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.

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?