Developer fires back at BOS criticisms

Selectmen reportedly looking to acquire historic property ~

Three weeks after being blindsided by a last-minute letter from the Board of Selectmen opposing their plans for an assisted living facility on Revere Street, the owners of the Plymouth Rubber property are back on the offensive, armed this time with a letter of their own that they claim blows huge holes in the selectmen’s case against them.

The 11-page response, prepared by the developer’s attorneys and chock full of supporting materials, takes direct aim at the selectmen’s October 17 correspondence to the zoning board and comes amid revelations that the BOS has been working behind the scenes to acquire the 40-acre factory site across the street — either by way of a purchase or through a donation arrangement similar to the one that netted the town the Reservoir Pond and dam.

According to Rick Brandstatter of Canton Holdings LLC, the selectmen have, on more than one occasion, expressed an interest in acquiring the property, yet he is at a loss to explain why they would simultaneously block the proposed assisted living facility, which would be located on a separate 2.4-acre parcel adjacent to the Canton fire station.

“I don’t know their motivation,” said Brandstatter, adding that he has been unable to get a clear read on selectmen in his seven-plus years of doing business in Canton.

Brandstatter said it is possible that the selectmen might have an interest in acquiring both parcels, or perhaps the selectmen do not want to see the smaller site developed out of fear that it would establish a comparable value for the larger site — one that would be higher than the town is willing to pay.

“To me, the majority of the world comes down to money, so there seems to be some economic issue at play here,” he said.

Either way, Brandstatter said the selectmen have now “inserted themselves” into the process, and the way they have done so — by publicly calling on the zoning board to oppose a special permit application — is questionable at best, he said.

“To write a letter as they did and not appear in person, yet be the appointing authority of this body (the ZBA), at a minimum, doesn’t smell right,” he said.

Brandstatter said the fact of the matter is that his team believes it has a rock-solid proposal — one that was extensively studied, thoroughly vetted, and comes with the backing of the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission, and the town’s consulting engineer, among others.

He dismissed the selectmen’s concerns with the project as unfounded, and the letter prepared by his team takes it a step further, offering up a point-by-point rebuttal while claiming that the board relied on criteria that was “wholly inappropriate” and potentially unlawful.

Of particular concern to the developer was the selectmen’s reference in their original letter to a competing facility proposed on the former AA Will Sand & Gravel pit on Route 138. Selectmen had suggested that the 86-unit Revere Street project might jeopardize the status of the 225-unit facility on Route 138 and the associated mitigation the developer has agreed to give to the town.

But according to Canton Holdings, the zoning board does not have the legal authority to consider the impact on a potential competitor when making a decision on a special permit application. Doing so, they argue, would “likely constitute an unlawful restraint of trade among other possible violations of the law.”

Reached for comment on Monday, Selectmen Chairman Sal Salvatori said the board was in no way trying to thwart one project in the interests of protecting another, nor are they motivated by the $600,000 mitigation payment the Route 138 developer has agreed to pay in lieu of affordable housing.

Rather, he said the board was merely trying to amplify some of the concerns they had heard from neighbors on Revere Street — including possible traffic impacts and questions about density and parking — while also pushing for many of the same safeguards that had been built into the agreement with the competing developer, Brightview Senior Living.

Salvatori said the Route 138 proposal, which recently underwent an exhaustive review process as part of a successful rezoning effort at town meeting, established what the board had hoped would be a roadmap for developers of similar facilities in the future.

“I understand that there is a difference in seeking a zoning change and seeking a special permit,” he said, “but that singular nuance aside, we desire to always see that all parties are treated essentially equally when doing business in this town.”

Salvatori acknowledged in hindsight that the letter his board sent to the ZBA could have been longer and clearer, and he agreed that the timing was “probably poor.” However, he said they do not regret expressing their concerns, nor do they believe that the applicant is entitled to a special permit or any of the eight waivers they are currently requesting.

“If we’re going to have this use in town, we want to have certain safeguards in place,” he said, adding that there “should be some kind of substantiation” that a public need exists to accommodate multiple assisted living facilities in the town.

As for the selectmen’s alleged interest in the properties held by Canton Holdings, Salvatori declined to get into specifics, other than to note that the board continues to “explore all options and ask all questions.”

“Of course we’re going to continue and examine any and all options to come to a reasonable conclusion to the existing saga of the Plymouth Rubber property,” he said. “The folks at home generally are expressing to us that something has to be done.”

In the meantime, Brandstatter said that Canton Holdings will continue to explore potential industrial/office uses for the factory site after multiple failed attempts to build a housing development on the property.

He said they just recently started to “aggressively market” the property, and already they have met with two interested parties — one that would like to buy a portion of the site and another that would like to become a tenant.

Brandstatter said they are “not necessarily looking to sell” the property, although, like the selectmen, they are keeping their options open.

He did say, however, that the developers will not be donating the site to the town. He said that Salvatori has asked but that it no longer makes financial sense due to recent changes in the tax laws.

Their biggest priority at the moment, according to Brandstatter, is getting a favorable ruling from the zoning board on the assisted living proposal, which is scheduled to be discussed at the board’s next meeting on Thursday, November 14.

As for the selectmen’s criticisms of the project, Brandstatter said it is obvious to him that they “didn’t look at any of the details that went with the filings.”

“[This type of facility] doesn’t generate traffic,” he said. “That specific site has no environmental issues. We’re asking for less parking because it is pretty obvious that an Alzheimer’s-related senior center isn’t going to have a lot of parking on it. Basically, it’s a choice between more parking or more greenspace, and Canton can pick which one it wants.”

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=22948