- Home /
- Forum /
- Brockton Election Announcements and News /
- Political Discussion /
- Mayoral Elections
- Forum
- Brockton Public Forum
- Brockton Issues
- New, Sneaky Landlocked Housing in West Bridgewater via Brockton Street
New, Sneaky Landlocked Housing in West Bridgewater via Brockton Street
- henningson1
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 173
- Karma: 1
- Thank you received: 17
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
Conservation Commission waved ahead this project since the developers met all stipulations within their drawings from a meeting in January. Order of Conditions was granted, they can now proceed to planning. Five were in attendance who opposed, hardly enough interest to make a difference. One person had many notes, but her issues seemed to be more relevant to the planning stage than the CC. What I did not understand, Ray, is how the CC did not see the drawings that show Old Ash as the second egress. It is certainly part of those we received from our local Crime Watch group, just not punched through ... yet. I guess the explanation from the CC is that, if they are hiding it now, when Planning requires it they will be forced to add it to the drawing, and perhaps appear again in front of the CC. Unbelievably, they will put down some type of vegetation that will "entice" animals on their way through the wetlands. SADLY the CC does not seem to care that 36 houses will be living in the trees and on the land where these poor creatures now reside. Also, am I stupid or should somebody other than abutters care about a West Bridgewater project demanding access via Brockton? For those who may be interested but unwilling to fight this, Messina was schmoozing with an opposing couple as if that will make this right.
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If we all sang the same note in the choir, We'd never have harmony
2/1/1938-5/4/2019
Rest in peace
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
If we all sang the same note in the choir, We'd never have harmony
2/1/1938-5/4/2019
Rest in peace
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
Capt wrote: Why can't W. Bridgewater build a road?
I assume it is because, on the West Bridgewater side of this project, the wetlands and/or the fact that the parcel is landlocked prevents them from so doing. I believe I heard they will still have to proceed with West Bridgewater permitting, but obviously their major obstacle now is access. Once Brockton allows that, why would West Bridgewater refuse 33 new homes' worth of real estate taxes? I was surprised to hear the wetlands really are not protected if you have land that requires access through them. Also, that "Dead-end" Ash does not border wetlands, thus the developer can conveniently leave off of his drawing the fact that that Brockton street would be impacted, too. Not sure if I posted this earlier, but rumor has it that it could become one-way due to it's width, thus forcing Brockton residents to drive through West Bridgewater (this development) to either enter or leave their property.
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
clifton heights wrote:
Capt wrote: Why can't W. Bridgewater build a road?
I assume it is because, on the West Bridgewater side of this project, the wetlands and/or the fact that the parcel is landlocked prevents them from so doing. I believe I heard they will still have to proceed with West Bridgewater permitting, but obviously their major obstacle now is access. Once Brockton allows that, why would West Bridgewater refuse 33 new homes' worth of real estate taxes? I was surprised to hear the wetlands really are not protected if you have land that requires access through them. Also, that "Dead-end" Ash does not border wetlands, thus the developer can conveniently leave off of his drawing the fact that that Brockton street would be impacted, too. Not sure if I posted this earlier, but rumor has it that it could become one-way due to it's width, thus forcing Brockton residents to drive through West Bridgewater (this development) to either enter or leave their property.
What's wrong with that? They could make it one-way at the start of the development, or at the Brockton line. That's sounds like a great idea. Brockton residents could still go in and out but the majority of people could only go in. This would then have minimal impact on Brockton.. You wouldn't even notice the added traffic on West Chestnut, in that case, since it would only be turning in. I don't think Brockton would/could approve it if existing Brockton residents, couldn't exit back into Brockton. Better yet; If this can't be stopped, force them to put a light at the intersection of Ash and West Cehestnut.
The tax revenue from housing, gets completely eaten up by school budgets, so adding new housing is not necessarily a win for any community. But a town doesn't really have the right deny a project, just because they don't want it. Those types of decisions never end well. In Bridgewater, and I'm sure, in every other town, people are constantly complaining that they bought their houses with trees and forest in the back yard which is being replaced by housing. Unfortunately, the person who owns the forest has the same right to develop their land, as the person who originally built the older developments, providing the meet zoning and other requirements.
We have a 255 home 40-B housing development that the owners of Cumberland farms are planning on their original farm in Bridgewater, 1/4 mile from my house.. They will be putting houses on 1/4 acre lots, in an area surrounded by 1/2 to 1 acre lots. Be thankful they are not doing this to that development. You would then end up with 75-125 homes, in the same area with the 40-B designation exempting it from most zoning requirements.
Light Travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. <br />We were born with two ears and only one mouth ... Think about it!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
My other thoughts go towards taking every inch of green, which disturbs me.
If we all sang the same note in the choir, We'd never have harmony
2/1/1938-5/4/2019
Rest in peace
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
johnboy00 wrote:
clifton heights wrote:
Capt wrote: Why can't W. Bridgewater build a road?
I assume it is because, on the West Bridgewater side of this project, the wetlands and/or the fact that the parcel is landlocked prevents them from so doing. I believe I heard they will still have to proceed with West Bridgewater permitting, but obviously their major obstacle now is access. Once Brockton allows that, why would West Bridgewater refuse 33 new homes' worth of real estate taxes? I was surprised to hear the wetlands really are not protected if you have land that requires access through them. Also, that "Dead-end" Ash does not border wetlands, thus the developer can conveniently leave off of his drawing the fact that that Brockton street would be impacted, too. Not sure if I posted this earlier, but rumor has it that it could become one-way due to it's width, thus forcing Brockton residents to drive through West Bridgewater (this development) to either enter or leave their property.
What's wrong with that? They could make it one-way at the start of the development, or at the Brockton line. That's sounds like a great idea. Brockton residents could still go in and out but the majority of people could only go in. This would then have minimal impact on Brockton.. You wouldn't even notice the added traffic on West Chestnut, in that case, since it would only be turning in. I don't think Brockton would/could approve it if existing Brockton residents, couldn't exit back into Brockton. Better yet; If this can't be stopped, force them to put a light at the intersection of Ash and West Cehestnut.
The tax revenue from housing, gets completely eaten up by school budgets, so adding new housing is not necessarily a win for any community. But a town doesn't really have the right deny a project, just because they don't want it. Those types of decisions never end well. In Bridgewater, and I'm sure, in every other town, people are constantly complaining that they bought their houses with trees and forest in the back yard which is being replaced by housing. Unfortunately, the person who owns the forest has the same right to develop their land, as the person who originally built the older developments, providing the meet zoning and other requirements.
We have a 255 home 40-B housing development that the owners of Cumberland farms are planning on their original farm in Bridgewater, 1/4 mile from my house.. They will be putting houses on 1/4 acre lots, in an area surrounded by 1/2 to 1 acre lots. Be thankful they are not doing this to that development. You would then end up with 75-125 homes, in the same area with the 40-B designation exempting it from most zoning requirements.
What's wrong with that, you ask? My house is not on wetlands, but I own wetlands with the understanding that there are many rules and regulations devised to protect them. If you own landlocked acreage, then you can't assume others will agree when you want to develop it. This is not a Brockton project, it is a West Bridgewater deal. How can this not end well if Brockton says "no"? I am happy to know that you, as a Bridgewater resident, know what it is like to cross West Chestnut on foot, or by car with the current traffic, let alone that caused by 36 additional homes. If housing is not a "win" for a city or town, we would still be living on wide-open spaces. Not sure what you mean about the majority of residents can only go in to this development. From what I heard there will be two roads - one way in, and one way out. Dead end Ash would be one of them. Anyone who exits would go on one street, entering on the other. Both will increase traffic on West Chestnut, just like the increased business on Route 106 in West Bridgewater does. By the way, a light at Ash is not the solution as it will further back up the already heavy traffic in that area.
The drawings show the Ash egress with a line at its end, as if it will not punch through. Planning will require a second way out, clearly they plotted one. Unfortunately, wetlands and farmland are not the same thing so comparing them is like the old "apples to oranges" story. Would you welcome your local project if 95% of it was in Brockton? I doubt it. Why did you and your neighbors not protest it? Come to my land if you want to see rivers and streams. I love them, actually but I am not willing to see my house impacted as other structures impede on the already-damp and protected surrounding area. The present-day mentality that everyone deserves whatever they want "just because" has to stop. There is only one reason why the developer is willing to push this. M-O-N-E-Y.
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
"Do the right thing, even when no one is looking"
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
CH, As far as your other answers, I know you're passionate about this, and I am not at all against you, but you pretty much just plain called me a liar.
Do you really think that towns want all their farmlands converted to housing so they can collect more money? DO YOU realize how crazy that sounds? I don't even know how else to respond to that except to ask you educate yourself, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not going to respond further since you are only capable of speaking only with your emotions about the project.
Light Travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. <br />We were born with two ears and only one mouth ... Think about it!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
johnboy00 wrote: Wetlands can't be developed. The land is either not wetlands or its listed incorrectly on state wetlands maps. Clifton, if you think the wetlands map is wrong, you need to contact the agencies listed by Ray, ASAP.
CH, As far as your other answers, I know you're passionate about this, and I am not at all against you, but you pretty much just plain called me a liar.
Do you really think that towns want all their farmlands converted to housing so they can collect more money? DO YOU realize how crazy that sounds? I don't even know how else to respond to that except to ask you educate yourself, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not going to respond further since you are only capable of speaking only with your emotions about the project.
Speak not if you please, but we basically agree and I did not call you a liar. Further, in all the years I posted here I never incited an argument, and I do not fight like others do. I don't know what you are talking about.
Cities and towns have no choice but to allow farms to be developed as long as the developer follows the rules and regulations. Wetlands can be accessed if that is the only way you can get to your buildable and landlocked property as long as a Conservation Commission approves of your methods to do so. You may be required to replace the wetlands you are interrupting with other patches that are protected in its place, but it is possible. I am sure Ray can explain this better than I can, but those are the basics.
I never said the wetlands map is wrong. I said that there are two drawings. One was presented to the CC in order to show how this development will be accessed over the the wetlands. The second was presented to our local group of neighbors and it shows a second egress, easy to open in the future, but illegal if it does cross the wetlands. If that second exit is required, and certainly the planning board will want a second way out of a neighborhood this size, the LLC will be forced to return to the CC. As it stands now, the developer says there is no need for an exit, and conveniently, the CC says they never saw the second drawing. Everyone (except abutters) seemed completely surprised by something happening with dead-end Ash.
Finally, since I own a parcel of land that abuts wetlands, and one that contains them, I think I have a fair idea of how this works. Perhaps I am not the expert in using the proper lingo, but I am confident I am reasonable in my attempt to describe. When it comes to the preservation of wetlands and the vegetation and wildlife that live on them them, I am guilty as charged of being passionate.
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Just keep following the money Messina>Albanese>City Hall>Conservation Commission>City Council
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
www.enterprisenews.com/news/20170314/mee...ton-west-bridgewater
" A community meeting is being held on Thursday to discuss a controversial subdivision proposed on the border of Brockton and West Bridgewater. A limited liability company called Meadow Woods is behind a proposed property development that includes 33 homes in West Bridgewater. But the entrance to the subdivision would be in Brockton on West Chestnut Street, where several neighborhood residents have voiced concern over the project, said Ward 3 City Councilor Dennis Eaniri.
"The complaints are about traffic on West Chestnut Street," Eaniri said. "When people hear about more traffic added to a busy street, even if it's one car, to them it's an issue. And it is an issue." Other complaints have been related to concerns over wetlands protections and the lack of tax revenue for the city of Brockton, considering that the city would be providing road access, along with sewer and water."
"Former city solicitor Benjamin Albanese is one of landowners behind the proposed subdivision, which has been in the works for many years, he said. The Petronelli family owns 38 acres, and Albanese owns 11 acres, he said. Albanese said the joint venture hopes to begin construction this summer. Albanese said he's attending the meeting and is looking forward to clearing up misconceptions about the project.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
"I welcome the meeting on Thursday because I think a lot of people have been grossly misinformed about what's occurring there," said Albanese, who also developed the neighboring Chestnut Woods subdivision, and owns the Tutto Bene restaurant on Pearl Street. "I look forward to the opportunity, along with the Petronelli family and the engineer, to explain everything to them, to make it clear to them that there's no detrimental effect to their property."
Albanese said there are no violations of wetlands protections caused by the project. Albanese said the roadway into the proposed subdivision was approved eight years ago, with a wetlands crossing that was approved by the Brockton Conservation Commission. The roadway proposal was recently modified though, Albanese said, and was approved again by the commission last month. The original plan was to build a 55 years old and over community there, but that was scrapped, he said. The project now needs approval of the Brockton Planning Board."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- henningson1
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 173
- Karma: 1
- Thank you received: 17
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- clifton heights
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Senior Member
- Posts: 537
- Karma: 7
- Thank you received: 64
He must stop talking about us like we are ignorant children, as if we are stupid. If the original plan was to build a 55+ community, the reason he switched is because he already built one next door and abandoned the project. He backed out of that long before it was completed; it was then purchased by Campanelli, still unfinished. Further, he stands to make a lot more money on large colonials on individual lots than he would on one-level ADA-compliant over-55 units that share land.
He can talk all he wants but there is no way he will convince us that chopping down trees, adding to the traffic on West Chestnut, and building a West Bridgewater project behind my house is good for me.
<font color=BLACK>My name may be Clifton but I've never been a boy </font> <img border="0" src="smileys/smiley2.gif" border="0">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Forum
- Brockton Public Forum
- Brockton Issues
- New, Sneaky Landlocked Housing in West Bridgewater via Brockton Street