On June 11, 2008 the Planning Board sponsored a forum regarding the future of the Town Center. The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) assisted by facilitating the forum and presenting images of buildings from other places. Those in attendance then commented on the various designs and voted on which ones they liked and didn't like. More information on the results of this process are available on the Planning Board web site.
On October 22, 2008 the Planning Board held a followup forum. On that night, MAPC staff presented another set of images. These included a review of the results of the June 11 forum as well as pictures of the existing Town Center with some of the favored buildings identified in June superimposed on them in order to illustrate what Sherborn might look like if one or more of the buildings were located here. A pdf version of the MAPC presentation is available on the Planning Board web site. Of course, everyone is invited to provide input on the images and other measures that should be considered as we evaluate steps that might help improve the Town Center.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
POTENTIAL SHERBORN BUS SERVICE
The Town is seeking input from Town residents regarding interest in initiating bus service from Sherborn to the Natick commuter rail station (and/or possibly other destinations). The Town is a member of the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority. Under legislation sponsored by Senator Karen Spilka, the Town can redirect the funds that are already taken from the Town for its MBTA assessment to the MWRTA to fund local service. Thus, the service can be provided at no additional cost to the Town.
The Town of Medway took advantage of this option about a year by initiating service to the Norfolk train station. The bus has four stops in town and makes four runs in the morning and three in the evening. Initially about 6 or 7 riders per day used the service. By January, the average had risen to 17 and by July it had risen to 29 so it has been very successful.
If you are interested in such service, I encourage you to contact the Selectmen's Office at 508-651-7850 or go to the Town web site .
The Town of Medway took advantage of this option about a year by initiating service to the Norfolk train station. The bus has four stops in town and makes four runs in the morning and three in the evening. Initially about 6 or 7 riders per day used the service. By January, the average had risen to 17 and by July it had risen to 29 so it has been very successful.
If you are interested in such service, I encourage you to contact the Selectmen's Office at 508-651-7850 or go to the Town web site .
Friday, June 27, 2008
WESTERN AVENUE TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic Solutions, Inc. made a presentation this week to Selectmen about its findings to date on Western Avenue concerning average speeds, pedestrian and bicycle activity, crashes, etc. They will present recommendations of traffic calming measures in August.
I have a traffic calming idea that I have advocated for several years. I believe that Fessenden Field is the most critical spot on Western Avenue in need of traffic calming because kids cross the street there to access those fields. I suggest that the street be widened about 3 feet on each side (or a total of about 6 feet, not necessarily equal on both sides) and that a 6-foot wide island circumscribed by a 6" sloped granite curb be placed in the middle of the street for the entire distance of Fessenden Field.
This would create a relatively narrow lane in each direction that would slow down the traffic in this area. It would also create a "safety zone" in the middle of the street so that children (and adults) would need to cross only a single lane at a time. A bonus would be that the island could be planted to create an attractive boulevard effect. A complementary idea would be to also install raised crosswalks like the ones recently installed in Holliston center where there is much more traffic than on Western Avenue.
I have a traffic calming idea that I have advocated for several years. I believe that Fessenden Field is the most critical spot on Western Avenue in need of traffic calming because kids cross the street there to access those fields. I suggest that the street be widened about 3 feet on each side (or a total of about 6 feet, not necessarily equal on both sides) and that a 6-foot wide island circumscribed by a 6" sloped granite curb be placed in the middle of the street for the entire distance of Fessenden Field.
This would create a relatively narrow lane in each direction that would slow down the traffic in this area. It would also create a "safety zone" in the middle of the street so that children (and adults) would need to cross only a single lane at a time. A bonus would be that the island could be planted to create an attractive boulevard effect. A complementary idea would be to also install raised crosswalks like the ones recently installed in Holliston center where there is much more traffic than on Western Avenue.
MARS PHOENIX
So, what does Mars Phoenix have to do with Sherborn planning issues? Well, I suppose it has nothing to do with it. However, as a lifelong space aficinado (and who still has not quite given up on the idea of someday going into space), I am a little bit unsettled about a potential moral or philosophical question. Of course, it is my expectation that Mars will eventually become a home to humans. The issue that unsettles me is how would the discovery of life on Mars affect the decision to populate it with humans.
As you may know, preliminary results of soil tests conducted by Mars Phoenix have found soil chemistry that has been described as "similar to what you might find in your back yard" and with the potential for supporting life. I have not yet heard that there has been confirmation of ice just below the surface, but I will assume that that is the case.
If no life is ever found, my assumption is that it would make any decision to establish Martian settlements (I won't call them "colonies") an easy one. With no life to affect, we have free rein to build bases, cities, industry, etc.(and, of course, we will need planners in that effort!), as well as to induce global warming and alter the atmosphere to make it Earth-like and to facilitate significant develpment.
However, suppose life IS found. Even if it is only microscopic life, do we need to respect it? Would that mean that we could not alter the climate if it would have a deleterious impact on native life forms, however primitive? Would we be depriving Martian life the opportunity to spread and evolve as it did on Earth even though that may take a billion years or more? Or would we need to confine our settlements to underground facilities or enclosed facilities that limit Earth-like conditions to the built space only leaving the existing biosphere intact to develop on its own?
As you may know, preliminary results of soil tests conducted by Mars Phoenix have found soil chemistry that has been described as "similar to what you might find in your back yard" and with the potential for supporting life. I have not yet heard that there has been confirmation of ice just below the surface, but I will assume that that is the case.
If no life is ever found, my assumption is that it would make any decision to establish Martian settlements (I won't call them "colonies") an easy one. With no life to affect, we have free rein to build bases, cities, industry, etc.(and, of course, we will need planners in that effort!), as well as to induce global warming and alter the atmosphere to make it Earth-like and to facilitate significant develpment.
However, suppose life IS found. Even if it is only microscopic life, do we need to respect it? Would that mean that we could not alter the climate if it would have a deleterious impact on native life forms, however primitive? Would we be depriving Martian life the opportunity to spread and evolve as it did on Earth even though that may take a billion years or more? Or would we need to confine our settlements to underground facilities or enclosed facilities that limit Earth-like conditions to the built space only leaving the existing biosphere intact to develop on its own?
Monday, June 23, 2008
PRICE WOODLANDS WATER TEST RESULTS
The recently-released results from the analysis of water drawn from the test wells on the Price Woodlands site provide some very good news. While the initial preliminary results indicated high levels of iron and manganese that would have required an expensive treatment system if that water were used as public water supply.
It had been suspected that the high levels in the initial tests were caused by the rust in the steel well casing used for the test. This time the test well was flushed by pumping 6800 gallons of water before the samples were taken. This time the analysis showed that the water quality meets all Massachusetts primary drinking water standards. No volatile organic compounds were detected. Manganese and pH levels were slightly above secondary standards, but these can easily be addressed.
Regardless of whether a public water supply for the Town Center is appropriate or a good idea at this time, these test results are very good news. It is always beneficial to be prepared for the future. Whether a system is pursued now or not, these test results provide evidence that a solution to water quality and/or supply issues is available should it be necessary. It is precisely for this reason that the Planning Board supported the acquisition of Price Woodlands in 1997 with the proviso that it be set aside as a future municipal well site.
The report with the water test results is available on the Planning Board web site.
It had been suspected that the high levels in the initial tests were caused by the rust in the steel well casing used for the test. This time the test well was flushed by pumping 6800 gallons of water before the samples were taken. This time the analysis showed that the water quality meets all Massachusetts primary drinking water standards. No volatile organic compounds were detected. Manganese and pH levels were slightly above secondary standards, but these can easily be addressed.
Regardless of whether a public water supply for the Town Center is appropriate or a good idea at this time, these test results are very good news. It is always beneficial to be prepared for the future. Whether a system is pursued now or not, these test results provide evidence that a solution to water quality and/or supply issues is available should it be necessary. It is precisely for this reason that the Planning Board supported the acquisition of Price Woodlands in 1997 with the proviso that it be set aside as a future municipal well site.
The report with the water test results is available on the Planning Board web site.
Friday, April 25, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
ARTICLE 10 -- 23 WASHINGTON STREET
Article 10 on the Town Meeting warrant is to authorize the purchase of a 2.17 acre parcel that abuts Town Hall and the Town "campus" that also includes the Police Station and Library. Advisory Committee has recommended "no action" on this article. They (at least the majority on a 6-3 vote) contend that the Town's current fiscal condition does not allow it. Furthermore, they point out that there is presently no plan for future use of the property, and when there is, it will result in substantial addiitonal expenditures. Finally, they contend that the purchase price of $495,000 is above the appraised value of $465,000.
The Advisory Committee position is shortsighted. The three members in the minority do grasp the long-term benefits of this purchase.I guess the difference between an Advisory Committee and Planning Board (or Planner) is that Advisory has a short term view while planning has a long term view. I think that failure to acquire this property now, when it is available, hurts the long term interests of the Town.
The purchase price of $495,000 will very likely appear to be a bargain in the not-too-distant future. Just last Fall, the appraised value was about $80,000 more than it is now. Of course property values have dropped in recent years, but they are likely to begin to rise again shortly (they always have!). Furthermore, the cost could be handled by a 1-year tax rate increase of about 43.5 cents. For the average house assessed at $770,000, that would result in a one-time cost of about $335 added to the average tax bill of $12,000 -- a 2.7% increase. [It should be noted that there are leftover funds of about $225,000 from other projects that are proposed to be used to offset the cost of this land. Only $270,000 more is needed, which would require a tax increase of just 25 cents and a one-time payment for the average house of about $192, but since those leftover funds could be used for other purposes, I thought a fair analysis should consider the entire cost]
As for additional costs for future improvements, those would have to be approved by the Town first. If the future improvements are deemed worthy and would provide a valuable role in improving Town services, it would likely be more cost effective and efficient to make those improvements on an expanded Town campus than on another site that the Town does not yet control.
The argument that there is no firm plan for future use of the site also falls flat. The point of long-range planning is to keep options open and to provide the flexibility to adjust and respond to future needs. Adding those 2.17 acres to the Town campus does exactly that.
Regarding the current fiscal condition of the Town, this is a once in a generation (or maybe once in 3 or 4 generations) opportunity. It is available now and the Town must act. As a debt exclusion, the purchase will not detract from other Town needs (with the exception of the $225,000 of leftover funds that could be used for other purposes).
Opportunity is knocking. Will Sherborn answer the door?
The Advisory Committee position is shortsighted. The three members in the minority do grasp the long-term benefits of this purchase.I guess the difference between an Advisory Committee and Planning Board (or Planner) is that Advisory has a short term view while planning has a long term view. I think that failure to acquire this property now, when it is available, hurts the long term interests of the Town.
The purchase price of $495,000 will very likely appear to be a bargain in the not-too-distant future. Just last Fall, the appraised value was about $80,000 more than it is now. Of course property values have dropped in recent years, but they are likely to begin to rise again shortly (they always have!). Furthermore, the cost could be handled by a 1-year tax rate increase of about 43.5 cents. For the average house assessed at $770,000, that would result in a one-time cost of about $335 added to the average tax bill of $12,000 -- a 2.7% increase. [It should be noted that there are leftover funds of about $225,000 from other projects that are proposed to be used to offset the cost of this land. Only $270,000 more is needed, which would require a tax increase of just 25 cents and a one-time payment for the average house of about $192, but since those leftover funds could be used for other purposes, I thought a fair analysis should consider the entire cost]
As for additional costs for future improvements, those would have to be approved by the Town first. If the future improvements are deemed worthy and would provide a valuable role in improving Town services, it would likely be more cost effective and efficient to make those improvements on an expanded Town campus than on another site that the Town does not yet control.
The argument that there is no firm plan for future use of the site also falls flat. The point of long-range planning is to keep options open and to provide the flexibility to adjust and respond to future needs. Adding those 2.17 acres to the Town campus does exactly that.
Regarding the current fiscal condition of the Town, this is a once in a generation (or maybe once in 3 or 4 generations) opportunity. It is available now and the Town must act. As a debt exclusion, the purchase will not detract from other Town needs (with the exception of the $225,000 of leftover funds that could be used for other purposes).
Opportunity is knocking. Will Sherborn answer the door?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
