Find more about Weather in Groton, MA

2013 best online casinos Top rated and most trusted gambling sites play slots machines no download 21 black jack online http://slotsforrealmoney.us online slots accepting Western Union

BobPine

Dear Editor: More Ideas On A Lost Lake Sewer

 By
Nov 302012
 

To the Editor,

I am writing to discuss ideas on how to move forward on issues associated with the defeated Lost Lake Sewer Proposal. For many years I advocated for a sewer system for the Lost Lake area, but I voted against the Article at the last Town Meeting. As I understood it, the Article was promoted on three grounds: the people in the Lost Lake area needed the sewer to solve existing septic problems; the sewer was needed to protect the Whitney well; and the sewer was needed to solve environmental issues in Lost Lake, especially the proliferation of weeds. Unfortunately I did not think that information to support any of these important considerations was provided.

  1. Neither the results of the survey of residents who would be served by the sewer nor the voices of most of the Lost Lake residents who spoke at Town Meeting indicated support for the sewer, at least as proposed.
  2. The primary discussion about risk to the Whitney Well was about nitrates. The test results that were presented indicated that nitrate levels in the Whitney Well average 0.6 to 0.7 mg/l with a maximum of 1.2 mg/l. However, the maximum allowable nitrate level in drinking water is 10 mg/l, so nitrate does not appear to be a problem. People on septic systems do create more risk to a down-gradient well than people on a sewer, but I have not heard any arguments that justify a multi-million dollar expense.
  3. I stated at the Town Meeting that the condition of Lost Lake is currently the Town’s most serious environmental challenge. Lost Lake is a Town resource and the weed infestation must be addressed. Much of the discussion at Town Meeting was about potential reductions in nutrient levels in the lake that would result from a sewer and whether or not 20 year old data was still relevant. Unfortunately, these discussions missed the central issue. The primary types of weeds currently infesting Lost Lake, including cabomba and milfoil, do not grow as a function of nutrient levels in lake water. These weeds are rooted in the soils at the bottom of the lake and derive most of their nutrients from soil, not water. Although algae and many other weeds do depend on nutrient levels in water, the primary aquatic weeds in Lost Lake do not. Lost Lake is a shallow, flooded meadow and there is a thick layer of fertile muck on the bottom in which these weeds can proliferate independent of nutrient levels in the lake water. A sewer by itself is not going to help Lost Lake’s primary weed problem.

In order to move forward, I think we need to separate the very real and serious issues in the Lost Lake area into their parts. We need to define the costs and benefits associated with each, look for comprehensive solutions. and decide if those investments are necessary and justified.

With respect to Whitney Well we need to understand the actual threats, the reduction in threats if a sewer is constructed, and what portion of the cost of a sewer is reasonably allocated to the Town to achieve that reduction.

With respect to failing septic systems in the Lost Lake area, we have been told anecdotal information about very expensive systems that have had to be installed. However, $12.9 million (plus $2 to 3 million in hookup costs) to replace 359 existing septic systems, many of which are in working order, is a great deal of money per system no matter how the costs are allocated. I think we need to compare the cost of constructing the sewer with the financial and environmental costs of not constructing it. We also need to understand and quantify the potential effects of new development that may occur due to a sewer.

With respect to the environmental issues associated with Lost Lake itself, significant information is already available, including a recent study done for the Groton Lakes Association by Aquatic Control Technologies, Inc. While that study looked in general at long term solutions such as dredging, its scope did not allow a full analysis of such options. Based on the report, the use of herbicides is currently being proposed as a necessary short term measure, but the report predicts the need for repeat treatments every few years indefinitely. In my opinion the use of chemicals, whether approved by EPA or not, should not be the long term solution for Lost Lake.

I think that a two-prong approach is required to understand and address the Lost Lake issues. First, the Town needs to form a committee, including Town officials, representatives from the Groton Lakes Association, and other townspeople, to evaluate long term solutions for Lost Lake itself. The Groton Lakes Association has done a great deal of work on these issues, but this needs to become a town wide matter, not just a Lost Lake area issue.

A committee should also be formed to re-examine the sewer proposal. The proposal has grown dramatically in scale from the original concept of providing common septic systems for the small lakeside lots. It is not clear whether the financial burden of the current proposal is justified, either for the Town or for the residents it would serve. If it does make sense to bring an Article back to Town Meeting there needs to be clear justification both for the project itself and for distribution of costs.

It is likely that long term solutions to the Lost Lake weed problems will require multi-million dollar investments. We know that a sewer is a multi-million dollar investment and it is entirely possible that we should be thinking about extending Town water in this area. We need a comprehensive understanding of the entire picture prior to making any of those investments. Once we understand solutions, there needs to be a thorough process of explaining and vetting them before coming to another Town Meeting.

Bob Pine


Dear Editor: We Strongly Urge The Board Of Selectmen To Delay A Fire Station Vote

 By
Apr 232012
 

We understand that the Board will be considering whether to bring the new proposal for a fire station location to the upcoming Town Meeting. We are writing to strongly urge the Board to delay bringing this proposal to a vote next week.

We appreciate that those who have been involved in evaluating potential sites for a new fire station may feel that adequate public process has already taken place, but many aspects of the proposal are new and have had little public presentation or discussion.

For instance:

  1. Although the possibility of locating a new station in the Farmers Row field was previously announced, most people, including us, assumed that the site would be adjacent to the police station. There is some logic to locating two public safety buildings next to each other. However, the site being brought forward is at the far end of the field (closest to Broadmeadow Rd) with no connection to the police station. While technically both are in the same field, this is a new location, with different issues and, most importantly, with different affected abutters.
  2. The size of the station has increased by about 4,000 square feet and the cost has increased by 2 to 3 million dollars since the fire station debate of a year ago. Last year we were told that a new fire station could definitely fit on the Sacred Heart church site. This year we are being told that we need a much larger fire station, so large that it cannot fit on one of the three sites under consideration. The public deserves an opportunity to understand why the size and cost have increased so dramatically since the first round of this debate.
  3. The price to purchase the land on Farmers Row has not yet been made public. There will be no opportunity to adequately review a proposed price.
  4. We had previously been told that response time was the dominant criteria and that every second was critical. The new response time study indicated that response time is an average of at least eleven seconds more for this site compared with sites in the town center. There is obviously an even greater difference in the time to get to a fire at any of the historic or town-owned buildings in the center.

We very much appreciate the open, thoughtful approach that the Siting Committee brought to evaluating the tasks they were given. Now the Selectmen need to devote the same consideration and effort to explaining the proposal and to receiving and evaluating public input prior to bringing it forward for a vote.

It may be that the current proposal is the best location, but the case for it has not been made to the public, nor can it adequately be made in the extremely limited time available before this Annual Town Meeting. Despite the best efforts of the siting committee, full public vetting has not yet taken place, nor was that possible while multiple options were being considered.

We respectfully request that before the town votes to potentially invest somewhere around eight million dollars, there needs to be a much greater opportunity for public discussion.

Sincerely,

Bob and Becky Pine


Dear Editor: A Groton Center Zoning Strategy

 By
Jan 162012
 

A number of issues relating to Groton’s town center, including zoning proposals in the draft Master Plan, have been under discussion recently. I am writing to add some thoughts to these discussions, especially with respect to a proposed overlay zoning district.

Central to the character of Groton as a whole is the relationship between the built and the natural environments. Groton’s visual landscape and natural resources are extraordinary. We are fortunate to still have much of that landscape today. Groton Center expresses that relationship both in its setting and its history. The structures in the center communicate Groton’s past and the settings of buildings and views from the center reflect Groton’s overall relationship with the land. When Charles Eliot worked with Groton in 1963 to create our first Master Plan, he identified the critical relationships among residential, commercial and open space in the center and developed zoning strategies to protect them. Because of that vision the center’s special character endures today.

One of the zoning strategies referenced in the new draft Master Plan and being promoted by at least some town officials is a blanket overlay district in the center that would allow increased density and uses. In my opinion this is one of the worst planning ideas possible. An overlay district allows either the original zoning or, by Special Permit, new uses and increased densities. Although regulations and design review can influence proposals in an overlay district, it is difficult to deny any proposal that addresses the regulations. Unfortunately, creating regulations to protect “character” are effectively impossible. Adding historically accurate architectural details to new buildings does not substitute for the real historic character and landscape setting we have now.

Although the Town did adopt an overlay district for Station Avenue, this is an area where higher density or different uses would not detract from the character of the town. Main Street, however, is a jewel. To construct new development along it at the densities being considered would block the views and fill the spaces that create its rhythm and landscape character.

I wish to be clear that I am not opposed to change. We must be willing and able to adapt to changing needs. The Town demonstrated that flexibility in adopting new zoning for Station Ave and in approving high density at 134 Main Street. The loss of the Inn has further changed the center as will future redevelopment of that property. Prescott School will be changing and I hope we will have a new fire station in the center. Given the number of properties already in flux we must be especially cautious.

Over the next few months directions for the future of the town center are likely to be set. For everyone who cares about the future of this special area, this is a time to take notice and become engaged.

Bob Pine


Dear Editor: Social Media Changes Town Processes — and Politics

 By
Nov 082011
 

To the Editor,

Awhile back, prior to the snowstorm, one of Groton’s Selectmen, Stuart Schulman, posted comments on the Talk About Groton email list musing about why Selectmen’s efforts have been rebuffed of late. I think this is an important question and deserves considered dialogue. Groton is facing many critical issues and I think we need to find the answer to Stuart’s question if we are to move forward effectively. In that light I offer these thoughts.

I believe there are two changes in Groton over the past few years that relate to this. One is the Town Manager position. The other is social media, especially TalkAboutGroton. The Town Manager position, which I support, brought with it efficiency and a drive to rapid action. Mark Haddad exemplifies that. Meanwhile, social media has brought with it a new type of scrutiny that is not always sympathetic to efficiency. Our Selectmen stand at the middle of these new forces. Despite some adaptation of late, I think they have failed to fully grasp their role in this environment.

It is easy to personalize what has gone wrong and discussing these issues inherently sounds critical of individuals involved. In fact, I consider many of the people involved good friends for whom I have extremely high respect. These are some of the most dedicated, hard working and concerned citizens I know. There is no question that everyone has been working toward what each felt was a positive solution for Groton. But process has gone awry and if it is not fixed, I believe we will find ourselves in an expanding quagmire.

I would like to offer some examples of how I believe process went wrong, starting with the Fire Station. The Selectmen believed they had found a solution to multiple Town issues when they asked Town Meeting to buy the Sacred Heart property, but they forgot about public process on many levels, even to the extent of not giving the neighborhood an opportunity to engage in the process. Moreover, because they did not take a proactive stance to explain the proposal after it became public, they allowed the impression to be created that Mark Haddad was the leader and they were the followers in the decision-making process.

After the February Town Meeting, the Selectmen moved to create a more public process, which took place in the increasing light of public scrutiny.

Unfortunately, the new process was flawed from the outset because the Selectmen could not retract their initial position strongly favoring the Sacred Heart site. It also appeared, and was stated by some members of the Board, that they opposed locating a new Fire Station on Station Ave since it conflicted with the Station Avenue Development Plan. Some members of the Site Evaluation Committee were Town employees, answerable at some level to Mark Haddad and through him, to the Selectmen. Knowing that one’s “boss” has a particular opinion colors perceptions. At least one member of the Committee was adamantly opposed to any site that conflicted with the Station Avenue Plan and therefore to locating a Fire Station there. A committee member charged with finding the best site for a Fire Station cannot do that while categorically rejecting and arguing against a potential site under consideration. While the committee did excellent and very dedicated work collecting information, their discussions always seemed to reflect underlying bias. For some, any problem with sites other than Sacred Heart appeared to be magnified, while any problems with the Sacred Heart site appeared to be minimized. Social media picked up on that and the credibility of the committee’s recommendations was therefore questioned.

Although the 134 Main Street zoning change passed at Town Meeting, similar issues have colored the process. The proposal came quickly without prior public input and was presented with minimal supporting information. There was inadequate time to explore the issues of town financial involvement in private development. In the rush to get the proposal to Town Meeting, zoning issues were not thought through and have now been criticized by the Design Review Committee. The Selectmen complain that the Design Review Committee is the problem, but the problems lie in the original process. Due to their financial involvement, the Selectmen promised not to pressure town review boards, but, as proponents of the plan, it has been impossible for them to avoid the impression that they are in fact pressuring other boards to approve it.. These issues all stem from inadequate initial public process.

I raise these matters because our Selectmen have lost my confidence and I want to change that. I think that efficiency and the drive to accomplish tasks must take second place to process. We live in a world of new media and we need to learn how to use that in positive ways to make our projects and our community better. I don’t know the answers as to how to accomplish that but a partial example might be the way the Dog Control Bylaw was handled. There was a lot of public dialogue and an online opportunity to submit comments before everything was set in stone. I would urge the Selectmen and Town Manager to find a way to seek a similar form of online input into the important decisions they are considering.

We are a community first and respecting community and process must come before accomplishing other goals. We must all find better ways to communicate. We can be passionate advocates, but we must also be thoughtful listeners and strive to find consensus as to the best future for Groton.

Bob Pine


Dear Editor: The Station Ave. Site Is Viable

 By
Oct 242011
 

To The Editor,

When the Selectmen announced we would be voting on the purchase of the Sacred Heart property once again, I thought this time I would be voting for it. However, having attended the Public Hearing, scrutinized the available information, followed the debate, and given this issue much thought, I now expect to vote against it. This is why.

First, discounting cost issues, we now know that both the Sacred Heart and Station Ave properties are smaller than ideal, but that a fire station can fit on either parcel and that response times for both are about the same. From a town planning perspective, I believe that Station Ave is the better location. A town functions better when municipal buildings are located near each other; inter-department coordination is better, there is a better sense of community, and there is a more coherent sense of town government.

With respect to cost issues, it is clear that site development costs are higher for the Station Ave property, though not nearly by the amount we have been told. What has not been even considered, however are building costs and those should be higher for the Sacred Heart property. A prominent Main Street location demands special attention to exterior architectural design, detailing and materials and this will be costly.

Mostly, I believe that the process has been flawed from the beginning and, despite attempts at improvement, the flaws continue today. At least some of the Selectmen seem to still be trying to prove that their original idea to purchase the Sacred Heart property was correct. More importantly, Selectmen and other key people, including some members of the Site Evaluation Committee, have acknowledged that they are committed to protecting the original Station Ave development plan. For some, locating a fire station on Station Ave has never been an option and that has colored the entire process. In the end I simply lack confidence in the information that has been presented. Moreover, that information does not include all the costs. The Station Ave site is viable. We should move forward with that property and we should create a new and viable Station Avenue plan with GELD and a new Fire Station as core elements.

Bob Pine


Dear Editor: I Left Tuesday’s Fire Station Hearing Entirely Uncertain About Sacred Heart

 By
Oct 132011
 

Dear Editor,

I went to the Fire Station Hearing assuming that I would come away prepared to vote to purchase the Sacred Heart property, but I left entirely uncertain. We had been told a number of times by town officials, as late as a couple of days before the Hearing, that there was a 2 million dollar premium for construction on the Station Ave site ($1 million extra for the Station and $1 million extra for GELD), so I assumed there would be a large cost differential between the sites. At the Hearing the stated premium had come down to, I believe, about $350,000. From my accounting perspective however, the costs of the two sites are actually much closer, though there are still missing pieces to the financial picture.

At the Hearing we were told that the primary cost premium for the Station Ave site was fill to raise the site and the cost of a storm water infiltration system. I believe that a portion of those costs would be applicable to the Sacred Heart Property as well. I assume that structural fill will be required beneath the floor slab of any fire station as well as within the portion of the driveway where the heavy trucks will go. The fill to raise grades at Station Ave would take care of that but some structural fill costs as well as costs to meet storm water regulations would need to be added to Sacred Heart for an “apples to apples” comparison.

More significantly, I would account costs somewhat differently than town officials do. I can understand that, from the perspective of the Town, GELD money and Town money come out of separate accounts, but to me they are pretty much the same. If the Town pays GELD $200,000, the townspeople pay for that, but since the money goes to GELD, it reduces our electric bills by about the same amount. So to me the net cost for purchasing the GELD property is zero and the premium site costs are about the same as the cost for purchasing the Sacred Heart property.

As a soils engineer, it also appears to me that there are strategies that could reduce site costs at Station Ave that may not have been explored. It would help to see the grading plan that was used to calculate fill costs.

Mostly, as I noted to start, I am still unconvinced about the Sacred Heart purchase and I am still prepared to vote for it if the final cost comparison justifies it. I await an “apples to apples” analysis of costs for each site and I hope that it will be available sufficiently before any Town Meeting vote to be properly reviewed.

Bob Pine


Dear Editor: The Full History of The Groton Inn Is Not Yet Written

 By
Aug 172011
 

To the Editor,

The fire that destroyed the Groton Inn cost Groton a vital part of its history, but the full history of this property is not yet written. The Inn was built at a focal point of the town center. At that time the Inn was the most important building (other than the Parish House) so its location there was not an accident. In that place it set the character of the town for hundreds of years. What happens next on that property may be essential in setting the character of our town into the future. The Inn property is, of course, private and what happens next is not our choice. But it is in everyone’s interest, especially for Mr. Pergantis, to begin exploring what can and should happen there next.

I am writing to discuss my own thoughts about this property, but more importantly to encourage the Planning Board to begin a process of considering the possibilities, including physical design and how to integrate circulation and use with the abutting properties. Mostly there needs to be a process to define the Town’s best interests. I think that hiring professional assistance is essential. The Planning Board did this kind of study with Station Ave and I think this approach is even more important now.

There are limited good options for change within the town center as a whole. Significant changes to most properties would degrade the character of the center. The architecture of many of the buildings is essential to that character, but so is the landscape. The spaces between buildings and the occasional views beyond create the overall sense of place and help define that character. We must be cautious of change and we must retain control, but we must be sure to carefully consider our occasional opportunities for significant change when they arise.

Several years ago, when GELD was looking to move from its property, the Town embarked on studying the Station Ave area since an opportunity for change had presented itself. Under the Planning Board’s guidance the Town created a plan for that area. That plan does not apply to the Inn property. We need a plan tailored specifically to the Inn’s location.

It is useful to contrast the Station Ave area with the Groton Inn property. It was my belief when the Station Ave plan was created that its retail component was marginally possible. Retail development located off of main thoroughfares seldom succeeds except when there is existing pedestrian activity, such as in Concord or Lexington. There are many failures of this strategy. The physical design of the Station Ave Plan, with retail located directly at the terminus of the street gave it a chance. However, when GELD decided to stay, the viability of commercial development, other than a few small local shops was eliminated. I think that believing that a commercial developer will invest in the Station Ave area now is naive.

On the other hand, the Groton Inn property has excellent visibility and exposure as well as the presence of nearby existing retail stores. It is also near higher density housing both at 134 Main Street and Petapawag Place. It is my belief that this may be the one location in the center where significant retail development is likely to succeed. From a commercial developer’s perspective it is certainly a much better location than Station Ave. If the Town does want to expand retail use, this is the time to explore that possibility.

Other viable uses also have been mentioned for the future of the Inn property and those should also be considered before any plan moves forward. It is my belief that high density housing with a sprinkling of retail space is likely to have the highest economic return today but I doubt that it is the best long term plan from the Town’s perspective. Without clear direction from the Town, a proposal for such a plan (which would require zoning change) may come forward. But before any plan gains momentum, we need to think about what is best for the future of our Town and how to make that both a reality for the Town and a benefit to Mr. Pergantis.

Sincerely,

Bob Pine


Dear Editor: Work With GELD to Site Central Fire Station on Station Ave.

 By
May 262011
 

(This Letter to the Editor is an open letter sent to the Central Fire Station Site Selection Committee, which has yet to decide whether, and how, to recommend potential fire station sites to the Board of Selectmen. The Committee’s next meeting is June 1 at 4 p.m. in Town Hall.

A vote to acquire the Sacred Heart Church lot as a fire station site is the only article at a Special Town Meeting scheduled for June 13 at 7 p.m. in the Middle School PAC. — Ed.)

To the Fire Station Relocation Committee:

We are writing in support of locating a new fire station on a portion of the GELD property on Station Avenue. We believe that construction of a new facility in that area offers advantages compared with other possible locations. Although the work of the Fire Station Relocation Committee has focused primarily on the physical attributes and cost implications of numerous potential sites, as the list is shortened, other town planning issues should now be considered.

We believe that one of the essential factors in locating any municipal facility is its relationship to other facilities. When town departments are in proximity to each other there is increased interaction among town personnel that can foster a sense of community and cooperation. When facilities are more dispersed, day to day interaction declines and departments can become more isolated and less connected with each other.

An important issue that has been raised against locating a new Central Fire Station on Station Avenue is that it will undermine the Station Avenue Plan that was adopted by the Town after much hard work. The premise of that plan was to encourage commercial activity, and new housing, in the Station Avenue area. The physical design of that plan was clever, creating a new focal location for new businesses at the end of Station Avenue. However, the underlying premise, that businesses would locate in an area well off Main Street, was always tenuous. Although this type of strategy, locating new business areas in pockets off main thoroughfares, is desirable from a planning perspective, commercial developers have always been skeptical.

The impetus for creating the Station Avenue design plan was the expected departure of GELD, which freed up enough land to allow a comprehensive design strategy for the area. The availability of the GELD property was critical to the design as it provided adequate land for the essential components of the plan to be built. Although we supported the original plan, now that GELD has decided to remain on Station Avenue, we believe that concept is no longer viable. However, the opportunity to use that area for municipal activities is now possible.

At a meeting of the Relocation Committee with GELD, the potential synergy of locating the Fire / Ambulance facilities adjacent to GELD was discussed, both in terms of reduced planning and construction costs and with respect to ongoing operations. We believe that similar long term advantages will develop in relationship to Town Hall.

GELD is asking for reimbursement of their costs for purchasing abutting properties in an attempt to facilitate the whole plan. While the Town is treating this as a purchase cost in its calculations, most Groton residents are both taxpayers and ratepayers, so the net costs and savings will essentially balance.

In summary, we believe that the opportunity to create a municipal area has presented itself, and the Town should take advantage. Good efforts went into creating the Station Avenue Plan, but conditions have changed and it is now time to move on. We should locate a new central fire station on Station Avenue and create a new plan to benefit the Town.

Sincerely,

Bob and Becky Pine


Dear Editor: TM Articles 12, 13 and 15A are flawed and must be defeated

 By
Apr 192011
 

To the Editor,

There are many potentially good aspects to the Town Center Articles on the Spring Town Meeting Warrant, but I think there are also significant down sides and risks that need more attention. Article 12 would create a Town Center Overlay District that is an extension of the Station Avenue Overlay District, allowing properties on Main Street to use that development approach. This bylaw allows a density of 10 units per acre, calculated on the entire lot area, not just upland areas as is the case for other density calculations in Groton’s Zoning Bylaws. Approval is by Special Permit with Design Review controls on appearance. Article 13 rezones the 134 Main Street property into this District and Article 15A allows investment of CPA funds in the private development of that property.

I think that the concept of an Overlay District is good and I very much support direct Town involvement to create Affordable Housing. However, I believe that this District as proposed threatens the existing character of our Town Center and I believe that the entanglements and risks that come with investment in the 134 Main Street Property are dangerous and inappropriate.

When the original Station Avenue Zoning was proposed, very high density was needed to make development of that confined area viable. The same density is now being proposed for properties on Main Street, where high density can be incompatible with the existing character. Using the 134 Main Street property as an example, 55 units of housing could be developed on this parcel under the overlay zoning being proposed, even though there are only about 3.5 acres of land in the parcel when wetlands and wetland buffers are excluded. Although any development proposal would require a Special Permit, the criteria for approval in this bylaw are so vague, I believe it would be effectively impossible to legally deny any proposal. Although the developer of 134 Main Street has shown a plan with 18 units, there is no requirement that this plan be adhered to. And if this particular plan does not come to fruition, the zoning would be in place for a proposal of much greater density.

Even at 18 units, the developer’s plan indicates that four of the units would be located entirely within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone. This requires a radical interpretation of the Town Wetland Bylaw that would set new, dangerous and entirely inappropriate precedents.

Article 15A would allow the Town to invest $412,000 of Community Preservation funds in this project. We are being told that the Town’s investment will help create affordable housing and will return a handsome profit when the affordable units are sold. However, the developer would be required to build the three proposed affordable units with or without town investment. Therefore the only real advantage of the CPA investment appears to be profit. But that potential for profit comes with risk. For the past thirty years I have advised people about land development and my strongest advice has always been not to invest in development unless you are prepared to lose that money. The questions and answers prepared by the Selectmen indicate that the developer expects to complete the project in three years, at which time the Town’s investment would be returned, with profit, if the project generates a profit. If the project takes longer to complete, the CPA funds would be tied up for that increased time. And if the project founders for any reason, the town’s money could be partly or wholly lost.

Of even greater concern, however, is the relationship between the Town’s financial interests and the Town’s permitting responsibilities. The boards issuing permits will be under pressure to approve them due to the Town’s wish to make money on the project. It appears that significant pressure was applied by Town officials to CPC members to reconsider their original negative votes to bring this article to Town Meeting. Permitting of development plans will require decisions by a number of boards on critical issues, including the previously mentioned interpretation of the Wetlands Bylaw. The Town should never put itself in a situation where permitting responsibilities compete with its own financial interests. Committing CPA funds to this private development is the wrong way for the Town to engage in providing Affordable Housing.

The concept of a Town Center Overlay District that provides alternative ways to use land is good. However, the character of our Town Center is perhaps our single most cherished asset and loose regulations combined with extremely high density provisions have the potential to dramatically alter that character. Although I strongly support direct Town involvement in creating affordable housing, we should be investing in housing that would not otherwise be created. We should not be putting funds at risk and tying them up indefinitely. And we should not put the Town in situations where there are conflicting interests within the permitting process. Most importantly, in creating new zoning opportunities and in engaging in development projects, we should be talking about downside analyses and we should do so without rose colored glasses.

I believe Articles 12, 13 and 15A are flawed and must be defeated.

Sincerely,
Bob Pine


Dear Editor: About the Special Town Meeting Articles

 By
Feb 222011
 

To the Editor,

I have tried to inform myself about the proposals to purchase the Sacred Heart (SH) property and extend the sewer to Thomas More College (TMC) (The correct name of the college is Thomas More College of Liberal Arts, which is not connected to Thomas More College. — Ed.) which are being presented to the Feb.28th Town Meeting. These are far-reaching issues that deserve thorough and thoughtful examination by the voters. I have listed a number of questions below, that I hope will be answered before we are asked to vote on these important proposals.

  1. The SH property is approximately one acre, meaning it is a ‘non-conforming’ lot. Doesn’t this mean that the only new construction that can occur on it is to modify an existing structure? If the church building is removed, either by demolition or by transporting it elsewhere, won’t the property become unbuildable? (I believe this is what happened to the property behind the Town Hall some years ago, which remains empty.) I hope that the Planning Board, Building Inspector, and Town Counsel will all offer answers to these questions.
  2. If the answer to the above questions is that the Town can override its own zoning, I would ask for clarification of this from Town Counsel. I believe that some years ago when placement of the Bandstand Gazebo was being debated, there was a ruling that the Town could NOT overrule its own zoning in order to allow the Bandstand to be placed on a parcel whose zoning precluded any construction.

    3. [ad#EXIT_Realty#1]
    Continue reading »