ARA takes steps to encourage businesses to move into park
BY GEORGE W. RHODES SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
Thursday, November 6, 2008 2:37 AM EST
ATTLEBORO - While it's not known if officials can find a way to save the city's debt-ridden industrial business park, the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority is moving ahead with efforts to establish a 21-day permitting process to help encourage businesses to move into the 189-acre facility now under construction off County Street.
ARA Chairman Benton Keene III has formally asked city councilors to repeal one law, update another and exempt the ARA from a third, the combination of which would eliminate the need for lengthy public hearing and appeal processes.
The aim is speed up the process for businesses on tight budgets and timelines that are eager to move in.
Quick approvals are crucial to selling lots, Keene said.
Keene submitted the requests as a special committee appointed by the mayor scrutinizes finances for the cash-strapped park project which is about $4 million in debt and could go bust.
The ARA has requested that a law requiring a special permit for earth removal above an elevation of 180 feet be repealed because it can only be applied to two city-owned sites and was originally written to protect Oak Hill from razing by a private developer. The city now has a water tower on the hill and owns the site.
City-owned land near Manchester Reservoir and within the industrial business park on Ides Hill is the only other area where the law could be applied, Keene said.
Meanwhile, Keene said much of the industrial business park would be exempted from public hearing requirements for Water Resource Protection Districts if up-to-date topographical maps are used. Maps used in the 1980s to put much of the western part of the park under the rules, but weren't highly detailed and incorrectly put the area into the district, he said.
Modern maps will take it out of the district and forgo a requirement for the ARA to get a special permit from the planning board before work is done.
Keene also requested that the city project be exempted from hearings required by new stormwater management rules as long as the park's design is determined to meet or exceed those rules. The work has been designed to the latest specifications, he said.
The requests were referred to the council's zoning and land use committee for discussion.
View Comments » No comments posted.
« Hide Comments
ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 4:33 PM:
attlebrockton wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:43 PM:
ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:23 PM:
been there wrote on Nov 6, 2008 2:26 PM:
We should request that the board dissolve.
Whenever a redevelopment authority determines that there is no further need for its existence, and that all outstanding obligations of the authority have been satisfied, it may by a majority vote of the five members submit the question of its dissolution, in a town, to the voters at an annual town meeting or, in a city, to the municipal officers. If a city or town votes for such dissolution in accordance herewith and the department is satisfied of the existence of the facts required herein, it shall so certify to the state secretary and said redevelopment authority shall be dissolved forthwith subject to the applicable provisions of section fifty-one of chapter one hundred and fifty-five. "
ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:29 AM:
I think the IBP was a very bad idea and should never have been green-lighted past the drawing board. However, it got approval and here we are with it sitting half done . . . I'm not one for accepting defeat until all avenues, ideas, etc. have been exhausted. "
attlebrockton wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:56 AM:
ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:39 AM:
The request for exemption from stormwater hearings also makes sense because they (ARA/IBP) are still required to meet or beat the laws, just removing the lengthy hearings process that bogs down a project for a prospective tennant.
The longer it takes for a business to break ground makes it less likely for them to move into our IBP. Expediting the process makes it attractive. The reason the IBP lost other prospects is because it is taking so bloody long to get this IBP operational.
Without the ARA being able to tell prospects an actual date they can begin the process, nobody will bite. Nobody bites, we'll never realize any benefit from the IBP and likely stuck with a bill! "
doug wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:54 AM:
doug wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:51 AM:
How will new topographical maps change this? Unbelievable!!! Our "professionals" really need to get the facts right...if we are to solve this issue once and for all! "
hope2008 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:57 AM:
kevin h. wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:31 AM:
This is any means to an ends.
What a sad state of affairs. "
ucbruin wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:50 AM: