Planners urge board, town to be proactive

Concerned with the town’s recent inability to broker agreements with real estate developers, Canton planners George Jenkins and Jeremy Comeau have proposed a set of upcoming workshops aimed at resolving key differences and establishing a workable vision for the town’s future.

At the Planning Board meeting last Wednesday, both Jenkins and Comeau tossed around a number of suggestions, and at least two of them gained traction immediately: a review and possible revision of the town’s subdivision rules and regulations as well as a community forum to discuss potential zoning changes for the vacant Plymouth Rubber property on Revere Street.

The ultimate goal, the two stressed, would be to address and fix what’s not working, and to decide, as a community, who they are and who they aspire to be.

As Jenkins put it, “I think we should determine, philosophically, what is the vision? Are we urban, suburban, or what? Do we want to look like the city of Boston, or a Dover or a Weston?”

And with the latest Plymouth Rubber proposal (a mix of retail and up to 397 housing units) having failed miserably at town meeting and Pat Considine’s proposed “flex” subdivision off Village Gate Road likely headed to court on appeal, the two members emphasized the importance of being proactive, rather than reactive.

“Every time somebody files a zoning bylaw, we’re always trying to, at the very last minute, come up with some sort of changes to it that will be more positive for the town,” Comeau pointed out. “Well, I think we should be the ones that are making the positive changes for the town, right off the get-go.”

As for the Plymouth Rubber forum, Comeau is not only serious about holding one, he is currently in the process of scheduling it, having already targeted a date sometime in early August. He wants it to be a true “group effort,” with input from the various town boards, the owners and their local attorney, Paul Schneiders, and numerous residents and abutters. He said the end goal would be to produce a zoning article and submit it in time for the 2012 annual town meeting.

“And let’s not focus on what we don’t want,” Comeau advised. “We now know what the town doesn’t want, so this forum is to focus on what we do want.”

Jenkins, meanwhile, is already raring to go.

“Why don’t we sit down, let’s slap that zoning on it and tell the developer, ‘Here’s what you can do,’” he said in a follow-up interview. “Let’s find some use for it — maybe biotech, maybe a small medical center, something. It doesn’t necessarily have to be housing. Let’s get the townspeople together and say, ‘What do you want to do?’”

Regarding the review of subdivision rules, while that would involve the Planning Board only, both members see it as an important and long-overdue step that will benefit the town as well as any future applicants. Fellow members Kristin Mirliani and Gary Vinciguerra agreed, and they all plan to come up with a list of concerns by the board’s next meeting on August 3.

According to Comeau, a lot of the existing rules are either inconsistent with other practices or simply impractical. “We find ourselves waiving them nine times out of ten,” he said.

Jenkins said he plans to target several rules, including the one requiring all new streets to have granite curbing. “It serves no function except to drive up the cost of the land,” he said, adding that a popular alternative, Cape Cod berm, is substantially cheaper and easier to plow.

In an ideal world, Jenkins said he would like to see Canton’s subdivisions look as “countrified as possible,” which is why he supported Considine’s 28-unit Turtle Creek development.

Whereas Mirliani and Vinciguerra voted to deny the project, citing concerns over access through Village Gate Road and the use of a 30-foot wetland buffer as usable open space, Jenkins considered it “absolutely ideal,” as it clustered the homes in a smaller area and offered 30-plus acres of conservation land to the town.

Jenkins agreed with Conservation Commissioner Bob Murphy, who spoke at last week’s meeting in support of Considine. Murphy said similar projects have been built in the town of Concord since the 1960s, and as a result, the town has been able to maintain its “outer [rural] look while still encouraging development.”

Meanwhile, in related news last week, the Planning Board voted to deny Considine’s request to open a hearing to determine if he was entitled to re-file his application for a flexible subdivision permit without having to endure a two-year stay.

In a letter prepared by his attorney, Denise Moynihan, Considine argued that he was entitled to a hearing because the initial unfavorable decision was “based upon opinions that are contrary to subdivision control law, the opinion of town counsel, and the opinion of [the board’s] consulting engineer.”

However, Mirliani indicated that they had been advised by town counsel to deny the request in light of Considine’s pending lawsuit against the town.

The developer acknowledged the legal appeal in his letter, but also stated his belief that “engaging in protracted litigation is not in the public interest, especially where alternative remedies are available.”

A second letter, written by the Conservation Commission, was also read into the record. The letter reiterated the commission’s support for Considine’s flexible development plan and encouraged the board to reconsider its decision, using waivers if needed.

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=6632

Posted by Jay Turner on Jul 14 2011. Filed under News, Town Government. Both comments and pings are currently closed.