The Raynham Channel
Welcome to Raynham Community Access & Media (RAYCAM), where we engage, learn, and create community access media. We are dedicated to providing a platform for all voices to be heard and shared. Join us in creating a vibrant and inclusive media community.
The Raynham Channel
Board of Appeals 07/23/2025
(Episode Description is AI generated and may be errors in accuracy)
Municipal governance rarely makes for compelling drama, yet the July 23rd Cranium Zoning Board of Appeals meeting offered a masterclass in the delicate dance between development needs and community concerns. At its heart was Lockwood LLC's request to increase their comprehensive permit project from 138 to 156 units – an 18-unit increase that sparked meaningful debate about density, traffic, and what constitutes "substantial change."
What unfolded wasn't the typical NIMBY standoff but rather a thoughtful negotiation where all parties sought common ground. Developer representatives came prepared with solutions to previously voiced concerns: radar speed feedback signs to address speeding on Church Street, fencing to mitigate sight lines for neighbors, and traffic signal retiming to accommodate any increased flow. Most compelling was their demographic analysis showing the project would actually reduce total bedrooms from 414 to 404 by incorporating more two-bedroom units targeting the senior market – a claim supported by current sales showing minimal school-age children among buyers.
The board's deliberation revealed genuine concern about precedent and community impact. One member worried about overcrowding after visiting the site, while others recognized that bedroom count reduction might actually lessen burden on town services. When the discussion turned to whether a 13% unit increase crossed the "substantial change" threshold that might trigger regulatory complications, the developer made a pivotal compromise: reducing their proposal by four units and eliminating two entire buildings from the plan.
This meeting exemplifies how local governance can work effectively when all parties prioritize collaboration over confrontation. As one developer representative with 42 years of experience noted, "I've never once gone to court with a town and I don't want to start now." The resulting approval demonstrates how thoughtful municipal oversight and developer flexibility can produce outcomes that serve both economic development and community interests.
https://www.raynhaminfo.com/
Copyright RAYCAM INC. 2024
Seatings are being transcribed and recorded to provide full and accurate minutes and allow full participation of the club. I'd like to call the Cranium Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Wednesday, july 23rd at 7 pm. I'm Tom Hall. Participating members are to my right PaulUNCIL. I AM FROM THE TOWN HALL. Participating MEMBERS ARE TO MY RIGHT PAUL BOULET, to MY LEFT FRANCIS MCGUIRLIC AND I'M THE CHAIR, peter CHANDLER COULD.
Speaker 2:THE CLERK LEAD THE PETITION.
Speaker 3:OKAY, oh, all RIGHT, this ONE, this one. Okay, Perfect, okay. Board of Trustees meeting. It's canceled July 9th. It's canceled the meeting. It's continued July 23rd. The public meeting for Lockwood LOC notice of project change to comprehensive permit at Church Street, route 44, has been continued to Wednesday July 23, 2025 at 7 pm. Notice of project change Lockwood LLC comprehensive permit Church Street, route 44. The Rainham-Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, june 25 at 7 pm at Rainham's Veteran Memorial Town Hall to consider requests for notice of project change for the comprehensive permit issued to Rainham Riverwalk LLC. Now, lockwood LLC Project location is off Church Street and Route 44, rainham Mass. The notice of project change is submitted with a revised site plan for phase four showing an increase in the project's number of homes from 138 to 156. Any person wishing to be heard or interested in this submittal should appear at the time and place designated.
Speaker 1:All those intending to give testimony, please rise. I solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give this board shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So help me, god. Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 4:Thank you. Good evening, mr Chairman. Board members. I apologize for my letter. I didn't take it. You can carve it on the website.
Speaker 1:Oh, he's still chair. Don't promote me yet. Thank you.
Speaker 4:Peter Freeman, representing the African community, and we're looking tonight, you know, for previous meetings voting for Esker mandate, mr H and Bill Kockert. But I just want to go back to where we were at the end of the first meeting, where we were talking thoroughly and it seemed like we were, that we were basically satisfied on the merits of the change. We said that we think actually no improvements despite the additional number of units and at the very end, when we took action, we said that we didn't have a thought as to whether there would be any ramifications from action that you take on this request to an HAC appeal on a project that's attending, I think, across the 44th, and so you continued it with our approval to what wound up being tonight. We tried for July 9th but that didn't't work. So we're here with the state in agreement and you were going to check with town attorney. So he apparently had been busy with the trial for two weeks because I tried to reach him. I did talk to him today and the substance of what I said to him is in the letter that I just emailed midday today and he did and this is on the question of the impact, if any, of what you determined today on our request whether it impacts that other case or not, and he said that I couldn't represent to you that he agreed with what I said based on the regulation in my letter. That's dated today, so I'm not going to read the whole letter, but in essence, the point is the date of determining anything as to a 40B project. It's frozen as of the date of the application to the Zuma Board of Appeals. So our project was way back. The successor, the predecessor, in September of 2020, is when it was invited.
Speaker 4:So that's a static thing. That's the time, the point in time that anything matters. So nothing that you do tonight or whenever you do it would affect the other project, and the same thing is true of the pending appeal. What would affect the other project? And the same thing is true of the pending appeal. Whether you're involved and I don't know the substance, but whether you're involved in issues related to Safe Harbor or anything else.
Speaker 4:Whatever you do, whether it's another new 40B application or, in this case, our project, we're requesting for approval of the increase in units. It just doesn't matter at ajc, you know the point in time that both when that project was before you, the same hours, and everything else was the time of that application and that remains true today. So nobody could say anything at ajc about you approved to adding units to this one um, you know why did you do that? And again, I did ask Ted, specifically referring to my letter sorry, to my email, my email and that's why I asked him if I could represent you and that's why I sent you the letter. So therefore, we think that you should be comfortable that there's no impact on another project and without putting words in your mouth, but based on what we heard at the last meeting, you know, we thought we made a good case as to how it's reasonable and substantial and we did think that you were just about there.
Speaker 4:So I'll stop to see if you have questions, but also Dave has a few thoughts. If you want to hear other aspects of what the change is and how it could be better, thanks up what the change is and how it could be better. Thanks, good evening. I'm Dave Estrich from the development, so I just wanted to fill in a couple of pieces.
Speaker 5:At the end of the last hearing I don't know if it was a formal request or an informal request, but you asked me to talk to the butters that had spoke at the previous hearing and just kind of get a better understanding of what their concerns were and see whether there's a way we could address them. So I did that to the waters that had spoken the previous hearing and just kind of get a better understanding of what their concerns were and see if there was a way we could address them. So I did that and essentially they were along the lines of what they what they said at the hearing. It was related to traffic and also some sight line issues. So in regards to traffic, so one of their biggest concerns was really speeding along Church Street generally.
Speaker 5:So we reached out to our traffic engineer and like to propose addition of some radar speed feedback signs along Church Street. So I'm sure you're familiar with the ones that you know. They have a radar. They show your speed, speed of your vehicle, right next to the posted speed limit sign for contrast, and hope that you will recognize that you are going faster than you should be. But here's a. Here's a copy of the proposed signal and the couple dots on the plan showing where we proposed it. These would be gifted to the tenant. Right, yeah, these would be at our cost and of course we'd have to, you know, coordinate with Ranham Public Safety. You know for approval of the. You know locations and type, etc but we did the NASA traffic engineer.
Speaker 5:These were the recommended spots, so you know. So heard that, heard that item, and hopefully this will at least address some of their concerns. I also wanted to point out that as part of our current permit, we're required to retime the signals at, but right up here, at the intersection of Church Street and Route 44. So on this plan right up here and the process for that is sometimes towards the end of this year they actually do new traffic counts and, based on what's actually happening, they tweak the signals to give more time to Church Street or more time to left turns on Route 44 or whatever is appropriate there's they also. We're also required to do this at the end of our project to again kind of capture the full breadth of cars entering and leaving our site and make that adjustment. So any potential changes in traffic patterns related to the additional 18 units, even though they're always located over here, will be addressed by that mitigation, because that occurs at the end of the project anyways.
Speaker 3:When is your?
Speaker 5:interim one happening. It's like this fall. We're waiting for an approval of exactly what we're going to tweak from DOT.
Speaker 3:You may want to double-check with the highway department because this fall might be a bad time. If you watch the Selectmen meeting last night, they're closing down the bridge that's on South Street at Riverbank Convenience for a certain window of time 60 days as you can imagine, when that bridge shuts down, all the traffic will be stopped. So they either know to where the old wall was or come up Church Street, make your numbers so those were things that we were, you know, put forth relative to traffic regarding sight lines.
Speaker 5:One of the concerns was the view of kind of going in this direction so that the abutters houses are located here and over here, and we recently cut trees kind of in this swath right here and they can actually see through all the way to the sign for the adult video store over here and they found that objectionable.
Speaker 5:So obviously you can see that the line of sight will be cut off by some of our future buildings, but we're also offering to put a fence along this section so that when these buildings are constructed that will at least screen, you know, the parking. That's immediately visible and the back of these buildings is the uh kind of the face where there's a row of garages. So you know we're not. These folks are going to be looking over the fence. Anyways, they're still going to see the buildings in light, but at least it takes out into the parking area. So that's what we came up with in terms of addressing concerns about sidelines and transplated clutters. So we feel that this you know we're seeking the expansion of the project by 14 market rating for affordable units. So this feels like a kind of a proportional mitigation.
Speaker 3:Thank you proportional mitigation, so can you quote those one number that you guys have talked about, the bedroom delta, because I know that was one thing. You had gone to smaller units. Yeah, we did a.
Speaker 5:So originally the the project was approved for 414 bedrooms so every unit was going to be a three bedroom unit.
Speaker 5:So we proposed to commit to cutting that bedroom count down to 404, even with the increase in the unit count, because there's going to be far more, there's going to be a number of units that have two bedrooms. So we people pose I believe it was a 2.6 Average bedroom per unit. I think that math, if you take the 404 and divided by the 156 are proposed unit count here at 2.56 or so average bevers per unit. So that relates to the sewer flow, water demand, that sort of thing, and also in some in some factor, uh, um, traffic, because we're gonna have a number of two bedrooms. Uh, our indications so far we have about um, a little over 50 units either occupied or under contract. We're getting a lot more over 55 folks, which I'm 56 today, so I know no longer in that category. So, um, uh, so again, those households often result in fewer trips, less trips to the uh, you know, taking the school soccer trips let me just add one thing on that.
Speaker 6:It's basically the same topic. Excuse me if you just add one thing on that. It's basically the same topic. As we're reviewing some of those statistics, I just want to remind everyone that 40% of the homes in this new mix of homes are targeting seniors and for the first 22 45 homes sold, we have only nine school-age children. So obviously things can change over time, but from our experience, the type of home that attracts seniors tends to result in significant less children. So by we, in all honesty, we made the change in the mix because that's where the market drove us, but it has the effect of reducing the number of school age children as well.
Speaker 3:Oh yeah, I'm just acknowledging the sufficient correspondence from from town. Council did give us a letter and so, as the applicant had indicated in his presentation, attorney freeman um submitted a letter as well.
Speaker 1:Do you have any questions?
Speaker 4:Not really I mean.
Speaker 3:I think we covered most of everything we wanted to, all right.
Speaker 1:So, seeing there's no questions, I'm going to. Do you have any other questions? Okay, so seeing there's no more, questions afternoon after the. After the motion. Oh well, you can speak now if you like to.
Speaker 4:I use a breath simple drafting thing. It's not substantive that if you were to approve, I always say please reference the project change data June 11. You know, because I get it again, who dasper the notice of project change okay, thank you.
Speaker 1:Okay, so close the meeting. That's two minutes. Oh, so it's not 717. All may, that's TWO MINUTES AGO, so IT'S 7-17. All MAY REMAIN WHILE THE BOARD DELIBERATES, but NONE MAY SPEAK, so.
Speaker 2:I WAS AT THE PARK THE DAY AFTER THE. I couldn't believe it was like that. I could barely get in and out between the buildings and the cars, and to make it any more dense than that I wouldn't be scared.
Speaker 3:I think it's actually a positive change. I think the reduction of veterans is a bigger issue than the number of buildings. I think it has by all metrics in construction burden on school, burden on all utilities is lower.
Speaker 1:burden on traffic is lower burden mean you can't count people burning in the school. It's just like you can't count the interest rates up and the change. You can't tell me you know who's gonna be renting those.
Speaker 3:Well, that's you know there are standard and accepted values and metrics that we use for predictive analysis. That's like saying, well, if we allow ten bedroom houses, they could all be owned by young couples with no kids. Not likely, but yes, technically that could happen. It's just not statistically supportable. So that's what I mean. I'm just saying I am less bothered by the number of buildings, considering the number of better to reduce substantially. And if you spread it out that way, yeah, that's.
Speaker 1:I'm just, I'm concerned that you're adding five more buildings, 18 more units, and that to me that's a substantial change. It's not like one building extra units. We went through a process. We approved the plan that they had. We actually approved another modification, which was a minor one because it just structural 13%, five buildings five buildings.
Speaker 3:That's again. This is one of the things where in Ted's letter he used that 13% number. Well, that's not the measure by which the state measures. So that's like saying, hey, if you give me that $20 gold piece, I'll give you these 10 quarters, but did you make up better or did I make up better? It's not the same. The state that 13% is like it's, it's not the same. The state that 13% is like it's, it's not. It's not the subject of discussion. It's unfortunate for the purposes of 40 B and because, whether it's a different kind of that, that's not the measure by which that dictates that threshold. So when that threshold gets questioned by the agency that reviews that and then says you know what? Maybe you should be 900, Because they'll take that out of our hands if we mr Chairman, I know it can't speak.
Speaker 6:I'm going to reopen the meeting.
Speaker 3:Can I do that?
Speaker 1:So that comments can be made.
Speaker 6:Thank you, Mr Chairman, first, thank you for considering this. I know this is very challenging. First, thank you for considering this. I know this is very challenging. We're in a as a company, we're in a tough spot, and that's not your problem, but it's a reality. And I have to tell you, I've been doing this 42 years. I've never once gone to a court with a town and I don't want to start now. By the same token, this project is very, very challenging economically.
Speaker 6:You know, we proposed this traffic mitigation, which is not in substantial cost, to address the Church Street issue, which I think would be very helpful for the neighbors. The other metrics are certainly true. We would be prepared to eliminate four units from the proposal, which would get it down to that 10% number and reduce the number of buildings. I would also point out that, respectfully, the the building pattern that you see now is the building pattern that we are proposing to continue. In other words, yes, there will be several more buildings, but it's not as though we're scrunching things closer together. It's that when we made the change to the vertical triplex, as we called it, the senior-cent oriented building, it gave us a little more room and that's why we were able to do this without increasing the roads, increasing the infrastructure.
Speaker 6:It it somewhat happened, naturally. But if it would make a difference to the board because we're going to have, we need something here and the last thing we want to do is be in a controversy with the board we would drop it down to that 10% level, or 13're at 138, 10% is 14. And that would, I think, hopefully allow you to feel more comfortable about this being an insubstantial change. So would that be one building? It would be. We would. I'm not sure. We would probably convert a couple of triplexes to duplexes In one way or another. We would cut four units out. We'd probably take a three unit building out and take one, try to flex the convergence of the duplex. This version, we have duplex and triplex.
Speaker 6:So if we eliminate a triplex, that's what we do we eliminate a triplex and we convert a second triplex to a duplex. That would then drop it down to four. We'd be happy to resubmit a revised site plan as a condition of the any approval that you might consider so it would be formal I honestly I haven't focused on how well, yeah, yes all right, I'll uh.
Speaker 1:Well, again, I'll be close to going to executive session. I'll make name on board but you know I may speak. It helps out.
Speaker 2:It was not just our council's advice. When they first came in, they told us this is over the 10%, but that 10% is a black line. We know that we're over that, so it doesn't just go back to council. It goes back to the first presentation.
Speaker 3:So I've been on both sides of this table in this process and when the developer comes. So now, on this side of the table, I'm concerned about the impact on the town, but the second thing I'm concerned about how the impact on the town, but the second thing I'm concerned about is exposing the town for somebody who gets frustrated and then decides that they have to go you know the big glove avenue, and then, when you have to go, that costly avenue, you go for everything you can get and then we end up with something that we really are not thrilled with and I I just want to make it so that we can work together with an applicant to come up with our best, you know, in my, in my mind, is to try and keep them I think that too.
Speaker 2:But I think when we first saw this project, I think that too. But I think when we first saw this project, we thought that it was very busy. Then it was actually more than unbusy. It's not like there was a lot of land that wasn't being used. We thought it was maximized, and now we're going over maximized. It's definitely a lot of trial and error was maximize and now we're going over maximize change your view at all. You know, like ever all over to a girl just trying to figure out configuration.
Speaker 3:So the two buildings on the right they just took an area that was closer to the river, two houses before.
Speaker 1:Well, this is there to the right, so they added one actually right and then something that's not straight. Oh, so they added the two on the right, the four over here and one over there. I mean, ideally I'd like to see it maybe go down to three buildings, but if we can get that with the one and another thing that concerns me is, like I know you have to predict the models and stuff, but there's no guarantee that it's going to be over 55 people. There's no guarantee it's going to be families. You don't know.
Speaker 3:But like I live right next to you know the Princess Roads, a lot of those houses are all owned by seniors. You'd never thought that. You'd have thought that that would be all kids, Right. That development's loaded with people who don't have kids.
Speaker 2:Now I don't know why there's, you know, people. You know why? Because I'm telling you there aren't any houses for older people.
Speaker 1:Older, you know, small houses, branches, older people branches. That's what I want. I mean it does help to down one, to see it down to. Okay, can I look at that for a second Closer, sorry.
Speaker 3:Okay.
Speaker 1:Thank you. What if both of those four units were two new buses and they were used to buildings by two, not just the units before? I don't know if that makes sense.
Speaker 3:Well, they actually said they're going to redo the plan and bring in a new plan Right, but if we're going to talk about how that should happen, now's not the time.
Speaker 1:Right, so should I continue it.
Speaker 3:And they bring in a new plan or would they have to do it in the final? Well, we could do it for three things. They could do it in the final, they could continue it for a plan, or we could condition the plan on the decision, so we could decide, dictate what we expect to see on the plan, and that they are sitting there with twiddling their thumbs until that plan comes in and it's acknowledged that it complies with the decision. So then I mean, those are kind of our three paths, if? Is that correct, maria?
Speaker 1:I mean, well, we can continue it and they can bring in a new plan, so they don't have to refile it. They don't only have to refile, they can find a substantial way to go to file. You know a lot of, like you mentioned earlier, that only have to be filed. So would you be?
Speaker 6:would you have to get out of that? Yeah, yes, we would be willing to have the hearing continue, but our preference would be to have it conditioned.
Speaker 1:Okay, that's fine, thank you. Thank you, and then so we open the meeting again. Um, so, as you might have heard, would, would you be willing to go to three buildings with triplexes, or three, three?
Speaker 3:triples, essentially, since you were dropping, since you were dropping two to four units, yeah, yeah, would. Would you be open to those units being essentially eliminating two of the duplexes, therefore reducing the number of buildings by two, or does that?
Speaker 6:work. My engineer says he can make that work.
Speaker 3:You know, I mean that way it's good, yeah, yes, yeah.
Speaker 6:So yes, we would be willing to do that, and that will require a little more. We were going to reach a little deeper into the project to get, but we did same same yeah, right, look at this.
Speaker 5:Okay, get one of the other two. Yeah, exactly so how does this end up being three buildings down there? So we lose two units here in one form or another. Lose that, lose that building there, shift that around a little bit.
Speaker 1:Everything else stays intact so you'd only be on three buildings. Not correct. We've only had three buildings. It's gonna be down for four years. We already have three buildings.
Speaker 5:We'll be down to four buildings alright, so let's try it for a third time. Just gotta make sure we haven't sold that one.
Speaker 1:I just. Alright, I'm gonna close the meeting and go back into executive session and I'll make a main one before it deliberates. But I need to speak, so that makes a little more sense three buildings, ten winglets.
Speaker 3:I'll move that we grant notice of project change. Approve the notice of project change with the condition that a new plan is submitted reflecting a reduction of two buildings a total of four units from the current submission and once that plan is submitted and reviewed by the department, and the initiative will be closed.
Speaker 1:So on video, All right.
Speaker 6:Thank you very much. We appreciate your work. All right, thank you.
Speaker 1:What's the name of this thing? It's a corona vaccine. All right, no, this meeting is closed. We need a motion, I mean a motion to approve. Approve a revised plan with three new buildings as a substantial insubst found those buildings.
Speaker 3:Reduction of two buildings From the planned facility.
Speaker 1:Right, okay, thank you. Thank you, make a motion that we adjourn? No, no, no. Is that a vote on the minutes?
Speaker 4:We have minutes to answer.
Speaker 1:Make a motion that we include the minutes from the minutes of the meeting second June 25th. All in favor. Aye so approved. We will close the meeting at 735.
Speaker 3:I move to close the meeting to adjourn.
Speaker 2:To adjourn Sorry.
Speaker 1:All in favor. I second Aye, aye, it is adjourned.