In response to: Article "Vilified" ZBA, Some Selectmen Say

Since I have been unable to post a comment under this article, I am responding by blogging about the depths of my experience with the ZBA, the process, other boards, and selectmen. 

Design review committee was mentioned – yes, it is the first board to go over the project. Abutters aren’t notified of that meeting.

First let me start with the 130 Main Street public hearings with the ZBA. There were SEVERAL people, close to 100 in attendance, for these ZBA hearings. All to speak out against the 130 Main project. So many residents were concerned the rooms weren’t big enough to hold them. One meeting was held in the selectmen’s meeting room; standing room only and people were forced to stand in the hallway. They couldn’t hear or be heard.

The chief of police also spoke out against the project. Concerned about safety! Since then, even the town lawyer has declared the chief’s deposition, for court, is damaging. (per notes the town website:http://www.town.northborough.ma.us/Pages/NorthboroughMA_ZoningMin/ZBA%20Min%2005-14-2013%20es.pdf).

The ZBA could have minimized the project or taken away the entrance from Brigham St. They could have added more buffers between the single family homes. These are all things within the power of the board. They did not.

I was also personally told by a town employee/member if this was any other builder things would be different. In this case, the builder will get all that was asked for. (back door deals - what?). The builder also emailed town staff offering to minimize the project and then took that offer off the table within hours (hmmm…). Yes, the builder was within the bylaws. However, the ZBA is there to balance it all out. Just because a kid ask for cake for breakfast should they get it?

While the ZBA briefly discussed the extensive concerns of the residents they poked fun at them as well. Making statements such as: “what, do they think this is Brookline?” The board got confused with the request residents had asked for. The board also did not put conditions on the decision that were asked of them to do so. No bicycle parking, no special lighting, no signage plan (as stated as a requirement). The board denied Selectmen Hutchins when he asked them to wait a month to see how the residents would vote at town meeting. At town meeting residents voted for no multifamily or horizontal mix use in the business east district.

If the process works so well why did 130 Main St come up again at the planning board meeting this week, 2 years later? One board member spoke out about her regrets; that she voted for it.

On a side note: the intersection where the project is located is on the corner of Brigham St, Maple St, and RT 20. This is a unique intersection. Per the state, it’s a failed intersection. Meaning, it's dangerous and needs improvement. Those findings go back as far as the early 90s. Keeping one entrance to the site and on RT 20 would be similar to what exist currently and would minimize some of the safety concerns. 

Due to this great process you speak of, the residents of the neighborhood and beyond are forced to appeal the decision in court. Spending their own personal money; which could have been avoided. Also, sadly, the current owners have had to wait 2 years and they are still waiting. What a shame, if the ZBA had only done a better job!!! (Sorry to the Hunts). In more recent years other neighborhoods have also appealed town decisions.

In addition to the unsatisfactory job the ZBA did on the 130 Main ST approval, their conduct was clearly unacceptable as well. We had a member fall asleep; twice. How insulting. I contacted selectmen with concern. I was told by a certain selectmen this member would be removed (I still have the email). Yet, that board member is STILL on the ZBA!!!!!  That same ZBA member, at a recent meeting, could not comprehend where the Sea Dog is. Even when Fiske was referred to; he was still confused. You have TWO alternates; make one of them an official member!

I have done everything professional and by the book and it did not get me anywhere. Would I do it all over again - YES. My tiny little home and family are worth fighting for. I have lost respect with certain staff, and board members.

Going beyond 130 Main St, and more recently, I was asked by some residents to attend the PB meeting that was discussing the 20 apartment project. After the meeting a board member reached out to me at my home. Stating - they too were against certain parts of the project. When it came to voting the person did not follow through with what they were against. When I reached out to find out why? No response.

I don’t pretend to know how difficult these positions are. The bylaws were written and should be abided by. What’s the point of having bylaws if you aren’t going to use them? It’s as if someone is pressuring these people to side with the developers rather than their residents.

Personally, I would love to see more citizen petitions come forward; it's the only real voice we have to make changes for the people. If the boards were listening to the people there wouldn’t be such an outcry.

Back to the subject at hand; I don't think Article 2 was fueled by misunderstandings. Most people in town do not like the more recent projects that have been approved. 98% of the “use variances” that have been granted in the past have been developer needed. If a developer wants something out of reach of the bylaws it should go to town meeting for 235 people to discuss rather than the 5 long time members of the ZBA.

In addition, Article 2 was backed by two planning board members and one selectman. ZBA members, lawyers of developers, and developers spoke against it. Who are they looking out for??? Not me. I’m not saying all business or developers are all bad. I’ve heard some great stories of developers/businesses working with the abutters and residents to come to a happy medium.

With all this new construction when will the selectmen and the town administrator approve the much needed staff for fire and police, and schools? I hope that committee listens to what is needed. The town remains to grow but services are not growing along with it. Hopefully none of us suffer in the mean time because of poor planning.

Tom, please do not give the public false hope in the process. The process has not shown to be a good one. The boards do have the power to make things better for the abutting properties and the town as a whole. I’m sure when something goes in one of the board members backyard they work together to make it the best livable situation. Like those beautiful Hemlocks on Hemlock Dr.; come to mind and the no egress as well; which was specifically WRITTEN as part of the decision.

For the record, I did not buy a house on RT 20; I never would. I bought on a quiet country road with stone walls and trees. Soon to be a parking lot with no sidewalks. I asked the town planner about the scenic bylaw because my street was chosen as a scenic street. I was told; “we always let the builders take the stone walls down and put them back up”. I’m sorry that is not preserving it. Even former State representative Pamela Richardson (Chris Skelly) contacted me and they also agree. Taking the walls down and putting them back up is not the proper way to use state law Chapter 40, section 15C. It goes against what the law was written for. A shame for this town. In the future when I apply for something, I hope I get the easy road like the developers do.