
So the traffic issue on Park Central comes down to making the following two reRdlated decisions …
(1) Decide exactly where the safest point of acces is situated along Flagg Rd.
(2) Decide what type of “mitigation” is possible, (for instance sidewalks or buffers).
There is a possibility that Park Central CAN be made acceptable to MOST residents. But never to ALL residents, because some want no development at all, ever, on this huge site — which (in my opinion as a professional city planner and architect) is not only unrealistic, but also unfair to the developer, who is trying hard to find an acceptable solution, again.
Let’s keep an open mind and see what they propose this time around.
Wrong again Mr Parry. Anyone leaving 250 Turnpike rd will soon realize that going anywhere south of town will be easier to go down rt 9 fifty yards and take a right onto Parkerville rd, a much straighter, smoother and currently less congested road than rt 85. And if your willing to speed, and people do, you will get their even faster. People on Parkerville have had enough. Get to know the areas your speaking about before you think it’s such a great idea
In reply to Mr Rudd:
First I am unclear what the phrase “wrong AGAiN…” refers to, because I don’t recall making any previous comment on this project. But Mr Rudd is free to explain.
Mr Rudd opposes Neil Ferris’s proposed affordable housing project, located at 250
Rd, Turnpike Rd , (which
is Rte 9 just west of Parkerville) because, as he puts it: “People on Parkerville (Road) have had enough.”.
Presumably the “enough” refers to the number of cars. But the irony is that Parkerville Rd is officially designated as a “Major Collector” road, which means that it is purposefully intended to provide primary access to ALL subdivisions connected to Parkerville. … Those subdivisions add up to over a thousand homes in the South West Quadrant of Southborough.
The Ferris project has only 56 apartments. So it is less than 5% yof all hoymes accessed off Parkerville.
Furthermore, there will be small need for cars from the Ferris project to turn off Rt 9 and head south on Parkerville. This is because there are few shops or jobs to the south. Most are to the East. North and West.
Finally. Southborough is a long way from meeting its obligations to provide a minimum of 10 % of all homes in town as “affordable” (as defined officially by the State).
If we adopt Mr Rudd’s “Not-in-my-back-yard” policy, then we will NEVER meet our obligations, leaving the Town vulnerable to more attacks by. large developers.
Neil Ferris is doing our town a favor.
The project isn’t by Neil Ferris. Mike Ferris was representing the company owned by his brother David Ferris.
I stand corrected. Beth Melo is right.
It is David and Mike Ferris who are proposng these innovative , affordable housing projects — in such a way that the proposed 4 storey high, residential buildings will have the LEAST IMPACT on nearby single family homes. They manage to do this by choosing sites which are :
(1) Zoned residential.
(2) Are situated near similar sized commercial buildings.
(3) Have access to Rt 9.
Others may disagree, but I think David and Mike Ferris should be thanked for their efforts — to get the Town moving toward our goal — of more than 10% affordable housing.
Sorry Mr Parry, didn’t set out to upset you. You seem to know exactly what my neighborhood has been going through for the last 56 years. It’s like you have been living right next to me my whole life. You can go back to doing whatever it is you do in your spare time.
Hi Folks, Jeff is correct from his view point! My wife and her family grew up on that part of Parkerview Rd. Now the traffic has grown immensely as many who reside there are experiencing. We live on Middle Rd opposite Meeting House Place and traffic has increased quite a bit mostly due too Fay School traffic and such. Southborough has grown immensely in the last 40 years and unfortunately traffic as well. The other issue is he plans for more housing along Southville Rd. Again more traffic via Parkerville to access Rt 9. I sympathize with the folks living in this area for what is to come in the next ten years.
Can residents understand WHY Southborough has so little affordable housing?.
It is because, no matter WHERE the housing is located, and no matter HOW creative the design, the developers are ALWAYS accused of harming our neighborhoods.