|
Sunday,
March 4th 2007, Jerry
Blitefield, Warren
Mr. Belair,
I have tried to remain optimistic about the Mill's development
and convinced of Meredith Management's good faith. Your initial
public foray into the town -- the tour of the Mill and the
charette at the 2nd Story Theater -- signaled, initially, a
watershed moment in large scale development: townsfolk and
developer came together to pool resources and envision what
might be. Seated around the 2nd Story bistro, citizen teams of
four and five were given site maps and crayons and asked (here I
paraphrase), "Imagine: What would you do with the Mill site?"
And for the next forty-five minutes or so the groups
brainstormed and discussed and sketched. We then went upstairs
to the theatre where, one by one, each group presented its
findings to the rest.
Remarkably, many groups, working
independently, arrived at similar conclusions, one of which concerned opening up
sight lines from Water Street down to the river. Mr. Rosenthal, watching from a
near back-row theater seat, appeared taken by the corridor views idea
specifically, and by the energy and ingenuity of the workgroups in generally,
and, lo and behold, the next iteration of those site plans incorporated that
consensus view about the Water Street sight lines. In other words, Mr. Rosenthal
and Meredith acknowledged not only the wisdom of the recommendation but the
value of community input. Upon seeing that revised site plan I was greatly
encouraged by the design change and thought, at the time, that Meredith
genuinely meant it when it spoke about developing the Mill collaboratively with
the town.
Now, almost a year since that charette, deflated by all that hasn't happened as
well as all that has, I no longer believe that Meredith is sincere about working
with the town, and I have increasing doubts that it ever was. The robust success
of the charette have been followed by months and months of public neglect: The
promised invitation to the table never came, and the collective wisdom,
expertise, creativity, and interest of Warren's citizens have been entirely
shut-out of the planning process.
Instead, now, we get to see the Mill's sketches at Planning Board meetings, get
to hear what you have planned for the site, and can even get up and mumble a few
words for the record. But when the evening is over, you and your team pack up,
head home, and resume turning a deaf ear to the real concerns of Warren
citizens.
From my perspective, the perspective of an early supporter and potential ally,
you, Mr. Rosenthal, and the entire legion of Meredith suits have rebuffed the
resources that Warren's citizens all-too-happily wanted to contribute. Instead,
you have designed the site within a self-congratulatory vacuum, conceiving a
narcissistic site about which very bright, very talented, very sincere citizens
have very great concerns. Despite the verbal pr - which includes your posting to
this website and your email address -- , Meredith Management has made clear in
action its true indifference to hearing what Warren has to say. Despite the
initial wooing - more pr? --, Meredith apparently is not interested working
collaboratively with Warren to make the Mill site the best that it can be.
Am I mistaken? Have I misrepresented Meredith's position? Then prove me wrong.
Make good on your initial claims that we're in this together. Put your current
plans on hold; re-engage the community; conduct some open discussions with
people who can bring increased vision and verve to the design. It's not too late
to turn this around, to recoup the lost good will. But only in deed. Save the
spin.
Jerry Blitefield
Saturday,
March 3rd 2007, Peter Gresch, Warren
It is a challenge to have a development of
this sensitive placement and this magnitude charted out and negotiated in a
small town like ours. The forces this process brings to bear seem often no less
than overwhelming, and at times it is difficult to gauge the balance between the
stated benefits this redevelopment of the Mill would bring and the potential
detrimental impacts on our community.
Let us be clear about this; there will be both. But where is the balance? And
how is a resident, who, after all, must consider the affects this redevelopment
proposal will have on the town’s economic and social fabric, to understand the
course by which its town government and the commercial developer are going about
reaching an equitable balance?
Most members of our Town Council, so it appears, elected to let this project
readily flow through the customary channels of its administration and boards
although the scope of it might have suggested from early on a council’s
proactive oversight and mediation. Were there initial opportunities where
foresightful guidance by this body could have helped to dispel the
misunderstandings and missed coordination which would commonly arise with a
venture of this grade? And if the resulting ambiguity of this assessment process
now has given rise with many residents to a growing distrust in the process
itself, how, going forward, can further confusion and estrangement be avoided?
It would be of importance to lay out plainly how the process has reached its
current state. It would be, though, more important to develop and publicize a
comprehensive time line detailing what the town expects its agents and boards
and the Meredith Management Corporation to bring to the fore during the coming
months. This is not a request for our council to overstep its bounds and meddle
with its boards and ordinances, but the request for the circumspect guiding of a
difficult process when it hits turbulent and sometimes less charted waters.
In the end, the process, and therewith the resulting redevelopment of the
American Tourister Mill, would benefit from a discerning leadership and
mediation our Town Council could bring to its evolution. The Mill will
play a most prominent part in how our town, in turn, evolves over the next 20
years, and it is only sensible that we take all expedient measures and all time
necessary to get this right.
Peter Gresch
(as a matter of full disclosure,
Peter Gresch is co-moderator of this website)
Thursday,
March 2nd 2007, Jerry Belair, Warren
Congrats to all for bringing back the
yourwarren site. This is a great opportunity for
concerned Warren residents to engage in true discussion
about the Tourister Mill Development. By way of full
disclosure, I am the project manager for the Tourister
Mill and have worked for Meredith Management for 22
years. My background as a marine biologist and an
environmental activist as well as a lawyer makes this
particular development an exciting opportunity to try
and implement solid green and SmartGrowth philosophies
which I have always supported. My longevity with
Meredith is due precisely to Meredith's and
specifically, John Rosenthal's, social and environmental
commitments in conjunction with development strategy.
It would be quite difficult to
adequately describe all of the factors that have weighed
our decisions in the submission of the Tourister
Mill project. It would be far too much to write and far
too long for most people who have time constraints. I
will try to address a few issues which have been noted
by Dave Wescott and Beth Siqueland-Gresch in as
succinct a manner as possible and invite any questions
on those posts as well as any other issue regarding this
development at
jbelair@meredithmanagement.com. I will try my best
to answer any concerns or to make every effort to find
the answer.
First, let me say that the requirement
for density is only driven partly by the value of the
property. While several people are assuming that the
purchase price is driving density, that is not the major
reason. The price for the property will be more than
fair for waterfront property it is other factors which
impact density on a far greater scale. First, Meredith
will be building a 1500 feet boardwalk from the utility
site next door along the entire waterfront and up Sisson
Street. This will be a publicly dedicated easement to
the citizens of Warren for their perpetual use. This is
an very expensive undertaking and must be absorbed into
the development costs. The site has been in industrial
use sine 1847. There is a significant environmental
contamination of which we know and the possibility of
contamination of which we are not aware. To remediate
this site will be very expensive and those costs must be
absorbed into the development costs.
The construction of the units themselves
will be a real challenge. New construction is
considerably less expensive than the costs of
rehabilitating an old existing mill structure. In fact,
it may cost as much as 75% more than new "stick built".
We are proposing a 23 foot high additions to the mill
comprised of 2 stories which will be about the same
height as the Samsonite sign presently located on the
roof and which is about 22 feet in height. This
addition allows the development to be financially viable
by using height rather than surface area to create units
while creating an addition whose mass and aesthetics, we
feel are not in any way objectionable. The total height
will therefore be 83 feet. It is interesting to note
that the Warren Manufacturing Mill, which burned down in
1895 was five stories at a height at or exceeding 100
feet.
Keeping in mind that the height
restrictions in the entire Town of Warren is 35 feet and
that those restrictions were imposed many years ago,
there has been considerable regulations enacted
prohibiting residential occupancy on lower levels. A
three family house with a 15 foot prohibition and a 35
foot height limitation would only provide one floor of
occupancy after leaving room for the roof.
I also agree that in business, when
there are questions which do not meet one's level of
expertise, you should hire consultants. Which is
exactly what we do. We hire traffic engineers,
environmental engineers, site engineers, architects,
marketing specialists and a host of others to evaluate
the conditions, impacts and markets. These are licensed
professionals whose licenses and reputations rely on the
data and facts which they provide. Nearly a year ago,
Town management also asked if Meredith would agree to
have technical data reviewed by Town consultants and if
we would pay the costs of those "peer" reviews and an
additional 10% premium to the Town for invoicing and
processing. We agreed as the Town's engineering
consultants, PARE engineering and its sewer consultants
Woodard & Curren have been employed in that capacity.
Meredith has already paid thousands of dollars and will
pay thousands more to continue this oversight process.
And while I have already been way
too verbose I want to make a final comment on the amount
of commercial space proposed for the site. We have
proposed approximately 40,000 square feet which we
really do feel is the maximum that the market could
absorb in a reasonable time without cannibalizing the
existing commercial businesses in Warren. There is
also a significant limitation with respect to parking
requirements under zoning. For example a 1000 square
foot residential condominium requires 1.5 parking spaces
while a 1000 square foot commercial space would require
9 parking spaces. Traffic impacts would be a serious
consideration as well.
Obviously, there are many issues and I
am willing to discuss our views on any number of them.
Thanks again for the efforts and thoughts.
Thursday, February
15th 2007, David Wescott, Warren
Warren Manufacturing site and some
aspects of the plans under consideration are noteworthy and
exciting. However, I also agree that:
- The scale of the project is simply
too large for the site and does not fit into the existing
neighborhood.
- The burden on the town's
infrastructure and services needs to be very carefully
analyzed.
- Professional review by outside
experts is absolutely necessary and every Warren taxpayer
should demand it.
I particularly thank Ms. Siqueland-Gresch
for her succinct analysis of how the profit motive drives
this project and of the appropriate relationship between the
property owner, the developer, and the town. I agree with
her suggestion that what is needed is "a realistic
relationship between the seller’s asking price and the
resulting profit requirements of the developer." The town's
responsibility is to follow its Master Plan and to insure
the quality of life for its current and future residents,
not to shoulder the profit requirements of buyers and
sellers.
The developer claims that 350 units are
necessary "to make the numbers work." To reach that number
two stories "need" to be added to an existing historical
structure and the waterfront" "needs" to be littered with
midrise apartment buildings that have no relationship to the
existing neighborhood. It's my opinion that the numbers
don't work, at least not for the Community, and that they
proably need to be "reworked."
On a different theme, I would also like
to mention that Warren has historically been a "mill town;"
that much of its development was driven by the mills and
mill housing; that, historically, many residents lived
and worked within the town's boundaries. I know
that residential redevelopment of at least a portion of the
Tourister site is inevitable and probably the best possible
use for the property, but I would also suggest that
adding a larger percentage of commercial space -- creating a
truly mixed-use development on the site
would be better for the town and more in keeping with it's
historical roots.
David Wescott
Cutler Mills
Warren, RI
as a matter of full disclosure,
David Wescott is co-moderator of this website)
|
|
Tuesday, February
13th 2007, Beth Siqueland-Gresch, Warren
I would like to speak in support of
Mr. Wilber’s statement. The Tourister Mill project does
indeed have the potential to rejuvenate
an area of waterfront, to create more public water
access, and to generate substantial tax revenue if the
project has the adequate oversight, adequate for the size
and complexity of the project.
Our responsibility as a community is first and foremost
to insure the continued quality of life for those residents
already here, and then the potential quality of life of
future potential residents.
With this in mind, let me make the following statements:
Firstly, I too agree that this project is of a size and
scale to require outside oversight as there are benefits and
repercussions that we may not even be cognizant of. In this
regard, the most apparent concerns that I have are the
following:
* Proposed addition of two stories to existing structure,
and five story new buildings are out of scale and proportion
to the neighborhood of surrounding traditional homes. It is
clear in walking the area, or even more so from the aerial
photos how closely packed these properties are to one
another. How is the proposed size appropriate to the
abutting properties?
* If public access and a boardwalk are proposed, how is
that public right of way enforced and preserved?
*Are all additional infrastructure burdens on the table
for discussion and being adequately assessed?
* Traffic is already an enormous problem, so what
restrictions can be placed onto this development, or more
specifically to the commercial portion of it, to limit the
obvious additional burden?
Secondly, property owners have the right to generate
profit on their investment, and as much profit as the
investment legally bears. However, once a project asks for
relief from the town’s zoning stipulations, the issue
switches from maximizing an individual’s profit to what
relief the town is willing and can afford to grant. At this
juncture, the onus goes back equally to the seller of the
property and the prospective buyer. It calls for a
realistic relationship between the seller’s asking price
and the resulting profit requirements of the developer. The
desire of the seller to achieve the highest selling price
and the subsequent need of the buyer to push the development
into ever larger expansion to make ends meet, does by no
means imply that the community should bear the burden of it.
This is the exclusive business risk and liability of those
two parties, and not the responsibility of the town.
As a business person myself, I have always invited
outside expertise when the magnitude of a project suggested
it. I am concerned that the town administration has not seen
the necessity of it and not encouraged the boards to
obtain that additional expertise should the they themselves
regard it as necessary.
Beth Siqueland-Gresch
|
|
Monday, February
12th 2007, Paula Silva, Warren
(the reader added her submission responding to
a posting by Frank Alfano which since has been moved to a different
discussion thread; please, click here to go to that section)
Hi Frank,
I ‘d like to commend you for updating the town
in such a public forum on past & future meetings & projects going on
in town. I assume this is partly a result of the presentation
regarding the RI Secretary of State’s open meeting filings and
ethics commission meeting last week. It makes me wonder however, why
our own town website is not up & running by now? I believe we were
told over a year ago it was only a couple of months away from being
ready, what’s the hold up?
While I have your attention ….It seems everyone
in town (and outside of town) are asking the same question. Why in
the world, would there be any resistance from you, our
town council or any board member for that matter to hiring a
professional consultant to help guide this 800lb. gorilla sitting in
our living room?
You have stated publicly you believe in our
boards and staff. I think that’s great, I would expect nothing less.
But that does not mean they are capable of handling a major land
development such as this. There simply is not one person in this
town government qualified with past experience on such a
development. This isn’t just a 15 lot sub division; it is clearly
evident it is way beyond our Building Inspector, Town Planner, Legal
Counsel, Town Manager, Boards & Staff. It will have a major impact
on every aspect of life for everyone living & traveling thru Warren.
We know our town planner’s opinion on the subject or at least
what the Eastbay Newspaper quoted her as saying. (1/3/2007). "If the
planning board hires a consulting firm, and the applicant refuses,
the town would have to come up with the money somehow," Ms. Maher
said.
However, I take exception to these statements.
1)
Let’s not put words in their mouths. In the event the
developer wouldn’t pay for this consultant which I think would be
another bad PR move on their part, this process would help them, not
hinder them. We should want to get the best consultant firm we can
find, regardless of cost. As my mother always said, it would be
penny wise & pound-foolish to penny pinch now given the magnitude of
this project.
2)
All the towns in the state that are dealing with large land
developments either have had studies done previously to insure that
the future of these properties fit in to the towns vision. Or they
have additional boards & commissions formed consisting of
professionals with the expertise to review and make recommendations
to the local boards. In addition, many seek the advise of State Wide
Planning, Grow Smart RI & Economic Development Corporation in order
to make recommendations to the town they serve. Unfortunately, we
were not proactive in taking any of this measures to my knowledge.
If we had I believe we would be looking at a different proposal
today.
3)
I do not believe nor do I think
the planning board even believes for 1 minute “they have the
expertise to review this plan or handle it in house” as stated.
So again, why not hire a professional
consultant to review & guide this project, that is what they do
everyday, they are the professionals and that is what they get paid
to do? Money spent now will go a long way in protecting the fabric
& future of this town and that is what is expected of you as our
Town Council and I’m sure that is what you want as well.
We all want our taxes reduced but not at the
expense of selling our souls. Rest assured this property will never
“go dark”!
We deserve to get a development that will
integrate easily into the community and we can all
happily stand behind and be proud of, that has yet to be seen.
It seems to me taking a page from another
well-known politician (guess who?) “the go it alone approach”, is a
clear recipe for disaster. I hope we’re not going down that road
here in Warren!
Best Regards,
Paula Silva
|
|
Friday,
February 9th 2007, Diane Horton, Warren
I truly resent
Ms. Maher's false representation of my words
and intentions. I have NEVER stated that I believe that "those
who serve the town are compromising its future in regard to the
American Tourister project." What I said, very clearly was,
that if the town doesn't see the need for a long term social and
economic analysis (regarding this major land development), then I
think that would be doing the town a disservice. I'm not
looking for a battle here, I'm asking questions of the Town just as
you encourage. And I assure you, my "train of thought" which
is: That the consultant issue is not just about traffic
engineering or sewage, it's also about the Master Plan and the
viability of the scale and density of this project to the Town in
respect to the long term social and economic impacts, and who in
this town is capable of doing such an analysis? IS the prevailing
thought.
|
Friday, February
9th 2007, Michelle Maher, Bristol, RI 02809
I
am sorry that Ms. Horton believes
those that serve the town are compromising its future in regard
to the American Tourister project. Every person has their own
opinions and perception. I just hope that Ms. Horton’s is not
the prevailing train of thought for the majority of residents.
In terms of
what the East Bay Newspapers may or may not report, the Planning
Board has never requested that an additional consultant be
hired. They may very well consider doing that during preliminary
review of this plan, but to date they have not.
Mr. Bolster
did draft a bid proposal seeking consultants, but it was never
reviewed in an official capacity by the Planning Board, has
never appeared on the Planning Board agenda or been voted on in
any way. Mr. Bolster did attempt to schedule a special meeting
to discuss the topic on two separate occasions, but notice was
not given to town staff in a timely manner, therefore posting
did not to meet the notification requirements under the state
open meetings law, and the meetings could not be held. Any
planning board member could request this issue be placed on a
future agenda, and the chairman could direct the administrative
officer to do so.
In terms of
long term economic impacts the development of this property may
have on the Town, this is an issue that is currently being
discussed, and will be further investigated during preliminary
review. Please remember that the approval and permitting process
for this project is a long one, and nothing is going to be
decided without detailed scrutiny of every aspect.
Again I
encourage any interested person to ask questions, get answers
and make suggestions during the review process. Attacks and
accusations do not serve much purpose. I personally become
frustrated when a lack of information leads to misinformation.
Warren residents should talk to the members of the boards and
commissions, Town Council members, and town staff. All are more
than willing to discuss the aspects of this project, and any
other pending projects in town.
As a final
note, Ms. Horton did misunderstand my comment(s). What keeps
Warren grounded is its clear view of what it wants to protect
itself against.
Michelle Maher
Bristol, RI
|
|
It is clear to
everybody who attends the Planning Board meetings, and/or reads
the Warren Times, that there has been a certain amount of
tension (or lack of communication, call it what you will)
between the Town Council, the Town Administration and the Town
Planning Board.
I attended the
charette and have been at every planning board meeting
concerning the Warren Mfg. Mill site and I noticed that you
either didn't attend or participate at any of them, until
recently. The Planning Board requested a special meeting where
(as I understood it) the agenda was supposed to have been about
hiring an outside consultant. Somehow that didn't make it on the
agenda, but you were there. And you were at last week's
meeting. Finally, there is dialog between you and the Planning
Board. Surely, now you recognize that the consultant issue is
not just about traffic engineering or sewage, it's also about
the Master Plan and the viability of the scale and density of
this project to the Town in respect to the long term social and
economic impacts. Would you disagree with that? And who in this
town is capable of doing such an analysis? I feel, as do many
other Town residents, that this should have been addressed
months ago, and to deny this, or to continue to delay this, is
doing the town a great disservice.
Correct me again if
I'm wrong here, I may have misunderstood your comment about the
people of this town (and what they do not want) being a hurdle,
but It's my feeling "the people of this town and what they do not
want" are the town's biggest asset, not the biggest hurdle.
To be more
specific regarding Ms. Maher's (mis)statements:
1. "To date
the Warren Planning Board has not requested additional
consultant services be provided for review of this
proposal. "
and
2. "There is
no powerplay as Ms. Horton stated. During my tenure at Town
Hall the administration and staff have fully support the
boards and commissions, and continue to do so."
This article
in the January 25th issue of the Warren Times Gazette,
states otherwise:
here are
just some quotes from that article related specifically to
those comments:
Maher: "To
date the Warren Planning Board has not requested additional
consultant services be provided for review of this proposal"
Warren
Times Gazette:
"Planning board wants assistance with project review:
Warren
Planning Board member Davison Bolster said the Tourister
Mill project, which has the potential to be one of the
largest redevelopments ever in the East Bay, deserves a
serious examination by outside professionals. A
subcommittee of the planning board recently completed a
working draft of a request for proposal to hire a
consultant. The hiring of outside professionals to
study the plans has become a point of contention for
parties involved, however. Developers at Meredith
Management and town officials, including the town
manager, don't agree, saying a review has already been
conducted and an additional one will cost the developers
more money."
Maher:
"There is no
powerplay as Ms. Horton stated. During my tenure at Town
Hall the administration and staff have fully support the
boards and commissions, and continue to do so."
Warren Times
Gazette:
"According
to Mr. Bolster, his major concern with Tourister Mill
project has been a lack of communication between town
officials, developers and the planning board. While he is
openly excited about the idea of redeveloping the mill, he
said he wants to make sure the plan is good for the town. He
said planning for the project started off well enough with a
public workshop, but then took a turn. He said planning
board members were not invited to the pre-application
meetings held between town officials and developers, they
were not forwarded copies of the plan immediately after it
was submitted, and he feels the process is happening too
quickly. He also wants to enlist the help of an outside
consulting firm to participate in the project review."
"The
application was filed on Sept. 14, 2006, but Mr. Bolster
said the administrative officer for the board, William Nash
(who's also the building inspector), didn't make members
aware until Nov. 2. Mr. Bolster said he knew the plan had
been submitted because he read about it in the local
newspaper, and actually went to the town hall to pick up a
copy in mid-October. That didn't solve the problem of
publicly reviewing the plan, he said, because the proposal
didn't land in front of the technical review committee until
Nov. 9, which was just five days before the deadline expired
on TRC's review."
|
|
Wednesday, February 7th 2007, Michelle Maher, Bristol, RI 02809
(complete address confirmed by editor) I would like to
respond to
Ms. Horton's
comment.
To date the Warren Planning Board has not requested additional
consultant services be provided for review
of this proposal. The Voluntary Historic District Commission wrote a
letter to the Town Council suggesting that a consultant be hired by
the Town.
If during any point of its review, the members of the Warren
Planning Board believe issues exist for specific elements and
additional review is required, and the board finds that the Town's
consultant engineering firm, or the sewer department's consultant
engineering firm, can not adequately answer the questions posed, the
board will more than likely seek additional assistance.
There is no powerplay as Ms. Horton stated. During my tenure at Town
Hall the administration and staff have fully support the boards and
commissions, and continue to do so.
Town staff provides boards and commissions with administrative
assistance, technical guidance, and any other services requested. If
at any time I believe that I can not answer a question or fulfill a
need, I am more than willing to point them in the right direction,
and if that means suggesting additional assistance from outside Town
Hall I do that.
As staff, review of this plan has had to be biased in regard to
protecting the Town. We as employees are charged with upholding the
rules and regulations of the town, and look out for its best
interest. But it must be understood that the town staff and
administration do not have purview or approval powers over this plan
or any other. Those powers lie in the hands of the boards and
commissions charged under state law and the Town Charter.
It is worth noting that all but three of the town's department heads
are Warren residents, born and raised, and are deeply vested in what
happens in the town. And of those that are not from Warren, myself
included, we are vested because we love what Warren is and what it
represents.
If there is one thing I have learned since I began working for
Warren, the people of this town have a good grasp of what they do
not want the Town to become, and that is the biggest hurdle in
protecting its future.
I do agree with Ms. Horton's call for those interested in the
American Tourister project, and any other project or proposal in
town, to ask questions and get answers. You won't have to demand
answers though, because we will freely offer them to you.
Michelle Maher
|
|
Wednesday, February 7th 2007, Tom Padwa, Warren Dear
Editor:
Thank you for re-activating this site.
On February 5, 2007, I began circulating a petition, the text of
which follows, with the intention of submitting it to Warren town
officials in about two weeks. As I have, at this time, no way for
people to "sign" the petition electronically, copies are available
for signing at the Off-Center Cafe, 30 Child Street, in Warren.
Anyone wishing to contact me about this may do so at:
Tom Padwa
401-247-3004
tomp@qis.net
Thanks again,
Tom
[Petition text follows ]
To the officials of the town of
Warren, Rhode Island:
We, the undersigned citizens of the Town of Warren, believe that the
American Tourister property should be developed in a way that will
benefit all current and future residents of Warren. While we applaud
the
intentions of the Meredith Development Corporation’s current
proposal,
we believe that the project has not received proper and thorough
evaluation with respect to land use; public access; waste water and
sewer infrastructure; traffic flow; financial considerations; and
the
effect on Town services. Therefore, we urge theWarren Planning
Board,
Zoning Board, Town Council and all Warren officials to reject this
plan
until it can be reviewed by professionals with extensive experience
in
projects of this scale.
[Petition text ends]
|
Wednesday, February 7th 2007,
Candace A. Casala,
Warren
(complete address confirmed by editor)I am concerned
about the projected height (somewhere around 60') of some of the
newer buildings contained in the proposal.
A non-occupied steeple I have no concern with, an existing
steeple remaining I have no concern with but a completely new
building where once there was none is just pure greed,
overkill and lack of respect for the "topography and character"
of makes Warren a "VILLAGE."
Candace A. Casala
Warren fourth generation Resident
|
Wednesday, February 7th 2007, Richard Wilber,
252 Water Street,
Warren
Hello! It is good and bad to see this web site back! Good in
that residents of Warren need a space for un-biased information
and a free exchange of ideas. Bad in that once again we are
faced with a development issue which will bring such a major
change. Last time it was the character or the Water St. area
threatened by condo development. This time it is nothing less
than the future of the whole town.
As this plan has grown and unfolded I have looked for one phrase
which captures my reaction to it. I've arrived at this: You
can not adapt the Town to suit a development. You
must adapt the development to suit the Town.
We all know and accept that re-development of the American
Tourister must happen. Many of us look forward to reasonable
development as a welcome addition of the town. What is
currently before the Town, however is not reasonable and to my
way of thinking not welcome. The current proposal belongs in a
far different setting than what exists. Somewhere with a great
deal of open space around it with either existing adequate roads
to service it or the space to build such roads. Neither of
these is the case of this proposal which is too big by nearly
half. We who currently live here are all too familiar with the
traffic problems which already exist in the area of the
project. Those of us who have lived here long enough also
remember the traffic nightmares caused at the "shift change"
times in the days when Tourister was a fully functioning
manufacturing facility.
I, along with a number of other concerned residents, attended
the Planning Board meeting on Mon. evening, Feb. 5. I was
pleased and impressed with the levels of professionalism and
knowledge shown by the members of the Planning Board. Questions
from all members of the board were on point and specific
expressing many of the concerns that I and other residents
have. What startled me were the answers to these questions.
There were almost none other than variations on "We'll get back
to you on that" or "That is yet to be determined" ! It was my
understanding that this meeting was a continuation of a previous
meeting which was granted to give the developer time to
formulate answers to questions asked by the board at that
previous meeting. I fail to understand why those answers were
not offered. I do not know how the Board is to make any
decisions on this project when so many important details of the
plan are at best vague, at worst not even yet formulated. For
the Planning Board and by extension the whole Town to rely on
the incomplete information provided by Meredith Management to
make any decisions at all is out of the question. The Planning
Board and the Town absolutely must have an
independent engineering study of this project in all aspects.
So many questions were asked - Open space. Public access.
Sewage treatment service. Water supply. Traffic. Fire and
rescue services. Utilities. Density. All good questions! No
good answers! No, wait. I mis-speak. There was representative
from a traffic engineering firm. The plan he proffered
contained nothing other than to admit that hundreds of cars will
be added to the already clogged roads in the project area. He
indicated in vague terms that changes would need to be made to
traffic and parking patterns on Water and Main Streets once
again adapting the town to fit the development rather than the
other way around.
I understand that the Town could well use the influx of cash
which would come in the form of new property tax revenue. What,
however, is the net gain if we need to double the size of the
current sewer treatment plant, build a new larger fire station
on Water St., hire full time, professional fire and rescue
personal and increase the size of the Police force? Who will
pay for these costs? Meredith Management? I think not.
None of that, of course, speaks to the intangible change that
will be made to the existing neighborhood. Those changes are
much more difficult to measure. It must be remembered too that
any changes made to the neighborhood and the Town as a part of
this project will be forever. It is therefore a foolish economy
to not contract with an independent firm to review this project
and provide an unbiased report on the repercussions of the
proposal.
Once again, a hearty welcome back to yourwarren.com I only hope
it will not only be a pulpit from which to preach to the choir,
as they say. Rather I hope it becomes a source for all Town
residents to obtain and share information and opinions.
Richard Wilber
|
Monday, February 5th 2007, Diane Horton,
Warren
As many people
know, Meredith Management and Michael Friedman are proposing to
develop the Warren Manufacturing site (Tourister site) into 350
units of residential. The master plan is before the Town
Planning Board for review, and as it is a massive project, that
involves many issues for the town, The Historic Commission and
The Planning Board have rightfully requested that they hire an
outside consultant to help review the Plan.
There seems to be
a power play in the Town administration that doesn't think that
is necessary. What I don't understand is why the Administration
of the Town of Warren wouldn't want a non-biased review of this
project, in order to assure that it is an enduring addition to
the existing town, not just a "quick fix" dollar amount of tax
revenue?
I encourage
the residents of Warren to take a close look at what is being
proposed, ask questions and demand answers. This is a very
large and complex issue and if it seems "too good to be true"
then it probably is.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
