GEE, what could possibly go wrong in the Town of Sterling when its self-serving weasel-developer Planning Board Chair, Carl Corrinne, and superfluous Town Planner, Stephen Wallace, the latter looking for ways to justify his continued feeding from the Sterling taxpayer-funded public mammary gland, announce their intentions to “overhaul” Sterling’s Protective [Zoning] By-Laws???

SEE  4-27-2023_minutes.pdf (sterling-ma.gov)

That little weasel Corrinne, in conjunction with the Packards, failed in two recent, successive Sterling Annual Town Meetings to get “Performance Zone 1,” along Route 140, re-zoned to “Commercial,” the Packards having bought up many of the parcels on both sides of Route 140 southeasterly of the Dana Hill Road intersection. They want another bite at the apple– Wallace, Corrinne, and the remainder of the Planning Board being avid pro-development cheerleading tools.

Zoom in on that mapped area and check the “layers” boxes “Conservation 1,” “Conservation 2,” and “Resource Protection Maps” — Sterling, MA (axisgis.com)

As you can see, “Performance Zone 1” is, essentially, surrounded by MassDCR watershed protection lands protecting the Stillwater River and Wachusett Reservoir Watersheds. THAT’S WHY “Performance Zone 1” was zoned the way it was MANY years ago rather than being zoned “Commercial” or “Industrial.” Obviously, the pro-development hacks populating what passes for ‘Sterling Town Government’ don’t care about such niceties. That’s why, for example, self-serving pro-development hacks Carl Corrinne, and Zoning Board of Appeals Vice-Chair Joe Curtin, the latter employed as an engineer by development-dependent Pandolf-Perkins Quarry/Sterling Concrete– E.H Perkins Construction (ehperkins.com)–spearheaded the effort, approximately three years ago, to have the North Sterling Wekepeke Aquifer Wellhead Protection Zone reduced in size– while the Town of Sterling seeks, desperately, another Town wellfield. Nice going, A$$h—s.

“Performance Zone 1” re-zoning is not the only item—by a longshot– on the pro-development hacks’ checklist, as you can see from the April 2023 Planning Board Minutes, link above. Of course, among other aims, that transparently self-serving PoS Corrinne wants ‘Special Permit’ granting authority transferred from the Zoning Board of Appeals, where it has resided for decades, to his Planning Board. OF COURSE HE DOES.

It behooves good, responsible Sterling citizens to monitor the Planning Board and the Town Planner between now and the 2024 Sterling Annual Town Meeting when, doubtless, the proposed Zoning By-Laws changes these clowns come up with will appear on the Town Meeting Warrant. You can expect the Zoning Board of Appeals to roll over. They always do. It’ll be up to 2024 Sterling Annual Town Meeting voters to show up in droves and shoot down the proposed changes.

It’s past time to take back OUR Town.

Stay tuned.

J.G.

In March 2023 I sent the following letter to bloviating Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell who, back then, was threatening to sue into submission the four (4) principled, courageous, and legally justified Massachusetts municipalities refusing to adopt so-called ‘MBTA High Density Affordable Housing Zoning Districts’ under the spurious and illegal 17 pages of ‘Guidelines’ put out by MassDHCD that ‘interpreted,’ falsely, new Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 40A, Section 3A:

P.O. Box 1149

Sterling, MA 01564-1149

21 March 2023

Attorney General Andrea Campbell

1 Ashburton Place, 20^th Floor

Boston, MA 02108

RE:  Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 40A, Sec. 3A

In 2022 the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) promulgated 17 pages of completely arbitrary and capricious so called ‘Guidelines’ (see link, below) in an effort to extort the many so-called ‘MBTA Communities’ into creating ‘Multifamily affordable housing zoning districts.’ In other words, to do what DHCD wants or face the cut-off of three (3) state funding sources. The REAL villains behind all this are the gutless cretins constituting the Massachusetts Legislature. In drafting Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 40A, Section 3A they failed to set forth any meaningful limits, standards, parameters, or definitions because they did not want to face any blowback. In true cowardly fashion they directed DHCD to ‘promulgate’ the ‘Guidelines.’

The DHCD “Guidelines Team,” in turn, vomited out the 17 pages’ worth of completely arbitrary and capricious junk. It is not inaccurate to say that that ‘Team’ pulled the ‘Guidelines’ entirely out of their asses. The so-called ‘MBTA Communities’ willing to prostitute themselves under those ‘Guidelines,’ in return for purported state funding that can be limited or zeroed-out by the very same gutless Legislature in any future budget, face dire economic, infrastructure, schooling, transportation, traffic, water, and sewer consequences from high density so-called ‘affordable housing.’

For the definition of so-called ‘MBTA communities’ see Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 161A, Section 1 — https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXXII/Chapter161A/Section1

Massachusetts General Laws Ch. 40A, Section 3A provides:

“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” (emphasis added).

Section 3A 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 and that Sec. 3A is not “applicable” to municipalities that have no land within that specified proximity to a pertinent station or terminal.

The Department of Housing and Community Development ignored and subverted that clear language and the clear legislative intent in its so-called ‘Guidelines’ by attempting to extort ALL ‘MBTA communities’ into adopting ‘Multifamily’ zoning districts, even the cities and towns having NO land 0.5 miles or closer to any relevant station or terminal.

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

The Town of Sterling, where I reside, is a so-called ‘MBTA community’ having NO land 0.5 miles or closer to any station or terminal referred to in Section 3A. The Town of Sterling, therefore, and other cities and towns like it, ARE NOT subject to the bogus DHCD ‘Guidelines’ referred to above.

The ONLY statutory sanction permitted against any city or town upholding its territorial integrity by refusing to implement those bogus DHCD ‘Guidelines’ is the cut-off of funds referred to in Sec. 3A(b). Your threats to impose additional sanctions constitute empty bluster.

I applaud the four (4) Massachusetts municipalities resisting your gasbag threats.

Sincerely,

James F. Gettens, Esq.

cc:

Peter Luke, Town Manager, Holden, MA

Select Board, Town of Middleborough, MA

Town Planner, Sterling, MA

Greg Vasil, CEO, Greater Boston Real Estate Board

NOTE: All letter text is ‘justified’ to left margin for this medium. Apologies for the spacing irregularities in this medium.

As you can see, I sent a cc to Sterling’s very own superfluous ‘Town Planner’ who is looking for ways to justify his continued feeding from the Sterling taxpayer-funded public mammary gland.

Previously, in response to my public records request, the Sterling Town Administrator admitted that the Town of Sterling had NEVER received ANY state funding from the sources listed in Ch. 40A, Section 3A(b).

Immediately after I mailed out that letter AG Andrea Campbell shut her yap about this issue and went silent. Moreover, the Town of Holden and the Town of Middleborough, in essence, told Campbell to ‘shove’ the ultra vires DHCD ‘Guidelines.’

SEE  Holden will seek solution to MBTA zoning law (spectrumnews1.com)

SEE  https://jgpr.net/2023/04/04/town-of-middleborough-shares-statement-regarding-towns-legal-compliance-to-mbta-communities-zoning-law/

Notwithstanding all of that, the Sterling Planning Board, Chaired by Self-Serving Weasel Developer Carl Corrinne, has decided to re-visit this discredited matter during its 22 June 2023 meeting.

SEE  Planning Board meeting | Sterling MA (sterling-ma.gov)

More intellectual dishonesty in Sterling Town Government and, perhaps, a potential future construction opportunity for Corrinne himself.  SURPRISED?

J.G.

Readers of this Blog know that I have long stressed the importance of creating additional Sterling downtown parking capacity as a REAL driver of economic development while Sterling’s so-called ‘Economic Development Committee’ wastes time, effort, and taxpayer money dicking around and scheming ways to lavish taxpayer money on Main Street’s private property owners–at least one of whom also owns commercial property elsewhere in Massachusetts–from the Brick Restaurant down to Appletown Market in order to prettify their building facades. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of stressing ‘form over substance’ and yet more evidence that the Town of Sterling is run by grifters, self-dealers, double-dealers, self-promoters, and morons unable to discern, comprehend or address real pressing needs and shortcomings.

SEE  2023_5_22_edc_agenda.docx (live.com)

SEE  2023_05_24_edc_subcom_agenda.pdf (sterling-ma.gov)

In order to address Sterling’s downtown parking shortcomings a new group has formed called LAMBs–“LOCAL AREA & MAINSTREET BUSINESSES” (Sterling’s mascot is Mary Sawyer’s “little lamb,” get it?) and has created this Facebook page– Downtown Sterling MA Community Parking Solutions | Facebook   Please join to be engaged and in the loop.

I am informed that none other than Richard Maki of Sterling’s so-called ‘Economic Development Committee’ attended and monitored that group’s recent meeting, remaining silent with, doubtless, his thumbs stuck up his ass throughout. I suspect that he was disappointed that this new group is actually addressing a key driver of public safety and economic development while his so-called ‘Economic Development Committee’ focuses on superficialities such as Main Street building facades and graffiti sprayed on Interstate 190 bridge abutments.

Stay tuned.

J.G.

When the scumbags constituting the Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals a/k/a “The Developers’ Doormat” told those assembled at the 11 April 2023 hearing into the 100 Clinton Road multi-family development proposed by two-faced weasel Carl Corrinne, the developer who is in a total conflict of interest as Chair of the Sterling Planning Board, that they had gotten an ‘opinion’ from Town Counsel concerning the matter, I knew that ‘opinion’ was shoehorned to cover the ZBA members’ crooked asses. The fix was already in to subvert/pervert Sterling’s Protective (Zoning) By-Laws, screw the abutters to that parcel, and play footsie with Corrinne. Sterling ZBA members have conducted their dishonest campaign of kissing developer ass, perverting/subverting Sterling’s Zoning By-Laws, and screwing multitudes of abutters to various development projects for years.

When it comes to local developers the Sterling ZBA are a collection of prostitutes who spend all their time on their backs.

A copy of that so-called ‘legal opinion’ was emailed to me in response to my Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Section 10 public records request. The name of the KP Law, P.C. lawyer who typed out and emailed that shoddy piece of crap– I had to screenshot it in ‘landscape’ orientation that I am unable to ‘rotate’ to ‘portrait’ orientation–is blacked out, of course. If I authored that utter piece of crap I’d want my name blacked out too. To read it easily just print this page and orient it properly. You may need a magnifier.

My response letter is reprinted below it (apologies for spacing irregularities that I am unable to correct in this medium. All text had to be ‘justified’ to the left margin in this medium).

 P.O. Box 1149

 Sterling, MA 01564-1149

 20 April 2023

Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals

Municipal Building

1 Park Street

Sterling, MA 01564

RE: Corrinne’s Proposed 100 Clinton Road Multi-Family Development Bogus “Open Space” Claim

Dear Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals Members,

Today, in response to my Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Sec. 10 public records request, I received the enclosed ‘legal opinion’ email, dated April 9, 2023, rendered by Town Counsel at KP Law, P.C., concerning Corrinne’s bogus claim of “Open Space” required for his proposed Multi-Family Development at 100 Clinton Road, Sterling. The name of the lawyer who authored it was blacked out. If I authored such a worthless opinion I’d want my name blacked out too.

If you want to be defendants in a potential lawsuit to be brought by abutters, then, by all means, please follow that bogus opinion.

Sterling Protective (Zoning) By-Law Article 301-4.2.3.4, governing Multi-Family Developments, provides:

Open space.

a.   At least 60% of the parcel shall be maintained as open space, and at least 40% of the parcel shall be contiguous open space, excluding required yards and buffer areas.

b.  The required open space shall be used for conservation, recreation, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or for a combination of these uses, and shall be served by suitable access for such purpose[s].

c.   Underground utilities to serve the development may be located within the required open space (emphasis added).

Town counsel ignored the fact that sub-section b. requires that the designated open space be used for conservation, recreation, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or for a combination of these uses. Corrinne cannot require or guaranty such usage because New England Power Company/National Grid, the power line easement holder, has the right to restrict the type of vegetation grown on the property and to post “No Trespassing” signs upon it now or in the future. Whether or not that power line easement land is now posted “No Trespassing” is irrelevant. Corrinne cannot guaranty “suitable access” to the land within the power line easement now or in the future. Moreover, that power company may place additional structures on its easement land for increased electrical transmission capacity, covering more of Corrinne’s alleged “open space.” SEE Town of Framingham vs. Department of Public Utilities, 355 Mass. 138 (1969).

In addition, Town Counsel ignored the fact that the electrical transmission lines themselves, within the easement, constitute above-ground “utilities” NOT permitted “within the required open space.”  Electrical transmission lines are “utility lines.” SEE Town of Sudbury vs. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 485 Mass. 774 (2020); Lane vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Falmouth, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 434 (2006); Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Inc. vs. Russell Management, Inc., 380 Mass. 212 (1980); Lyman vs. Planning Board of Winchester, 352 Mass. 209 (1967).

In view of the foregoing, Corrinne’s 100 Clinton Road multi-family development proposal fails the Sterling Protective (Zoning) By-Laws “Open Space” requirement and must be rejected by the Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals. 

It remains to be seen just how unethical and intellectually dishonest you are.

Sincerely,

James F. Gettens, Esq.

Enc.

cc:

Abutters

Sterling Select Board

The Item Newspaper

I erred as to the ‘opinion’ date–it was 9 March. Oops.

All Sterling ZBA members are appointed by the Sterling Select Board. The Select Board, the ZBA, and Corrinne are scumbags. This episode just constitutes another layer of guano proof.

J.G.

During the 11 April 2023 initial hearing on Sterling Planning Board Chair and Weasel’s Weasel Carl Corrinne’s proposed multi-family development on the parcel known as 100 Clinton Road, Sterling, Massachusetts, Corrinne’s Hack Buddies on the Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals a/k/a ‘The Developers’ Doormat,’ when asked point-blank by one in attendance if Corrinne was on any Town of Sterling Board or Committee, pretended not to know and never answered the question. The ZBA Hacks know well that Corrinne is Chair of the Sterling Planning Board and Chair of the 1835 Town Hall Committee and is in a total conflict of interest. The ZBA Hacks are playing footsie with Corrinne and attempted to deceive the public. As you can tell, they aren’t very bright but think that we are all stupid and uninformed. Following an abutter’s telephone call to me on 12 April 2023, reporting on that hearing, I typed and mailed out the two following letters that are self-explanatory (all text is ‘justified’ to the left margin for this medium in hopes that this thing works. Apologies for the spacing gaps here that I am unable to correct).

 P.O. Box 1149

Sterling, MA 01564-1149

12 April 2023

Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals

Municipal Building

1 Park Street

Sterling, MA 01564

RE:   Proposed Multi-Family Development at 100 Clinton Road, Sterling, Massachusetts

Dear Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals Members,

This day I received a telephone call from an abutter about the Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals hearing conducted 11 April 2023 on CD Corrinne Builders’ petition to construct a multi-family development on the property known as 100 Clinton Road, Sterling, Massachusetts. The caller reported that, in response to a direct question from one in attendance as to whether Carl Corrinne d/b/a CD Corrinne Builders was on any Town of Sterling Boards or Committees, you all refused to answer.

Of course, as you well know, Carl Corrinne is the two-faced little weasel who just happens to be Chair of the Sterling Planning Board and Chair of the 1835 Town Hall Committee with whom you are playing footsie at the expense of the Town of Sterling Protective (Zoning) By-Laws and the property owners abutting 100 Clinton Road. Corrinne is in a total conflict of interest and you all know it. I am sure Corrinne was seated in the crowd during your 11 April 2023 hearing, while his hired mouthpiece spoke, but lacked the honesty and integrity to speak up and acknowledge his two Town Committee chairmanships.

You also told those in attendance that Town Counsel opined that the land within the power line easement constitutes “Open Space” required for the project even though under the Town of Sterling Protective (Zoning) By-Laws it does not qualify as “Open Space” for multiple reasons. Since you possess zero credibility I have sent you a separate written request, in accordance with Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Sec. 10, with a copy to the Town Clerk, for any such written opinion rendered by Sterling Town Counsel.

The Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals has perverted and subverted the Sterling Protective (Zoning) By-Laws, in favor of developers, for years. You all and Corrinne are cowards and are so crooked that when you die you won’t be buried—you’ll be screwed into the ground instead.

And since you are all so crooked I have advised abutters to this proposed development to retain competent legal counsel and prepare for litigation.

Sincerely, 

James F. Gettens, Esq.   

cc:  

State Ethics Commission

Clerk, Town of Sterling 

Carl Corrinne, Chair, Sterling Planning Board

Town Planner, Sterling

Select Board, Sterling

Abutters

The Item Newspaper

______________________________________________________________________________

P.O. Box 114

Sterling, MA 01564-1149

12 April 2023

Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals

Municipal Building

1 Park Street

Sterling, MA 01564

RE:  Public Records Request in Accordance With Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Sec. 10

Dear Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals Members,

In accordance with Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 66, Sec.10, request is hereby made for complete copies of the following public records:

I.  Any and all written opinions sent or provided to the Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals by Sterling Town Counsel concerning or related to open space within the proposed multi-family development on the property known as 100 Clinton Road, Sterling, Massachusetts.

Please advise me of the cost for producing and mailing to me the requested document copies.

Failure to respond to this request in a timely manner may result in a Superior Court enforcement action.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

James F. Gettens, Esq.   

cc:  

Clerk, Town of Sterling    

    

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT— THIS IS TOTAL CRONYISM AND THESE PERNICIOUS ACTORS ARE TOTAL ASSHOLES. And as you can tell, my fuse is lit.

The Hacks constituting the Sterling ZBA a/k/a ‘The Developers Doormat’ continued the hearing on this matter to 9 May 2023. Show up and make them look like the TOTAL ASSHOLES they truly are.

J.G.

MEMO TO STERLING’S PREENING SO-CALLED ‘ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE’:  Main Street storefront beautification/aesthetic improvement HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR STATED MISSION OF BRINGING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO STERLING.

So where do you get off scheming to bestow taxpayer-funded LARGESSE on Main Street private property owners to improve the appearance of their storefronts when they can do it themselves at their own expense??? You are playing favorites with OUR money– 2023_03_23_edc_subcom_agenda.pdf (sterling-ma.gov)

Suggest you spend your time much more wisely by scheming to increase the number of downtown parking spaces whose increase will actually foster economic activity along Main Street.

To check out the private property owners on Main Street between ‘The Brick’ restaurant and Leominster Credit Union use the Sterling GIS mapping platform and zoom in on those properties– Sterling, MA (axisgis.com)  Note that Hands Star, LLC owns 27 Main Street with the longest exposure of storefronts along that stretch of Main Street. Hands Star, LLC is managed by one Hung C. Tran.

SEE   MA Corporations Search Entity Summary (state.ma.us)  Gee, Hung C. Tran just happens to manage the Hands Family Trust, LLC with a business address in Raynham, Massachusetts, too. SEE   MA Corporations Search Entity Summary (state.ma.us)  The Tran family, obviously, are not poor, but that hasn’t deterred the witless Sterling Economic Development Committee from scheming to bestow upon the Tran family’s ‘Hands LLCs’ OUR hard-earned tax dollars. What dopes.

This unjust funding matter will, doubtless, be presented at a future Sterling Annual Town Meeting during which the voters-taxpayers should shoot it down in flames.

J.G.