|
Fear that business will obstruct the view
To the Editor: 6/7/2013
|
|
Lance Bresee
Baldwinville To the Editor: Complaints are published about the new Dunkin' Donuts proposed for Route 202 in Baldwinville. Some are concerned for property values, perhaps believing that buyers are willing to pay more for a house located near a rotting and condemned church frequented by littering loiterers openly exchanging contraband than for one near a thriving and well maintained business. Perhaps they fear the business will obstruct their pristine view of the gas station across the street. Further down Route 202, the proposed mall still hasn't broken ground. The proposed site is on a vegetationless lot with a turgid puddle where I have never seen a fisherman or a boater enjoying the peaceful atmosphere of the Route 2 exit ramp. The Proposition 2 1/2 override will probably fail again, and children who might have come from other districts to Narragansett for our better music and drama opportunities, bringing with them their talent and state educational funds, may begin to look elsewhere; perhaps in Ashburnham. So we continue to obstruct. Our children will need to borrow the car to get to their after-school jobs in Gardner, Fitchburg, or Athol, where operating businesses can be found. A young wife, hoping to help out the family finances with a part-time job while the kids are in school will have to calculate in the cost of another vehicle, auto insurance, and commute time, rather than walk or ride a bicycle to a local employer, and Templeton will be a town best known for never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Lance Bresee Baldwinville |
Paul working for you.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
from Friday's TGN
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very good letter to the editor Mr Bresee. Everyone is always complaining about their tax bills, but when we have a chance to bring in business and increase our tax base everyone is against it.
ReplyDeleteIf you take Rt.56 into Rutland, Ma., you will see a Dunkins in what must have been a house. It does have a drive through, you stay close to the building, and go around it. The parking lot is very small. With the drive through, you can get away with a smaller parking lot. I did not notice much of anything that would bother the neighbors. To be honest, I can't even tell you what is on either side of it. I think the Planning Board, can control the sign and lighting issues. This can be regulated, so it will be easier to live with. There comes a time, when you can not control everything, who comes and goes, but the Planning Board has done a good job, trying to protect the people who live in this town. Compromise is a good thing. We need a place for our people to work, there has to be some give and take. Yes I know, it is not in my back yard, but it is in the middle of the village. Years ago there was a lot of businesses in the center of Baldwinville. The church is a eyesore, no one wants. There is a solution to having a say about what goes there. When it was for sale, it could have been bought. That would have ended any controversy, for a short while. Bev.
ReplyDeleteLet's get a couple of things straight on this subject here. No one (including abutters) is completely against DD being built on that site. Everyone that attended the hearing is all for businesses coming to town and thriving. It was stated multiple times. There were concerns, however, about the site plan, number of parking spaces, and the owner's oversight of a couple of key points. He was not aware that the town doesn't have natural gas which is what his whole operation runs on. So, when someone asked where the propane tanks were going to be located, it was a surprise to him. Also of concern was that there wasn't a plan to handle large trucks that want to visit the restaurant. The parking lot will be too small and the concerns over on street parking were discussed. If the majority of the customers are coming by vehicle, then more attention needs to be paid to the traffic flow and parking. The only exit is out onto Pleasant Street in which the additional traffic at a already dangerous intersection was also a concern. The owner also wanted a 24 hr permit, which is also of great concern to the neighbors. The design of the building is very tasteful, and in keeping with the village surroundings. There were no complaints about that. One minor change to the style of the fence in the back for more privacy was requested. The discussion at the hearing was not heated, but rather well run and productive. The Planning Board is doing a good job handling this project and hearing the concerns of the residents and looking for viable compromises for the best overall outcome.
ReplyDeleteIts better to ask all these questions now than to wait down the road when the project is halfway done and comes to a halt for one reason or another. Lets not bash people that have legitimate concerns and voice them. I think we're all so shell-shocked from having to fight over so many issues in town over the past several years that issues like this are viewed as a battle, you're either for or against. In this case, its simply citizens just trying to talk it though and fully vet the project. If people would actually ask more questions up front, then maybe we wouldn't have multiple boondoggles all over town. Plus, all of this has to go through peer review and hopefully, all the snags will get resolved. The hearing will continue tomorrow night when the owner will return with some new information. Anyone that is interested in learning more on this project should attend.
Its sad to see one of the oldest, historic buildings in town get torn down. But you have to make room for the future. Maybe the town will put a little more effort into saving other old buildings in our community before they, too, succumb to decay.