| Mixed Use Overlay Committee by Jay Shenk 
Mixed Use Overlay Meeting by Jay Shenk Wednesday, March 3, 2010 Update as of 3/8/2010: John Connery, the financial impact consultant discussed at the March 3rd meeting, will be at the March 17th meeting. There is also a time for public commentary prior to the meeting, beginning at 7:00. Read below for more details.
This meeting drew a very small crowd of one, providing the committee a chance to discuss what they learned from Dr. Mullin and the Weber Report, and since people were talking freely, I heard a lot of “don’t quote me on that”, which I didn’t. There was more info about Waterstone’s intentions, and some estimates of actual tax revenue from Westminster Crossing.
Audience attendance at the meeting was sparse—besides the committee, it was just me in the audience, so I moved up and sat near everyone else, and just didn’t vote. The meeting began with a presentation by Domenica Tatasciore, our Town Planner. She passed out four handouts, three of which were relevant to the Tyco area.
First, we received a flowchart she’d put together with input from John Hume of the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC), and various town boards. Although this flow chart just approximated the steps necessary, it was interesting because it showed the process that an applicant would have to follow for a special permit/bylaw application in a Mixed Use Commercial Overlay District. Or—here’s what someone would have to go through to build in this type of district. It’s a lot of steps and it takes awhile, and this would be only after such an Overlay District is actually approved at a Town Meeting. Best case, the process could take about 232 days, and it’s not unlikely it will take longer. In particular, the Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA) has 90 days to render a decision, but it can ask the applicant for a “continuance”, which means more time, and the applicant, if they are smart, will agree, since otherwise it’s likely their request will be turned down for lack of information.
We also received a spreadsheet listing all industrially zoned parcels in town. There are more than might be expected, located in a few distinct areas—along the railroad tracks (27 parcels), in the Simplex Drive area (13 parcels), near Depot Road (5 parcels), and along route 31 (10 parcels).
Domenica also passed out some examples of special zoning areas in Burlington and Grafton. Neither exactly fit what we are considering for the Simplex area, but each had some value. The Burlington zoning bylaw was for a Planned Development District (PD). This wasn’t an Overlay District, but was simply the re-zoning of an area to allow for a mixture of commercial, industrial, residential, open space, and other uses. This is somewhat similar to what Dr. Mullin recommended, but not specifically tailored for our town or the Simplex area. The second example, from Grafton, was an Overlay District, but that’s where the resemblance ended to anything we’d do, as it was done for Tufts University, so it was a ‘campus development overlay’. Note that universities don’t pay taxes.
Most importantly, Domenica passed out some info on Connery Associates, a sole proprietor fiscal consultancy—in other words, just John Connery, a consultant who prepares fiscal impact studies, as recommended by Dr. Mullin. Domenica has worked with him before and was happy with his work, so recommended we use him as well. The idea is that the committee would invite him to meet with us, hopefully at no charge, and then we would approach Waterstone Development to have them pay for the cost of the study. This is not unreasonable and how it is usually done. Joe Flanagan has also had prior experience with John Connery, and said he is very good, particularly at writing a report at a ‘layman’s level’. The committee would like to have both a peer review of the Weber Report (submitted by Waterstone) and the fiscal impact study Dr. Mullin advised us to get as the first step towards proceeding with Waterstone or any other developer. If Waterstone won’t pay for the study, Domenica would have to do a grant request to the MRPC, who would then do the study. The committee all agreed that Connery Associates is a good place to start, to at least get the ball rolling.
Next came a discussion amongst the committee members about Dr. Mullin’s presentation and the Weber Report, the report commissioned by Waterstone Development to explore the feasibility of a retail Mall on the Simplex property. Bud Taylor tried hard to keep the two discussion points separate, which was something of a losing battle since the two were interrelated, particularly in the mind of a few committee members.
The committee generally agreed on Dr. Mullin’s presentation to the committee, but with some differences in interpretation. No one doubted that Dr. Mullin knew his stuff, but there was divergence when it came to some specifics. Andy Sears, for instance, thought that Dr. Mullin low-balled the financial impact of the Mall on the town’s tax revenue, while Wyn Paiste pointed out that Dr. Mullin was first brought in to analyze the Home Depot planned for the area near the Wachusett Village Inn, and that might have influenced his overall opinion of where Westminster stood on development in general. Just because Westminster didn’t want a Home Depot in that specific location doesn’t imply the town doesn’t want a big box store anywhere.
On the other hand, no one thought that Dr. Mullin was anti-development, but rather that he took both sides depending upon what he was asked to do and who was hiring him, and Bud Taylor noted that since he’d been to the town meeting where the Home Depot was voted down, he might have assumed that was the town’s opinion of development, based on his prior study of that project. As Bud pointed out, Dr. Mullin is a teacher by profession, and he advises towns how to best improve their tax and job base, taking into account what the townspeople want.
Andy Sears said it was important to note that our choice isn’t between a mall and leaving the land pristine. Something is going to be built there eventually since the land is zoned for industrial development. We now have an opportunity to say what it will be. The economics of the situation say they don’t need to build something big—since they sold the building for more than they paid for the entire property, their cost basis on the land is zero, so they don’t need a huge project to make money (implying they might just develop it under current zoning).
At this point Joe Flanagan took issue (in a calm way—the entire meeting stayed friendly and polite), by saying that for Waterstone, their goal is to maximize the value of the land regardless of what their cost basis is. Andy replied that if we just say “no”, we might end up with a dollar store, a KFC, a Burger King, or worse. Joe replied that we might get that anyway if we say ‘yes’.
Joe, referring to the phone call from Waterstone’s lawyer, said that if we’re afraid of a 40B we might as well just fold, because if we’re afraid of what we might get, we’ll have no control.
Nikki Moorshead, taking an opposite opinion, said she’s less interested in what they are planning to do than what they might do if they don’t get what they want. She wondered what Waterstone would do if we expected them to sit on the property for 15 years, until industry reaches the Simplex area.
She and Linda Wiest then discussed who really had control over the development. Dr. Mullin had said we did through our control of the water and sewer plus town boards, but Nikki pointed out that this applied only if we worked with the developer.
Conversations continued on for awhile on the Mullin report, the most relevant part focusing on the idea of a PUD, or Planned Unit Development, which is basically what Dr. Mullin proposed we do in the Simplex area. Work with the developer, but get what we want—a real mixed use area, with some senior housing, offices, some retail—maybe or maybe not big box, etc. Then the committee moved on to the Weber report.
The discussion of the Weber report started pretty much where Linda had been trying to take the conversation on Dr. Mullin—she didn’t buy the tax revenue suggested by Waterstone of $1,200,000. It turns out that no one else bought it completely either, particularly without the fiscal study suggested earlier. For instance, in Leominster there is a 112,000 sq. ft. Home Depot which pays just $89,000 a year in taxes. In that same plaza there’s a Market Basket that’s about 86,000 sq. ft. and that pays only $63,000 in taxes. Joe Flanagan grossed that up to the proposed 600,000 sq. ft. mall at Westminster Crossing, and it comes to tax revenue of around $450,000 a year, far short of the $1.2MM claimed. This led to someone pointing out, in colorful terms, that the Market Basket building is not exactly grade A office space, since the building looks to be about 30 years old, plus the tax rates are different in Leominster. Yet again, the conversation came back to the financial impact study, which seems to be the key to at least understanding the choices we face.
Joe Flanagan then expressed his opinion that Waterstone might not be happy with the Weber report. They don’t really want a Wal-Mart either, so maybe this report changed their ideas. He wondered if they really are still interested in this project.
Andy said that Waterstone must be at least somewhat encouraged, as the Weber report did at least make the case that a mall of some sort was feasible on the site.
It was at this point that Bud Taylor revisited his conversation with the Waterstone lawyer, Robert Buckley, and this time around it seemed more definitive that Waterstone was no longer interested in developing the area themselves. He said that Robert Buckley had told him they had someone interested in building a 40B, that they (the developers) didn’t feel we were making progress, and that a reporter from the Gardner News had spoken to Robert Buckley, and that reporter had been told that the developers were just going to go forward “by right”, meaning they’d develop the land under existing zoning, which translates to smaller stores or a 40B, or something like that.
The last topic was the public sessions, and the consensus was that the committee isn’t ready for them yet. At a minimum, the financial implications need to be known. The idea of doing a tentative bylaw as a starting point for discussion was discussed but then discarded, since it would be perceived as a recommendation created ahead of getting public input. John Fairbanks noted the need to be able to give consistent answers, and that we definitely need a financial analysis prior to the public hearings.
However, one thing was decided—The Mixed Use Overlay Committee will be open for public comment at least for the first 15 minutes of the meetings, from 7:00 to 7:15, with anyone who wishes free to express their thoughts, as long as it is kept brief—a minute is the guideline, so as to avoid things like a Power Point presentation. This input to the committee is to start at the next meeting, Wednesday 3/17.
My closing two cents—the committee is on the right track in deciding to get an independent financial impact study. Otherwise, everyone is just making up the numbers. A peer review of the Weber Report is also in order, particularly regarding the market area and what clientele we can expect to draw. Then Westminster, via the committee and public hearings, should come up with a plan of what they would like to see in that area—not extremely specific, and more guidelines than demands, but a general feel for what the town would like or will tolerate, depending upon the citizens’ viewpoints. At that point, approach the owners and see if they are interested. My personal opinion is that putting many smaller stores out there won’t be profitable, while a 40B project will probably lose money in this economy. Maybe there is a place that Westminster and Waterstone can work together, and if so, the task of the committee is to find that area. That task is consistent with the idea of a Mixed Use Overlay District, since there must be a reason to go that route, and a mutually beneficial and profitable reason is the only practical reason there is for creating such a district.
Mixed Use Overlay Meeting by Jay Shenk Wednesday, February 3, 2010 Perhaps not liking how the MUOC meeting with planning and economic development expert Dr. John Mullin from UMass went the prior week, the specter of building a large scale 40B development instead of a mall was raised by Bob Buckley, an attorney with Riemer & Braunstein, which represents Waterstone Development, in a phone call to Mixed Use Overlay Committee (MUOC) Chair Bud Taylor. The meeting got off to a slow start, with housekeeping chores involved with approving the minutes and setting up site visits for both the land in question on the old Tyco site, and other similarly zoned properties in town. It appears that most of the members of the committee will visit these sites on their own rather than in a group. About 45 minutes into the meeting, Bud Taylor brought up the ‘uncomfortable” part of the meeting, which was that he received a phone call from Robert Buckley of Riemer & Braunstein, attorneys for Waterstone, in which it seems that Mr. Buckley expressed the developer’s concern about their ability to develop the land, and that they (Waterstone) had someone who had expressed interest in building a 40B affordable housing complex on the old Tyco/Simplex land. This resulted in a lot of discussion about what exactly MGL 40B was, and if the developer was actually serious about it or just “saber rattling”. The answer to this is that we don’t know, although we do know that a straight 40B project, with nothing else, would not provide the tax benefits that commercial or industrial development would, and could impact our school system. This topic dominated the rest of the meeting, with no real resolution. According to MUOC Chair Bud Taylor, Mr. Buckley had said that someone from Waterstone would try to attend the meeting, but no one did, again perhaps intentionally, perhaps not. We don’t know. As previously noted, this does illustrate the difficulty of dealing with well-funded private equity groups with access to almost unlimited legal firepower; it can get very expensive fast. What follows below is a description of Mass General Law 40B, with opinions and a discussion of what it is and what it means to Westminster. This is not a description of what was discussed at the Mixed Use Overlay Committee meeting. 40B is known to lots of people in many different ways. Basically what it does is allow a developer to completely override all local regulations and zoning, on the condition they build housing (usually condominiums, but more frequently large rental projects) that contain at least 25% affordable housing, as defined by the state of Massachusetts. For instance, if a developer like Waterstone (it would probably be someone else as Waterstone builds malls) wanted to build a 40B development consisting of 400 units on the land in question, there isn’t much we could do to stop them in terms of regulations or the denial of permits. They would have to go before the ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) only—no other town boards are involved in the actual permiting process (40B is also known as the “Comprehensive Permit Law), although of course they may make suggestions. If the ZBA denies a 40B project or approves a project with condition that are not acceptable to the developer, the developer may appeal the local decision to the Housing and Appeals Committee (HAC) in Boston. The HAC has the power to override the local ZBA decision and approve a project that in their opinion is right for the community. In fact 87% of the time, they do just that. The Town may appeal the HAC decision, but the appeal is expensive and time consuming.
The goal is that the ZBA and the town work things out, but if they cannot, as is often the case and might be the case here, the appeals process lands the town and developer in front of the DHCD/HAC (Department of Housing and Community Development), which virtually always rules in favor of the developer. The DHCD likes to say that almost all cases are decided/worked out between the developer and town, giving a sense that everyone wins, but that is far from the case—the town knows it will lose an appeal, so it has to cave in somewhere along the way.
It’s similar to the state passing a law that every citizen has to buy a used car regardless of the price or condition. You can haggle over the price all you want, but at the end of the day, you have to buy the car. You’ll end up paying $30K for a car on sitting on cement blocks in someone’s yard, and be relieved you didn’t have to pay $80K for it. 40B is popular with developers and housing advocates (a group called CHAPA in particular), and people who live in cities like Cambridge or Boston, where it’s already built up anyway. 40B is considerably less popular in the suburbs and country, where local environmental laws, lot size restrictions, zoning for industrial or commercial, and local determination are all set aside by virtue of this one law. All towns are required by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to have 10% of their housing stock be deemed ‘affordable’,as defined by Chapter 40B of the Mass General Law. Note that ‘affordable’ isn’t the same as ‘inexpensive’. The state’s definition of ‘affordable’ is not intuitive. “Affordable” is defined as affordable to a household making less than 80% of the region’s median income (and in our case the region includes Fitchburg, for instance, which means a family of 2 with a household income of $47K will qualify), but additionally the units must also be price controlled, meaning that they cannot be sold, ever, at a profit (the time frame of ‘never’ could be less, but is not practical in practice). In the face of rising resistance to this law, the rules were loosened slightly in 2008 to allow towns that are making progress towards meeting their 10% goal to say ‘no’ to 40B projects as long as they have a plan in place to reach the 10%, and as long as they are making 0.75% progress per year towards that goal. Westminster does have an Affordable Housing Planned Production Plan in place, and would have made great progress, except that none of the projects approved were actually built, due to the recent housing/condo price collapse. Westminster's current Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) as of October 2009 is at 3.3% and includes the not-yet-built 'Mountain View Estates' on East Road. In fact, the 58 lots on 30 acres of land planned for the "Royal Avenue" and "Kingsbury Arms" projects off of State Road West (MLS# 71004669) can be now bought for $995,000, so there is plenty of space already in town to build 40B developments. Three more notes on 40B:
2) Another point concerning 40B is that the town cannot impose conditions on the developer that make the project ‘uneconomic’—in some cases towns have been required to upgrade sewer lines and incur similar expenses, so that the developments can be built.
3) The state actually provides low interest loans for developers who build 40B projects.
This doesn’t mean that the developer will build a 40B on the land near Tyco. First of all, the economy is terrible and the condo real estate market is worse, which is why no one in building 40B developments or any other condo developments right now. No matter how many restrictions you can dodge by proposing a 40B, at the end of the day you’ve still got to make a profit, which is why none of the developers Westminster approved are currently building what they proposed. Plus, with 40B you have the added issue of having to sell 25% of your units at below market rates, cutting profits, and right now you’d be lucky to sell anything, even non price controlled units, at ‘market rates’. There is too much foreclosed property on the market which is a better deal; it isn’t price controlled, so buyers will have a chance of making money on their investment, should the market improve or they invest some sweat equity to fix up their property. Similarly, a below market rate loan is no big deal either, as the effective prime interest rate right now is very close to zero anyway. Westminster does have a good faith Planned Production Plan in place to reach 10%, from the Alicia Altieri era, and the only reason we aren’t on track is the housing slowdown--our town has done all it can, in good faith, but no one is building. This may very well give us some leeway in the event we need to appeal. Finally, there is a measure to repeal 40B on the November ballot. Scott Brown is an ardent opponent of 40B, and has fought it quite creatively for his constituents. He even wanted to count prison cells towards the 10% guideline, perhaps tongue in cheek, since even trailers, for instance, don’t count—all your housing stock could sell for $100, and you still wouldn’t meet the 10% guideline unless it is also price controlled. Perhaps most importantly, 40B really hasn’t worked anyway—Massachusetts still ranks 49th out of the 50 states in terms of overall affordability, which groups like CHAPA argue means we need to keep at it via 40B, but others say proves 40B doesn’t work. In my opinion, even if the overlay district is approved, we should absolutely include a 40B piece, so as to make progress towards meeting our goal (about 25 units a year). These units could be valuable to the community—for instance senior housing. With an extended commuter rail, nearby shopping, and easy access to route 2, this might be a great place for a reasonably sized 40B, mixed in with a reasonably sized shopping complex and offices for business. Hopefully the developers were serious when they said they wanted to work with Westminster to benefit both our town and themselves.
At the bottom of this page you have an opportunity to take a 2-question survey about the MUOC Committee and their charge. We are compiling a list of questions to submit to this committee. Please use the box at the bottom of this story to submit your questions. If you prefer to remain anonymous, questions/comments are allowed on the survey. There is also a link to our MUOC informational page.
Mixed Use Overlay Committee Meeting
Dr. John Mullin attends MUOC meeting by: Jay Shenk January 20, 2010
This week’s Mixed Use Overlay Committee meeting featured Dr. John Mullin from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who had been retained in 2007 by Westminster to review possible development in the area, and is the author of the June 11th 2007 Report to the Economic Development Study Committee in Westminster. It was certainly an interesting presentation, and the choices Westminster residents will face, should the Mixed Use Overlay Committee decide to recommend a zoning change be brought to Town Meeting, are coming into sharper focus. Residents have also forwarded information to us, including a video from WGBH that examines Legacy Place, a “lifestyle” mall built in Dedham, MA by Waterstone. It’s well worth watching, because from it you can infer the effect such a development will have on our town center, plus you get a feel for what a New England Lifestyle Mall actually is. Even more informative is an analysis of the Retail Opportunity at “Westminster Crossing” (what our potential new lifestyle mall is tentatively named) by Weber Realty Research, a very well done and informative study of why a commercial development in the vicinity of the old Tyco building makes economic sense, from the developer’s viewpoint. Dr. Mullin didn’t mince words—after brief introductions, he just stood up and started talking, no teleprompter in sight, and went on at some length (although always interestingly) describing what was in his original report to the Town of Westminster, and how it related to the current economic climate. Dr. Mullin is an Academic Dean and Professor of Planning at UMass Amherst, and also appears to have a thriving consulting business helping communities throughout Massachusetts “control” development, whether they want to encourage development, discourage development, or simply guide development. The text (paraphrased and edited) of Dr. Mullin’s meeting with the committee is lengthy (but worth reading), but first, here is a high level summary from the Analysis of Westminster Crossing by Weber Realty Research: 1. Building a mall appears to make economic sense to the developer.
2. The primary areas serviced by this mall are Gardner and Fitchburg/Leominster, meaning that Westminster is affluent relative to the main population areas that will provide the most population flow to the mall. {my note: This in turn will drive what type of stores would be located at Westminster Crossing}.
3. It seems likely that anchor stores of 150,000 sq. ft. would include a food store and a merchandise or home improvement store. Wal-Mart cannot be ruled out, since it supplies both food and general merchandise.
Below is a paraphrased description of Dr. Mullin’s presentation, as well as a Q & A session which followed. It’s worth reading the entire description, as well as watching it on AWCA-TV, but the executive summary is as follows: 1. The developer bought the land being considered for rezoning at the top of the market (Dr. Mullin repeated this numerous times, but I’ve left it out when repetitive).
2. This developer does good work when building lifestyle malls {my note—see the video of Legacy Place, as well as the website}.
3. Dr. Mullin believes that, in his opinion:
a. Westminster controls its own destiny regarding how this land is developed.
b. Building just a large, big box mall will sell Westminster short, as we are not in a crisis mode where we desperately need the cash.
c. Planning should take the long view, and industrial development is heading this way, although it may not be for 10 – 20 years.
d. Development on this land should be tightly controlled to produce exactly what is best for Westminster. This land is the ‘crown jewel’ along the route 2 corridor. {My note: by Crown Jewel Dr. Mullin means it has a great location, is large, it easy access to route 2, and will be much in demand for development as the “job center” for MA continues to move our direction}.
e. The tax gains now are not worth the change to the town’s character, and also preclude better use for the land later.
f. Should we elect to allow development of the land for retail purposes, make sure it is developed in such a way as to most benefit Westminster. We (Westminster) control how the land is developed, and don’t give up that control.
In the text below I’ve highlighted the main points, and the related conversation (again paraphrased rather than quoted, as done from notes) follows. Main Point: Here’s how Dr. Mullin remembers our situation from when he did his study for Westminster in 2007. We were in good financial shape, we have control over a prize piece of land, tax gains would be modest when considered at the ‘household level’, and retail/commercial big box development will not bring jobs to Westminster that pay enough for people to live in Westminster. The below is Dr. Mullin’s recollection of the situation, and he says he’s impartial as he ‘has no dog in the fight.”
• Back when he did the study in 2007, Westminster was a relatively small town in good financial shape. There was no sense of fiscal austerity, and there was recognition that these two sites have great potential for development.
• There is a great sense of community in Westminster.
• He noted that although some people see the need to replace the revenue from the “dump” now, at the time he didn’t see the rush to develop the land. Some towns are ‘dirt poor’ and are really happy to get the cash from commercial development, but we have to ask ourselves what kind of jobs will be created, and for whom. He said it’s primarily senior citizens who’d work at Wal-Mart type places, which don’t pay enough to live in a town like Westminster.
• In 2007 Dr. Mullin recommended we leave zoning as it was. It’s not our (Westminster’s) problem to correct what the developer paid for the land. The developer is correct that industrial development is currently blocked by Devens, but what’s the rush?
• On the other hand, we have the last remaining good site out this way, which he repeatedly referred to as our ‘crown jewel’, and we have the ability to regulate its development.
• The first thing we have to get from the developer is a fiscal impact study. Don’t even talk to them until we have that. This study will show how much the development will cost Westminster vs. how much tax revenue can be expected, and Dr. Mullin bets that it is “peanuts” off our tax bill at the household level.
• Is it worth it now (to go for commercial development) vs. waiting 10-20 years. It’s THE prime area to develop if we wait.
The next question was the obvious one—what does the changed economic and employment picture mean to the initial report? Dr. Mullin’s answers were: Main Point: Short term things are tougher, but planners have to think long term. Things will get better, and there is still no need to rush, since Westminster remains in good financial shape.
• History says the Boston job center keeps moving this way. Long term growth is heading this way. What’s our planning horizon?
• Dr. Mullin (who mentioned he retired from the US Army with the rank of General) next answered questions about Devens—He predicts the superfund sites will be cleaned up and built upon. After Devens fills up, there is still the land near 190 and route 2. He said you have to be careful….the Mayor of Leominster gave up the last good piece of land for a Wal-Mart.
• The industrial/business development that is coming this way won’t be another Digital. We’ll get industry known as “value heavy/light weight, which won’t need rail access and will typically have about 10+ employees. Leominster will remain plastic centered, producing everything from bottle caps to high tech stuff for medical instruments.
• Infrastructure is important. We need access to fiber optic networks. The information infrastructure has to be top of the line. Commercial/retails needs for this are less.
Main Point: This town has a great character, so control how development proceeds, in order to keep that character. Dr. Mullin continued making these points:
• Again emphasizing control, the town controls the last mile of water and sewer. We need to think about what’s in our best interest. He’d recommend we accept commercial development but not 150,000 square foot standup buildings. Instead we’d want Mashpee Common type development, with low density, truly tree covered, and mixed use, including housing. What we don’t want is a low end-market mall in a quality town.
• Think about how development has affected other towns. Do we want to be like Hudson or Boxboro, or like Acton or Concord? Where do we want to be in 20 years? A Nagog Park Village? That’s OK, but don’t accept business as usual with tilt up buildings and mass market malls.
• Commercial developments typically don’t bring as much net revenue to the town as expected, since there are costs associated with having a mall that need to be considered. That’s why we need a fiscal impact analysis. Dr. Mullin thinks the tax effect at the household level will be minimal, and he left a program at town hall that helps to calculate the net effect.
Up to this point Dr. Mullin’s presentation was pretty much a soliloquy, but now committee members could ask questions. Since some on the committee are probably pro the ‘mixed use overlay’ zoning change (the committee intentionally includes different points of view), I was surprised that there weren’t more pointed questions, although there were some subtle questionings of his assumptions.
John Fairbanks made a non-committal comment that was something like ‘you build a mall for a use, not particular stores’, and Dr. Mullin launched back into his theme—Do you want to have a town with Wal-Mart or Ocean State Job Lot or a Dollar Store? Furthermore, every mall is ‘pregnant’. Getting puzzled stares from the committee, he went on to say that he means that you never get just one mall….the first is never the last. You’ve got to be careful, or you’ll end up with drive up drycleaners and that sort of thing.
John’s next question was more pertinent, going to the heart of the matter. He asked, “When you (Dr. Mullin) say that Devens is blocking us from getting commercial development for awhile, define ‘awhile’.”
Dr Mullin: There’s no specific answer, but it would have been quicker before the crash. Regardless, the 495 belt is full and expensive, while Devens has fewer and fewer locations. The route 146/190/290 area (190/290 will be the next beltway around Boston) still have big gaps, but they’ll begin to fill in. It could be 10 years or 20 years, but it (industrial/office development) will come.
Committee member: Should the Mixed Use Overlay contain a residential component?
Dr. Mullin: {my note—we digressed a bit here} A hot button issue. Only two demographics have money right now—pre-kids and post-kids families. If you are building residential for people without kids, it’s a good idea. Kids are a negative in terms of cost to the community. He thinks there are only about .6 kids per household in Westminster—average age in town is 50-60. In MA the average kids per household is just .9.
Committee member: A developer wanted to put condos around a golf course.
Dr. Mullin: Again, the question is character of the town. Will the people be here or not? In the south Berkshires everyone has NY license plates, so the towns sock it to them (hit the out of state people with taxes).
Committee member: The developer’s lawyer says that zoning overlay is a tool.
Dr. Mullin: It’s a tool, like water and sewer, to direct what we want. Keep the tools to yourselves rather than giving them to the developer—I (Dr. Mullin) have met them and they’re good people and have done good work, but that’s not the point. “Is it good for you?” is the question.
John Fairbanks: A personal concern is that if we don’t do something, they’ll move elsewhere.
Dr. Mullin: A similar thing—Ben and Jerry’s fought a mall and hired us (Dr. Mullin’s team) and we won, and then the developer came back with a revised plan and they ultimately won (I think this meant the developer built based on a revised plan). We (Westminster) have to be prepared for this. If they go to Gardner, then Gardner wins in terms of tax revenue, but we’re not in crisis. This is a short term dip in the economy.
John Fairbanks: If we don’t plan for the future we might end up in a crisis.
Andy Sears: Have you considered that on the site they already can do whatever they want only smaller? Will they just develop under current zoning, and put in residential and other stuff on a smaller scale?
Dr. Mullin: Size dictates what you’ll get. You might get a McDonald’s, but they paid so much for this land they can’t recover with little stuff. There is no rush. They know this is a great town or they wouldn’t be here. Will development match your character? They need to make money too.
Joe Flanagan: The developer says they’ll build a high end lifestyle mall. If we believe them, we won’t get low end junk.
Dr. Mullin: Some lifestyle malls can be really well done, but the fact is that if we do that, will it match your town’s character, and is that really what you want on this land in 20 years?
Joe Flanagan: Does this region have the income to support a high end mall like they’re discussing?
Dr. Mullin: If you want a 5 star hotel, you’re really talking the Sheraton Four Points Hotel in Leominster. That’s a symbol of the market we have around here. {my clarification: Dr. Mullin is saying that we would get retail establishments and stores at about the level of the Sheraton Four Points, meaning we could get an Outback but probably not a Legal Seafood, and we could get a JCPenney’s but probably not a Saks Fifth Avenue}.
Wyn Paiste: You said Devens is blocking opportunities on 290. What type of industry is moving into the state?
Dr. Mullin: No union jobs and no manufacturing. We get highly specialized and emerging firms with 10- 20 employees. Companies like Sun and Cisco are very rare—we might get some small spinoffs. MA does great creating companies from within, but not well at attracting them. Talk with Mass Development. They do a great job and have a great interest in expanding their portfolio west of 495.
John Fairbanks: So how can a Mixed Use Overlay be written so we can control it better?
Dr. Mullin: What’s the best retail mall you ever saw, and what was part of it? All kinds of landscaping, law offices, residential, etc. I’m being rhetorical. Go back and say, “Can you match it?”
Don Frigoletto: Do we have to worry about 40B?
Dr. Mullin: You need to be in good faith (with the law). You have to face 40B. The state looks at whether you are making a good faith effort. {My note: Scott Brown has creatively fought 40B quite a bit over the years, and a citizen’s initiative to repeal 40B appears to have sufficient signatures to be on next election’s ballot}.
Committee members: We haven’t denied them (40B developments) but they haven’t built them either. We had 5 or 6 good sized developments, but they all fell through.
Mullin: Need to be welcoming. Westin is an “Outlaw”, so they are suspect. You have to respect it (40B) but if you make a good faith effort…..it’s important to be proactive.
At this point Dr. Mullin was informed we have a plan, and seemed surprised.
Domenica Tasciatore (Town Planner): Even with all the 40Bs we had in the pipeline, it only brought us to 4% (my comment: the law mandates 10% “affordable”-i.e. price controlled housing).
Linda Wiest: I have this dream that an MIT biotech company will come here to the old Tyco building…..is this possible?
Dr. Mullin: Biotech needs high speed computers, which consume tremendous amounts of electricity, and they’re moving to Charleston and Holyoke, which have the lowest energy costs in MA, $.07 per kilowatt.
John Fairbanks: Do towns’ characters change over time?
Dr. Mullin: Harvard used to be low end, and Acton in the 50s was a sleepy agricultural town with no planning. By the time they woke up they could only half save it. Boxboro—they grabbed their character before it was too late. Westminster’s got a great character—it’s known for its crackers (this was said jokingly).
Joe Flanagan: What are overlays like throughout the area? Littleton’s is more restrictive. What’s the trend throughout the region?
Dr. Mullin: In retail, there are a range of uses by size, and size dictates the type of business.
Nikki Moorshead: To point out, we don’t own the land, the developer does (Dr. Mullin had been referring to the land as ‘ours’).
Dr. Mullin: The points are that you control the land via land use characteristics, and there’s not one planner in the world who’d say there will be fewer opportunities (to develop the land) in the future. There are lots of malls that change characteristics of towns. Things transform as property values change. I maintain we can control our destiny.
Bud Taylor: I’m from the Cape, and the Mashpee Mall is in Mashpee because Sandwich didn’t want it.
Wrapping it up, Dr. Mullin requested to do a TQM (total quality management) step—he asked each committee member what they learned from his presentation.
Joe Flanagan: Retail mall development may be selling us short. Mullin qualifies: Retail mall development “by itself”.
Wyn Paiste: More prudent to look long term.
Andy Sears: We’re in control.
John Fairbanks: It’s the ”crown jewel”. There’s no land like it on route 2.
Nikki Moorshead: Surprised at how little tax effect there would be. I really thought it would be much more.
Dr. Mullin replying to Nikki: Run the model.
Don Frigoletto: Be proactive.
Dr. Mullin: If you want, take $10K and have an architectural competition. Pay each company $1,000 to come up with a plan. Rules like must include residential, must be low density, etc. See what it looks like.
At this point Dr. Mullin left. Thankfully, this time minutes from the last meeting were quickly approved, and it was pointed out by someone that the top 10 taxpayers in Westminster pay $936K in taxes, while this mall could theoretically pay $1.2MM in taxes.
At the beginning of this article I said the choices Westminster faces were brought into better focus. Here is what I personally see as the three choices, based on what I’ve learned so far:
1. Don’t change the zoning, which probably financially precludes the developer from building anything right now.
2. Create an overlay zoning district that financially allows the developer to build a large mall (or something close to that).
3. Do overlay zoning that is a compromise, but is restrictive by size (size controls what is built), and includes a residential component, is low density with landscaped open space; and has office areas, room for industrial development, and probably no “big box” stores. This approach may not financially allow the developer to build at this point.
Mixed Use Overlay Committee Meeting
Waterstone Developers attend MUOC meeting January 6, 2010 This meeting was well attended, in contrast to about two months ago when we first started covering these meetings (then the audience was nonexistent), and many attendees were present because this meeting was to be a continuation of the Mixed Use Overlay Committee’s (MUOC) meeting with representatives from Waterstone, the property owner of the land being considered for the “mixed use overlay” zoning change. This group included Neil Shalom, Waterstone’s founding principal, as well as another Waterstone employee, Greg O’Brien, plus two retained attorneys, Robert Buckley and Mark Vaughan from Reimer & Bronstein. The Waterstone group was invited back for a second meeting with MUOC so they could continue addressing questions gleaned from a DVD of last year’s somewhat boisterous Town Meeting, when the original request for a zoning change was voted down. The main reason for rehashing these questions is an assumption by many town board members that a major reason for the defeat of the zoning change was a lack of information on the part of the voters. The first meeting with the Waterstone group had stayed pretty much on topic, but this second meeting veered off track almost immediately, for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that many of the questions from the DVD were redundant, and had already been asked at the first meeting. For instance, there were numerous questions about what effect a mall would have on traffic patterns, and the answer, as could be expected, was that this wouldn’t be known until there was actually a plan for the area, and the developers would have an idea who the tenants might be…..The questions were redundant, but the answers were even more repetitive, as almost all the questions dealt with specific issues or questions about the mall, as it was presented at last year’s Town Meeting, so the answers were often that it depends upon who the tenants would be, how big the development would be, what the mix of industrial vs. commercial would be, and so on. Put another way, Waterstone seems to have abandoned the strategy of presenting a sort of idealized conceptual shopping area, in favor of a more realistic approach, which is that they don’t know yet exactly what they intend to build, but they can’t really proceed to the planning stage (which is expensive) without a zoning change. That’s why the answer so often from Waterstone was some version of “it depends”. The meeting got off to an inauspicious start when there were many questions and comments regarding approving the minutes from last meeting, normally just a formality, but at this meeting a good fifteen minute conversation. Nikki Moorshead had put a lot of effort into the minutes, and instead of including just what was decided upon, had included some of the conversations in a format that resembled a transcript but wasn’t actually a transcript, since she did it from her notes and memory. Joe Flanagan pointed out that Robert’s Rules of Order prohibit partial transcripts (or something along those lines), and a discussion on that topic went on for quite a while, despite the fact that I don’t believe we actually use Robert’s Rules of Order for Town Meetings. Eventually the minutes were accepted with Joe voting against accepting them. However, that conversation did make people aware that the minutes were in fact legal documents, an awareness perhaps heightened by the presence of the two retained Waterstone lawyers, so there was then another conversation about whether the committee or town could be liable for what was in the minutes. At this point Robert Buckley, one of the lawyers, spoke up and stated that since this was really an information gathering committee that wouldn’t be deciding anything, they (meaning Waterstone) wanted this meeting to be a discussion where people could speak openly, and that (I’m paraphrasing and not following Robert’s Rules) they weren’t planning to sue anyone over these minutes. My note: the public does not participate in these discussions, but can merely listen, so all conversations take place amongst board members and their invited guests. At this point we almost got into the remaining DVD questions, but first Mr. Buckley spoke at length about how at the last meeting he was afraid some of his answers had seemed evasive, but that had happened simply because there was no specific plan in place for a mall, or anything else specific, so it was impossible to answer questions like how local businesses would be affected, or what the traffic flows would be, or the exact tax revenue to the town, etc. He also clarified that they weren’t going to build a “mall”, which he defined as something enclosed, akin to The Mall at Whitney Field (AKA Searstown). He also pointed out that some of the land in question was already defined as ‘mixed use’, but implied that the size limitations on buildings precluded the construction of anything financially feasible in the way of retail development. My opinion at this point is that I believe Waterstone, not because I trust them on a personal level (I don’t distrust them either), but because it seems logical that no one would build a retail development on the old Tyco property without large anchor stores-- the site is too far out in the country for a small retail development to be successful. To be financially feasible, any commercial development in that area would have to be both a “destination” for shoppers, and an open air “lifestyle” type mall (enclosed malls like Searstown are too expensive to maintain for the tenants, who have to share the burden of maintaining all the inside space). Finally, we got into the questions and some follow up remarks from Waterstone, which as noted earlier were pretty much the same questions, rephrased, from the prior meeting, and almost all focused on the specific presentation of the hypothetical mall given at the Town Meeting last year. So, rather than go question by question, I am going to give my opinion of the information we have gained from Waterstone and their interaction with the committee in the last two meetings. First, as the name of the committee implies, the focus this time around is on creating a zoning “overlay district” rather than a specific, but theoretical, retail development. It took me awhile to figure out what an overlay district is, and why one would be useful, but I researched it and now have a “layman’s” idea--An overlay district is an additional, second layer of zoning that sits on top of the original, or underlying, zoning. When there is a conflict between layers, the overlay zoning takes precedence. At first glance it appears that it’s the same thing as rezoning, but it actually is a powerful tool for municipalities to control or promote certain things, because overlay zoning doesn’t have to stay within the original laid out zoning areas. For instance, if you wanted to protect certain watershed areas, you could create an overlay district where, regardless of how many different zoning areas there are near the water, or whether the underlying zoning is residential, commercial, or industrial; much stricter zoning in a defined area around various streams or rivers could be put into effect via the tool of an ‘overlay district’. The designation of a certain area as a “historical district” is essentially an overlay district, as it limits what can be done in that area regardless of the underlying zoning. In this case, being explored by MUOC, the overlay district could span areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial, and would make them all, or portions of the areas, zoned “mixed use” with larger size limitations, so as to encourage development. Second, I came away with the feeling that Waterstone is being more upfront this time around, and not trying to get a zoning change with a ‘pie in the sky’ perfect mall plan, where everyone from Westminster would benefit and get exactly what they want. At least at these meetings, Neil Shalom in particular is making a convincing case that it would pay for them (Waterstone) to actually build a shopping or mixed use complex on the land they own, and that we (Westminster) would gain tax revenue as a result. For instance, I believe him when he says that the more open concept type malls are what people are building, not the Mall at Whitney Field type malls—it’s simply too expensive for the tenants to pay the CAM (common area maintenance) at a enclosed mall like that, and no such malls have been built in Massachusetts for at least a decade. Another example of a forthright answer came in response to the question of whether Waterstone wanted the zoning change just so they could sell the land for more money. Neil Shalom first answered emphatically “no”…..they planned to develop the land themselves. However, as he thought about it, he gave a more thoughtful and obvious answer—of course they’d sell the land if someone offered them more money than they could make by building a mixed use development themselves, but that outcome seemed extremely unlikely, so their plan was to build on the site. On the question of how downtown would be affected, there was a level of hedging, but all in all the answer that “it depends on what is built and who the tenants would be” seemed to apply. The question boiled down to whether the increased traffic to the mixed use area would result in more customers or fewer customers to downtown Westminster. In my opinion, a grocery store and restaurants would almost certainly be part of any development plan, and it seems that would certainly have some effect on downtown. It’s also possible that the bulk of the effect would be felt by Leominster chain-type stores and restaurants such as Outback Steakhouse, Uno’s, Hannaford or Market Basket, but that remains to be seen. One question that recurred in various forms was whether the character of the town would be changed. The answer to that is of course “yes”, and that’s one of the big questions voters will have to decide at a future Town Meeting—if a large scale shopping or mixed use complex is built in the area under discussion, will the benefits outweigh the negatives, or vice versa? Very little in life is completely good or completely bad—a new car is great because you have reliable transportation and a snazzy new car to drive, but you’ve also got a car payment and higher taxes. There was also a brief discussion about use of local contractors, and again the answer struck me as truthful if not ideal--Waterstone would most likely use a large regional general contractor, but subcontracting would be put out to bid, and it's likely some local contractors would get work at the new development. At the next meeting Dr. John R. Mullin, an expert in zoning and development, with be at the MUOC meeting (1/20), and at dates to be announced, there will also be public Q&A sessions. Then, there will be a Town Meeting (not necessarily the next Town Meeting) where the residents of Westminster vote again on a zoning change, which I hope will finally settle the issue, as our elected and appointed officials need to accept the results of our democracy, even if they do not agree with the outcome.
Mixed Use Overlay Committee Meeting
Waterstone Developers attend MUOC meeting December 16, 2009 MUOC, for those of you not keeping track, is the “Mixed Use Overlay Committee”, charged by the Selectmen with information gathering, education, and making recommendations relative to the land near Tyco that was the subject of the zoning change requested for the “Mall” Project at our May Town Meeting. Any zoning change needs the approval of 66% of the Town Meeting voters, and the “Mall” project, proposed by the Planning Board in conjunction with Waterstone Retail Development, was defeated by about a 2 to 1 margin. The goal of MUOC is to see if the town really wants development, to see if an “overlay district” model fits in the land near Tyco, and to write the language for such an overlay district if it seems the right approach. The reason for my attendance this past Thursday was because Waterstone, the owner of the property and the potential developer, was to be at the meeting. There still was not a large crowd in attendance, but probably fifteen Westminster residents showed up in addition to the MUOC committee itself, which is many more residents than usually attend. As a disclaimer, I’ll say that I voted against the zoning change at the last meeting, although I hadn’t made my mind up until a few days prior to Town Meeting, and the reason I voted against it was primarily because I felt that the developer and the Planning Board were attempting to rush something through, and that the plans submitted by the developer were so theoretical as to be meaningless—if we wanted it, it was in “the concept”, and I wasn’t buying that. The kicker for me was when a glossy flyer showed up claiming that the developer was helping build ball fields for Little League, and made it almost sound like our entire future depending on approving the zoning change. I also am not a fan of the Planning Board bringing the subject back for another vote, since I feel the people spoke and the result should be accepted. On the other hand, I’m completely for properly controlled business development to increase our tax base, and obviously this is coming back to Town Meeting, so there’s no sense worrying about that aspect of the situation, although this time around, if the results again aren’t what the Planning Board wanted, I hope they graciously accept the results of the voting. Despite meeting for 2+ hours on December 16th, we didn’t get through even half of the questions for Waterstone or their attorneys (from Riemer & Braunstein LLP, a law firm with specialists in zoning matters) , so there will be a second follow up meeting in early January, when Waterstone and the attorneys will be back. There also was no opportunity for the audience to ask any questions, although there may be at the next meeting. Westminster Vine will cover the complete Q&A in more depth after the second meeting. For now, here’s my high level, 20,000 ft. opinion of where we stand, after the first public meeting with Waterstone Retail Development: First, Westminster resident and Advisory Board member Walter C. ‘Bud’ Taylor ran a good meeting, and the MUOC is comprised of a good mix of citizens. Not everyone was either pro- or anti- development, although some individuals certainly were, but most on the committee seemed open minded. Waterstone also was much more accessible and forthcoming this time around—Neil Shalom, one of two owners of Waterstone and one of three owners of EIP (Equity Industrial Partners) was in attendance, and as far as I could tell he answered the questions truthfully and without excessive spin. Many times the attorneys or Neil simply answered, “it depends on who will be the tenants” to specific questions, which some in the audience saw as dodging the question, but to me seemed much more honest than the pie in the sky presentations that Waterstone put out the first time around—you obviously can’t project costs or revenue or traffic or hiring patterns without knowing who the tenants will be, and there isn’t even a formal internal plan by Waterstone at this point, to the best of my knowledge. They didn’t dodge the question of putting in a major grocery store, for instance, and their answer that maybe it would be a Whole Foods type store also seemed more plausible—there are already plenty of grocery stores, and Westminster is too small to support a major chain like Market Basket, so perhaps they do need more of a destination type food store. My overall impression was that of course Waterstone has its own interests at heart, but that they weren’t just telling us what we wanted to hear. The whole idea of building a mall also made a little more sense to me after listening to them, as before I’d certainly wondered why anyone in their right mind would even consider building a mall right now in any location, leave alone near Westminster. The economy is obviously not good, plus online shopping is growing rapidly at the expense of the traditional mall. In this context, the idea of an open air “lifestyle” type mall made more sense—this is definitely where brick and mortar stores are heading—this type of mall consists of things like a few anchor stores, plus “pods” of other stores scattered about, with nice landscaping, restaurants, decentralized parking, and maybe even offices scattered around. We recently drove to South Carolina to see my middle son graduate at Parris Island and become a Marine, and along the way we saw a lot of these types of malls—they are almost like entertainment centers. They aren’t my personal cup of tea—I compared eating at the Hard Rock Café to eating inside a video game, but there is no arguing that they are popular. The particular mall we visited near Myrtle Beach was packed and it was actually a destination in town. I’m not sure how such an open air mall would fare today in Westminster, with the wind chill sub zero, but the concept definitely made sense. On the other hand, I had two big questions that I would like to ask: 1. “Overlay zoning” sounds a whole lot to me like “no zoning”. From what I could tell, the control of projects in an overlay district shifts from Town Meeting to the various committees in town that are charged with monitoring business development by the bylaws associated with the Town and overlay district. Since the committees that would oversee the development seem to be the same ones that are pushing for the zoning change, and tend to be markedly more pro- development than the Town as a whole, it seems like this would dramatically shift the power to control development away from Town Meeting and onto Town government. I wanted to ask if this was an accurate assessment of the situation. 2. I used to work for a private equity funded company that had $400+ an hour attorneys from Boston and Manhattan. I can’t see our town being able to “out-legal” those types of lawyers, and the law firm that accompanied Waterstone seemed similarly high powered. I’m leery of hopping into bed with a development firm that has that type of legal firepower, as our Town’s record of legal success is spotty. However, that also happens to be the way any large developer would operate—you get the best legal representation you can. My question on this subject is whether the importance of good legal expertise becomes much more important if we shift the mechanism for controlling zoning away from the voters to Town government and Town committees. I’ve never heard of people being sued for voting a certain way, but I have heard of Town committees, like the Conservation Commission being sued, and that can be expensive. So, at a high level I came away with mixed feelings from the Mixed Use Overlay Committee meeting. It was decidedly a better approach than we experienced prior to the May 2009 Town Meeting, I found the developers themselves more open and believable, and was impressed with the committee. However, I’m not sure that relinquishing control of zoning for that whole area to particular Town committees is the best approach either, but perhaps I’m misinterpreting the consequences of going to an overlay district. The other big question is simply whether the voters of this Town want a major mall development, because no matter what, the overlay district will have to come back to Town Meeting, and a 2/3rd vote is a steep hill to climb. One thing I did come around to thinking is that setting up this committee was a good idea, and that more people should attend to know what is going on.
This past May, on a beautiful Saturday afternoon, a Town Meeting was held to change the zoning at the old Simplex site to allow rezoning and large scale commercial (retail) development. The change in zoning was at the request of the Planning Board, which was working with a private equity funded mall developer, which allegedly was planning to build a mall on the site. Depending upon one’s viewpoint, this prospect offered either greatly increased tax revenue from a new source, a change to the ‘character’ of the town that wasn’t worth the price, or simply a ‘pie in the sky’ vision of a developer’s plan. Consequently, the meeting degenerated into a series of procedural chess moves, and then became very emotional, with the motion to change the zoning roundly defeated by approximately 2:1. A zoning change requires 2/3rd approval to pass. This was the most well attended Town Meeting we can remember, and certainly the most emotional, as people were shouted down, tempers were flaring, and minds were not being changed, if for no other reason than that it was hard to hear what anyone said. Just a comment, but from a purely practical point of view, it seems the sound system at Town Meeting is terrible—when a meeting is that crowded, the entire back half of the auditorium cannot hear a thing said up front due to echoing. Whatever it is, perhaps just the acoustics of the gym, you just can’t hear. The Planning Board, which along with most town boards supported the zoning change (AKA Mixed Use Overlay District) had the right to bring the measure back to Town Meeting for reconsideration, and elected to do so. In order to bring the issue up in a more logical and less emotional manner, the Selectmen appointed a committee to study the matter, known as MUOC (Mixed Use Overlay Committee). These meetings are all open to the public, and the public is strongly encouraged to attend and provide input, but the town is now having the opposite problem that occurred at the Town Meeting—it’s not getting emotional because the public is not showing up at the meetings (except for the committee members). At the end of the day, the committee will of course have to present their finding and recommendations, and a (hopefully) final decision made again at a future Town Meeting, but why is no one paying attention? One of the primary reasons for MUOC is to educate the people and make a recommendation on the effects, positive and negative, of commercial development in the Simplex area. Fair enough, but to really learn the details of this complex question, you can’t just show up at Town Meeting and hear what town officials or the committee have to say. It’s a complicated situation, and my guess is that since no one is attending the meetings, it’s also likely few will read the summary reports. This is an issue with some urgency. As we’ve all heard, our State is in a financial mess, and is passing the buck (or lack of bucks, in this case) as fast as it can back to local governments…cutting the Quinn Bill funding for the police, cutting funding for transportation to regional school districts, or just cutting local aid, it all amounts to the same thing—the state is pushing their financial problems onto local governments by abandoning their financial responsibilities. They are doing this because they simply don’t have the money to live up to their obligations. So, although there’s no doubt that Westminster could use more tax revenue, and at least from my perspective, it’s better to not raise property taxes if it can be avoided, there remain a number of questions, which is another reason MUOC was set up. For instance, how can we insure that commercial development like a mall won’t prevent future development like an office park, by bottlenecking the area or taking up the best real estate? Another question would be why is it more likely that we’ll get commercial rather than industrial development, with mall developers going bankrupt and plenty of free space at existing malls? What will the impact be on our town center? Are the tax revenue figures the developers mentioned realistic? Can we actually control the type of development once a zoning change happens (if we cannot, then the mall developer’s presentation is irrelevant)? If we just zone for ‘big box’, who in town controls what is built, if anyone? These are the types of questions that we should get answers to from MUOC, and I think many other townspeople have the same questions and more. To try and determine why interest in MUOC seems low for such an important issue, and what are the issues that people are most concerned about, we’ve prepared the online 2 question poll below. Please submit any questions you have to us and we will create a document with all questions submitted and present it to the MUOC.
| |