HISTORIC COMMISSION MISSTATEMENTS

It is sad and disappointing to see that the Historical Commission is continuing to assert false information about the Planning Board’s proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) section of the Zoning Bylaw. They do this in spite of multiple sessions with me and the Planning Board Chairman to explain both the existing PUD and the proposed amendments. Yet their letter to the editor in the April 24 issue of the Dover Sherborn Press includes the false and inflammatory information.

Most important, they claim that the PUD amendments would endanger the Whitney-Paul Tavern. This is patently false. The fact is that there is presently NOTHING that protects this property from alteration or demolition. On the contrary, one of the express purposes of the PUD bylaw is to “preserve historic buildings by providing economically viable uses for them.” Any proposal that does not achieve this purpose would not meet the criteria for eligibility for a PUD development.

Secondly, the Historic Commission claims that the PUD amendments would allow intense development that will have a major, negative impact on the look and character of the historic district in the Village Center. This is patently false for two major reasons. The PUD amendments grant no development rights. Any development under a PUD is by special permit only. Also, again, one of the express purposes of the PUD is to “perpetuate and enhance the appearance of Sherborn’s traditional small town New England center.” Again, a development that fails to achieve this purpose would not be eligible for a PUD special permit.

Thirdly, the Commission asserts that the scale of retail establishment would triple from 2500 to 7500 square feet and would deteriorate the setting of the tavern and streetscape. This again, is false. The size of a building under a PUD would not change. The only change is that a single retail establishment could be 7500 square feet. Retail buildings can already be 7500 square feet or larger, but they must be divided into 2500 square foot businesses (by the way, the building housing the Post Office, liquor store, cleaners and bank is exactly 7500 square feet). They also assume that “condo-style” tall buildings would loom over the tavern, and that the property would be a visually cluttered landscape dominated by tall buildings. Again, this is simply a scare tactic with no basis in fact, since such a proposal could not qualify for a PUD special permit.

It is certainly the right of the Historic Commission to oppose the Planning Board’s proposed zoning amendments for whatever reasons they choose. However, it is certainly a misuse of its status as a Town Commission to use knowingly false information and scare tactics to do so.