October 26, 2009:

"Some see the Mixed Use Overlay as
simply removing cumbersome
roadblocks to development (he means
me as the quote below is mine)

"Mixed use is an "overlay" in that it
overlays EXISTING zoning." " It
ALLOWS (as opposed to mandates) for
exceptions to the usual and customary
zoning IF it can get past the
ADDITIONAL administrative burdens
imposed by the requirements of the
new articles."

I see the "Mixed Use Overlay" a bit
differently:

This "mixed overlay" MANDATES that
the people of Billerica accept nearly
anything that developers wish to push
upon us WITHOUT indepth review of
plans as long as they meet certain
guidelines, WITHOUT regard for
citizenry input regarding Real and
perceived impact on our community,
WITHOUT full review and approval by
the ZBA or Planning Board.

I ask:

Do We really wish to grant developers
control of Billerica's development ?"
[END]

To which another group member
(Jason) replied:

"David Johnson is spouting opinions
with no basis in fact...this seems like a
distortion....show me, please Mr.
Johnson where mixed use "
MANDATES that the people of  Billerica
accept nearly anything that developers
wish to push upon us WITHOUT in
depth review of plans as long as they
meet certain guidelines"

His final statement suggests Billerica
has enjoyed good planning and
development  which would be
sacrificed by mixed use if we "grant
developers control of Billerica's
development."  

Here I was thinking development along
Boston Road has been a disaster and
that mixed use in the center might
help...[END]"  

Jason:

"THE FACT you requested:

In simple terms, mandates refers to
allows certain exceptions to the
current zoning restrictions.
"Allows", means that we are allowing
certain

which restricts the degree of public
participation in the planning process.  
We are giving up some of our rights
and the rights of others.

Simply put, you cannot grant
(exceptions) rights to some without
mandating restrictions on others.


as-of-right on the 480 Boston
Road parcel under General
Business than mixed use using
the overlay.

How long ago did you discover
this flaw in article 23? When you
called the town planner to ask him
about it, what did he say? The PB
held several subcommittee
meetings to talk with TM members
about the article; which did you
attend? If you do believe in the
concept of mixed use, but the
only work you have done on it is
to vote "no" on the article, how
does that constitute leadership
on your part? How many of your
precinct 8 constituents did you
discuss article 23 with? Are a
majority of them opposed to
mixed use? What is your vision
for the town center and how
would you build consensus and
execute that plan?"

Jeffrey R. Parenti. P.E. [END]

To which Mr. Johnson replied:

"Jeff:

I don't believe that anyone has
any evil intention when
developing and persuing ideas
that they believe will benefit the
community.  I simply belive that a  
mixed use overlay is not best for
our community.

I believe that a better business
environment (safer and more
accessible) will help our local
businesses prosper and expand
while meeting the needs of our
community.
I have watched many BATV
presentations and talked with a
lot of people concerning the
mixed overlay plan.

I voted against the overlay during
the Spring Town Meeting
I had to miss the Fall Town
Meeting session when the article
was discussed, but would have
voted against it had I been there.

I have developed and submitted
for consideration a plan that
would promote a safer and more
vibrant center and improved
community business environment
to the town manager, planning
board, selectmen, engineering,
police dept, and others.   

Regards,

David Johnson [END]
Mr. Johnson also submitted a plan
of his own seen HERE


YOUR DISTORTED INTERPRETATION
attributed to my posting could not be
farther from the truth:
You State  "his final statement
suggests Billerica has enjoyed good
planning and development  which
would be sacrificed by mixed use if
we "grant developers control of
Billerica's development."

Quite the Contrary:

I believe that there are a lot of
improvements that must be made to
the center area that resulted from
previous planning and development
decisions."

Regards,
David [END]

In response to the first commentary
offered by Mr. Johnson, Jeff Parenti,
the author of the mixed use article
posed several questions:

"I have a few questions of my own.

If article 23 did mandate unfavorable
development, then:

1. Why would the Planning Board
submit an article that would take its
own power away?

2. Why would the Town Planner spend
so much time assembling and
delivering a presentation to promote
zoning that would shift planning away
from him and onto developers?

3. Why would professional planners at
NMCOG write zoning language that
would take professional planners out
of the equation?

4. How did this gross error make it
past two town managers, the town
assessor, town counsel, the building
inspector, the BOS, the Finance
committee, and 61% of TM? Why would
a civil engineer who has experience
reviewing hundreds of development
projects spend so much time
submitting the same article – which
would bring untoward development to
his own neighborhood -- to Spring
TM?

5. Which of our surrounding
communities that already have this
very same language in their zoning
code (Lexington, Lowell, Andover,
Winchester, Burlington, Bedford,
Concord, etc., etc.) have been
decimated by it? Are their AAA bond
ratings indications that mixed use
has irreparably hurt them?

Mixed use does not mandate bad
development. That does not make
sense. Development under mixed use
would require a special permit. It
would be easier to build a Wal-mart
Supercenter