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.
Friday, April 25, 2008
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?
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Next Slum?
Atlantic Monthy magazine has an interesting article on future development trends in suburbs. The article is entitled "The Next Slum?" and is written by Christopher B. Leinberger, who is a fellow at the Brookings Institute, an urban planning professor at the University of Michigan and a real estate developer. He discusses the current subprime mortgage crisis and some of its impacts on neighborhoods but emphasizes that it is only the tip of the iceberg of changes that are impacting suburban development.
He notes that surveys in Boston and Atlanta indicate that about of third of respondents prefer close-knit walkable neighborhoods with services as opposed to another third who prefer conventional large lot development that requires driving to access services with another third with mixed feelings. He notes that while households with children constituted more than half of all households when baby boomers were growing up, they were only about one-third by 2000 and will decline further to about a quarter by 2025. Furthermore, the number of households with children in 2025 will be about 4 million more than in 2000, but more than 10 million single family homes have already been built. He speculates that the demand for large lot suburban housing on the fringes of metropolitan areas will decline and the some of the "McMansions" being built there today will be divided into apartments and become the slums of the future as urban living becomes more desirable. He says that suburbs with mixed use, walkable Town Centers will also remain desirable.
He notes that surveys in Boston and Atlanta indicate that about of third of respondents prefer close-knit walkable neighborhoods with services as opposed to another third who prefer conventional large lot development that requires driving to access services with another third with mixed feelings. He notes that while households with children constituted more than half of all households when baby boomers were growing up, they were only about one-third by 2000 and will decline further to about a quarter by 2025. Furthermore, the number of households with children in 2025 will be about 4 million more than in 2000, but more than 10 million single family homes have already been built. He speculates that the demand for large lot suburban housing on the fringes of metropolitan areas will decline and the some of the "McMansions" being built there today will be divided into apartments and become the slums of the future as urban living becomes more desirable. He says that suburbs with mixed use, walkable Town Centers will also remain desirable.
Town Center Survey Results
As part of the Planning Board’s study of development issues in the Town Center, a survey was sent out to all residents in January. The survey drew over 800 responses. The Planning Board appreciates the efforts of those who took the time to answer the questions and, for many, to provide written comments – some of which were refreshingly out of the box.
On the issue of establishing a public water supply primarily for the Town Center businesses and Town buildings, 54% of respondents supported the idea, slightly less than support indicated on last year’s ballot question, while 28% were opposed (the rest being neutral). The younger the respondent, incidentally, the more supportive the response – the under 40 crowd running at 71% versus 47% for those 60 and over. Assuming town-wide financial support for such a system, i.e. debt service, the responses overall flipped, with 26% in favor and 53% opposed. Those unsupportive numbers were virtually unchanged if residential properties along the water line were included. The lack of information about costs, how they might be shared and the uncertain location of the well may well have been factors contributing to significant opposition.
There was strong support (70%) for expanding business development within existing business district boundaries while only 31% were in favor of expansion beyond the boundaries. Similarly, respondents also indicated a significant interest (63%) in having an “anchor” outlet up to 7,500 sq. ft. while only 28% were interested in having a store as large as 10,000 sq. ft. Desires for retail establishments included a market similar to the Dover Market, a coffee shop, general store and specialty shops.
Somewhat surprising to us, the idea of additional residential development in or near the Town Center attracted only 25% support and only 36% were in favor if housing was age restricted to 55 and older. The idea of having affordable housing in or near the Town Center mustered a less than enthusiastic 33% support. We speculate that respondents felt that too much housing of any kind would compete with space that could otherwise be used for desirable retail outlets.
As a demographic footnote readers might be interested in knowing that according to the 2000 census 20% fell into the 25-39 year age group, 55% in the 40-59 year range and 25% were 60 and over. Relative to those numbers and the 2010 census projection, the younger group showed a substantial under-response to the survey while 60 and over were overrepresented by the same percentage point margin.
Copies of the survey results are on the Planning Board web site.
On the issue of establishing a public water supply primarily for the Town Center businesses and Town buildings, 54% of respondents supported the idea, slightly less than support indicated on last year’s ballot question, while 28% were opposed (the rest being neutral). The younger the respondent, incidentally, the more supportive the response – the under 40 crowd running at 71% versus 47% for those 60 and over. Assuming town-wide financial support for such a system, i.e. debt service, the responses overall flipped, with 26% in favor and 53% opposed. Those unsupportive numbers were virtually unchanged if residential properties along the water line were included. The lack of information about costs, how they might be shared and the uncertain location of the well may well have been factors contributing to significant opposition.
There was strong support (70%) for expanding business development within existing business district boundaries while only 31% were in favor of expansion beyond the boundaries. Similarly, respondents also indicated a significant interest (63%) in having an “anchor” outlet up to 7,500 sq. ft. while only 28% were interested in having a store as large as 10,000 sq. ft. Desires for retail establishments included a market similar to the Dover Market, a coffee shop, general store and specialty shops.
Somewhat surprising to us, the idea of additional residential development in or near the Town Center attracted only 25% support and only 36% were in favor if housing was age restricted to 55 and older. The idea of having affordable housing in or near the Town Center mustered a less than enthusiastic 33% support. We speculate that respondents felt that too much housing of any kind would compete with space that could otherwise be used for desirable retail outlets.
As a demographic footnote readers might be interested in knowing that according to the 2000 census 20% fell into the 25-39 year age group, 55% in the 40-59 year range and 25% were 60 and over. Relative to those numbers and the 2010 census projection, the younger group showed a substantial under-response to the survey while 60 and over were overrepresented by the same percentage point margin.
Copies of the survey results are on the Planning Board web site.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Planning Board Zoning Articles
The Planning Board is proposing five zoning articles for consideration at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting. Two are essentially housekeeping measures. One clarifies how the front setback is measured (from front line, not road pavement) and the other merges the M and EA multifamily districts. Currently, the M district has a set of requirements and then the EA district says M applies except for the following differences. It makes it difficult to follow because one has to flip back and forth in the Zoning Bylaw to read the provisions of the EA district. Furthermore, there is no land currently zoned as M and everything that can be done under M can be done under EA as well. This article helps simplify our bylaw while making no substantive change.
There are three substantive articles. One would create a Design Review Committee to make recommendations about design (including buildings, signs, lighting, landscaping, etc.) to the Planning Board for projects subject to site plan review or a special permit. It does not affect single family homes. Another article would allow multidwellings as part of a Planned Unit Development with certain restrictions (no more than 50% of the square footage could be residential, at least 10% of units must be affordable and there could be no more than 4 units per acre). The fifth article would amend the maximum allowable size for a retail outlet (currently 2500 square feet, excluding any kitchen or storage space) by allowing a single outlet to be up to 7500 square feet (and all others would still have to comply with the 2500 square foot maximum).
The text of these articles can be seen on the Planning Board web site.
There are three substantive articles. One would create a Design Review Committee to make recommendations about design (including buildings, signs, lighting, landscaping, etc.) to the Planning Board for projects subject to site plan review or a special permit. It does not affect single family homes. Another article would allow multidwellings as part of a Planned Unit Development with certain restrictions (no more than 50% of the square footage could be residential, at least 10% of units must be affordable and there could be no more than 4 units per acre). The fifth article would amend the maximum allowable size for a retail outlet (currently 2500 square feet, excluding any kitchen or storage space) by allowing a single outlet to be up to 7500 square feet (and all others would still have to comply with the 2500 square foot maximum).
The text of these articles can be seen on the Planning Board web site.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Town Center Water District
One of the major initiatives currently underway that could affect the future of the Town Center is the possibility of a establishing a water district or otherwise providing a public water supply. A workgroup initiated by the Sherborn Business Association has been studying this possibility. The workgroup submitted a report to the Selectmen last October. That report is posted on the Planning Board web site which can be accessed by clicking on the underlined words. The link to the report can be found in the "News" section of the web page.
That report has been followed by test wells drilled on Price Woodlands off Morse Road. When that parcel was acquired by the Town in the 1990's, it was designated for future use as a municipal well site since it overlaps with one of the Town's aquifers. The test wells indicate that there appears to be sufficient quantity at the site. However, the tests for water quality have not yet been completed. When that information is available it will be posted here.
That report has been followed by test wells drilled on Price Woodlands off Morse Road. When that parcel was acquired by the Town in the 1990's, it was designated for future use as a municipal well site since it overlaps with one of the Town's aquifers. The test wells indicate that there appears to be sufficient quantity at the site. However, the tests for water quality have not yet been completed. When that information is available it will be posted here.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Design Issues
Among the many issues affecting the Town Center, one of the major ones pertains to design. Thought is being given to establishing a Design Review Committee that would make suggestions regarding site design, building design, landscaping, parking, lighting, signage etc. for any project that requires a site plan review or special permit from the Planning Board.
In addition to reacting to development proposals, one task of such a committee would be to draft a set of design guidelines that would assist applicants and their architects, engineers and landscape architects in designing a project that would be a good fit for Sherborn.
Any thoughts on this concept as well as any specific issues that should be addressed would be approeciated.
In addition to reacting to development proposals, one task of such a committee would be to draft a set of design guidelines that would assist applicants and their architects, engineers and landscape architects in designing a project that would be a good fit for Sherborn.
Any thoughts on this concept as well as any specific issues that should be addressed would be approeciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
