47° and Partly Cloudy
Image
To the Editor:
Why Autumn Hill Should Go Forward
We, the undersigned, are long time Franklin residents who have served in multiple capacities of town government in elected, appointed and voluntary positions for many, many years. Our families have resided in Franklin for over 100 years. We welcome new residents just as we respect and revere all members of our community. We care deeply about our town, recognize, support and encourage citizens to participate in their government’s decisions.
We also recognize and respect the many who presently, and historically, serve Franklin in elected, appointed and voluntary positions. We understand and appreciate legitimate concerns residents may have for what goes on in their backyards. We ask only that you adhere to the truth and facts as you voice your position and understand and appreciate that governmental decisions are made not only about that which may concern you, but what may be best for the 35,000 others who live here as well.
Let us begin by removing from this and other governmental proceedings the rancor that is too often on display. Residents who oppose a particular development are not “selfish NIMBY Carpetbaggers who have not been here long enough for their coffee to get cold.” And, persons serving on various town Boards are not corrupt or indifferent to the interests of those in opposition. Indeed, the accusation that officials are overly responsive to a vocal minority at the expense of the great majority may have some validity. The accusation, frequently made, that Boards and the Council will “cave in” if 20 residents show up and holler Is not uncommon. In our experience the great majority of public servants we have known, and worked with, are dedicated and conscientious in what can be an arduous and thankless undertaking, not to mention requiring significant time and commitment. We can disagree, but in a spirit of respect and civility. And, apart from our collective service to the community, we were instrumental and participants in the passing of a somewhat, initially, contentious development while members of the former Council Advisory Committee: the Franklin Country Club proposal at Cook’s Farm, which we shall address later on.
Allow us to begin by clarifying and/or correcting certain assertions made in the Observer article [Letter to the Editor].
First, the picture that was shown as “owners of the plan” is not about ownership of the plan, it lists the owner of the property, Mr. Hunchard, and Mr. Jones, whom we may assume will own the property upon approval of his (Jones’) plan. It is part of the application requirement and is the common practice of the submitting engineers. If Mr. Hunchard truly wanted to be the developer of his property he has both the experience and expertise to do so. He does not need Mr. Jones’ participation. The second paragraph alludes to the 2017 proposal by Grandis of the same site and states that Mr. Hunchard “went in front of the town council to rezone his 10 acres of property.” We shall expound on Grandis later, but that statement is incorrect.
Our research shows that Mr. Hunchard is a 70 year old resident who is currently having issues of health and simply wishes to sell property he and his family have owned and paid taxes on for over 40 years. We find no record of Mr. Hunchard ever appearing before the Council in the rezoning of the property in the Grandis proposal as stated in the Observer letter. We are not here to defend Mr. Hunchard, that is not needed or necessary, but to disparage or impugn his service to the community for some 30 years; to imply there is deception in this application; that his Chairmanship of the ZBA has some part in this appears to be not only untrue but unfair, if not slanderous.
There is a reason why numerous Town Administrators have continued to appoint Mr. Hunchard to the ZBA: he is intelligent, informed and dedicated to helping those Franklin residents who seek certain relief before the ZBA whenever legal and appropriate. That is the public record.
The letter then goes on to discuss the need for this development; the projected costs of the units; the design and unit features; and tries to connect this proposal to Grandis 2017. Again, our research and position is that all of these concerns or criticisms are simply not an appropriate concern other than that of the builder and consumer. The logical and more intelligent assessment should, and will be, made by the market/consumer. The risk lies with the developer. As for the need, we learned that past discussion among the Master Plan review committee, the Planning Dept. and the office of the Governor of MA strongly advocate for more senior housing and that projections are that the need will continue to increase. The letter ends the paragraph by alleging the sales price (yet to be determined) is “hefty” and “a disgrace”. Whatever the price of this housing is set at, its success will be determined by the consumer/market. There is an undertone we sense among some that Franklin’s significant efforts toward affordable housing also can reflect an ambivalence toward more expensive housing: that there is a prejudice toward the more affluent. We saw that same bias in the Cook’s Farm development and to some degree implied in this matter.
The letter’s conclusion is that there is not a need for this proposal because a nearby community is developing a 1600 unit age-restricted project, which actually may be in Rhode Island. To that we say it does not negate or invalidate Franklin’s need for more senior housing and good luck to our neighbors in Rhode Island. What we hear about our neighbors, more often in this discussion, is how and why they have movie theatres and Whole Foods and we get Mattress City and Dollar Stores?
Now, allow us to offer both certain factual information as well as supportive reasons for our position. In prior hearings the erroneous claim has been stated that this proposal will further tax our public ways, create significantly more traffic and compromise safety on Summer Street. This is incorrect and untrue. Summer Street along with King, Washington, Pleasant, Lincoln, 140 and Pond Streets are arterial roadways, often described as “movers of traffic between populations” as well other descriptions. If you live on, or purchase property on, an arterial roadway you can anticipate traffic. Further, every responsible traffic study states that senior housing and condominiums are not major contributors to traffic. What contributes to traffic is YOU the moment YOU get into YOUR car. (Or, perhaps, its everyone else but YOU!). Summer Street is an arterial roadway, its traffic is primarily transient between populations (adjacent communities) and local/residents., A senior development, buried deeply in the woods, regardless of the number of occupants will not impact traffic on Summer Street to any appreciable degree. As for any safety concerns, a sidewalk, as offered in Grandis 2017, which the letter boasts was “fought hard and we won" will be far more beneficial to the community and residents of Summer Street.
Our suggestion Is that the developer, Mr. Jones, withdraw and revise his application to reflect the cost of a sidewalk to be offset by additional units as initially filed and In accordance with the requirements of the DPW. We clearly recall, as youngsters, riding our bikes on Summer Street to Uncas Pond. Sadly, that is no longer appropriate for youngsters today. A wide sidewalk that can accommodate cyclists and walkers will be a valuable addition for all.
Earlier, we alluded to the Cook’s Farm/Country Club development. At that time we three were officers on the Council Advisory Committee which had been authorized and created by Council Chair Bob Vallee and the Town Council. Cook’s Farm was our first major undertaking. What was then an abandoned, derelict siteIs now the loving community of those who are fortunate to reside there. It generates approximately $500,000 in property taxes, provided $350,000 for 140 infrastructure improvement, requires no DPW services, has not had students in our schools and has brought caring and contributing residents to our community. Like Autumn Hill, some of the same specious, incorrect and false assertions were made toward Cook’s, including bias toward the more affluent. Fortunately, those in authority had the courage and wisdom to appreciate and serve the community at large. Had that same courage and competence been provided in Grandis 2017 the resultant approximately 4M in tax revenue that the town would have received might negate today’s override issues as well as continuing services to our children and schools, seniors and Veterans, and town government. Perhaps the 35,000 residents may have an opinion.
In closing, we suggest present and future criterion for development parallel the criterion we used at Cook’s. That it be (1) beneficial and compatible to the community at large (2) aesthetically appealing; (3) financially beneficial; (4) that any impact be more positive and minimally negative; and(5) assured maintenance upon completion.
We encourage the Planning Board to support Autumn Hill just as we ask the developer to seek a continuance and revise to provide for the same amenities as stated in Grandis 2017. A few more units, buried deeply in the woods, unseen to neighbors, offers far more benefit to the residents of the area and community at large than any imagined impact. We may differ with those in opposition but we must not allow our differences to let us lose sight of our shared commonality and the best interests of our 35,000 residents and all those who rely upon our obligations.
Judith Pond Pfeffer
Paul J. Cheli
L.P. Benedetto
[ED Note: Judith was a long-time Town Councilor and member of the School Committee and other boards or committees, Paul was on the Town Council for many years, Larry (LP) is former long-time Chief of Police]
