This time we hope to be fully involved with the redrafting process and hope to be able to work together to pass something that meets the needs of both the residents of Framingham and the development community.
It remains to be seen what happens to this page -- I hope to rewrite it to keep people up to date with progress over the coming months. Most of the text below will be moved to an archive page over the next week or so.
When the Nasdaq crashed, the market for these mansions dried up, and the developers were left holding large pieces of property which had little frontage. This was clearly a problem (for them).
Happily, there is a large market of baby boomers turning into empty-nesters. Many of these people are looking to move to smaller accomodations which require less maintenance (who can blame them!). Also the property taxes paid by emtpy-nesters exceed the cost of the town services that they consume. Thus this seems to be a win-win situation all round.
However, if you look at the larger picture, then you wonder where these empty-nesters are coming from. If they are already living in Framingham then when they move to one of these over-55 condos, then they will leave an empty house for a new young family to move into. The net effect of this is to add a family (with its attendant costs) to Framingham. The benefit to Framingham only accrues if empty-nesters can be induced to move here from other towns. Of course, they are trying to do the same to us!
As an example, say a developer bought a 30 acre lot which only has 300 feet of frontage in an area of Framingham where the zoning is 1 acre, with 100 ft of frontage. Under the old rules, he could build 3 mansions (he is limited by the frontage). [He could build more than 3 if he got approval from the Planning Board to put in a subdivision. This approval is by no means automatic.] Under the new rules he could build up to 60 houses (30 acres times 2 per acre -- but not all the 30 acres is usable).
This is being sold to the people of Framingham as a way to 'enhance public welfare ... preserve significant land, water, scenic and historic resources'!
The Law covering the procedures for adopting a new zoning bylaw can be found at: MGL Chapter 40A: Section 5. Adoption or change of zoning ordinances or by-laws; procedure.
It has been said that Framingham is not like Sudbury, and so we should not compare the proposed changes in Framingham with the changes in Sudbury. While this is certainly true, it is not clear that no parts of Framingham are like no parts of Sudbury. In any case, is this a reason to reduce (say) perimeter buffer sizes?
It may be that the changes that we would like to see would make the resulting units too expensive for the area. It is thought that the Framingham market could support units around $400k, while the Sudbury market runs at $600k. Would these changes reduce the density so far as to push the price up by 50%? It seems unlikely (the actual land cost per unit is small -- under $50k per unit (?)). The rest of the cost is cost of building the unit itself, shared portion of the site development (common areas etc) and profit.
We think that our revised proposal would increase the standards for the SRC development and would improve the conditions for the over-55 community.
Update: this meeting was held and the Standing Committee voted 10-2 to recommend sending the proposal back to sponsor (i.e. the Planning Board). [This is as reported to me.]
Update: The meeting location has been changed to the Costen Room in the main Framingham Public Library. The time is still the same -- 7:30 PM.
Update: The meeting was very well attended by 70-80 people who voiced their concerns. As a consequence of the number of people, hardly any progress was made reviewing the document. Jay Grande (from the town) will take written comments. Please call him to find out how to submit them.
A number of the town meeting members present encouraged the Planning Board to withdraw the proposal before Town Meeting, lest it get rejected there. The Planning Board was non-committal. A number of people (including Town Meeting members) were unhappy about the lack of consultation between the Planning Board and the public. It was noted that the procedure followed by the Planning Board in this case was distinctly different to the procedure of holding local meetings in each precinct that had been used for other zoning changes.
Many people thought that SRC housing was a good idea in theory, however the implementation left a lot to be desired.
The Planning Board indicated that they would provide a 'worked example' of what this bylaw would mean on an actual tract of land. They would present this at Town Meeting. Some incredulity was expressed that the Planning Board could produce a bylaw over two years (the Planning Board's estimate) and not yet understand how it would impact any specific lot. It was reported that the majority of tracts that could be developed under this bylaw were in R-4 (one acre zone), with around 10 in R-3 (half-acre zone) and a handful in all the other zones.
| In the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you are hereby
required to notify and warn the Inhabitants of the Town of Framingham qualified
to vote in Elections and Town Affairs, and more particularly the elected
Town Meeting Members, to meet in Nevins Hall, in the Memorial Building
in the Town of Framingham on:
Tuesday, June 12, 2001 at half-past seven o’clock P.M., and thereto act on the following articles: |
The following articles include Article 4 'To see if the Town will vote to amend the Zoning By-Law of the Town of Framingham by inserting a new Section IV.O. Senior Residential Community, as set forth below:'.
Happily, the notice and the zoning changes are available online at SPECIAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
If you compare this with the version produced for Framingham, you will notice that much of the text is the same and clearly came from a common document. However, what is more interesting is seeing what is different -- i.e. what the developer-friendly Framingham version leaves out that Sudbury leaves in.
If you compare these documents, and find significant differences that are not addressed in our proposal for revision, please send us email.
The law sets out what the Planning Board can and cannot do. In particular, section 81M (Purpose of law) states that "The powers of a planning board and of a board of appeal under the subdivision control law shall be exercised with due regard for the provision of adequate access to all of the lots in a subdivision by ways that will be safe and convenient for travel; for lessening congestion in such ways and in the adjacent public ways; for reducing danger to life and limb in the operation of motor vehicles; ... " This would seem (on the face of it) to allow (or perhaps demand that) the planning board to consider 'congestion' in 'adjacent public ways' in deciding whether to grant or withold approval.
Chapter 41, Section 81K. Designation of subdivision control law.
Chapter 41, Section 81L. Definitions.
Chapter 41, Section 81M. Purpose of law.
Chapter 41, Section 81N. Territorial extent of law; acceptance by municipalities.
Chapter 41, Section 81O. Regulation of new subdivisions.
Chapter 41, Section 81P. Approval of plans not subject to subdivision control law;
procedure.
Chapter 41, Section 81Q. Planning board; adoption of rules and regulations.
Chapter 41, Section 81R. Waiver of strict compliance with rules and regulations.
Chapter 41, Section 81S. Submission of preliminary plan; approval or disapproval; recording.
Chapter 41, Section 81T. Notice of submission of plan; hearing, etc.
Chapter 41, Section 81U. Approval, modification or disapproval of plan by board; prerequisites for
decision.
Chapter 41, Section 81V. Final approval of plan; endorsements, etc.
Chapter 41, Section 81W. Modification, amendment or rescission of approval of plan; conditions.
Chapter 41, Section 81X. Requirements for registration of plan.
Chapter 41, Section 81Y. Restrictions on construction of public ways, improvements and buildings;
liability of grantors, etc.; court jurisdiction.
Chapter 41, Section 81Z. Board of appeals; membership; tenure; removal; vacancies; jurisdiction.
Chapter 41, Section 81AA. Board of appeals; rules; meetings; powers and duties; hearings.
Chapter 41, Section 81BB. Appeal to superior court; counsel; costs; speedy trial; surety or bond.
Chapter 41, Section 81CC. Powers of planning boards; entry on lands.
Chapter 41, Section 81DD. Application of law; damages.
Chapter 41, Section 81EE. Recordation, evidence that subdivision control law is in effect,
etc.
Chapter 41, Section 81FF. Application of subdivision control law on registered and unregistered
land; jurisdiction of land court.
Chapter 41, Section 81GG. Powers of planning boards established under prior law; severability
provision.
| Visitor count: |
|