Commentary by Frank Schroth
Town Meeting may be shorter thanks to the a group of residents from the Hillside neighborhood. At a recent meeting of the Planning Board Paul Krasinski informed the board that the residents had voted against accepting terms from a developer to build 12 homes on a 15 acre lot. They took exception to a condition that requested their support for a citizens petition article in the warrant that would approve a bylaw for townhouses on the property.
Here is a quick summary of the issue.
The property, approximately 15 acres, sits between Hillside and Ford Ranch Road and is owned by John Fandrey and is being developed by Milton resident Todd Hamilton. Hamilton has applied for an open space special permit that sought to build ~3 homes on the land. The application was opposed by a small but very vocal group of neighbors and the Planning Board denied the application. Mr. Whiteside had recused himself from the deliberation as he live in the neighborhood but, speaking as a resident, he made his opposition clear.
Hamilton appealed the decision but upon looking into a 40B development withdrew the appeal. Separately, an offer was made by a church to purchase the land.
Lastly, a citizens petition was filed for annual town meeting that proposed a general bylaw for condominium development. While the citizens article did not identify a location and was not site specific it was intended in part to provide an alternative for development for this property. The issue with the article is that it is far too open ended. The confominium working group was unable to mold it into anything that the planning board would accept. They recommended against the article. In an attempt to salvage the article and have a viable alternative to a 40B development, Marion McEttrick, a local attorney retained by the developer, worked to propose an amendment to the article that was site specific and inserted language that defined specificity to townhouses that would be developed on the lot. One of specifics was the number — ~40. The neighbors didn’t like that number.
So a group of neighbors met with Mr. Hamilton and, according to Mr. Krasinski, were very close to terms on a 12 house development. However, Mr. Hamilton wanted their support for the 40 condo article as insurance. The neighbors did not vote unanimously. As Ms. McEttrick explained to the Warrant Committee at their session last week – without neighbor support, without Planning Board support, and without Warrant Committee support, the amended article has little if any chance of approval. It is unlikely the amendment will be put forward and very likely Town Meeting will follow the Warrant Committee recommendation will follow the Planning Board recommendation which will be to refer it back to the Planning Board for further study. What is also highly likely is that the developer having failed to receive failing support for a condo development of 40 townhouses will file a comprehensive permit for ~90 units.
It falls to the neighbors to convince the developer 12 homes will be better; but the alternative to that just became much less attractive.
This issue is coming down into all too familiar territory ie. money and leverage.
The developer will , at this point, do what he needs to do to do to maximize his profit.
What I am missing is what is the leverage of the neighbors ?
They did not want a 3 unit subdivision ? Why? and why now support a 12 unit deal ?
Why doesn’t the opposition approach Mr.Fandrey and offer to buy the property, then they could dictate their terms and control the development, it it is developed at all
This is between Ford Ranch Rd and Harland, correct?
I don’t recall from earlier posts why 3 homes would have been an issue. 15 acres for 3 homes fits with the look and feel of that area now. Access to the land whether 3, 12 or more units would have to come from the same streets, guessing either Ford Ranch or Hillside. Why not choose the least impact unless these neighbors have issue with who would be moving in or knew more than has been reported?
The neighbors originally opposed having a road built where there is presently a scenic driveway. The developer could have built the access road in from the next street by building a bridge over wetlands. The neighbors weren’t opposing that, and weren’t opposing the 3 homes, as that was consistent with zoning, wetlands, etc.
So please note, the application was turned down because of the insistence that the developer widen and pave the scenic driveway. If the application had been resubmitted with the alternate access road it looked like it would have been approved.
But instead the developer, who does not want to develop the homes, just put in the road and sell off the lots, is pushing for a 40B and/or high density condo development.
This issue comes down to profit and ego on the part if the land owner and developer – and stubbornness and caring for the neighborhood residents. It is a stressful situation.
As noted I did not participate as a board member in the consideration of the proposed 3-lot “open space development” with an additional fourth lot to be positioned between the houses of two residents on the existing common driveway. As a interested resident it seemed logical for the 3 lots to be served by a driveway off Ford Ranch Road. Such a driveway would be half as long as the existing driveway, straighter and safer. There were opinions from qualified sources that even with the cost of a culvert a Ford Ranch Road driveway was financially practical and would be a superior means of access.
When it became clear that the developer was committed to use of the existing driveway expanded and paved, it seemed to me that such a use might be possible if the developer addressed some of the concerns raised by the residents on the existing driveway and provided for a disposition of the fourth lot satisfactory to the two residents who would be significantly impacted. As an interested neighbor, I suggested such a possible solution, but the suggestion was not pursued.
The idea of three homes was not rejected. The location of the driveway was what was contested. Multiple attempts to work with this developer have been rejected. 8 single family homes were suggested by the neighborhood but would only be considered if a check was written to him, in addition. This neighborhood is being threatened by this developer. At what point does this cross the line into extortion? If the neighbors don’t agree to what he wants , or write him a check , he will build high density housing? He is entitled to what he is entitled to under zoning and conservation laws. No one disputes that. He should not be allowed to blackmail the neighborhood into voting for his condo bi law or zoning changes. That’s wrong., Where is the town and why are they allowing developers to blackmail neighborhoods? I don’t even live in the neighborhood but am appalled at what my family that lives there has told me.