The Packards have bought up most parcels in Sterling’ “Performance Zone 1” straddling Route 140 southeasterly from its intersection with Dana Hill Road. They, together with the Sterling Economic Development Committee (the Committee that can’t tell the difference between downtown beautification, among other irrelevancies, and actual economic development), and the Sterling Planning Board, failed at BOTH the 2021 and 2022 Sterling Annual Town Meetings to get that area crony-zoned to “Commercial.” Re-zoning requires a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote.

BUT never fear! The Town of Sterling’s newest useless appendage, Town Planner Stephen Wallace, having replaced in that job slot former useless appendage and Select Board ‘Gofer’ Domenica Tatasciore, told the Planning Board on 17 November 2022 that he wants to “totally revamp[ ] the zoning standards for the Town’s Performance Zone.” To make himself look useful he has other zoning changes in mind, too.

SEE  https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/minutes/11-17-2022_minutes_-_approved.pdf

We need to watch this guy, the Economic Development Committee, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals CLOSELY in the months and years ahead.

J.G.

In case you didn’t know it, the bent hacks constituting the Sterling Select Board appoint the bent hacks constituting the Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals, and they are ALL up developer James Simpson’s A$$.

So I am sure that all of you will be SHOCKED, SHOCKED–

— to learn that the Sterling Select Board will vote to approve Flagg RV operations at Simpson’s 141-149 Greenland Road property 6 DAYS BEFORE the Zoning Board of Appeals votes on Flagg RV’s Special Permit Modification Application to conduct RV storage operations there.

WHEN IT COMES TO SIMPSON THE FIX IS IN, AS USUAL.

SEE:

https://www.sterling-ma.gov/zoning-board-of-appeals/events/113956

https://corp.sec.state.ma.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSummary.aspx?sysvalue=KzQxiMGW5VmRF4oMdPfo5qAkio88U0Iy6BRmy5UYGSA-

WELCOME TO 2023 IN THE STERLING HACK-O-RAMA!!!

J.G.

The Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) so-called “Guidelines Team” pulled these utterly arbitrary and capricious so-called “Compliance Guidelines”– https://www.mass.gov/doc/data-sources-and-methodology-document-link/download — entirely out of their asses in an attempt to EXTORT so-called “MBTA Communities” into designating parts of those communities as high-density ‘affordable housing’ zoning districts.

SO, self-serving developer and Weasel’s Weasel, Carl Corrinne, Chair of the Sterling Planning Board, put this item on the 15 December 2022 Planning Board Agenda:

“Discussion regarding Sterling’s Action Plan for complying with the MBTA multi-family zoning requirement”

SEE  https://www.sterling-ma.gov/planning-board/agenda/agenda-160

FIRST, that Agenda item is a GLARING MISREPRESENTATION. There is no State/MBTA ‘requirement’ that ANY so-called “MBTA Community” described in Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 40, Sec. 3A designate a high density, multi-family, ‘affordable housing’ district within its boundaries. INSTEAD, the language in Sec. 3A is carrot-and-stick EXTORTIONATE. It provides that any so-called ‘MBTA Community’ described in Section 3A(a)(1) that DOES NOT KNUCKLE UNDER to such zoning will have State funds described in Section 3A(b) cut off.

Chapter 40A, Sec. 3A in its entirety is here set forth:

“Section 3A: Multi-family zoning as-of-right in MBTA communities

  Section 3A. (a)(1) An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to any further limitations imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A; and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.

  (b) An MBTA community that fails to comply with this section shall not be eligible for funds from: (i) the Housing Choice Initiative as described by the governor in a message to the general court dated December 11, 2017; (ii) the Local Capital Projects Fund established in section 2EEEE of chapter 29; or (iii) the MassWorks infrastructure program established in section 63 of chapter 23A.

[ Subsection (c) effective until July 29, 2021. For text effective July 29, 2021, see below.]

  (c) The department, in consultation with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, shall promulgate guidelines to determine if an MBTA community is in compliance with this section.

[ Subsection (c) as amended by 2021, 29, Sec. 10 effective July 29, 2021. For text effective until July 29, 2021, see above.]

  (c) The department of housing and community development, in consultation with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, shall promulgate guidelines to determine if an MBTA community is in compliance with this section.”

SO, on 13 December 2022 I sent a Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 66, Sec. 10 ‘Public Records Request’ to Sterling Treasurer Veronica Smith for all Town records showing the total of sums received by the Town of Sterling, from 1 January 2018 to present, under EACH funding source described in Section 3A(b). By letter dated 19 December 2022 William Caldwell, Town Administrator, responded by saying that the Town of Sterling had received NO such funds.

THAT MEANS THAT EVEN IF STERLING WERE AN ‘MBTA COMMUNITY’ DESCRIBED BY SECTION 3A(a)(1)—AND IT IS NOT—IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXTORTION UNDER SECTION 3A(b).

MOREOVER, SINCE THE LEGISLATURE, AT ANY TIME, COULD VOTE NOT TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THOSE SECTION 3A(b) PROGRAMS, WHY WOULD THE TOWN OF STERLING PLAY LAPDOG/SUCKER ANYWAY?

SECOND, as explained in my previous Blog post, the Town of Sterling IS NOT A ‘SO-CALLED’ ‘MBTA COMMUNITY’ FALLING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3A(a)(1).

SO YOU GOTTA WONDER, WHY ARE CARL CORRINNE AND THE OTHER STERLING PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SO EAGER TO KISS MassDHCD ASS WHEN THEY DON’T HAVE TO???

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy New Year!

J.G.

Carl Corrinne is the self-serving developer-Chair of the Sterling Planning Board. In other words, a Weasel’s Weasel. So you gotta wonder, why did the Planning Board put discussion of new ‘MBTA Community’ Multi-Family Zoning Requirements on the Planning Board’s 15 December 2022 Agenda — https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/agendas/pb_agenda_-_december_15_2022.pdf  — IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT STERLING IS NOT AN ‘MBTA COMMUNITY’ FALLING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET FORTH IN MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 40A, SEC. 3A(a)(1)???

GO TO THESE LINKS FOR THE NEW STATUTORY ‘MBTA COMMUNITY’ PARAMETERS—

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40A/Section3A

Section 3A is here set forth:

“Section 3A: Multi-family zoning as-of-right in MBTA communities

  Section 3A. (a)(1) An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to any further limitations imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A; and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable (emphasis added).

  (b) An MBTA community that fails to comply with this section shall not be eligible for funds from: (i) the Housing Choice Initiative as described by the governor in a message to the general court dated December 11, 2017; (ii) the Local Capital Projects Fund established in section 2EEEE of chapter 29; or (iii) the MassWorks infrastructure program established in section 63 of chapter 23A.

[ Subsection (c) effective until July 29, 2021. For text effective July 29, 2021, see below.]

  (c) The department, in consultation with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, shall promulgate guidelines to determine if an MBTA community is in compliance with this section.

[ Subsection (c) as amended by 2021, 29, Sec. 10 effective July 29, 2021. For text effective until July 29, 2021, see above.]

  (c) The department of housing and community development, in consultation with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, shall promulgate guidelines to determine if an MBTA community is in compliance with this section”(emphasis added).

That statutory section refers to “An MBTA community,” NOT “All MBTA communities.” It is clear from the language actually employed, therefore, that ONLY AN ‘MBTA community’ that has land 0.5 miles or closer to one of the relevant stations or terminals is subject to the ‘Multifamily’ districting dictates.

THE MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WARPED, AND WENT WAY BEYOND, THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF MASS. GEN. LAWS CH. 40A, SEC. 3A(a)(1) IN PROMULGATING SO-CALLED “COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES” CALLED FOR BY THAT STATUTE, AND CAME UP WITH A BOGUS “ADJACENT SMALL TOWN” CATEGORY– THAT INCLUDES STERLING– HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDING IN THAT STATUTE’S LANGUAGE. THOSE GUIDELINES CONSTITUTE CLEAR AGENCY OVERREACH AND ARE ILLEGAL.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/data-sources-and-methodology-document-link/download

NO PART OF STERLING IS “located not more than 0.5 miles
from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station...” (italics original). In other words, EVERY part of Sterling is more than 0.5 miles from ANY such facility.

THE TOWN OF STERLING SHOULD BE FILING A LAWSUIT CHALLENGE TO THESE BOGUS GUIDELINES.

INSTEAD, THE STERLING PLANNING BOARD IS PLAYING ALONG AS THOUGH THOSE GUIDELINES ARE LEGITIMATE.

NOTE: KP Law — http://www.k-plaw.com/about/ — is Counsel for the Town of Sterling and MANY, MANY other Massachusetts cities and towns. KP Law should be all over the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development concerning its illegal power grab and the aforementioned illegal so-called ‘Guidelines’ like a fly on shit.

J.G.

In response to the Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Sec. 10 Public Records Request I sent to Sterling’s so-called ‘Economic Development Committee’  last week its Meeting Minutes for August, September, and October 2022 were just posted on the Town of Sterling website– https://www.sterling-ma.gov/node/2226/minutes-agendas  

However, despite the passage of Ch. 121 of the Massachusetts Session Acts of 2016, Section 16, and Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Sec. 19, that Committee has failed and neglected to so post approximately ONE-HALF of its Meeting Minutes from 2017 onward. I gather that Maureen “Our Lady of Perpetual Bullshit” Cranson and the other Committee members don’t want us to see how much time, while spending approximately $16,000 per year of OUR tax dollars, they’ve spent discussing such irrelevancies, revealed in posted Meeting Minutes, as plants growing on the Route 12 median strip maintained by MassDOT; graffiti spray-painted on Interstate 190 bridge abutments maintained by MassDOT; and Town Beach drainage and other improvements.

Please tell us, dear so-called ‘Economic Development Committee’ members, just what businesses you hope to entice to that median strip, those bridge abutments, and the Town Beach???

As you can tell by its 22 August 2022 Meeting Minutes, the so-called ‘Economic Development Committee’ is fixated on the Sterling downtown ‘renovation’ and beautification project, as if new decorative lamps on the Town Green/Common, buried utility wires, and upgraded storefront facades—ABSENT ANY NEW  DOWNTOWN PARKING CAPACITY—will spur some type of economic growth. What a joke.

SEE  https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/minutes/2022_08_22_edc_minutes.pdf

THE FIX IS IN: DESPITE OPACITY, PROVEN INEFFECTIVENESS ELSEWHERE, AND PRONENESS TO CRONYIST BUSINESS LOBBYING—AND THE SHORTAGE OF DOWNTOWN STERLING PARKING—THE ‘ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE’ SEEKS TO BRIBE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS OWNERS INTO BEAUTIFYING THEIR FACADES UNDER THE GUISE OF “TAX INCENTIVE FINANCING” (TIF)

Those 22 August 2022 Meeting Minutes demonstrate that the ‘Economic Development Committee,’ stressing superficiality over substance, plans to put on the 2023 Sterling Annual Town Meeting Warrant a TIF Article to bribe Sterling downtown business owners into beautifying their business facades— the Town has no legal authority to compel any such changes—as though façade changes, in the absence of additional downtown parking capacity, will spur downtown economic growth. SEE https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/minutes/2022_06_27_edc_minutes.pdf 

What utter nonsense.

Here is a detailed article providing the dirty lowdown on TIFs–

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/good-bad-and-ugly-how-do-tax-incentives-impact-investment

Sterling voters, at the 2023 Sterling Annual Town Meeting, will have the last word on any proposed TIF to bribe downtown business owners into altering their business facades.

J.G.

This is the Town of Sterling Economic Development Committee’s ‘Mission Statement’ set forth on the Town’s website:

“Mission

The purpose of the committee will be to promote industrial, commercial, and agricultural business development within Sterling; to provide advice to the Select Board on economic development policy; to meet and work with current Sterling businesses and prospective businesses; to coordinate its activities with the activities of the Industrial Development Commission and the Agricultural Commission; and to work cooperatively with businesses and state agencies to retain current businesses and attract new businesses to Sterling.”

Going back to 2017 or so you will see that the Economic Development Committee has failed and neglected to post about half of its official Meeting Minutes on the Town’s website, contrary to the clear intent of Chapter 121 of the Massachusetts Session Acts of 2016, “An Act To Improve Public Records”–https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2016/Chapter121, and Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 66, Section 19(b)– https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleX/Chapter66/Section19 , so we really don’t know just how far off-base in derogation of its ‘Mission Statement’ the Economic Development Committee has been, but we can get a pretty clear picture of its misguided efforts from some of the Meeting Minutes it has posted on the Town’s website.

Peruse, for example, the Economic Development Committee’s 27 September 2021 Meeting Minutes– https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/minutes/2021_09_27_edc_minutes.pdf –reciting the fact that that Committee discussed the following topics absolutely unrelated to its ‘Mission’ and purpose:  Town Beach Drainage, Plants Growing On The Route 12 Median Maintained By MassDOT, Interstate Route 190 Bridge Graffiti/Vandalism, and Art In The Park.

As you can see, such irrelevancies were pondered by the Economic Development Committee repeatedly in subsequent meetings– https://www.sterling-ma.gov/node/2226/minutes-agendas — and Committee member Richard Maki proposed a Fiscal Year 2023 $16,000 budget, consisting of YOUR tax dollars, to continue discussing such irrelevancies– https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/minutes/2022_01_24_edc_minutes.pdf

OH YEAH, THE MASSACHUSETTS PROPERTY SURTAX SCAM KNOWN AS THE “COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT”: 

Committee member Dick Maki, disregarding the fact that the truly intelligent Sterling voters present at each previous Sterling Annual Town Meeting during which the property surtax (up to 3% on top of your regular property tax bill) SCAM known as the “Community Preservation Act” has been on the Warrant have managed to shoot it down, came up with this gem during the 27 June 2022 Economic Development Committee meeting—

“Town Center Renovation. Dick Maki would like to look at the Community Preservation Act (CPA). This is the legislation that provides funding to communities for open space protection, historic preservation, affordable housing and outdoor recreation. He also suggested looking at Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for improvements of building facades. Town Administrator Bill Caldwell will present information, including pros and cons, on these programs at next month’s meeting.”

SEE  https://www.sterling-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif1266/f/minutes/2022_06_27_edc_minutes.pdf  

As you can see, the “Community Preservation Act” PROPERTY SURTAX SCAM HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MOREOVER, ONLY DUMBASS BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD MOVE INTO A TOWN HAVING SUCH AN ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX BURDEN, BUSINESSES OWNING PROPERTY IN TOWN BEING SURTAXED DIRECTLY AND BUSINESSES RENTING IN TOWN HAVING THE SURTAX PASSED THROUGH TO THEM IN THEIR REQUIRED RENT.

YEAH, MR. MAKI, THAT’S A FRIGGIN’ BRILLIANT ‘ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT’ PROPOSAL!

AND, DRUMROLL PLEASE, MR. MAKI’S PROPOSED “TAX INCREMENT FINANCING” KICKBACK PROPOSAL FOR “TOWN CENTER RENOVATION” BUILDING FAÇADE ‘IMPROVEMENTS’:

Private actors engaged in bribery or kickback schemes face criminal prosecution, but municipalities can engage in them under the guise of “Tax Increment Financing”—

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_increment_financing

This region’s most notorious “Tax Increment Financing” scam is the one that City of Worcester sleight-of-hand smoke-blowers foisted upon Worcester taxpayers in order to get “Polar Park” built there—

Mr. Maki and the Economic Development Committee know that they cannot compel Sterling’s downtown business property owners to change or upgrade their building facades, so Mr. Maki proposes that they do so in exchange for “Tax Increment Financing” subsidies. The cost of any such “Tax Increment Financing” scam will be borne, indirectly, by other Sterling property taxpayers to pay for municipal operating budgets. For the rest of us Sterling property taxpayers “Tax Increment Financing” is extortion for the benefit of a favored few.

WHEN IT COMES TO PROPOSED BURDENS TO BE IMPOSED ON STERLING’S PROPERTY TAXPAYERS MR. MAKI HAS, AT LEAST, SHOWED HIS TRUE COLORS.

CONCLUSION:  If Sterling’s Economic Development Committee focused on land availability, cheaper energy availability, and parking availability, Sterling might actually incur some future economic development.

J.G.