Sharon Economic Development Committee 2 July 2008
In Attendance
|
Alan Lurie |
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Susan Price |
robert.price4@comcast.net |
|||
|
Paul Lauenstein |
Planning Board |
||||
|
|
|
Suzie Peck |
George Bailey |
MAPC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review of meeting notes from previous meeting. Meeting notes reviewed and accepted.
Presentation on 40R Smart Growth Zoning by Jennifer Raitt, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC).
Revenue Targets
New Business Creation: $250 - $500k on 15 parcels, 38 acres of undeveloped lands; $2.5M - $3.5M for 20 acres on S. Main.
New Revenue Sources: $200 - $500k in new revenue or offset costs.
Business Development: $500k to $1.5M in new taxes over next 10 years as businesses upgrade their facilities in PO Square.
7:40 Update on Last Week’s Public Meeting
The group found the meeting very informative. Perhaps we can set up a potential connect with Colleen for FYI presentation on TV.
7:40 Presentation by MAPC
Jennifer Raitt. MAPC is not a state agency.
Objective of presentation to outline the requirements to do a 40R district, as well as give some insight into other community’s experiences.
23 communities currently have adopted 40R districts. Roughly 8,617 units, and a pipeline of units in 3 communities, and another 7 communities who have received planning grants to draft 40R bylaws. Total of another 17 considering 40R.
40R covers: Smart growth locations; Incentives; Minimum densities; Mixed-income housing; As-of-right permitting. Interesting point – minimum density – since the objective is to concentrate housing in a focused area, which is different from typical zoning which states “maximum density.”
Smart Growth – mixed use; affordable housing; compact design; distinctive community; preserves open space; provide transportation choices;.
Location – near transit station; town center; suitable for infrastructure, and need pedestrian access; and served by existing infrastructure.
Incentives: one time zoning incentive – varying levels - need clarification; $3k for each approved unit of an approved development. Discretionary funds favor 40R cities/towns. Then, 40S – which gives delta between tax and school cost per student in new district. 40S is an annual payment.
Minimum densities. 8 units per acre for single family up to 20 units per acre for multifamily.
Affordable Housing spec – at 80% of median; 20% of units must be affordable. Termed for 30 years.
Design standards – design review and typical requirements are needed – sidewalk, landscaping, façade, etc. Intended to set acceptable parameters for project design. Offers predictability to the public and the developer. Primary vehicle for public participation in zoning design and approval process.
Can use this zoning to overrule existing zoning, if it makes a better district – for things like parking or setback – even though it is an overlay district, you can change the underlying zoning with it. The zoning must be by-right in the 40R district; although you can set up the district so some parts are by-right, and others rely on underlying zoning process.
Application review process – this is available for community to put in place for reviewing a development proposal.
To become a 40R district, you have to submit an application. There are funds in DHCD actually to help with this (not much left though).
Process: 1). Housing Production Plan, 2). Preliminary application to DHCD for a Letter of Eligibility, and 3). Write and approve the 40R bylaw.
Concerns that have been voiced include the location – may sometimes be a concern – requires a 2/3rd vote. Density and scale are concerns – and the sense is that the design standards help to address this.
Municipal motivations – provide diverse housing options; local conrol; upgrade underutilized areas; upzone; create new or enhance commercial areas; collaborative planning approach.
9:10 Next Meeting: Last week of July, 7.30 pm, Sharon Town Hall
9:10 Adjourn
HIGHLIGHTS OF JUNE 26, 2008 COMMUNITY MEETING
The Sharon EDC organized a community meeting/workshop that was held at the Sharon Community Center on Thursday evening, June 26, 2008. Approximately twenty people attended. The session was filmed by Sharon Cable Access TV, and is available for viewing at http://www.sharontv.com/gov_replays.html , and click at EDC. The meeting was facilitated by Kathy McCabe, AICP of McCabe Enterprises.
Each firm, Land Strategies and Wright-Pierce, made a brief presentation on their respective scopes of work in Post Office Square.
Activities that occurred during the meeting included:
· Review of project area.
· Brief historical overview of the evolution of Post Office Square
· A virtual tour of Post Office Square
· A group exercise focusing on four major issues
1. What do you like and value about Post Office Square?
2. What needs to be in Post Office Square so that you want to come more frequently to Post Office Square?
3. What are your concerns or worries about prospective revitalization or development in the Post Office Square area?
4. What excites you about the potential revitalization or development in Post Office Square?
In general, persons present like the Town Center, like the small town feel of the center, like the walkability of the Center, liked the presence of the Post Office and Library. In terms of needs and desired activities, a wide range of suggestions were made including a variety of retail shops, restaurants, and mixed-use development. As to concerns or worries, the leading concerns were wastewater, traffic, and “will it ever really happen?” What excites people is continuing and strengthening the small home town feel of Post Office Square, the prospect of restaurants; the potential for mixed-use, general improvements. It should be pointed out that people generally liked the improvements that have been done to Post Office Square to date, and acknowledge that Post Office Square is good, but could be better.
· A Visioning Exercise was undertaken by three different groups. One group focused on the vision underground for Post Office Square, identifying some potential wastewater options (e.g., the center area of the primary block surrounded by S. Main, E. Chestnut, Pond Street, and Billings Streets. The other two groups focused on the above-ground vision with concerns about the building street edge, new ideas for traffic circulation, new uses, relocation of the library, mixed use, a new path connecting S. Main and Pond Streets, “restaurant row” were among the ideas featured in the other two visions.
Prepared by K. McCabe, McCabe Enterprises, July 2, 2008