Planning board faults Tiverton mall project

TIVERTON — For over three hours Tuesday, March 29, Tiverton's planning board and representatives of New England Development (NED) thrashed out the merits and shortcomings of a proposed 330,000 square foot mall the company wants to build on 44 acres north of Route 24 between Fish and Main Roads. No decision was reached except to meet again on May 3.

An audience of perhaps 60 people, including expert witnesses on hand for NED, listened. Two court reporters were present, taking down every word, gearing for the possibility that NED may take the matter to court if its plans are rejected by the planning board.

The immediate outcome of the debate, perhaps the only matter the two sides could agree on that evening, was a decision to extend the deadline from April 15 to May 3 for consideration of NED's plan. The planning board will meet again on the matter at 7 p.m. on May in the Tiverton Middle School auditorium.

Planning board members took turns reciting their concerns, almost unanimously opposed to NED's proposal as presented or pointing out deficiencies they thought existed. Too much traffic, too large in scale, too many safety and security problems, environmentally unsound, destructive of Tiverton's rural and small town character, they said.

William R. Cronin, Jr., NED's vice president and the head of its delegation at the meeting, countered, "we feel you haven't come to grips with the fact this project is going to go ahead ...We fully intend to build a project on that site. We're not going away. Bottom line is we're going to build the project." And still later he said "if you think Fish and Sousa Roads are not going to develop, that's unrealistic."

If Mr. Cronin's comments seemed strong, so were the comments by planning board members that preceded them.

First to speak up was a member who expressed worry about safety and law enforcement issues, referring to comments expressed at a public hearing earlier in March by Lise Gescheidt, a Tiverton resident and criminal defense lawyer in Providence.

Ms. Gescheidt had testified that in her experience malls attract lots of people: shoplifters, people with drug and alcohol problems, purse snatchers, people who prey on those who are alone and vulnerable, credit card thieves, people who break into or steal cars, adolescents left to roam at night unsupervised, people involved in accidents, and prowlers. She knows, she said, because "these people are my clients."

Mr. Cronin disagreed, and assured planning board members that NED "would provide its own on-site security," that it works "very cooperatively with local law enforcement authorities," and that "we haven't seen the type of problems mentioned," later alluding to safety concerns expressed as "scare tactics." He acknowledged bad checks were an issue, but he said stealing cars was not. He said that the vast majority of emergency calls were medical in nature.

In quick order, other planning board members spoke out against NED's proposal. Patricia Sylvester said that "nothing in the comprehensive plan envisions development on this scale" and that NED's assumptions "about fire and police are unrealistic." She said that its traffic analysis was "not credible," and that she believed the project would have "a negative impact on the environment."

Board member Stephen Hughes said he thought NED's traffic plan "as proposed will increase the division of town north and south ... Traffic is my main concern," he said. "The traffic is overwhelming and not in keeping with the rural character of Tiverton."

Board member Jay Wehle said the comprehensive plan focuses on "retaining the small town atmosphere" of Tiverton, that the NED project would be "detrimental to the environment" and that the traffic plan offered by NED is "not convincingly" acceptable.

Size is crucial to the debate, and each side claims the other is unwilling to enter into a dialogue. Planning board members, as Mr. Hughes put it, have said three times at least that they would like NED "to reduce the footprint" of the project, and they say that NED has not done that, always returning with one the same size.

"The dialogue went away due to your unwillingness to change and do what the town wanted," said Mr. Hughes.

To which Mr. Cronin responded that the project needs to be 330,000 square feet to be viable. He asked, however, whether the town would accept the total size if the size of the anchor tenant's building were reduced from 120,000 square feet to something less.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Dueling rules

Perhaps at the crux of the decision, which may require legal action to resolve, are dueling provisions in the zoning ordinance.
* One provision, favored by NED, is referred to in discussions as Section 10(d), and states that the following use is permitted under the zoning ordinance: "Retail business, office and/or consumer service complex." NED claims that these terms, under the definition section of the ordinance, include "malls" and "shopping centers."

* Planning board members claim that NED's proposal is governed by provision 10 (c) of the zoning ordinance, to which significant size limitations apply. That provision refers to "Supermarket/department store, discount center, furniture or other chair retail outlet, including shopping centers." Under 10 (c) no single structure can exceed 40,000 square feet. NED's proposed largest building, which it says will be occupied by Filene's department store, would have 120,000 square feet.

BY TOM KILLIN DALGLISH

tdalglish@eastbaynewspapers.com

Copyright © 2003, The East Bay Newspapers