Conference 7.286::maynard

    just where exactly is vose pond?

    Voses Pond is at the end of Old Marlboro road on the Maynard Sudbury
    line.

    Last night the Planning Board voted to disapprove the preliminary plan
    for Voses Pond that was submitted by Hayes devlopment.  This is just
    the first step in the  process.  Hayes will most likely re-submitt
    another plan.  The Board disapproved the plan based on a section of the
    rules which state the board can require land be set aside for parks,
    open space, municipal buildings etc.. 

  Why did Digital formerly own the pond and the land around it? Was it origin-
ally owned by the mill company and acquired by DEC as part of the Mill pro-
perty? Is the pond natural or man-made? If man-made, was it built to help
supply water power to the mill?
  I can't picture where this is, but I don't see how this development can
"improve" anything.

      
    
    
    
    		Informational Forum for Vose Pond and Rockland Ave.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    			Monday, October 16, 1995
    
    		Maynard High School Auditorium, 7:00 - 9:00 PM
    
    
    		Sponsored by the League of Women Voters
    
    
    The league of Women Voters of Massachusetts is a statewide, grassroots,
    non-partisan organization.  We are pleased to provide the citizens of
    Maynard with an opportunity to learn about these issues before the
    October 30th Special Town meeting.
    	

    Hayes Developing will be meeting with the Planning Board tonight at 
    7:00 p.m..  They are meeting the board concerning several issue, one of
    which is Vose's Pond.  These are public meetings.
    
    regards
    Paul

    Hayes Developing met with the Planning Board last night to make another
    proposal concerning the Vose pond site.  This proposal divided the
    property into 3 section.  One section being left at S-2 zoning where he
    would build about 10 houses on 20k sq. ft lots. The middle section
    including the pond, a 20 foot buffer zone and a couple acres of land
    would be given to the town, along with $25,000.00 for engineering
    studies.  The 3rd section would be rezoned to allow 3 or 4 multi-family
    rental units.  He was proposing a total of 120 one or 2 bedroom rental
    units.
    
    The Planning Board and the representivies from the Con servation Com.
    all agreed not to support this latest proposal.  
    
    regards
    
    Paul
    
    

    Paul, Thanks for keeping us all informed on the Vose Pond issues.
    As a former Maynardite, I really don't like to hear about all the
    contractors getting their way with land, just for the all mighty
    dollar. Maynard has enough problems with the water/sewer/schools.
    Over development will only increase these problems.
    
    Just say NO!!
    Norma

    Thanks for saying no!  I was with you till I got to the third parcel of
    land.  The thought of 120 units of 1 and 2 bedroom apts just makes me
    sick!  I wonder what he was smoking to think the town would go for that
    proposal.
    
    ****
    

    I strongly agree with 9 and 10!  The only interest these developers
    have in the town of Maynard is $$$ for them...

>The only interest these developers
>have in the town of Maynard is $$$ for them...

I think that's a general statement for most businesses, no?


I don't understand why the "developers" are always painted as bad guys.
They are doing their part for the economy and their own welfare.  This
is their right, and (as noted elsewhere) there's a very good chance that
the dwelling you live in now was built by one of those so-called greedy
developers  (I'm guessing most people don't build their own homes).


As long as the zoning regulations permit this, these folks have the
right to maximize their investment.   Fortunately we have review
boards that don't permit "maximim return", but something agreeable to
all.


Put up a citizens' petition for all new residential zoning lots to
be 100,000 square feet.  That'll slow the mowing down of our open
spaces.  Our neighbors have done similar things.  But when you do
this, does the value of the land rise or fall?  Who'll pay the taxes?

Or, buy the land yourself and deed it to the town as open spaces.  That
would be nice for everybody.   Not an easy option though...   Convincing
your neighbors to do the same isn't much simpler.



I don't agree with the developments that are being proposed.  I think
they are wrong for a variety of reasons.  But most of the problems
are based in the values of the community which are reflected in our
regulations and laws.  Villifying people who are trying to make a buck
in that segment of the economy is just plain wrong.

I found it fascinating that the contingent that showed up at the first
half of Special Town Meeting to try and somehow purchase Voses Pond failed
to show up at the second half and block a rezoning of industrial land that
will now contain a bunch of houses.  How many were there the first night
because Voses Pond is in their neighborhood vs. where-ever this other
tract of land was?

Overdevelopment occurs in nibbles, not always in big bites.   Each of these
projects is justified by saying they have "minimal impact on the town".
After a dozen or so of these, they must add up!


(I gotta get back to work ... Sorry for the rambling.)

- dave

    I certainly don't object to people making money.  I come to work every
    day for just that reason. :^)
    
    What I do object to is using the land in an inappropriate way, and
    thinking that Maynard will go along with it because we 'need the
    money.'
    
    If the developer had proposed a more reasonable number of apartment
    units, or a more reasonable number of individual homes, I'd be all for
    it.
    
    ****

I don't want to go off the deep end again, but what the heck, this
conference is pretty dull lately...

>  What I do object to is using the land in an inappropriate way, and
>   thinking that Maynard will go along with it because we 'need the
>   money.'

Your comment drew a couple of thoughts from me.  When it comes to land use
I divide my observations into two camps:

1. Once some land is marked for development, it is lost.  The trees, the
   water, and whatever little ecosystem has managed to develop there is
   gone, busted, and consumed.   I don't care if it's for one house or
   a dozen -- the damage is done.

   Because I feel that a balance between natural spaces and "civilization"
   is necessary for both nature and us -- and that Maynard has already gone
   beyond that balance, any additional development is not warranted.

   But then again, I don't have the money to buy up the land and pay
   the taxes on it, do I?


2. So once someone mows down the trees and kills off whatever wildlife
   was there my attention turns to the community.   Correct me if I'm
   wrong here, but any residential development produces a net loss for
   the town (i.e., the cost of services for those dwellings exceeds 
   the tax revenues).   I think this is the basis of our tax structure
   where commercial property owners have a higher rate than residential.
   So the argument that any housing development is a source of money is
   pure bunk.

   As each house goes up, we nibble away at our infrastructure.   Eventually
   we hit the thresholds (one by one) and these development which individually
   incur "minimal impact on the town" trigger a new school, a new fire engine,
   a new police station, a larger wastewater treatment facility, a larger
   drinking water supply, etc.

   In this regard I agree with the author of .13 that the planning board
   is doing its job by keeping whatever use of the land within sane limits.


- dave

    Strange coincidence, Littleton Conservation Committee sent out
    pamphlets stating their views on over developing land.  I think it
    had some very valid points, similar to those of .14.  
    
    I think some of us who were brought up in Maynard remember the
    days of open spaces, so over developing/developing may be a 
    sore spot with us... Guess I'm against progress...
    
    I don't live there anymore but I do have an interest in some of the
    issues.                                          

    If anyone has ever looked at the Maynard zoning map, they would see 
    there is still a large amount of land zoned residential.  At some point
    in the future there could be houses built on this land.  Most of the
    easily developed land has already been developed.  What we are dealing
    with now, is land that has drainage concerns, steep grades, wet lands,
    etc..  Maynard's zoning allows for smaller lots because of town
    sewage and water, our town is a desirable place for devlopers to build.
    Based on what projects the planning board is currently working, I would
    be save to say by the end of 1996, there will be an additional 50 houses
    built in town.  
    
    FYI,  There is a planning board meeting tonight.  Hayes Development is
    on the agenda.
    
    regards
    
    Paul  

    Hayes made another proposal for the development of the Vose pond land.
    This proposal again divides the land into 3 parcels.  One parcel of
    about 6 acres would change the zoning from s-2 to s-1 and include 16
    single family houses.  The 2nd parcel would be 10 acres including the
    pond, which would be given to the town.  This parcel would have a 100
    foot buffer around the west side of the pond and give the town about
    6 acres of land.  The 3rd parcel which is about 8 acres would be
    re-zoned for apartments, which he would put 3 buildings, for a total of
    72, 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.  The buildings would be 3 story
    containing about 25, 900 to 1200 square foot apartments.  
    
    He used a formula comparing finished house square footage of 28 s-2 lots  
    to finished s-1 and apartment square footage.  The Board told him to
    forget about apartments.  The town is not interested in having another large
    aprartment complex in the town.  The wasn't any major objections to
    parcel one being rezoned to s-1 and having the town get parcel 2 of 10 
    acres including the pond was nice, but the price for this proposal was 
    the apartments.  That price is too high.  The board denied this proposal.
    
    regards
    
    Paul
       

    Hooray!!! Thanks for putting a stop to the apartment complex!!
    
    Any smaller size homes being concidered? It seems to me, that all new
    housing that is being built in surrounding towns, are god-awful huge
    and cost well into the $250-400K range.
    
    It would be nice to have some smaller homes for folks that can only
    afford $100-150K.

    The houses Hayes is currently building on Great Rd. are listed around
    $200K and these are on 10K sq. ft. lots.  If he builds houses on 20K
    sq. ft. lots the prices will be higher.
    
    regards
    
    Paul

  Sorry if this was answered in a previous reply, but does this site have town
water or sewerage? If not, is the decision to have large lots being driven by
the septic regulations? 
  Like -.1, I feel that in general the lots on which new houses are being
built are too large. The idea that developers start with large lots and then
say that they have to build an expensive house because the lot is large is
sort of like the tail wagging the dog. 

    There isn't any water or sewage there yet.  The developer is
    planning to bring the water and sewer lines to the site.  That area is
    zoned S-2, which is 20k sq. ft. lots.  That is the largest area zoning
    in Maynard .  This means a developer can't build has many houses has in
    other zones.  With S-2 zoning he can get about 28 houses, if it was S-1
    zoned he could build over double that amount.
    
    regards
    
    Paul

    Hayes Development presented another proposal for Vose pond.  This
    proposal changed the apartment units to 54 condo units.  The rest of
    the development stayed the same.  The Board suggested they lower the
    amount of the condo units.  The next meeting he said he will present a
    plan with less the 50 condo units.
    
    The Planning Board and Hayes want to give the town voters a choice at a
    town meeting.  The choice 1 will be re-zone the land to allow s-1 zoning
    on 1 section, where 16 houses would be built.  Give the town 10 acres
    of land including the pond and rezone the 3rd section for 40 to 50
    condos.  Choice 2 will be, not to rezone the land and he will submit a
    plan for the current s-2 zoning.  Where he will plan on building about 28
    houses.
    
    If the town wants the pond and some land the trade off would be to re-zone
    the land.  The Board feels the town should make the decision at a
    town meeting.
    
    Let me know what you think.
    
    regards
    
    Paul

    What kind of condos is he planning?  The townhouse kind as in
    AppleRidge, OakRidge and Deer Run?  Or the kind on Mill St (a 3 story
    garden style apartment building)?

    He is planning the townhouse condo like on Appleridge etc..
    
    regards

>    If the town wants the pond and some land the trade off would be to re-zone
>    the land.  The Board feels the town should make the decision at a
>    town meeting.
    
  Does this mean the planning board has the power to change the zoning WITHOUT
a town meeting?

    No the Planning Board does not have the authority to change zoning,
    this must be done at a town meeting.  The Planning Board does not
    have to request that the developer submit alternate plans.  The
    developer can submit a plan that conforms to the zoning.  They are
    under no obligation to submit alternative plans.  
    
    Since there was so much interest from various residents in acquiring
    some land and the pond, the Planning Board is trying to get a proposal
    developed, giving the voters a chance at making a choice.
    
    regards
    
    Paul  

    There is a public hearing scheduled on 4-16-96 in the Town Hall for the
    proposed development of the Vose Pond land.  Anyone interested in what
    the developer is proposing should attend.
    
    regards
    Paul