34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

ARA takes steps to encourage businesses to move into park




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 The ARA has requested that a law requiring a special permit for earth removal above an elevation of 180 feet be repealed because it can only be applied to two city-owned sites and was originally written to protect Oak Hill from razing by a private developer.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.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » No comments posted. « Hide Comments

ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 4:33 PM:

" A positive one? What? "

attlebrockton wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:43 PM:

" Yes ,can You name one positive one ? "

ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 3:23 PM:

" Are you saying all redevelopment activities, not just the IBP, should cease and our city should just keep the status quo? "

been there wrote on Nov 6, 2008 2:26 PM:

" From the ARA Charter.
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:

" It makes a lot of difference, actually. "Nobody is interested" is not entirely accurate nor does it mean it is permanant. Interest may come if the expedited/special permitting is achieved, concrete dates are available for when prospects can expect to break ground/start their work, etc.

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:

" Thanks for the info RicknKim but to be blunt ,what differnce does it make.Nobody is interested!!!!! And even if they were the city still being chased fo 175k to finish roadway D design work. They are 4 mil in hole!!!! "

ricknkim wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Exempting the site from the "special permit for earth removal" makes sense. If you do your research, this permitting was enacted to stop a developer over at Oak Hill from excavating and harvesting earth (it was necessary and did the job). It is not necessary any longer because the city now owns that piece of land and there is a water tower on it. Removing this permitting will allow for quicker overall permitting by prospective inhabitants of the IBP.

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:

" Mr. Keene wants to exempt the ARA from laws made to protect our public water supply....that's outrageous in itself!!! This brings to question Mr. Keene's responsibilities and priorities!! "

doug wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Mr. Keene.....Using "up-to-date" topo maps won't change the FACT that water still runs down hill. This one fact seems to fall on deaf ears! Milanoski said to me "Rt 95 will stop water from flowing towards Orr's Pond", our water supply. That statement told me that he has no understanding of ground perculation. I offered to show him the culverts that carry the drain off directly to Orr's Pond.
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:

" All these years into this project and we find that a small matter of our laws to protect the environment and our drinking water, are in the way. Oh well...we can just ask the city council to change these laws. This is a disgrace. Didn'T the great minds behind this project know about these laws, or do they see themselves as so important that the protection of the entire city doesn't matter? You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that this was always a poor location - on top of a mountain of ledge - a threat to our drinking water, cost prohibitive and on and on. Any city councilor that would even consider changing these laws is not worth re-electing. Also cute how these new laws would prohibit public hearings throughout this "process". This is a very dangerous precedent. These people are self-important and dangerous. "

kevin h. wrote on Nov 6, 2008 7:31 AM:

" Then why should anyone obey rules and laws?
This is any means to an ends.
What a sad state of affairs. "

ucbruin wrote on Nov 6, 2008 6:50 AM:

" This article makes it seem that people in charge of this project are now in "panic mode". Bad way of conducting business, any type of business. "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
 or