Conference 7.286::maynard

>    Thompson Farm off of Thompson St. 10 lots approved construction not
>    started.

    Paul, is this right behind your house? They were originally trying to
    get ~13 lots approved at one time, weren't they?

>    Hilltop Lane off of Fairfield St. 2 lots approved construction not
>    started.  This might be made part of the Thompson Farms sub-division.

    Don't quote me on this, but I think this one is a separate
    sub-division, proposed by the owner of the house on the crest at the
    hill.

    Speaking of sub-divisions... How does the town come up with road
    locations and names? When my family applied for sub-division approval,
    we were hoping to have the family name for the road that would have
    gone through the parcel of land. We were told that the road had to go
    here and be named this. Where my family has owned the land for close to
    100 years, don't we get ANY say in this?

    Norma

    Thompson Farms sub-division was approved with less lots than originally
    proposed.  Thompson Farms and Hilltop Lane might be combined if the two
    applicants can reach an agreement.
    
    The applicant names the roads, however there are some restrictions.

    Question,
    
    How does one go about feeding back input into these approvals?  I am
    about to abut (not directly)  2 of these subs, and have a couple of 
    personal points ofinterest I would like to have addressed.  Can 
    anyone help?
    
    Tracy

    Before a sub-division is approved a public hearing is held.  All
    abutters are notified directly by certified mail and all public
    hearings are posted twice in the Beacon at least two weeks before the
    hearing.  This is the best place to enter any input concerning a
    sub-division, because this is before the plan is approved.  After the
    plan is approved, the developer must meet all conditions of the
    covenant.  If you have any concerns about an approved plan you can
    attend a Planning Board meeting or you can write a letter to the board
    expressing your concerns.  You can ask me any questions you have and I
    will be happy to answer them.

    RE: .4
    
    Thanks,
    
    I will take this off line with you.

    The developer of the Thompson Farms subdivision is going to start
    construction this fall.  The first part of the construction will be on
    the Chandler St. side of the subdivision.
    
    Russell Heights subdivision is under construction off of Garfield St.
    and there is some talk of another development in the area behind Woodlane
    and Old Mill Rd..

    Eleven new houses are under construction on the back side of the Vose
    Hill sud-division.  All of these 11 lots have been sold, which will
    leave 6 remaining to be sold and constructed.  
    
    The binder coat should be installed on the Thompson Farms sub division
    by the middle of December  weather permitting.  A model home could be
    constructed this winter.

    Here are some of the proposed developments that have been approved or
    have come to the board with formal or informal plans.
    
    Sanford Estates Waltham St.- started clearing but his approval expires
    in Feb 1995 and has submitted a request for an extension.
    Reeves Rd. off Mockingbird- All houses built, 1 left to be sold.
    Taft Ave. Allen Drive area.- a preliminary plan has been submitted for
    14 houses.
    Old Mill Rd.- informal plans were looked at by the board for 20 or more 
    houses. They are currently building 4 houses on Old Mill Rd.
    Great Rd. near the Asparagus Farm- informal plan were given to the board
    for discussion for about 10 houses.
    Great Rd in front of the High School-Preliminary plans were just
    submitted last week.  I have not seen them yet.
    
    regards
    
    Paul
    
    
    
    

    Great Road in front of the High School ????  When is enough, enough??
    
    Will we have any wooded areas left???
    
    BS

    The Planning Board reviewed the preliminary sub-division plan for the
    Carbone land on Great Rd in front of the MHS.  The plan called for 11
    lots.  They asked for 3 waivers.  The plan was denied.  The developer
    will redraw and resubmit the plans with no waivers for 10 lots.  
    

    Here is an interesting issue that has developed with the builder of
    Sanford Estates on Waltham St..  The approval for the sub-division
    has expired again.  When a sub-division is first approved the approval
    is for 2 years.  If they are not finished the board will grant a 1 year
    extension.  This builder is requesting his second or extension. 
    
    The planning board has three options, 1  to grant the extension, 2 
    to grant the extension with some restrictions or 3 not to grant the
    extension and make the builder start over.  The board has agreed to
    grant an extension with the restriction that the builder must now
    comply with the new regulations.  The original project was approved in
    1991.  The new regulations will reduce the number of buildable lots
    from 6 to 5.  As you can imagine the builder in not happy.
    
    I would like to here from anyone who has an opinion concerning this
    situation.
    
    regards
    
    Paul   

    Hayes Development has submitted a proposed sub division to put 11
    houses on the Carbone land on Great Rd. in front of the high school. 
    He requested a waiver so he could get 11 lot.  The Planning Board
    denied the waiver request.  Hayes can legally build 10 lots on the
    property, barring any drainage, design, etc. problems.  At last nights
    meeting Hayes presented another proposal.  Her said if we give him the
    waiver for 11 lots, he would build a side walk on the south side of
    Great Rd. from the Green Meadow School to the high school.  Of course
    this would be in conjunction with the DPw and the residents on Great
    Rd..  
    
    regards
    Paul

Out of idle curiosity, this isn't land owned by (the late) Walter
Carbone -- would it?

If so, this development fits the definition of irony to a tee...


- dave

    Yes this is the land owned by the late Walter Carbone.  I is owned by his
    widow Edith.
    
    Regards

An open letter to the Maynard					May 6, 1995

   Planning Board
   Selectmen
   School Committee
   Conservation Commission


I am writing in respect to the proposed subdivision called
"Carbone Circle".  Over the many years that I have attended town
meetings I was always impressed with the outspokeness and
passion expressed by the late Walter Carbone regarding
conservation issues within the town. Knowing of Walter's deep
commitment to the land and the undeveloped spaces in our town I
found nothing but irony and sadness when I learned that his land
was to be divided into 10 or 11 little lots for even more houses.

I don't know if there is any way to prevent this development,
but I believe there are many in Maynard who feel that carving up
Walter's land, paving it over and sticking a street sign on it
is not a fitting legacy for someone who commited so much of his
life to conservation in Maynard.

I have no personal connections to the Carbone family, other than
hearing him represent the Conservation Commission at Town
Meeting. I don't know who is developing this land.  I'm sure
everyone is doing what they think is the right thing to do.  So
am I.

I urge the Town of Maynard, as an abutter to the land, to at
minimum go on record as opposing the further development of the
Carbone land.  Besides being a fitting tribute to Walter, I'm
not sure what purpose another development serves the town -- the
land in question is already "developed".   The proposed
subdivision will increase the load on the fire, police, and
schools -- all of which fight each year to provide their
existing services under tight fiscal controls.

The developer can probably (and rightly) claim that the addition
of just 10 more houses will have little appreciable impact on
these services, but the fact remains that when you start adding
up all these little "insignificant" developments we've seen over
the years, the impact is all too real.   When you factor in the
additional traffic that will be generated at an already very
busy section of Great Road, there seem to be plenty of practical
reasons to consider this proposal  not in the best interest of
the town.

If it were only these "practical" reasons that I considered the
subdivision a mistake I probably wouldn't have written this
letter.  I only wish to somehow see that the legacy for a
champion of conservation and nature in Maynard be something
other than asphalt, concrete, and cookie-cutter houses.  It may
not be practical.  It probably isn't possible.  But it is the
right thing to do.



David Griffin
52 Summerhill Road

    There is a public hearing on the subdivision on Carbone's land on
    Tuesday 5-9-95.  I beleave it is at 7:15 p.m. in the town hall.  All
    concerned or interested parties should attend and voice their concerns.
    
    regards
    
    Paul

I hope the land remains as open space. It makes me absolutely sick when i see
another subdivision created by the money-hungry developers who have no 
concern for anything but the dollar. It amazes me that they can permanently
destroy our natural areas and leave virtually nothing for our future 
generations to enjoy but yet another black-topped road. They live in this 
society too, don't they care? 

Over the last couple years i've seen beautiful farm land consisting of vast 
open fields which gave me a pleasant, relaxed feeling to view dissappear 
into conjested house lots that generally cost $300k+ with a land area barely 
large enough have room for a garden. Must we always have a "new" home? 
Our quality of living is steadly decreasing with the destruction of our 
trees, land, and wildlife and it is an irreversible process.  Our wasteful,
throwaway attitudes must change in order for our future generations to enjoy
the wonderful beauty that nature has to offer. A town's tax base rarely
increases with more homes as you so well stated in your note because the 
demand for services goes up proportionately. 

Good luck with your struggle to save the Carbone land.
 
Best Regards, 
 
  James Mikelis, Software Partners Group
  Digital Equipment Corporation, 200 Forest St. [MR01-2/K5], Marlboro, MA 01752
  DTN:   8.297.9073  PUBLIC: +1.508.467.9073 FAX: +1.508.467.1468
  EMAIL: [email protected] (or) BLAZER::MIKELIS
  URL:   http://blazer.mro.dec.com/~mikelis/home.html

>    <<< Note 307.17 by BLAZER::MIKELIS "Software Partner Eng., MR01-2/L2" >>>
>
>I hope the land remains as open space. It makes me absolutely sick when i see
>another subdivision created by the money-hungry developers who have no 
>concern for anything but the dollar. It amazes me that they can permanently
>destroy our natural areas and leave virtually nothing for our future 
>generations to enjoy but yet another black-topped road. They live in this 
>society too, don't they care? 
>
>Over the last couple years i've seen beautiful farm land consisting of vast 
>open fields which gave me a pleasant, relaxed feeling to view dissappear 
>into conjested house lots that generally cost $300k+ with a land area barely 

Wait a minute.  Do YOU live in a house?
What was in the place of that house before it was built?
Whose view does it now obstruct?  Did some "money hungry developer" build it?
Did you buy it?
Do you like living in your town (Maynard or wherever it might be)?
Did you have to pass a fitness test to get permission to live there?
Would you apply such a test to those who choose to move in after you?

Of course land can and must be conserved, and natural resources can and must 
be protected, but those "money-hungry" developers are selling those houses 
to PEOPLE who will be your townsfolk and (at some point) your kin, 
including those "future generations" you speak of.

Take some perspective and consider how hypocritical your rants can sound....

- tom]

RE: -1

It's a pity you feel that way. Unfortunately you echo the sentiment of many.
A lot of people would rather promote themselves at the earth's expense and 
just talk about how we must conserve and preserve and hope someone else 
does something about it. Have you any idea how many wildlife species have 
virtually disappeared (in our lifetime) due to loss of habitat from 
overdevelopment? Replacing them with subdivisions, shopping malls, Wall-Marts
seems somewhat immoral to me.

Enjoy what you have today, because in all probability, it won't be here 
tomorrow.

/james

    The planning board held the public hearing for the sud-division on
    Carbone's land.  Attending were 4 people from Hayes Development, 2
    people from the school department and about another 6 to 8 people.  
    
    Issues raised during the meeting were:  safety during the construction,
    a buffer zone between the school and the development, traffic impact,
    drainage, the sidewalk from the High School and Green Meadow, and
    the development would be a determinant to the high School.
    
    regards
    
    Paul  
        

Re: .17

I doubt very much that the development will be stopped -- I really don't
have any struggle with this situation (other than with my conscience -- and
I've sort of taken care of that by writing the letter).

I, personally, don't view the developers as villains -- they are just trying
to make a living like the rest of us.  I don't view the sellers of the property
as evil because they want/need to get top dollar for it.  (It's not what I
would do, but I'm not in their shoes, am I?)

The problem lies in what the citizens of the town/state/country want.  For
the town of Maynard, there are zoning laws in place which regulate the types
of development that can occur (and the conversion of land from one zone to
another).   All the town has to do is say: "all future building lots must be
at least 3 acres in size" and it would pretty much put a halt to subdivisions.
I think Weston or some other local community has a similar zoning law.  It doesn't
stop development, but it determines the character of it.

This issue is much larger than the specific "Carbone" problem -- which is just
a sad case because of the late owner.  And, perhaps, it will become a rallying
point for changing the zoning laws in Maynard (something I would support, but
I'm not really in a position to lead).

The important thing to remember is that developers don't create the subdivisions,
we do -- by permitting it via zoning laws and other regulations.   The goal
for us as citizens is to find the balance between nature and "progress", so that
we can enjoy the fruits of what we call civilization while not completely
obliterating the planet in the process.

My letter, I hope, will encourage the town authorities to not accomodate the
developer by bending the regulations through waivers or whatever.   If those
waivers make the development unattractive, then we're able to maintain the
status quo within the law -- and we can go from there.   This would be
a miracle, and I don't expect it.   I hope the other issues raised at the
hearing point out why this development is ill-advised and perhaps it might
cause a further scaling back.   That in itself would be a victory.


- dave

    While I admire the beliefs of those that are against this development,
    place yourselves in the position of the family (the Carbone's).  They
    are facing the staggering costs of Nursing Home care for Mrs. Carbone. 
    I don't know their entire financial situation, but there are a lot of
    people out there who own land, and paid for the land, who now are faced
    with the sometimes unpleasant task of selling it, in the hopes that
    they can retire or live the remaining days of their lives in some form 
    of comfort.
    
    					Steve

    I would like to say the present Planning Board does work with each
    developer trying to find a happy medium to satisfy both the developer
    and the neighborhood/town.  We are currently working with a developer
    off of OLd Mill rd., who has agreed to build fewer and larger lots and
    not connect two roads.  In return we  would grant a waiver for length
    if a cul-d-sarc and some frontage requirements.  The developer has 
    agreed to transfer 1.5 acres of buffer zone and wet lands to the town.
    
    Unfortunately, Carbone's land is about 3.5 acres which does not give
    the town or the developer much area to negotiate.  The board will
    try to have a sidewalk built, buffer zone, and a quick and safe
    construction site.
    
    As far has rezoning to bigger lot sizes, that is something the Board
    could pursue if we got enough backing from the residents.  
    
    regards
    
    Paul     

  Re the relatives of Walter Carbone who sold the land because they are facing
the exorbitant cost of putting Mrs. Carbone in a nursing home: Do any of them
live in or near here? If so, how do THEY feel about "dishonoring" Walter Car-
bone by naming a subdvision for him? If they don't consider it a dishonor, I
don't think there is much hope of getting the road name changed. 
  Based on my reading this file, I don't think there is much hope of stopping
this development. I agree with several replies back: I don't think the town
should cut this developer any slack, because I don't think this development is
a benefit to the town.
  Re large-lot zoning: I don't think this is the way to go. What you end up
with is a large population spread out over a huge land area with longer roads
and utility lines needed to serve them. This means higher town expenses for
road maintenance, snow removal, water lines, sewer lines, school busing, etc.
I think the way to go is to have the lot size determined by requirements for
wells and septic systems where there is no town water or sewer and allow
smaller lots where town water and sewer are available, and find other ways to
"lock up" working farmland and other tracts that need to be preserved. The
result is the same number of houses as in the "three acre lot model", but 
having them closer to the town center.
  I agree with several replies back that development rarely puts a town ahead
financially. It increases the tax base, but most or all of this new tax revenue
is eaten up by increased costs to the town caused by the development. And 
Maynard doesn't need any more houses. Isn't it true that due to the Mill
closing, there are a lot fewer corporate jobs in town than there were five
years ago? MSO2 is big, but it's not big enough to offset the Mill closing.
And if/when the housing for the elderly in the Mill opens, a lot of people
who are living in houses now will move there and that will free up even more
housing.
  I have done a lot of reading over the last year or two on the forces that
drive the housing construction industry. A lot of the demand for new houses is
artificially created, that is, over the last 50 years the housing industry and
its allies in other industries have implanted the idea in our minds that "used"
houses are undesirable and newly-built houses are the way to go. Of course, 
during the boom years of the 1980's here in MA there was a genuine need for
new houses, but look at the number of new houses that were built in the 1990-
94 time frame, when existing houses were a dime a dozen. 
  Like the person several replies back, I get sick when I see beautiful
countryside being converted to ticky-tacky housing developments. And you have
to get REALLY far into the boonies to find real countryside today.