Letter: Why We Should Vote ‘No’ on Article 8, the MBTA Communities Act Mandate

[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.

MBTA Zoning Opposition revised presentationWe 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

Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Meme Luttrell
7 days ago

As the chair of the Planning Board, I am happy to see the attention warrant article 8 is getting. I hope residents attending the Special Town Meeting will do so with an open mind, listen to all sides and make an informed decision on this important warrant article. 
I would like to clarify a couple issues:
·        Southborough’s requirements for minimum unit capacity and acreage required to be within .5 of the train station is not the same as those for Marlborough, Framingham or Newton. These criteria are based on the municipalities’ total housing units and the developable area within the .5 mile of the transit station. Marlborough, Framingham and Newton have far greater minimum unit capacity requirements than Southborough. Framingham and Newton require a far greater percentage of their zones to be within .5 miles of their train station than Southborough. Marlborough doesn’t have a train station.
·        The failure of article 8 does not preclude development of the Southville Rd lots. The owners of the lots had a preliminary discussion with the Town Planner regarding a 5 story, 230-unit 40B development (allows local zoning requirements to be bypassed) on the Southville Rd lots. The owners are free to explore that option whether or not article 8 fails.
·        The Southville Rd parcels are not “zoned for 94 units”, 94 units is a gross density figure that doesn’t take into account zoning developmental standards such as setbacks, building height limits, FAR (the ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built) or septic. Which all impact the number of units that can ultimately be built on a lot.
  

Freddie Gillespie
6 days ago
Reply to  Meme Luttrell

Meme;
Thank you for the clarifications.
We’d like to acknowledge that we are aware of and appreciate the work the Planning Board did to obtain adjustments to the original state requirements for Southborough’s Half-Mile District.
However, we don’t think the adjustments went far enough, and that the only way to obtain appropriate requirements for the town would be to join with other communities and approach the State in a united front to advocate for meaningful and realistic requirements for the unique characteristics of smaller towns.
Our points re Southborough not being like Marlborough or Framingham or Newton had nothing to do with the unit capacity and acreage capacity as defined by the state. But rather the inappropriateness for some towns to be required for any capacity in areas near public transportation.
In Southborough’s case, 15 units an acre doesn’t make sense anywhere in the half mile given the historic homes on small lots with already the most affordable and diverse housing types in Southborough, with no sewer and with many streets without sidewalks and bordered by the Sudbury River.
Also critically important is that the MBTA Community requirements are in direct conflict with other state programs. Much of Southborough’s Half-Mile District is in flood zones where high density development with increased impervious surfaces is in direct conflict with our Municipal Vulnerability Plan funded by the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program executed through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA).
Additionally, much of the area of in the Half-Mile District is Mapped by MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program in BioMap, identifying intact fish and wildlife communities, habitats, and ecosystems that are the focus of the Massachusetts State Wildlife Action Plan which is required by the federal government. The Biomap purpose is to “guide strategic protection and stewardship of lands and waters that are most important for conserving biological diversity in Massachusetts.
For Southborough, the MBTA Communities requirements violate both safety and environmental programs already in place by the state. It would make sense for the MBTA Communities to be compatible with other state programs.
In response to the bombshell announcement that the Town Planner had discussions about a 5 story, 230-unit 40B development that was never reported to the public, we can only say that it would have been helpful if the Planning Board would have shared this information at one of the many Hearings instead of in a comment on Mysouthborough a day before Town Meeting. That would have allowed residents time to consider the implications, ask questions and get more information and come prepared to the Town Meeting for a better educated vote.
As for the 94 units, let us know if we are mistaken but we are not aware of anything in the MBTA Communities requirements that allow towns to prohibit property owners in the overlay districts from seeking zoning relief from any or all of our zoning requirements by variance as allowed by MGL Chapter 40a Section 10.
The Planning Board has consistently said that you are not building the projects, just creating the overlay districts and the zoning language.  And at 15 units an acre, the owner is allowed 94 units, and the number of units that can ultimately be built on the lots is possibly going to be determined by the ZBA, and not our zoning development standards.
This information should be articulated to the residents so they will know the real possibility of how many units we are zoning for, as the state’s compliance model doesn’t tell the full story, because if it is true that variances are allowed for the Southville Road lots, it is also true for all the other lots the state didn’t give full credit for, as those lots too will be eligible for zoning relief.

Respectfully,
Maria Burstein
Freddie Gillespie
Trish Pirozzi
Jim Wadddell  

  • © 2024 MySouthborough.com — All rights reserved.