Conference 7.286::maynard

    
      Is it the same developer that built the California homes behind
    PKO?  I can't wait till the first mudslide.
    
                                        Mark
    

    NO - it's not the same developer - but they're both from Sudbury
    and live there - not Maynard.  It appears that the land is being
    raped by any and everyone who has the money to develop the land
    without any thought to water run-off or what this increasing no.
    of houses will do to the town's resources (water/sewerage treatement)
    
    We live in one of the smallest towns in the state, geographically
    speaking, and have a large amount of industry utilizing resources
    now.......
    
    Let's not have to wait to see mudslides before we wake up!!!

    We don't know who the builder will be.Hays Eng. is doing the
    subdivision plans.The developement you behind PKO is Vose's hill.The
    first two units have sold for over 220K (the houses you see on the
    road).
                      I urge anyone who is remotely interested or concerned
    about any developement anywhere in the town of Maynard to attend
    the next hearing.JULY 26th at 9:15.It will be in the town hall,upstairs
    in the hall.Arrive early to view the plans which I will have on
    display.Watch for articles in the Beacon and Msex News.We overflowed
    the hall at the first hearing.I would really love to see an enormous
    turnout at the upcoming hearing-let's overflow the building! Thius
    is very important.You can have a major effect on the decisions of
    the planning board.
                      A group of abutters and interested neighbors has
    formed the Maynard Neighborhood Preservation Assoc.We are immediatly
    interested in stopping this subdivision.Time is short.The Planning
    Board must make a decision by Sep 10.They can deny it but we must
    give them good cause.The MNPA has hired an attorny(Vin Malloy of
    Hudson) to represent us.
                       If you would like more info contact me at
         VAXRT::HOLTORF.If you'd like to talk about it give me your
    phone number to call.
                                   HOLTORF

Where are you talking about.  

I used to live on Park St., so I know the area, but I still can't 
place it.  It must be on the opposite side of Thompson from Park, 
since that's the hilly side. 

The only place on Thompson, near Great, for an entrance would be on 
what looks like an undeveloped lot next to the last house facing 
thompson, and behind the two new houses facing great.  I didn't 
realize there was 11 houses worth of undeveloped land in back there.  
Is it land-locked aside from that entry point?

    You're right Karen, the proposed access road is directly between
    the very last house on Thompson and the new corner house which is
    on Great Rd.  The homeowner on Thompson sold his small parcel to
    the owner of the larger parcel in exchange for a piece of land if
    access to this land is given - which hopefully and prayerfully will
    be denied!!!  You're very right also when you say "hilly" - not
    only is this a hill - it is solid ledge.  The proposed plan calls
    for houses sitting on ledge - very inappropriate on this land. 
    We are asking all concerned citizens to help defeat this proposal
    
    
    Thanks for interest and concern -

    Does anyone know too, the amount of wildlife and probably
    rare flowers that exist in those fields? There are ladyslippers
    among other rare wildflowers out there! These are protected 
    by federal law! It would be a crime for the town to contribute
    to the extinction of these flowers? Just think, your kids 
    will never know what they look like, all for the sake of 
    a greedy developer! (This land may be protected for these 
    reason. I hope your lawyer does some good investigating....)
    

                                          A member of the newly formed
    Maynard Neighborhood Preservation Association (M.N.P.A.)
    is researching plant/wildlife/conservation issues.Unfortuneatly
    many of these preservation programs cannot be inforced once a "Notice
    of Intent" has been filed by a developer. 
                                        We are looking into legal
    aid/support to defend any endangered species we may find.We are
    in the process of arranging a plant/wildlife survey done by volunteer
    experts.
                         

                     There are several other proposed subdivisions in
    Maynard.
                  Hilltop Lane
          property boundaries
                  on the N.- Fairfield St.
                         E.- land of Jaakkola,Dunnigan & Kankaanpaa
                         S.- Strauss (proposed 11 lot subdivision)
                         W.- Frost,Calabria,Kerns,Ruzich,& Steele
                               (Thompson St.)        
                                         
           Move existing house (13 Fairfield) to one new lot and build
    new house on second lot.Waivers requested pertaining to
    road,turnaround,sidewalks,curb,catchbasins,drains,fireboxes,and
    monuments.
                     LOT 1 -new house- 19,372 sq.ft.
                     LOT 2 -relocated house + addition - 21,324 sq.ft.
    
    
                      "Contemporary Estates"
             
                bounded on the N.- O'Rourke,& Gene & Robin Hatch
                                        Realty Trust
                               E.- Parker St.
                           S.& W.- Digital
         
           No other info available yet.
    
    
                 "OLDE MARLBOROUGH ROAD ESTATES"
    
                 N.- Old Marlboro Rd.
                 E.- Sudbury
                 S.- Oriole Dr.
                 W.- Old marlboro Rd. comes off of Rt.27 (Parker St.)
    
    The plans filed for this show something like 34 houses on approx.10,000
    sq.ft. lots in an area that has been rezoned 20,000 sq.ft. I'm not
    sure how they expect to do this.It also shows alot of driveways
    dipping thru wetlands.
    
    
                      There is one more piece of land that has some
    rumors floating around about it.
                boundaries:
                      N.- Acton St.
                      E.- Brown St.(RT.27 N.,out of town to Acton)
                      S.- intersection of Acton & Brown(Rt.27)
                      W.- Acton St.
             This property is zoned Industrial and it's present state
    is torn up,vacant lot with old railroad tracks and a trailer parked
    on the property.It has been like this for awhile.The owner is Quirk
    who was involved with the "California Mudslide Canyon Estates".....
    officially known as "Vose's Hill" off Rte.27,Parker St.
             Apparently after starting to put the roads in there Quirk
    bailed out and left somebody else holding the ball.I don't know
    who but there is work going on there again.
    
                 There are I believe several other small subdivisions
    in the works.One on Russell Rd.(2-3 house lots).one on Fairfield
    St. (1 house lot) and others I don't know about yet,some of which
    may be perfectly legal and acceptable.
                                  HOLTORF

    One queston:
    
    What do you intend to do to the person who paid (probably one of
    your neighbors) a fair piece of change for that property once you
    render it useless with your "stop the developer" petition?  This
    person may have put quite a bit of his money into this property
    and should be allowed (within reason) to develop it as he wishes.
    
    Also, if turned down, the developer could in turn sue the city 
    for the value of the property (his value) because the city enacted
    a restrictive zoning interpretation.  If the property is now zoned
    for residential use (I don't know, I'm speculating) then the city
    could be in for a big lawsuit/loss if they don't allow this guy
    to build on the property.
    
    Face it, New England isn't what it used to be, and it never will
    be agin.  Property is worth a lot of money these days, and people
    will (and should be able to) build on the property as they see fit.
    
    -bill
    (Who's sitting just down the hill from a 100 or so unit development
    on the Newton/Brighton line)
    
    

    Perhaps you didn't the whole note, the owner/developer is a resident
    of Sudbury and has owned the land for,I believe less than 10 years.
    Our objection to this development is based on several points.
    
    1. The proposed access to this land is unreasonable and inappropriate.
       It would put a road on 3 sides of an existing home - a very poor
       choice.
    
    2. The land was purchased with an existing house in a package. 
       When she bought she knew there was no way into the land in back
       of the house.  She invested hoping to extend another street to
    get to the land - no go - people who own said no they did not want
    to sell.  She approached a disgruntled homeowner who had been denied
    a permit for another house lot because he does not have enough frontage
    and he buckled in exchange for a lot if and when this happens.
    
    I think residents would agree that it is a tough choice if you own
    land.....it is hers and it is zoned for residences, however, at
    what expense to alot of other people?  Maynard is extremely land
    poor....we didn't have much to begin
    
    Perhaps if this person were a resident of the town and was truly
    interested in the betterment of the community, people would feel
    differently.  As it stands, we see someone preying on the town in
    the hopes of making gobs of money - in other words, greed!!!
    
    Our efforts may be useless, but it may help people to wake up and
    realize what is happening.....

    Why do you believe that they have to be a resident of the town?
    I'm sure that they are taxed well enough on the value of the land,
    and as you said, they bought it 10 years ago from someone, who I'd
    be willing to bet made a pretty good profit.
    
    As for a house with 3 streets around it, I've seen many of those
    in other communities.  I even was thinking of buying one just west
    of Newton Center a couple of years ago, but it fell through.   Even
    so, I applaud your amazing concern for the person who owns the house
    which will now have 3 roads on his side, but did that person ask
    for your help?  Maybe that person would be willing to trade/sell
    his lot for a lot on the back property when the developer is finished?
    
    
    I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to prohibit development
    on someone else's property for purely selfish interests (ie: they
    like a nice open space that they can benefit from, but don't want
    to pay for it). If your neighborhood association is so concerned
    about this property, why don't you all buy it from the developer
    and end the problem instead of pushing the legitimate owner to fund
    your open space programs?
    
   (I'm sorry, I've gotten out of hand here, and won't continue along
    these lines except in a more appropriate place. Such as SOAPBOX)
    
    -BILL

No, Bill, there should be no need for you to retreat from a perfectly
reasonable rhetorical position.  Yes, there are a lot of developers
who are in it for the money.  Why not?  Some, indeed, like "the art of 
the deal."  Again, why not?  
"Greed" is an inflamatory term.  It is often used by opponents of 
development as if the developer's greed was somehow more pernicious 
than the wishes of the abutters to preserve the status quo at somebody 
else's expense.
Yes, some developers' plans ARE flawed and dangerous.  
Some developers will  cut corners and cheat on the rules.
The solution is in master planning and a good, forward thinking
rules process.  The land in question has probably been zoned residential
since zoning was enacted.  Just because the first zoning planners didn't
have the foresight to more restrictively zone or the resources to buy up the 
land for open space management doesn't mean the "error" can be made up now
by what amounts to confiscatory practice.

I live in the dreaded realm of evil developers, Sudbury, from which
the foreign hordes are threatening to descend on the referenced
Maynard hillside.  We have plenty of the same problems in our town,
from local and imported developers.

I don't mean to be insulting to seriously concerned individuals
who wish to preserve the quality of their town, but we all recognize
that change will come.  When you buy land next to a lot zoned for a pig
farm, don't be surprised when somebody builds one there, and don't consider it
fair play to change the rules because you don't like pigs.
The same goes for residential development.

By all means, make EVERYBODY play by the rules.  You CAN make sure that
if the developer needs variances for septage, frontage, etc. that he has 
to fight for them, and that you can win on these grounds.
The suits Bill mentioned are a real threat, as set by recent 
US Supreme Court precedent about overly restrictive zoning.  
This means that the rules that exist are the ones you ALL play by.  

Well, I've rambled too long too, but even the Devil gets his advocates...

- tom]

    re: 11 and 12
    
    I think I find it hard to understand why someone who does 
    not live in maynard, as I did for 30 years in this very 
    neighborhood, qualified to comment on this situation? 
    
    I think these residents have extremely valid points, and 
    have been proactively working together with the town to make 
    sure that if a development DOES go in, that it is done 
    properly. As you may have observed further up on 27, there
    exists a seemingly very poorly planned and potentially 
    dangerous development know as the California mid-slid colony. 
    
    
    As well, just because Newton is stupid enough to allow a road
    on 3 sides, does this means every and city in the 
    commonwealth should be equally dumb in allowing this to 
    happen? Really Bill, I HARDLY find this an AMAZING concern as you put it. 
                         
    I don't think anyone is being selfish about development either.
    The builders of the mudslide homes bailed out and left others
    to fix problems they could not handle. I hardly think the 
    townspeople want to run into this problem again. If you have
    ever dealt with a builder these days, I think you would be very
    wary. As an owner of a new home, myself and other members of 
    my new neighborhood have the Attorney General in New Hampshire
    helping us get sewage, roads etc fixed properly - believe me 
    you would not enjoy taking a builder to court to get basic
    services completed. 

    11 and 12 ought to take a walk up onto the ledge cliffs in this
    land and take a good look for yourselves, and be semi-
    knowledgeable about land you have never laid eyes on. 
    
    As far as greed goes, it's been said the developer (a woman)
    has said she'll get these houses in if it's the last thing
    she ever does. Inflammatory remarks DO tend to breed anger
    in the residents. 
    
    Why don't you attend the next neighboorhood meeting on Tuesday,
    and see how people are really working together? You 
    may then have some basis to make comments and suggestions. 
    
    Margaret Lessard, 
    former Chandler St resident
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                           
    
    
    
    

    RE: .13
    
    Well, I HAVE seen the land, and in fact drive by it every day on
    my way to work, but that's not my point.    And, there are plenty
    of places which have streets on 3 sides all over New England, but
    that's not my point either.
    
    This developer has submitted plans to develop a piece of property
    that she owns.  She is developing it within the rules as it is zoned
    for residential property.  As long as she plays by the rules, what
    right do any of us have to stop her as long as she continues to
    own the property?  What gives the other people the right in Maynard
    (and any other community for that matter) to use the public sewage
    systems and not this person who pays her taxes on the property just
    as you do yours?  Same for roads?
    
    And believe me, it WAS in my neighborhood, I'd be saying the same
    thing.  As a matter of fact, there is a rather large development
    on the site of a former school on the Newton/Brighton line that
    is less than 4 blocks from my house.  Traffic will go past my house
    towards this development.  Many of my neighbors are concerned about
    the `usual' problems (traffic, environment, etc) but the root of
    the problem is that they see someone intruding on their neighborhood
    and they don't like it.  In this case, the developer has to be much
    nicer to the neighbors because he's looking to change the zoning
    from a school (that was an abandoned, burned out hulk by the way)
    to residential.  In Maynard, the developer is playing by the rules
    so there are no legitimate reasons to stop the development. (by
    the way, when the mud-slide homes have grass, they'll be no different
    than any other community.  Think about it folks, what would Maynard
    be like if 100 years ago, people didn't want anyone else building
    homes/buildings on their neighbors farm land?  This "Not in my
    Backyard" attitude is a serious problem in this country, and until
    people own up to their desires and demands (for property and a place
    to live) the NIMBY attitude is going to continue to cause serious
    problems.
    
    -bill

    1. I think you really need to walk into the woods, and 
    THROUGH AND OVER the land to appreciate the quality of 
    tock and ledge. A view from the road is hardly adequate
    basis for you to have the faintest idea of what's there. 
    
    2. ATTTITUDE - As I mentioned the neighborhood is working 
    very proactively and with a good attitude to see that if 
    the land is developed it's done properly. You keep mentioning
    NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY again and again without even knowing 
    these people. Again, please feel free to attend the meetings
    to get a true idea of how people feel. Then again, this 
    woman "bought off" people in order to get a road to her 
    land. It doesn't appear that gets her off to a friendly 
    start, now does it? 
    
    As I said before - WALK OVER THE LAND, AND DO ATTEND A MEETING
    - right now you seem to be spouting social commentary about 
    NIMBY. We are talking real issues and knowledge. OBTAIN the 
    same.  
    
    
    

    RE: .15
    
    in reply to your 1:  First of all, I won't walk through the woods
    because the property is not mine to walk on. Can I assume that when
    you walk through those woods, that you get permission from the owner
    to walk on their land?  
    
    in reply to your 2:  I assume your reference to "Bought off" was
    to the person who sold their extra lot in return for a lot in the
    closed off area?  What is wrong with this?  Are you saying that
    this person had no right to enter into a mutually agreeable business
    agreement with the person who owned the land in the back?  These
    people CHOSE to do business with eachother, it doesn't sound to
    me like anything was forced upon them.  
    
    

    So far, the arguments against the place are nothing more than "noone
    should build homes there because it's not a good place" and "there's
    the possibility of mud-slides".  Now, I'd be pretty sure that when
    the city gives the permit to build there, they will stipulate that
    the developer has proper drainage and sewage for the houses that
    she builds, along with protection of the other homes in the
    neighborhood while construction is going along.   
    
    Other objections revolve around the quality of the roads in the
    area, but that's no concern of the developer, and if there is a
    ice-water problem on that road, the city should do something about
    it anyway.  
    
    (now, if the developer is asking the city to improve their facilites
    such as roads, sewers, water, so that they can build their development,
    then the city should negotiate with the developer to have her cover
    some/all of these costs.  If she's just saying "Here's my property
    line which is the end of my street, here's the houses that are
    completely within the zoning for this area", then the city ain't
    got squat to stop her)
    
    my last reply, I don't want to start an argument in this relatively
    mild conference
    
    -bill

The Maynard Neighborhood Preservation Association is collecting petitions
to present to the planning board at the 9:15 meeting Tuesday, July 25.

The petition points out four areas of concern for the "Thompson Farms"
subdivision: 

- Public Safety (car traffic & kids going to school)
- Water drainage (given the high grade of the land)
- Blasting (potential damage to houses and changes in water table)
- Costs to Town (for services)

There is a petition on the wall of my office in MLO 5-5, at pole 32C.

This is another on Simon Bunyard's office in PK3-2, near pole 13C.

The petitions are for Maynard residents to sign, today and tomorrow.

Even better, show up at the meeting *and* sign the petition.

-Steve Ruzich

    Bill,let me fill in some blanks.
                    The developer/owner and engineer submitted an
    incomplete set of plans.Variances and waivers were obviously
    required but a list was not submitted.Proposed drainage was
    shown only as a drain crossection.No plot plan of the area was
    submitted. The drainage is all going onto an abutters property.
    This is considered tresspass.The developer made no attempt to 
    contact the owner,Green Meadow public grammer school for an
    easement.
                    The resident who had agreed to grant an easement
    for the access road thru his existing property in exchange for a
    building lot returned from his vacation and after viewing the
    definitive plns that were submitted said they did not represent
    what was agreed upon.
                     An historic antique home adjacent to the site
    was bought by a Trust,probably legal,not necessarily ethical.
    The previous owner was naive,he belived the trust was simply
    buying the property to restore it as an antique and resell it.
    In fact it the developer was involved in the trust and wanted
    the property so she could grant herself an easement for the drainage
    She signed the building permit pulled for repair work on the
    home as a representative for the trust,although I was told on the
    phone by a representative of the trust that no one representing
    the trust was present at the first public hearing.The developer
    and her husband were present.
                       She has aggressivly persued access to this
    parcel in the approx.10 yrs.she has owned it,to the point of
    being a nusiance to some of the abutters she was approaching.
    They bought up property blocking her access from another road
    to protect their property,well within their rights.All's fair in
    love and Real Estate.
                       The zoning was changed from 10,000 sq.ft.lots
    to 20,000 sq.ft. lots a year ago.The owner could have grandfathered
    the lots by subdividing them before the change and paying the taxes.
    She could also have submitted a notice of intent before the change
    and rendered ineffective for five years any new changes.She could
    have protested the change as well.Apparantly she has no problem
    with the change in lot size.
                              She should not be granted waivers and
    variances just because she doesn't want to spend the money meeting
    the regulations.They are not capricious.They exists mostly for
    health and safety reasons.
                             The bylaws provide legal access to the
    property for the members of the planning board and their agents
    when notice of intent has been filed.I have walked the property 
    with several members of the planning board.The property has been
     used extensivly for years as a recreation area by children and 
    adults on foot and on vehicles.It is not posted no tresspassing.
                              When the property was put up for sale
    10 years ago the town and the Conservation Commission did not have
    backing or funds to buy the property.In March of 1987 the Conservation 
    Commission sent a letter to the developer expressing intrest in
    aquiring the property for open space and requesting a reply.No reply
    was ever received and the developer denies ever having received
    the letter.Unfortunatly it was not registered/certified mail.
                              As far as the pig farm issue/Maynard Rod
    and Gun Club,I agree.As long as the Club abides by safty regulations
    and posted shooting hours for noise issues.Anybody who has $300,000 
    plus dollars to spend on a house can read. Zoning bylaws and assesors
    maps are public record and should be perused before signing anything.
    Ignorance of the law is no excuse.It was shortsighted on the part of
    the town of Sudbury not to have requested the developer leave a buffer
    zone between new homes and the existing gun club.
                             The Maynard Planning board has an obligation
    to the residents to uphold the bylaws in an effort to protect our
    health and wellbeing,and that of future residents.We can look to
    no one but ourselves to support them in this effort.We don't have
    to look far to see that they need all the help they can get.If the
    intent and legal interpretation of the bylaws are enforced,we can't
    ask for more.We will ask for the maximum protection within the law.
    When we see flaws in the regulations we can try to change them for
    the future thru due process.That seems fair to us and the developers.
    If it means the developer doesn't make as much money,too bad.That
    doesn't constitute a financial hardship plea.Read the bylaws first!
    

            The pig farm/gun club comment was in reply to Tom.
    
            In the paragraph referring to the antique house and the
    trust the man who called me said he had heard I was trying to contact
    the trust but refused to identify himself or any members of the
    trust and would not enlighten me as to just who the named trustee,
    Mary MacKenzie,was or how I could contact her.
              I took a ride over to the address listed for the trust
    on the abutters list,321 Boston Post Road and found an empty office 
    condo with a real estate sign in the window.The man who called me
    representing the trust said it was the attorny's office for the trust.
              There is a sleeze factor here.I don't trust this developer,
    espescially after observing her tactics.Now is our chance to give
    input on this proposal.It is within our rights to request certain
    conditions be placed in the approved plan.We have no way of knowing
    who will actually build the roads or houses.The developer can hire
    whoever or sell the plans.
                                   HOLTORF

Could someone please explain to me how Green Meadow elementry school 
is an abutter to this property?  Aren't they on opposite sides of 117 
and 1/4 mile apart?

    The Maynard schools own all the property between the high school
    and Green Meadow Elementary School, back of the houses and businesses
    on 117.  The developer proposes to drain water through a new pipe
    under route 117, by Great Road Dodge, to empty into land owned by
    Green Meadow.  That makes the Maynard School Committee an abutter.

    By the way, there is a civil engineer among our number who feels
    that the drainage issues constitute the principal problem with the
    development.
    
    -Steve Ruzich
    

            The drainage as shown on the submitted definitive plans
    runs thru drainage pipes to be installed in an easement across 
    #166 Great Rd.(RTE.117).This is the 3rd house east of the Thompson
    St.& 117 intersection.The white old colonial naxt to two new houses.
            The new drainage pipes will then run west under RTE.117
    approx.50' then cross under RTE.117.It runs out Cambridge St.
    (a paper road left over from a previous,say 1920's,uncompleted 
    subdivision) adjacent to Great Rd.Dodge,into the wetlands behind.
                               The parcel is sort of a lamb chop
    shape thing that hooks around behind Great Rd. Dodge and abuts the
    old Greenmeadow playground,somewhere near where the "volunteer"
    built playground is being planned.
                             Also an abutter is not necessarily physically
    touching.The bylaws spell out the details of who are considered
    abutters.
                             The distance between where the drainage
    crosses 117 and the drive to Green Meadow school is approx.250 to
    300'.
                              HOLTORF

    Thanks Mary (.18 and .19) for your enlightenment.  Maybe now
    Bill will understand why a neighborhood association has
    been formed.  If this land must be developed - it should be developed
    by someone who is going to do it right and not "Mickey Mouse" it
    to death for the sake of a few more dollars in his/her pocket.
    
    OBVIOUSLY there are some pretty shaky things going on surrounding
    the whole issue.  
    
                                                   
    Bill - regarding your comment "face it New England isn't what it
    used to be" - when are the people of New England wake up and stop
    the crazy development of the little open space that's left?  Don't
    you think we should try to preserve some of it so that birds and
    wildlife have some place to live besides a zoo?
                                                   

    Just a quick note to Mr 15. 
    
    Yes you can assume I ask permission to walk over 
    the land - after all, I would think ones own 
    mother and father wouldn't mind. Neither would 
    my friends and neighbors of 30 years. I doubt
    if they would mind very much if you did either - many
    DEC employees from the Mill walk through there 
    at lunch. 
    

    Well, now I understand.
    
    The issues that you brough up in .20(I think) are good ones, and
    ones which should prohibit this development from being built.
    
    BUT, if the developer does it right, fixes all of the real problems
    (and not the perceived problems like "children play on that land"
    (which means that they can't play there anymore if it's developed)
    then the developer should be allowed to proceed.  As it stands,
    the plans sound like they're very incomplete, and the developer
    should not be granted the permits to build.
    
    
    -bill
    

   Some of the replies in this note are starting to get a little
   out of hand, particularly when attributing characteristics to
   other people.

   This is not SOAPBOX, nor is this conference intended to be a
   forum for local politics.

   Please use good judgement when writing public notes.


Thanks for your cooperation,
Jean Fullerton
Co-moderator

    I was going to buy a place in Marlboro off Fitchburg street. Great
    house, location and PRICE. I found out that some developers bought
    the land across the road and had proposed to build a 300 unit
    AFFORDABLE housing in two phases of about 25 each. The developers
    were going to punch a road right across from my front window, needless
    to say I backed out of the deal. I kept track of what was happening
    and here's the story:
    
    Most of the towns within a 100 miles radius don't meet the federal
    guidelines for affordable housing (10%), they are in the catagory
    of around 4-8 per cent and more like 4. Now, since you are below the 
    federal guidelines, a developer can get exemption from the zoning 
    guidelines:
    
    And I quote:
    "The law allows developers to bypass local zoning and other guidelines
    if at least 20 per cent of the units are designated as affordable
    housing and it the city's low incoming stock is less than 10 per
    cent of the total housing market." 

I believe Maynard is within the 10% guideline.  I don't remember what 
the sentence was in reference to, but some article in the Beacon a 
while ago said something like "since Maynard is within the federal 
guidelines for affordable housing, they want to ......."

Anyway, which house on Park is #12?  I used to rent in #30.

    Due to large number of new condos being occupied at the Deer Hedge
    Run developement Maynard no longer meets the 10% min. The Maynard
    Housing authority puts the number at approx.8.8%.
                 Yes,there is a possibility of this developer filing
    for a comprehensive permit.She will still have to solve drainage
    and access issues.
                             HOLTORF

But if a developer were to apply for dispensation based on a lack of 
affordable housing, wouldn't they have to then build affordable 
housing?  I thought they were building single family homes??

                  I need to learn more about the comprhensive survey
    process.But,as I understand it the "C" permit can overide town
    zoning bylaws,including the S2(single family,20,000 sq ft)
    classification of this parcel.The developer would probably submit
    plans for apartments/condos a certain percentage of which would
    be earmarked for lo/moderate income housing for a certain number
    of years.
                  This "C" permit business really bothers me.I will
    let you know more about it when I "get the facts".A developer
    certainly should not be allowed to use it to blackmail a planning
    board into approving a subdivision.
                  A little bit more about elderly lo/mod income housing.
    The 10% number is derived from the total number of housing units.
    Maynard meets the elderly housing requirement.Recent increases in
    new general housing units and loss of existing lo/mod I.H. has pushed
    us below the 10% figure.The Town is obligated to "make an effort"
    to meet this figure if they want to qualify for state funds (one
    more good reason not to let them get their hands on our money in
    the first place!).I think Maynard deserves a medal for it's
    contribution to this type of housing over the years and now.I have
    not had a chance to verify this figure but I have been told that
    Lincoln has only .6% ,that's  POINT, or 6 tenths of a percent low
    income housing.
                   More facts on this after I do some research.I think
    this notes conference is an excellent forum for making this type
    of information available,and not wasting our time and effort doing
    redundant research.I think Bill's input was extremely valuable.It
    got a little blood boiling,but he asked some very valid questions
    about legal issues versus emotional issues,and how these should
    be separated and addressed.
                                  HOLTORF 
                     

We are all aware that change comes with the passage of time, however, 
it is incumbent upon the residents of any town to ensure that it is 
for the betterment of the area.  Certain developments have taken place 
that have been an betterment, rehab has happened throughout the downtown 
area enhancing an otherwise "seedy" look.  

Maynard is essentially a "mill town" and has been since its inception - 
housing is considerably lower priced than surrounding towns i.e., Concord, 
Sudbury, Stow, Acton, therefore providing an opportunity for those of us 
who are working for a living to purchase our own homes - the great 
American dream.  

The Maynard Neighborhood Preservation Association is an organization 
long overdue.  Historically, I think people "assumed" their elected 
officials knew more about development, land use, conservation, drainage, 
runoff, road grades and other engineering marvels than they did and 
therefore, were too complacent.  

I've become aware of how few resources town boards have in making decisions 
affecting the community for many years.  Their budgets are nil - they rely 
mainly on input from the engineer doing the proposing and hopefully ask the 
right questions in an effort to interpret correctly the by-laws of the 
town.  Not an easy task!

The Planning Board meeting last nite was very well attended, provided 
much information and brought to light many important issues.  

The proposers have yet to present their request for whatever 
variances are needed - rather unprepared wouldn't you agree?  In fact, 
it appears they are not sure what variances they do need.

They have not contacted the School Dept. onto whose land they propose 
to run their drainage!!  Drainage, I might add, which from what I 
heard last nite is going to be more a deluge when it hits the new 
pavement and runs down this hill into the streets, onto abutters land, 
and onto land not owned by them.  

What appears to be happening is that these people are testing the waters, 
seeing how much opposition is evident and if not too much, they'll build 
with a minimum of difficulty (they'll not have to do a whole lot in the 
way of land planning, retaining the integrity of the land, take precautions 
with blasting and runoff which will be significant etc.)  If their 
plans are rejected and do not meet planning specifications, 
they'll more than likely come back with another proposal. 

Obviously, they have not done their homework - Must have thought it 
was Christmas and this proposal was going to be delivered, neatly 
wrapped, under the tree.  They've left many gaps to be filled-in 
and many questions unanswered.

To add insult to injury, they presented the planning board with a land 
case in which a planning board was sued and lost because of a 
misinterpretation of what constitutes a dead-end road length, one of 
the issues in this case.  In other words folks, don't try to stop us 
or we'll go to court or come up with a plan you'll like even less.

Living in a small town is great - everyone got an opportunity to speak 
their piece - until time ran out.  It was very gratifying to see 
people who had done their homework and knew what they were speaking 
about raise pertinent issues - issues which seemed to elude the 
proposer - just hadn't thought about these things. I found it hard 
to believe that an engineering firm didn't anticipate these types of 
questions and was so unprepared to have some sort of resolution to 
these expected problems.

We can only work for, and hope for, whatever is in the best interest of 
the town and all concerned, that the rules are adhered to, and that 
the "foreign hordes of developers from Sudbury" at least do a good 
job.  Let's all work toward that goal - the best solution for the town.

This has been a wonderful forum for input and hearing what thoughts 
and opinions others have in situations like this.  It's never easy to 
do the right thing - and in my old age I'm discovering there are times 
when I'm not sure what the right thing is at all......

But I do believe in people working toward what they hold precious and 
there isn't much in the world people treasure more than their family 
and home.  

Thanks for your interest - ann

       I would like to thank anyone reading this note who attended the
    Tues. planning board hearing for showing up.That was a great turnout.
       I think it's very interesting that the developer returned to
    that second hearing without any of the additional info requested
    by the planning board.An three cheers to the planning board for
    standing up to her on the "depth of cul-de-sac"issue.
       It looks like we have a long fight on on our hands with this
    one.But,there is a special town meeting this fall(will announce)
    and we will be putting forth a proposal to limit developement til
    the new master plan is completed.The Consv.Com.is in the process
    of hiring a consulting firm now.
        The public hearing was closed at last Tues. meeting,but anyone
    can attend a regular planning board hearing.The M.N.P.A.will be
    sending at least one representative to each meeting,most likely
    two.Keep readinf the Beacon for more info .We are going to try to
    stay in the news.Keep writing letters to them.You can also submit
    articles and editorials.This can be a real important contribution.
    If there is a continuing reader response the paper will realize
    the continued intrest in these issues and will not stop coverage
    for fear of beating a dead horse.Try the Middlesex News as well.
          The MNPA is looking for a place to meet.Approx 20 to 30 people
    plus an adjacent room for the kids and babysitters.Once every two
    weeks at approx.6:30 P.M.
          Has anyone heard anything about sewerage problems at the new
    Vose Hill(CA Mudslide Canyon) developement? Someone mentioned to
    me that after the heavy rains early this week the sewers over there
    backed up.Sounds like a news item to me!
                              HOLTORF 

    Regarding the sewer problem you mentioned, I believe that yesterday's
    BEACON had something about it.

    Saw the article in the BEACON. On disturbing set of occurances around
    the Thompson Farm subdivision that I came across is the lack of
    scrutiny used by several town boards in reviewing/supervising the
    proposed plan.
                    The provisions in the bylaws for what is required
    of the reviewing boards ( fire,police,public works,DPW,health,consv.)
    are scant.Several of these boards signed off on the proposed plan
    before the public hearing (no input from residents). The gist of
    the responses from DPW,Health & Fire was "Don't worry,we know what
    were doing,we'll take care of it."  Where were these people when
    the crew over at VOSE hill had sewerage dump out onto the street?
    Or, were they there ?  
                       I am not about to trust anybody when it comes
    to my home, family and health.I've already seen to many screw ups.
    At least the chief of the fire dept. spoke at the last hearing.I'm
    still not convinced. I don't care if they get LLoyds of London to
    do the blasting insurance.Once a house is damaged or a child injured
    no amount of money can erase the trauma.
                       I just read an article in the Middlesex News
    about a diesel tank that got buried in Boxboro's wetland buffer zone,
    under the "watchful"eye of the building inspector (he admitted he
    screwed up)."Don't worry,we've got it under control" really means
    "I hope they don't look to close 'cause I'm afraid they're going
    to butt in and not like how I want to do it."
                                      HOLTORF  

    How right you are Mary, I am in complete agreement with you  -
    far too often there have been assurances that a proposal met all
    specifications only to discover "later" that new homeowners now
    have water in their cellars or no water pressure or dirty water
    or a health hazard for septic or a pond in the yard at various
    times of the year.  Many, many developments were given approvals
    in times past only to have all sorts of serious problems develop,
    the homes already sold and occupied and no recourse available to
    the now sad and bewildered homeowners.  Verbal assurances are NOT
    ENOUGH!!  
    
    
    Do we have a date as yet for the continuation of this issue before
    the Planning Board?  I didn't think it was scheduled for this week
    again - too many things on the agenda already - please let me know
    when it is coming before them, if you know.  Anything we should
    be doing right now in preparation for this?
                       
    I certainly hope the fiasco at Vose's Hill Development caught
    everyone's attention last week - perhaps the DPW might become more
    alert to the "cavaliar disregard" developers have towards residents
    concerns before caving in to every builder that comes before them
    with grand schemes to utilize town resources of which there's not
    much left.
    
              
     

                    The planning board closed the public hearing at
    the last meeting.The next regular meeting of the planning board
    will be Tues.Aug.9th at 7:30. I do not know if there is a scheduled
    time. I will check. The MNPA Strategy committee is going to meet
    sometime this week to come up wiht the list of concerns and questions.
     This list will be reviewed by our lawyer,Vin Malloy,and presented
    to the planning board and Ann Strauss.
                     Ann Strauss is doing a snow job on the Pynes.She
    has been in touch with them and keeps reassuring them that the plan
    is all kosher. I guess they haven't read the bylaws(this is neighborhood
    grapevine info). I told them about the "Trust" but they didn't seem
    to concerned that she might be trying the same with them. She told
    them that we don't have the latest set of plans (wrong). She also
    claims that she got approval from the planning board an a preliminary
    ammended set of plans.This revision was never reviewed by the Consv.
    commission,I don't think it was ever submitted to them. It was on
    this set of plans that they first outlined their plans for drainage
    onto school property and into wetlands.                 
                       I got a call this morning from Mike Sentance
    of the school committee telling me that he had just gotten a call
    from Ann Strauss trying to find out who I was. I introduced myself
    and pointed out my house on the plans at the first meeting. My name
    is on the abutters list. She should have been able to figure out
    who I was. I think she is fishing for info. I expect a call from
    her this evening.I will talk to the lawyer first. 
                        Mike said she wanted to get together with me
    and go over the list of conditions we wanted attached to the plans.
    I think this should be done officially in front of the planning
    board at next Tues. meeting. But I will talk to her as I don't want
    her to be able to say we are being uncooperative. It is only a few
    days 'til the next meeting. 
                         Didn't we make ourselves clear at the last
    meeting what most of our conditions were? We had a typewritten list
    and we did get a copy to her/the engineer a the meeting when they
    complained they hadn't seen the list.
                                  HOLTORF

                     The planning board meeting has been changed to
    WED AUG 17. A quorum was not going to be present on the 9th so
    the date has been changed.
                               HOLTORF

   This note is being closed down (no more replies).

   Although most of the discussion was reasonable, too many have
   gotten out of hand with inappropriate personal attacks
   (accusations, name calling, and innuendo).

Co-moderator,
Jean Fullerton

   Based on feedback on my closing the note down, I reviewed the
   material with the other moderators of the conference.

   Our joint opinion is that this discussion, being inflammatory
   by its nature, belongs elsewhere, and that we suggest perhaps
   the SOAPBOX conference, or a private mail distribution list.

Co-moderator,
Jean Fullerton