Introduction
The Ayer Road commercial corridor in Harvard, from the Route 2 interchange to the Ayer town line, is going to garner a bit of attention at Annual Town Meeting 2021. This is the first in a series of pieces that intends to shine a little light on the history of attempting to develop the area, why it really hasn't quite been done properly yet, and what the Planning Board is seeking to do about it this year. Part 1 will address the historical sketch, while parts 2 and 3 will address why things are the way they are now. For a more detailed background and analysis, including a good summary of the proposed program, please see this report.
A Little History
In order to fully appreciate the challenges facing the Ayer Road corridor, we need to take a step back in time and note the historical context. Until 1965, most of the Town of Harvard’s commercial properties were those located along Ayer Road, both north and south of Route 2, with others scattered in the town’s center and on major roadways. Other commercial uses were operated out of residences as in-home occupations, both legal and otherwise. At that time, there was no commercial zoning.
Recognizing that a commercial district was an important means to facilitate development that could add to the tax base, Annual Town Meeting of March 6, 1965 approved both the Commercial [C] district and the Business [B] district. In the years following the establishment of the B and C districts, some sporadic commercial development occurred including a small shopping center, office buildings, and several heavy commercial uses.
As part of the 2002 Master Plan project, the consultants prepared a document that included an Appendix A that was entitled, “A Zoning Diagnostic Evaluation for Harvard” which provided
an assessment of the existing zoning districts and a recommendation for change that would better meet the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. The evaluation and recommendations for the “C” district were as follows (emphasis mine):“The C District needs to be newly described and use and development regulations need to be tailored specifically to encourage uses consistent with the Town’s village identity. Warehouse and storage as a principal use should be discouraged, as should petroleum product storage and transfer. (See Section II for more detail on potential new regulations for the C District.)”
Thus, planning experts as far back as 2002 were recommending significant changes to the district in order to accomplish local goals. Even earlier, the completion of the 1969 Master Plan by renown landscape architect Charles W. Eliot II led Eliot to expect changes such as more “village nodes and a bustling business district north of Route 2” similar to recommendations in all Harvard plans since that time. This plan envisioned a village shopping center but also recommended downzoning (reducing the extent of) the “C” district. An initial Economic Study Committee was established by the Town in response to the plan and a strong interest in commercial and industrial development ensued. But in 1986, the Town voted to eliminate the Industrial (I) zoning district.
Further erosion of commercial opportunity occurred in 1987 when Town Meeting reduced the permitted Floor Area Ratio from 0.25 to 0.10 which translated to a sixty (60%) percent reduction in commercial development opportunity. At this time, the dialogue related to commercial development was limited to how much commercial square footage was necessary to support the population of Harvard. Not discussed was how much and what kinds of businesses were needed by the other businesses already in Harvard or what businesses could be supported locally that would bring in dollars from outside of the community.
Yet,
even with these limited perspectives and reductions in commercial scale,
the 1988 Master Plan still included goals that hazily articulated village-scale
development north of Route 2 on Ayer Road. But until the 2002 Plan, none had
sought to establish a development vision nor how commercial development could
contribute to municipal fiscal health. As noted in the “Report of the Economic Development Analysis Team (EDAT)” submitted
in 2010, the 2002 Plan noted that piecemeal zoning changes to the “C” district
“…may have exacerbated both the planning and fiscal challenges” and recommended
a different zoning solution which led to the 2004 adoption of the Ayer Road
Village Special Permit (ARV-SP). This overlay allowed for an alternative
development model for the corridor seeking to facilitate a greater
“village-like” identity rather than sprawling and uncoordinated development. As
of 2019, only the 206 Ayer Road collection of buildings that house a Dunkin
Donuts, dry cleaner, offices, medical offices, and senior rental apartments,
has sought to employ the ARV-SP. Time since the establishment of the ARV-SP has
clearly shown that not only is it a challenge to build that density and scale
due to the lack of public water and sewer infrastructure, but it also isn’t necessarily
going to translate into a “village-like” design nor meet any broader goals or
vision for the corridor. One key issue is that the design guidelines adopted for the corridor have no teeth.
The Town established a Fiscal Impact Analysis Team (FIAT) to investigate root causes of the Town’s chronic structural fiscal deficit. Recognizing that over-reliance on residential tax base was an obvious driver of the deficit, the FIAT recommended the creation of an Economic Development Analysis Team (EDAT) and proposed a warrant article in 2009 Annual Town Meeting in support of that recommendation. In short, EDAT was to prepare a commercial and industrial strategy by analyzing opportunities to increase commercial tax revenue by encouraging desirable development of commercial and industrial properties. Their 2010 report was the culmination of their work and it made the following general findings and recommendations:
- Identification of high revenue generating
commercial land uses including offices, assisted living facility, and a
retail plaza that includes a grocery store. The target square footage was in
the range of 155,000 to 280,000 square feet.
- Protective (Zoning) Bylaw should be amended
to be more development-friendly by recodification and reformatting and allowing
the uses that the EDAT recommended.
- Simplification of the permitting process
by making it simpler and more predictable.
- Traffic recommendations include facilitating
traffic calming and beautification to make the road safer and to
accommodate more vehicles.
- Create a sewer district within the
corridor that is exclusively reserved for the commercial uses within the
corridor and not for residential or 40B projects.
- Create an economic development team to carry the
recommendations forward including a town planner and a permanent Economic
Development Committee.
- Seek Economic Target Area (ETA) designation by becoming part of the Devens regional ETA.
Since the EDAT report was issued, the following steps have been taken in support of their plan:
1. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) was established in 2012 and accomplished the following in their short existence:
a. Facilitated Harvard’s designation as part of the Devens ETA in August 2012
b. Participated in Phase 1 of the 2016 Master Plan process by looking more closely at the grocery store use and publishing a Grocery Store White paper in 2013.
c. Researched linking Devens water and sewer to the “C” district.
d. Worked to improve communications with local businesses in “C” district and local residents
e. Developed five (5) year objectives and strategies plan for improving the business environment in 2013.
f. Considered joining Nashoba Valley Chamber of Commerce.
g. Held open forum on “C” district development in 2013
h. Recommended hiring of town planner in 2013.
i.
Considered gas station/convenience store use but
did not act on it.
In 2013, the EDC was disbanded as a Town Committee. Lack of support for economic development by the public and by Town officials appear to be key reasons for this action.
2. In November of 2014, the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) published a report funded through the District Local Technical Assistance (DLTA) program on the recommendation of the 2016 Master Plan consultant. The five (5) tasks that made up the report consisted of:
a. Task 1: Background Information
b. Task 2: Ayer Development Plans & Business Analyst Online (BOA) Assessment
c. Task 3: Map of Businesses in the C District
d. Task 4: Parking Assessment and Building Permits
e. Task 5: Business and Property Owners Surveys
This relatively confounding document presents as a series of appendices that are not woven together as a coherent, connected report. There is useful information in each of the Tasks (sections) but there is no purpose or introduction nor any conclusion or recommendations and thus the usefulness of the report is negligible.
Since the 2016 Master Plan has been adopted, the Town has
hired a permanent, full-time Community and Economic Development Director to take up the direction of past plans and create a viable solution for the corridor. Part 2 will discuss recent events and the current state of the corridor.
No comments:
Post a Comment