Zoning Board of Appeals Approves Modified Johnson Farm Project

ZBA members approved an affordable housing project for Landham Road, while making it clear they were doing so reluctantly.

A majority of the Zoning Board of Appeals has approved a modified version of a controversial housing project at 189 Landham Road. After hours of debate at Thursday night, the Board agreed to move ahead with the approval process for the proposed Johnson Farm project, but with the stipulation that the development include 56 units, not 58.

"I completely acknowledge that this plan is not perfect," said Board Chair Elizabeth Quirk, who opened the meeting by explaining that she was reluctantly giving her support to the plan for 58 units, which she modified to 56 by the end of the meeting. "Of course, zero units would be the ideal, but that is not an option that is available."

State law requires communities to set aside a percentage of housing that is deemed "affordable," and communities are not permitted to reject developments that include affordable housing without specific reasons that relate to health and safety.

"I think the 120-unit plan would be a disaster for the town that I am just not willing to risk," said Quirk, referring to the developer's original plans, which involved a three-story, 120-unit development in the same location.

That plan could be resurrected and pushed through if the ZBA rejected the 58-unit plan and the developer appealed through the state, according to Board members who spent a significant portion of the meeting debating whether Sudbury could successfully fend off the 120-unit development on appeal.

"I am not comfortable with the 58 units," said Board member Jonathan F.X. O'Brien, who said he was particularly concerned about wetlands issues.

"They would be nice homes, but they're in the wrong spot, and there's just too many of them," said member Benjamin Stevenson, arguing that the number of units should be watered down to 45, which he said would lessen the environmental impact and ease concerns expressed by neighbors. He said many neighbors would be willing to accept 45 units, despite the perception that they are dead-set against any development of any size.

"I feel like the difference between 45 and 58 is not as great as it sounds," said Quirk.

"I don't like this any more than the neighbors do," said member Jeffrey Klofft.  "But still, we should remember that there are substantial differences between the 120-unit plan and the 58-unit plan." 

He argued that the higher costs for tenants of a 58-unit development might be more likely to attract people from within Sudbury, perhaps empty-nesters who don't need as large of a home as they used to.

The Johnson Farm development is referred to as a "40B" project, after the state law passed in 1969 which allows developers more flexibility in bypassing local zoning regulations, if they set aside 25 percent of the units for low- and moderate-income residents at rates they can afford. In November 2010, Massachusetts voters rejected a ballot question that sought to repeal the law.  Supporters of 40B often refer to it as the "anti-snob" law and say communities ought to seek more opportunities for affordable housing, not less.

"I know I don't like it, I know they don't like it," Klofft said, gesturing to the crowd of about 20 neighbors who gathered to watch the proceedings. "And I know we (the Board) don't like it, but the question is how much risk are we willing to take," he asked, in regards to the possible legal consequences of denying the project. Klofft and Stevenson repeatedly interrupted each other as the meeting became heated at times.

By the end of the meeting, a majority consisting of three of the five members voted to support 56 units and request modifications to the design plans, such as more room that would allow a fire truck to turn around at the property.  

Members settled on the number of 56, after it was pointed out that they could complicate matters by not picking a number that is divisible by 4, since the developer is aiming at a 25-percent affordable housing rate. Both the 58-unit plan and the newly modified 56-unit plan will allow for a total of 14 affordable housing units.  


M G June 22, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Thank you Mr. Stevenson and Mr. O'Brien for your efforts. No thanks to Ms. Quirk whose attitude was disappointing throughout. Thank you Mr. "risk taker" Klofft - if you had fought this, they might have tried to put a huge apartment building in your neck of the woods.
M June 22, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I totally agree. Ms Quirk's attitude was appalling from day one. She never had any intention of fighting this for the town and was played by Bob Moss and his fake 120 units. I'm sure if Jeff or Liz actually lived in this part of town, they might feel differently.
Mike Hullinger June 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM
40B is nothing more than a pretense to provide developers with a legal bludgeon to circumvent local zoning rules. More than 20% of existing Sudbury households already meet the income qualifying limitations in 40B, ergo Sudbury has well above the 10% threshold required by 40B. The problem with the 40B law is that it excludes any consideration of exhisting households, hence it is all about giving developers a tool to develop local properties in violation of local rules. The Johnson Farm developer will now get to build 42 market rate units in violation of local zoning, with only a requirement that they build 14 "affordable" units. If the concern is affordable housing, give him a permit for 14 affordable units only. Why our state reps are not pushing to eliminate 40B tells you which lobby they care about more than their constituents.
Noyes Family June 22, 2012 at 01:21 PM
I hope that they put in a traffic light at the intersection of Landham Rd. and Rt. 20 to help deal with the extra traffic. It is already such a dangerous intersection.
Anonymous June 22, 2012 at 01:55 PM
This is ridiculous on this site in Sudbury. Does anyone realize the impact on the wetlands, environment, traffic and public safety? It is just absurd to squeeze a 56 unit complex onto this site. This is an incredibly sad day for Sudbury.
M June 22, 2012 at 03:37 PM
The local residents understand for sure. The 40B provision is suppose to restrict "cluster" developments. However, we now have 4 developments within a few hundred yards of each other and over 200 units. This is a clear abuse of the intended provision and why I voted to repeal this scam of a law.
SueChap June 22, 2012 at 04:22 PM
we all must admit that the climate in Sudbury is worsening by the day. It is not the attractive metrowest community it was 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago.
Anonymous June 22, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Ms. Quirk - you are a disgrace to Sudbury. You were on the developers side from day one, it was obvious the way you conducted the hearing. You did not give the public the opportunity to speak without interrupting them, you did not let the public show any emotion whatsoever, yet you cry like a baby when the hearing is over? Your lack of professionalism is right in step with the rest of the town. Shame on you. You were played by the developer and he won.
siobhan hullinger June 22, 2012 at 07:45 PM
If I remember correctly, the town is hiring someone to study it. It is a state road however, so I am sure there are complications with that. I do remember Jody Kablack at a recent meeting - perhaps a BoS meeting discussing possibilites with a designer? I could be wrong here but I do think it is in the works.
M June 22, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Siobhan, yes, at the recent BOS meeting the town consultant reviewed the RT 20 development plans. He reaffirmed what is in the Johnson Farm traffic study, that the intersection at Landham is already one of the worst in the state with its higher rate of accidents and volume. He designated it the towns #1 priority on a list of about 5 that need to be addressed. The state will end up installing lights, but don"t forget the town hit Moss up for 90K to help reshape the intersection....See why it went in now...
Enuff June 22, 2012 at 08:15 PM
Sue, I couldn't agree with you more. The perfect storm of Mrs. J, Lavendergate and the Johnson Farm has now officially made Sudbury the educate and evacuate center of the universe. I have 5 more years and my last is out of school and so am I. The local politicians have destroyed a beautiful community, yet they keep getting elected. Shame on us, the taxpayers for not being aware.
Kirsten Vandijk June 22, 2012 at 08:53 PM
I remember parking my car on Landham Road at 5pm to do a traffic study when my husband and I were considering purchasing the 1886 Ames House. This was in June or July of 1995. My eldest son was 3 at the time and I did not realize I was pregnant with my youngest son who is going to be a junior at LS in the fall. Anyway, I did 4 different studies and at the height of commuting traffic an average of 11 cars A MINUTE passed by. That means 5 and half southbound and 5 and a half northbound over the course of one minute. We bought the house based on this worst case study and soon were surprised to find the weight restrictions removed when the bridge was repaired. When we sold the house 10 years later an average of 60 cars would go by when I duplicated the worst case traffic study. Who knows what 2015 will bring.
MC June 22, 2012 at 09:19 PM
I completely agree with all these points mentioned and especially that this is a very sad day for Sudbury. I am disgraced and appalled at the lack of Sudbury Town elected representatives fighting this absurd development on top of the 3 they already approved all in a square mile radius. We all need to stay informed and hope the Con Comm can do something and or the abutters - they will need our support so don't give up yet, there are still ways to legally fight this.
Suzi June 23, 2012 at 01:23 AM
I agree. Ms. Quirk appeared to have no interest in what the public was saying. I raised my hand to speak yet was never called upon.
AJ June 23, 2012 at 05:05 AM
Looks like Sudbury needs some new selectman since they have no stopping of these builders on their minds. With 3 projects all in the same area I am starting to wonder if they are legit selectman and women.
Dr.Rosen-rosen December 05, 2012 at 07:45 PM
It's not the job of the ZBA to "fight" for abutters. Its their job to uphold the law and not invite an appeal that would further drain the town's legal budget. These projects always turn out much better than everyone feared at public hearings. And perhaps several town employees and teachers can actually afford to live in town! The horror!!!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something