Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents mixed-use rezoning proposal for 231 Turnpike Road; trust declines to take immediate position
Summary
Ferris Development presented a proposal to rezone parcels near Technology Drive for mixed-use redevelopment that could yield more than 50 affordable units in draft plans; trustees raised spot-zoning and leverage concerns and chose not to endorse or oppose the article at this time, with one trustee recusing from the discussion.
Developer David Ferris and counsel George Bonan presented March 13 to the Westboro Affordable Housing Trust a draft rezoning proposal for parcels near Technology Drive and Route 9 that would convert industrially zoned land to a highway-business/mixed-use designation to allow retail and residential redevelopment.
Ferris described a long-term company relationship with Westborough and said his firm’s plan—drafted in consultation with the planning board—could produce north of 50 affordable housing units if built, with a 20% affordability component in the developer’s draft concept. “This private investment of $150 million can really activate that quarter,” Ferris said, adding the pro forma anticipates a multi-million-dollar annual tax increase for the town and limited expected school impacts.
Trustees probed the scope and process. Trustee Mark Silverberg said he had voted against supporting the article at a recent select-board meeting and raised concerns that extending highway-business zoning to the parcel could be viewed as spot zoning and might reduce the planning board’s leverage when negotiating mitigation, affordable set-asides or other concessions. Other trustees similarly requested more analysis of adjacent parcels and the potential for subsequent rezoning requests by neighboring owners.
The chair announced a recusal from this item because of an outstanding litigation connection with the proponent and proposed that the three remaining trustees proceed with a presentation and defer any final trust position. After discussion trustees agreed not to issue a formal support letter; several said they would make individual decisions at town meeting.
The proposal remains before the planning board and, if advanced, would be acted on at town meeting. The trust’s action was limited to discussion; no binding endorsement or formal opposition was recorded.
