Bonnanzio addresses Napleton
hearing, warns of new school enrollments
By Jay Turner
Citizen Staff
October 11, 2007
The
challenges continued to mount last week for the new owners of
the Plymouth Rubber property, as the School Committee became the
latest town group to question Napleton’s development plans.
Speaking at
a community open house organized by the Planning Board, School
Committee Chairman John Bonnanzio expressed concerns over the
number of new enrollments the proposed Napleton project could
generate, and also used the forum to address the wider impact
that all new developments are having on the town’s school
system.
“With
hundreds of new residents slated to move in to town,” explained
Bonnanzio, “let me remind you that each child who enrolls in our
schools costs us far more money than we could ever hope to
recoup through local property taxes.”
He said the
Napleton development alone, with its proposed 286 two-bedroom
units and 52 three-bedroom units, would “create a nightmare for
our schools,” adding, by some early projections, anywhere
between 50 and 200 additional students.
Bonnanzio
also put the anticipated enrollments within the context of the
schools’ current budget crunch, which has caused some elementary
classes to swell to more than 30 students.
“Ironically,
we are making due,” he said, “only because we are packing more
kids into fewer classes. Bust as class sizes must inevitably
decline, where will all of our students sit? In the hallways?
The gym? The library? The cafeteria?
“While I
occasionally get my hands slapped for saying things no one wants
to hear said, let me be clear on this matter: Should Napleton
break ground, we had better be pouring concrete at the same time
for a fourth elementary school, and adding classrooms at the
middle school.”
Bonnanzio
later elaborated on his plans for another elementary school in a
four-point list of suggestions that he asked the town to
consider “as part of this and future developments.”
Topping the
list was a request that Napleton cover the $6,250 cost for a
third-party enrollment projection study, which he said could be
completed in as little as two to three months, followed by his
suggestion that a fourth elementary school be built on at least
15 acres on the eastern side of Canton — an area, he said, that
remains “bereft of vital town infrastructure.”
There was
also a request that the School Committee be given input on all
future large-scale developments, as well as a suggestion that
all high-density housing projects set aside open space for
recreation purposes.
In contrast
to Bonnanzio’s warnings, Napleton attorney Paul Schneiders,
speaking after the meeting, said his clients have already
completed an enrollment study, and that it projects only a
minimal increase in the student population. He said the Napleton
development, according to their financial analysis, would
actually generate more in tax revenue — $1.2 million annually —
than it would in added costs, resulting in a net gain of
$600,000 for the town each year.
As for
Bonnanzio’s request to have input in future development
decisions, Planning Board Chairman George Jenkins disagreed,
arguing that no town board, including the Board of Selectmen,
has a right to get involved.
“Every one
of these proposals are in a public meeting,” said Jenkins in a
follow-up interview. “If you want, please come to our meetings.”
Jenkins also
criticized Bonnanzio for, in his opinion, using the meeting as
an opportunity to discuss larger issues affecting the school
department, such as the need for a fourth elementary school,
which he felt was inappropriately tied to the Napleton
development.
He said the
school committee is just the latest in a barrage of groups that
have been enticed by the size of the property into seeking some
kind of mitigation from the owners.
“Everybody
from the periphery that wants something,” he said, “they have to
keep in mind the whole community — what’s it going to take to
pass, and what’s the charter of each of the boards.”
It is the
planning board’s charter, he said, to determine what the best
use for the property is; and while he and his board members
disagree with Napleton on a number of details, he said he would
be disappointed if the “opportunity to have something really
pretty there” was lost over competing interests.
In
related news:
• In an
interview following the open house, Schneiders reiterated
Napleton’s requirement of 650 units of housing to guarantee the
preservation of the Revere barn and the Revere rolling mill, but
said he “did not get the impression” from the Planning Board
Wednesday that they will support that many units. He thought the
open house overall was “very helpful,” however, as Napleton
learned of the community’s concerns with density and building
height.
“Everybody’s
trying to work towards a common goal,” said an optimistic
Schneiders.
• Jenkins
made it clear in his interview with the Citizen that the
Planning Board does not want to see the property become “another
apartment complex,” as apartment complexes, he said, change
ownership often and, within a few years, do not resemble what
the community had envisioned. Jenkins also said the number of
units Napleton is requesting is “absolutely heavy,” and was
particularly alarmed by the proposed setbacks of ten feet.
“The
setbacks were a problem for me because you probably have about
2,000 feet of frontage,” he said. “Everyone of those buildings
could be right on top of Revere Street.”
On a
positive note, Jenkins said the Board was pleased to learn that
the old railroad bed that lies within the property directly
links to the train station at Canton Junction, which would allow
future residents to catch the train without having to leave the
site.
Return
to Past Articles Page
|
