Canton Officials Come Out Against Plymouth Rubber Site Development

It’s not looking good for the current proposed redevelopment of the Plymouth Rubber Factory in Canton.

The Canton Board of Selectmen, along with the chairs of the Finance Committee, School Committee and Planning Board, stated they would not support the proposed redevelopment of the rubber factory.

The problem the selectmen had with it, at least, is the fact there would be too many high-density rental units for the town.

The housing complex, which would hold 348 units (along with 85 assisted living units in the parking lot across the street), would be placed in the middle of downtown Canton, an already traffic congested area.

The developer’s representative Bernard Plant said they would consider putting in traffic mitigation, whether it be a traffic light or stripping, but selectmen Avril Elkort said she felt it was still too much.

“We cannot put a permanent structure of this sort and cause a personal chaos for the citizens of Canton,” she said. “It would permanently add problems to Canton. It would make people mad as hell trying to get past this area of that area.”

Another major concern of selectmen, finance committee chair Mark Porter, planning board member Jeremy Comeau and school committee chair Cindy Thomas brought up was the taxing nature the development would have on the school system. The biggest problem in that regard they said was the fact there would be no way to know exactly what the impact in terms of added students would be to the town.

“We are almost at capacity,” Thomas said. “I think that of the questions I have been asked is if this would be a tipping point for us as a district.”

Thomas added if it does become a tipping point, the district would have to add another school building, which would cost the town a great deal.

“We all know that if we talk about need a new school it’s not just about the capital expenses but it’s also about the operational expenses,” she said. “When we add a new building it’s an exponentially substantial increase.”

Plant said, depending on the number of students living in the complex and the addition of 85 assisted living units (with an estimated $100,000 of taxable revenue) the development could be an increase in yearly revenue for the town. The development is also designated 40R Housing, for which the state would give about $900,000 as an incentive for affordable housing.

“Across the board it presents a favorable benefit to the town,” he said. “It appears we’ll have to prove that to you because it appears to be a sticking point.”

Plant also argued though it would be an increase in students in the school district, he said the added tax revenue of a single family home with three children worth $500,000 is far less than what it costs to educate those children.

“Bernie, you’ve presented a good argument that single family homes are more costly, but we can’t control that,” said selectman Robert Burr. “Also there’s no burning need for this type of housing. I hear the opposite. Condominium complexes are now for rent and not fully occupied. I don’t see any additional benefit.”

Both representatives for the developer Paul Schniders said at this time he could not say if the plan would be reconfigured to take these issues into consideration.