Proposed Exit 4 Zoning Plan
Receives a Positive Reception
By M. D. Drysdale

The Planning Commission’s proposed zoning for the Exit 4 Interchange received a largely positive reception from more than 50 people who attended a hearing at the Old Dorm at VTC Tuesday evening.

More than one speaker expressed delight and amazement that the planning process had produced such a widely accepted solution to a potentially divisive topic. Exit 4, as Commission member Hugo Liepmann pointed out at the beginning, is one of Randolph’s most scenic spots. It is also the single most desireable location, from a business point of view, for a variety of development.

Each of the two aspects had its fierce partisans, and it was the commission’s job to "find balance," he said.

Many in the audience thought the Planning Commission—as well as two study committees that preceded it—had succeeded in finding that balance.

"You have done an amazing job to have created as much agreement as we have here," said town assessor Patrick French.

"This is an excellent document," said Elaine Soule, who has been part of a planning process in Randolph Center.

And Jim Kennedy, who chaired the first two Exit 4 committees and hammered out some of the crucial compromises, said he was pleased.

"I want to compliment the Planning Commission," he said. He added that he felt the plan would allow businesses, with restrictions, to utilize sites around Exit 4 while protecting the view and other values.

Not Unanimous

The praise for the Commission’s plan was not unanimous. Jim Morgan, president of the ClearSource water bottling company on Route 66, whose property would be in the new zone, asked why the latest maps do not show any access to a 25-acre piece of property that ClearSource owns uphill from the bottling plant.

A compromise had been hammered out regarding where on that property ClearSource could build. However, without access from Route 66, that agreement was "a joke," he said.

It appeared from Commission comments that members had intended to take care of the access issue, but the final draft clearly had not satisfied Morgan. Several members of the audience expressed support for the ClearSource position, and the Commission appeared to be agreeable.

A more wide-ranging disagreement involved the requirements that open land must be placed in conservation easements of various kinds if other parts of the parcels are developed. Several speakers said that after landowners had agreed to all the other exacting provisions of the ordinance, they shouldn’t have to sign away the undeveloped portion of their land.

Even Marty Strange, who has worked with many landowners on conservation easements, said he opposed the Commission’s policy.

"Mandatory conservation is an enemy of voluntary conservation," he said.

He and others pointed out that formally conserving a lot of land—whether through a land trust or the Randolph Conservation Committee—is an expensive proposition.

"It’s not going to stay open unless it’s maintained," said Jinny Sammis. "You need a lot of resources to keep open spaces open."

The Planning Commission itself is split over the requirements for conservation easements. Member Ken Preston said it was "the final straw" that led him to vote against the entire ordinance in the Commission’s official vote.

Commission Chair Scott Berkey, who also voted against the ordinance, said those requirements were an important part of his opposition, too.

Develop or Not?

The hearing included a good deal of philosophical discussion of the value of development. Arguing the need for commercial and residential development were VTC President Ty Handy, who pointed to a decline in students in the public schools, and realtor Paul Rea, who said more jobs were a "desperate need."

"A lot of folks have made their way in the world," he observed, "but you’ve got to give an opportunity to younger people. You can’t just shut the door."

But Robert Moyer of Braintree warned against development changing "the character of the community.

"I can’t think of another interchange that comes close to the beauty of ours," he said.

John Jackson was even more explicit. Don’t assume development is a good thing, he told the hearing. "There are excellent reasons not to allow it."

As for property rights, he said "Property rights are what the citizens allow you to do with your property."

Next Steps

The Planning Commission will decide whether to make changes on the basis of the testimony. If they make substantial changes, they will hold another hearing, according to Chairman Berkey.

Then, the ordinance goes to the selectboard which must hold at least one hearing. The selectboard then can pass the ordinance or not.

A townwide vote would not be held unless a petition demands it, after the selectboard has voted.