Mill Site Study Committee

Draft - Meeting minutes - December 9, 2009

Present: Committee Members: Kurt Amidon, Stephanie Cronin, Roger Goscombe, Ronald Karr, Georgette Rogers, Jeff Sauer, and Joseph Sergi
Members absent: Albert Harris, Joan Ladik, Ken Morgan, Matt Nesbit, Sharon Santy, and Stephen Themelis
Also present: Geoffrey Morrison-Logan of VHB, Russ Burke of BCS

Mr. Sergi called the meeting to order at 7:36pm.  Mr. Amidon joined the meeting at 8:01pm.

Approval of Minutes from October 14, November 5, & November 18, 2009:  On a motion from Mr. Karr, seconded by Ms. Rogers, the minutes from the October 14 and November 5, 2009 regular meetings, as well as the November 18, 2009 public meeting were approved unanimously as drafted.

Public Forum follow-up: There was a discussion about the video from the public forum.  Members of the Cable TV Advisory Committee videotaped the meeting and are working on editing it for airing on Channel 15.  Mr. Sergi asked whether the video could be put on the Town website.  Mr. Sauer said that it could, but that the very large file size would get the Town very close to, if not surpass, the file size limit of the Town’s current ISP plan. That could mean needing a higher priced plan.  Mr. Sauer suggested that simply linking to the separate video shot by the Lowell Sun would serve the same purpose and would avoid any potential cost issues for the Town.  The caveat, he said, was to make sure the Lowell Sun would leave the on the server for an extended period of time.  Mr. Sauer said he would look into this with the Lowell Sun.

Mr. Morrison-Logan reviewed the three development scenarios and summarized the public forum.  He then turned the discussion toward the process of moving forward and bringing an agreed upon Scenario back to the public in a future meeting. Mr. Sergi asked the committee to offer its own feedback from the public meeting and said that our goal should now be to identify one “preferred option.” He said that it was his feeling that Scenario 1 makes the most sense because it has the market study to support it. Mr. Morrison-Logan reminded the committee that no scenario is set in stone and that different pieces of each can be intermingled.

An extended discussion followed, focusing on the pieces of Scenarios 1 and 2.  Most committee members expressed reservations about both Scenarios and hoped that there might be a middle ground that could still appeal to a developer.

Ms. Rogers asked about the housing and whether it included everything recommended in the market study. Mr. Morrison-Logan reminded the committee that the market study suggested a range in housing volume and said that Scenario 1 actually came in slightly under the low end of the range due to site constraints and other factors.

Ms. Cronin expressed concern about Scenario 1, particularly the housing component because of the impact it would have on the Town financially in the long term.  She asked if VHB had gotten any sense of community direction from the public meeting.  Mr. Morrison-Logan said that the responses were diverse. Mr. Sauer said that he felt there were a couple of clear, but different opinions represented at the public meeting: those who suggested that only Scenario 1 would offer a developer enough income incentive to proceed with a project at the site, and those that favored a less dense development that would offer the Town more amenities.

Mr. Goscombe said that Scenario 1 is like any other town and every other development anywhere.  There's nothing special there to help this become a success.  He suggested that the people who care about this parcel want to see something happen there other than a generic commercial development. Mr. Sauer agreed, saying that even if Scenario 1 were successfully built, he was very concerned about it becoming a rental success over any longer term given that the site is so far from any major highway.  It could just leave the Town with a different kind of eyesore.

Mr. Goscombe suggested that the housing component might not be the panacea it’s being made out to be, noting that commercial developers tend to prefer not doing residential and vice versa and that that might make it more difficult to attract someone.

Mr. Burke said that the owner, PerryVidex, might entertain subdividing the site, contrary to what was stated at the public meeting.  For example, the Main St section is essentially the same in all three scenarios and subdividing the property might allow a commercial developer to proceed with that part.

Ms. Cronin asked is MassDevelopment might offer development assistance.  Mr. Sergi suggested that there might be public development funds available to assist a developer, particularly for Scenario 1 since it was supported by the documentation in the market study.  Mr. Sauer expressed reservations about any public funds being used to support Scenario 1 because that could beget an even shorter term commitment to success from a developer.  Any Scenario 1 development should need to stand on its own financially, otherwise the density of Scenario 1 just doesn’t made sense.  Mr. Sauer further asked why the NMCOG visioning session and the public forum that expressed a clear desire for open space couldn’t be part of the “documentation” to support something with more open space or amenities to the Town.

Mr. Karr said that he felt the public meeting was divided.  However, he did come to three conclusions from the meeting: 1) not doing anything is not an option; 2) whatever might be done can't raise taxes or hurt the Town's financial position; and 3) there was a preference for open space and to keeping housing to a minimum and that additional housing was only acceptable as a means to a more positive end.   Further, he suggested that any development would have to be something special and something that would work.

Ms. Rogers disagreed with the emerging consensus away from Scenario 1 saying that Scenario 1 is really the only one that could work right now. Although she suggest that Scenario 1 might be amended.  The committee generally agreed that a preferred option should incorporate the potential ROI for a developer and something to draw unique interest to the project and the area.

Mr. Goscombe said that the ball is really in the court of PerryVidex.

Mr. Burke said that in the real world communities don't develop buildings, it is developers.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, January 6, 2010, at 7:00pm

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:34pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeff Sauer, Mill Site Study Committee Secretary