| One picture is worth
a thousand
words. At Rocky Pond, several pictures are worth outrage --- with some
town
officials, with 'off the beaten path' development practices, and for
concern for this beautiful pond. On this site we have expressed
outrage, as well, at the deal undertaken between the builder and the
New England Forestry Foundation (the cause of several years of
opposition and the anger and frustration of the original owner right
up until her death). In the case of this development, it is
our belief that some of this construction is in violation of if not the
spirit, the 'legality' of the deal between the builder and NEFF. The
shoreline of Rocky Pond will not consist of small cabins for summer
use, or no cabins at all, but of full-fledged suburban development that
will destroy the ecology and make a mockery of conservation. Let's start with the 'garage'. Elsewhere we document expert analysis of what's wrong. Click here. Sadly, evidence was presented to Boylston officials months ago, but they absolutely refused to stop construction pending proper plans and procedures -- and, we understand, told those who provided expert witness that there were no violations! |
 |
So, mystery #1.
Under the bylaws the developer could not get a permit for a house in that location. So, did the developer assume that the town will, as always, just give him what he wants -- in this case an occupancy permit -- a fait accompli? Where are the plans for what was actually built? Or, where are the plans that were in fact approved? Our bet is that the applicant did not build what were in whatever plans were submitted. This mystery needs to be solved.
Why is there no building permit attached to the building per requirements? Why didn't the developer connect to the septic system for the house for which the 'garage' was to be an accessory? Why put in a separate one, and one as large as it is unless the 'garage' was really a residence? Knowing the controversial nature of this developer's activities, did town officials check out what he was doing? Why did the town administrator not stop the project when presented with very clear expert evidence? Why did contractors build without a proper permit?
So given photos which show a garage intended to be coverted into a residence (note sliding doors for deck on front page photo, separate 'house-sized septic', etc.) will the town issue a stop order now? Will it deny occupancy? Will it demand the structure be reduced in size to its legal 15 foot height????? All part of the mystery. We want it investigated and solved. Update: We're told in mid-July that the Building Inspector has assured residents that there will be no permit issued for habitating this building, which has recently recieved a new upper deck. It can only be a garage.
Ok, on to the next possible mysterious outrage. The first photo is of an existing cabin (which has been extensively modified recently -- perhaps out of compliance).
Though we have not personally seen the proposed plans for this site, from what we've been told it's fair to say that the structure the builder is proposing would look something like this:
Now here's a good test of Sherlocks viewing these photos. Our understanding is that in justifying this big house on a seasonal cabin site, the developer claims to the town this cabin has a 'permanent foundation' (his letter submitted to the Town Clerk for the Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 19, 2005). So, where did the foundation go? What we see is cindar blocks holding up the house. Was there ever a foundation? If there has never been a foundation can a big house be built? Are their fines and punishments for being untruthful about such matters in an official application? Any more little white lies?
Oh, look at close this setup is to the pond. Look carefully and you can see the edge of the tiny beach area. And, old time residents tell us there could not be foundation here because of drainage problems. So, tis a mystery to us of why this big house has even a chance of approval.
If approved, this would set the precedence for several other houses like this on existing cabin sites, therefore fully suburbanizing the shoreline intended to remain in a somewhat rustic and conservation sensitive state.
So, on to the mysteries. Mystery #2.
Why did the developer neglect to present to the Boylston Board of Appeals the full lease agreement adhered to in the contract with the New England Forestry Foundation? Why did area residents have to do that? Why did he originally claim deck space and outbuilding shacks as part of the total footage that would set the square footage of the new house? We understand that the developer thinks there is grandfathering that enables his right to build on the cabin sites. Really? We know his granddad was a good guy but.... :-) Didn't he sever acreage that had always been one big piece? If so, he cannot build this cabin. Right?
How in the world can a structure like this be put within yards of the Pond, on wetlands? Just a few feet from one of the cleanest lakes in the state?
On April 11, 2006, the good 'detectives' on the Boylston Zoning Board of Appeals unearthed enough questions and facts to deny a finding which would have permitted a huge house to be built on the site of this cabin. The developer can appeal on the grounds of 'exteme hardship', but to do that might he not have to sell off his many boats, cars, houses and other property? This said, if the Boylston authorities continue down their current path hardship may be around the corner, what with legal expenses, an expensive 'garage' that will hopefully remain unoccupied, and huge septic systems that doubtless cost a bundle. In this case, there is no trading 'hardship' for the beauty and protection of Rocky Pond. In development as in other activities, it pays big time to play it straight.
Ok, Mystery #3. Where is the house we superimposed on the site actually located? Was it planned and built in full compliance with town and state regulations and procedures? Did area residents complain at it? [hint, it is on a body of water we are all very familiar with :-) And, yes, there were serious compaints. Read them near the top of our new page of letters. Click here.
This leads us to the Big Mystery.
What has been going on here? Hanky panky? Sheer incompetence? Simple defiance of the law? Most of us have wanted to put on a garage, an addition, etc. Think of the permits, the builders who wouldn't start until all cleared and so on. I'll bet there are many examples in Boylston. Probably several of you have not been able to go forward on projects. Why have builders been able to operate in such a loose way? Endless variances, ad hoc permits, lost documents, a house instead of a garage...three bedrooms instead of two, septics right on the waterfront.....?
Oh, and this doesn't include a long history of preferential treatment in at least one case. Evidence has been presented to the Boylston Board of Assessors which suggests the developer is not paying sufficient taxes. True? Lets have some transparency. And, while we are on taxes, state regulations (780CMR Section 106.6.2) require the building inspector to notify the Board of Assessors in writing every time a building permit is issued -- within seven days. So, a good mystery to be solved is whether these Rocky Pond structures, apparently approved in rather off-the-wall procedures, are subject to proper taxation. Is one developer paying assessments befitting an 'accessory building' or residence? Or nothing at all? And, what about the other developer? And other Boylston residents who were issued permits? More potential fishiness up at Rocky Pond perhaps.
Maybe we should bring Robert Parker, Dennis Lahane or some other Massachusetts mystery expert out here to do some looking around. Ideally, the Commonwealth Attorney General, Ethics Commision, and Board of Building Regulations and Standards will fulfill their public responsibilities with a comprehensive investigation.
Even more ideally, the Town of Boylston will slap on the lid, keep denying habitation in the 'garage' (hopefully, have it torn down or reduced to true garage size), stop any more dubvious houses on the cabin sites, and become fully transparent with regard to building practices and procedures -- and whether there are violations of the law here. We take hope in the fact that good questions were raised at the Board of Appeals meeting by local citizens and representatives of the town, and the action taking by the Board. And, we now have the possibility that a good precedent wil lead to more. And, that a brand new town building inspector will not want to get himself in the swampy wetlands of this developer's practices.
 |
We're also heartened that the local police department did a thorough investigation of some damaging vandalism (after a very rocky start), and area residents are now encouraged to participate in appropriate meetings. Perhaps the BPD could turn a good detective loose. Lets find those missing files and determine if there has been lawbreaking! |
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and lots of other things. Maybe it will Save Rocky Pond.
