Above: A presentation to Town Meeting by the Select Board will lay out a case for why they believe the Article is important, explain what the zoning would/wouldn’t allow, and push for voters’ support. (images cropped from presentation slides)
The Southborough Select Board has been working to drum up excitement and turnout for the Special Town Meeting this Monday night. Their primary focus is getting voters to approve a zoning change they promote as allowing an economic boon for the Town. To allow Costco to apply for a Special Permit to build a store at the old EMC/Dell campus, 2/3 of participating voters will need to approve Article 1.
There have been more meetings and public discussions about the Article since I’ve previously covered. So, for interested readers, I’m recapping those, plus a detail I previously missed. The topics include questions and possible proposed amendments that may come up on Monday night.
The Argument for the Change
The Select Board is arguing that Southborough needs an influx of commercial tax revenue to counter the increased tax burden on residential homes. They argue that the underperforming old Dell/EMC campus, situated away from neighborhoods, is the ideal spot to do that. And they pitch that the project, and subsequent projects, will bring in substantial tax revenue. You can read the presentation they plan to give here.
The Zoning Change
The Article will create a new allowed use for the Industrial Park (IP) Zone. The definition for “Highway Major Retail” will only apply to the property at 21 Coslin Drive. (That was done both by specifying the lot number and by including descriptors for the parcel that don’t apply to other properties.)
But the new use would also allows smaller “supporting and/or complementary retail” businesses to seek permits on properties abutting the parcel (including ones separated by a road).
Both the developer and Select Board hope that Costco will act as a “magnet” for other retailers seeking to profit from being near it.
The effort behind the zoning change is driven by property owner Atlantic Management’s agreement with Costco. The wholesale club has been looking to open a new store in our area. (According to CEO Joseph Zink, they have also looked at properties in other towns under other management that they will move on to if the Town Meeting vote fails.)
While the definition doesn’t specify the business, it was written by the attorneys in a way that was intended to only apply to a Costco-like retailer.
The use that would be added as an option for 21 Coslin Drive is defined as having “a minimum of 125,000 gross square feet of floor area” for:
A large format, single tenant (including affiliates of the principal tenant) retail sales and services facility. . .containing no less than 50,000 gross square feet devoted to the retail sale to an end user of goods and services, including, but not limited to: traditional grocery store items (which may or may not be sold under its own brand) that contain a range of food products that are fresh, packaged or prepared (excluding storage), household goods, optical goods and services, pharmacy goods and services, liquor, automotive parts and repair, food service (such as fast food, counter service or kiosks) and automotive fueling stations.
As for the complementary businesses that could seek a permit on abutting parcels, that includes a cumulative size cap:
said uses on all directly abutting Lots. . . shall not exceed 50,000 gross square feet in the aggregate
The allowed business types are more generically described as “uses such as food service, general retail and general and/or personal services”.
The Article also defines that the Planning Board would be the Special Permit granting authority for both the “Highway Major Retail” use and the abutting uses.
Because the Special Permit is discretionary, if the Article passes, the board would still have the right to reject a project if they believe it isn’t in the best public interest of the community. Alternatively, they could add conditions to the permit approval that restrict/modify the project.
You can read the entire Article on page 7 of the Warrant here.
Questions/Concerns and Answers/Counter-Arguments
Permitting Authority Debate
I won’t be surprised if someone makes a motion on the floor to strike the Planning Board’s special permit granting authority for the uses.
The Zoning Board of Appeals and Select Board members Kathy Cook and Al Hamilton have objected that giving Planning the authority is usurping power from the ZBA which is currently the authority for other uses in the IP Zone.
The Planning Board has argued that writing the zoning change that way expedites the permitting process. Chair Meme Luttrell told the Select Board that she was taken aback to hear the objection from members that pride themselves on being business friendly.
She argued that since the business would require going through Major Site Plan approval hearings at the Planning Board, giving their board the permit authority allows for combining the hearings. Otherwise the business would have to participate in hearing before each board, and advertise them separately to abutters.
As for Cook’s and Hamilton’s argument that it’s inconsistent with the process for other uses in the IP zone, Member Marnie Hoolahan reminded that Planning had been working on modernizing IP zoning bylaws, but that was put on hold at the Select Board’s request in order to prioritize this Article.
The attorney for Atlantic Management has publicly stated that he is in favor of Planning as the authority, since it would allow them to continue a conversation with the board they’ve already been working with.
Concerns about Road Access and Traffic
Some residents have asked about traffic impacts. And during the October 9th public forum on the Costco Project, resident Kathy Bohner of Parkerville Road asked whether the gate on Flanders road would be opened and what impact that would have area roads.1 The answer is they don’t know yet. Those are the kinds of details that would be tackled during the Special Permit and Site Plan hearing process, which will require a Traffic Study be conducted and Peer Reviewed by the Planning Board’s consultant.
At the forum, the development team did explain that peak hours for Costco traffic aren’t during commuting hours. Saturday at noon is the busiest time. They also noted that complementary uses could keep workers in nearby office buildings on campus during lunch, rather than driving onto route 9.
Impact on Existing Small Businesses
A concern raised in multiple meetings and forums was whether bringing in a big retailer would hurt existing small businesses in town. Atlantic Management’s team countered that people don’t generally shop at a Costco when they have one or two small “convenience” items to buy. They go there to make bulk purchases.
That doesn’t address a concern raised at the most recent ZBA meeting about the impact of a new Costco fueling station on existing nearby gas stations.
However, the developer also referenced a project they were involved with in Marlborough that helped increase local business after it was reactivated. (The implication appeared to be that Costco would create a positive domino effect by attracting other businesses like restaurants. Those in turn would draw more customers to the area that would benefit the existing small businesses.)
This is also the type of concern that the community is allowed to raise at Special Permit hearings for the board to consider.
Septic/Wastewater Impact
Because the property is partially in Westborough, the owners have an agreement that covers tapping into that town’s wastewater system. (Meanwhile the store will be on the Southborough side of the border, giving our town the tax revenue benefit.)
Illegal Spot Zoning?
Some officials, residents, and a rival developer, have questioned the legality of adding a zoning use that applies only to a single parcel in the Industrial Park zone. The accusation is that it is “spot zoning” with the implication that spot zoning is illegal. However, while spot zoning can be illegal, it isn’t always the case. Spot zoning is illegal when it is determined to have been done arbitrarily and appears to only be for the benefit of a property owner rather than for the benefit of the community.
According to Town Counsel Jay Talerman, zoning that is proposed by a developer to allow for a project that Town officials believe is to the benefit of the community is not only legal, but frequently done in other communities. Talerman also noted that an approval by a 2/3 vote at Town Meeting would shield the Town from claims about a nefarious purpose. (My reading is the law was written to address backroom deals by city officials that residents claimed were for corrupt reasons.)
In ZBA meetings and other forums, I’ve also heard criticism that this is essentially a Use Variance, something that Town Meeting voted to get rid of. But what Town Meeting actually voted to get rid of was the ability for Use Variances to be granted by the ZBA. They argued for Town Meeting’s authority to determine what zoning uses should be allowed and where, rather than allowing the decision to be made by an appointed board. (At the time, some argued that if the benefit of a project was compelling enough, the case should be brought to Town Meeting voters.)
It’s worth noting here that the Planning Board members have stated that they believe the uses defined within the overall IP Zone are outdated and need an update. They hope to bring another Article to Annual Town Meeting this spring to address that issue. (That effort was tabled for this fall at the request of the Select Board, to avoid causing any confusion over Article 1.)
That zoning effort will go through a public hearing process that will allow the public to let the board know if they believe that the same or similar uses should also be allowed on other areas of the IP Zone (and Town Meeting voters to say yea or nay.)
Costco Project
Although officials may be able to answer voters questions or address concerns on Monday night, the discussion is intended to apply to the Zoning Article, not the Costco development project. So, if you still want to learn more about the proposed project, you may want to watch the forum the Select Board hosted October 9th here.
Voting
Again, the Article will be the first one on the Warrant for the Town Meeting that opens on Monday night, October 27th, at 6:30 pm at Trottier Middle School. You can read more about the meeting and other Articles here.
