Massachusetts Gaming Commission denies Sterling petition
Town argues that casino would affect traffic, police
BY CHRISTINE SMITH
STERLING CORRESPONDENT
Town Administrator Terri Ackerman expressed surprise last week after Sterling’s petition to be designated as a “surrounding community” of a gaming facility proposed for a site on Jungle Road in Leominster was denied.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission unanimously voted to deny the town’s petition at its public meeting held in Boston on Nov. 21. At the same meeting, state officials also voted against the City of Fitchburg’s petition but granted the Town of Bolton’s.
Elaine Driscoll, director of communications for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, said that Sterling’s “surrounding community” status was denied due to a “lack of identified impacts.”
Ackerman hesitated to make a full statement on the matter, but noted that she felt that the town had identified and documented a number of issues that Sterling officials believe would impact the town, which they had submitted to the state for review. She is currently seeking an explanation of the Commission’s decision.
Without the designation as a “surrounding community” Sterling cannot seek arbitration at the state level, forcing The Cordish Companies, also known as PPE Casino Resorts MA, LLC, the company proposing the slot facility, to pay annual mitigation fees to the town for any impact that the facility will have on the town.
It its petition to the state, the town had argued that the Sterling border’s onefourth mile proximity to the proposed slot facility on Jungle Road was significant and would mean additional traffic on town roads and place a strain on town emergency departments. However, Cordish stated that the location is on a dead-end street, with no access directly from Sterling.
The Gaming Commission had reviewed the August study by the Massachusetts Regional Planning Council, which “raised significant concerns about traffic on Route 117 in Lancaster and Bolton,” with recommendations to review the impact on both of those towns. The study made no mention of roads in Sterling.
An analysis conducted by consultants from Green International Affiliates, Inc., also reviewed by the Gaming Commission, said that traffic would most likely travel to and from the site on Interstate 190, rather than on Sterling’s town roads.
Green International noted there would be about an annual 22.5% increase, or another 2.33 million, in vehicles coming from south of the site and traveling the six-mile portion of Route 190 located within Sterling on their way to the slot parlor. Based on numbers that currently use the highway and a yearly average of 33 accidents on this stretch of road, Green International estimated the potential crashes would increase by less than one per year as a result of the increase.
Sterling officials had argued, however, that there would be negative impacts on Routes 12 and 62, as well as Chocksett and Pratts Junction roads, all of which service roads leading to the slot parlor and which are patrolled by officers of the Sterling Police Department. Town officials had also stated concern regarding Sterling’s responsibility in being first responders to accidents and incidents on I-190, which they feel will significantly increase as a result of the additional traffic flow.
Other concerns regarding the facility included the potential increases in larcenies and other crimes, reduction of property values, and a need for expanded social service programs as a result of problem gambling.
Ackerman had noted at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on Nov. 20 that the town would continue to negotiate with Cordish, but that both parties have not reached common ground on “a lot of issues.”
The town is hoping to reach an agreement with the company for some amount of annual mitigation directly from Cordish.
Driscoll noted that a portion of revenues from the gaming facilities will be placed into a mitigation fund, which would be available for communities to tap into, “if impacts present themselves after licensing that were not originally anticipated.” She noted that towns could petition the state for these funds after preparing a clear analysis of impacts based on specific data.
Cordish received approval from voters in Leominster earlier this fall for a 125,000 square foot facility to contain 1,250 slot machines, three restaurants, and a small entertainment venue. However, Cordish still has to wait until the beginning of January, when the Gaming Commission is expected to announce which of three proposed slot parlors will receive the single state license.
The other two proposed slot parlors include locations in Raynham and Plainville.
A public hearing on the issue will be hosted by the Gaming Commission at Leominster City Hall on Dec. 3 from 4-6 p.m. [Another 'public hearing' at a time inconvenient for most of the public]
http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2013-11-27/Sterling_News/Massachusetts_Gaming_Commission_denies_Sterling_pe.html
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission unanimously voted to deny the town’s petition at its public meeting held in Boston on Nov. 21. At the same meeting, state officials also voted against the City of Fitchburg’s petition but granted the Town of Bolton’s.
Elaine Driscoll, director of communications for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, said that Sterling’s “surrounding community” status was denied due to a “lack of identified impacts.”
Ackerman hesitated to make a full statement on the matter, but noted that she felt that the town had identified and documented a number of issues that Sterling officials believe would impact the town, which they had submitted to the state for review. She is currently seeking an explanation of the Commission’s decision.
Without the designation as a “surrounding community” Sterling cannot seek arbitration at the state level, forcing The Cordish Companies, also known as PPE Casino Resorts MA, LLC, the company proposing the slot facility, to pay annual mitigation fees to the town for any impact that the facility will have on the town.
It its petition to the state, the town had argued that the Sterling border’s onefourth mile proximity to the proposed slot facility on Jungle Road was significant and would mean additional traffic on town roads and place a strain on town emergency departments. However, Cordish stated that the location is on a dead-end street, with no access directly from Sterling.
The Gaming Commission had reviewed the August study by the Massachusetts Regional Planning Council, which “raised significant concerns about traffic on Route 117 in Lancaster and Bolton,” with recommendations to review the impact on both of those towns. The study made no mention of roads in Sterling.
An analysis conducted by consultants from Green International Affiliates, Inc., also reviewed by the Gaming Commission, said that traffic would most likely travel to and from the site on Interstate 190, rather than on Sterling’s town roads.
Green International noted there would be about an annual 22.5% increase, or another 2.33 million, in vehicles coming from south of the site and traveling the six-mile portion of Route 190 located within Sterling on their way to the slot parlor. Based on numbers that currently use the highway and a yearly average of 33 accidents on this stretch of road, Green International estimated the potential crashes would increase by less than one per year as a result of the increase.
Sterling officials had argued, however, that there would be negative impacts on Routes 12 and 62, as well as Chocksett and Pratts Junction roads, all of which service roads leading to the slot parlor and which are patrolled by officers of the Sterling Police Department. Town officials had also stated concern regarding Sterling’s responsibility in being first responders to accidents and incidents on I-190, which they feel will significantly increase as a result of the additional traffic flow.
Other concerns regarding the facility included the potential increases in larcenies and other crimes, reduction of property values, and a need for expanded social service programs as a result of problem gambling.
Ackerman had noted at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on Nov. 20 that the town would continue to negotiate with Cordish, but that both parties have not reached common ground on “a lot of issues.”
The town is hoping to reach an agreement with the company for some amount of annual mitigation directly from Cordish.
Driscoll noted that a portion of revenues from the gaming facilities will be placed into a mitigation fund, which would be available for communities to tap into, “if impacts present themselves after licensing that were not originally anticipated.” She noted that towns could petition the state for these funds after preparing a clear analysis of impacts based on specific data.
Cordish received approval from voters in Leominster earlier this fall for a 125,000 square foot facility to contain 1,250 slot machines, three restaurants, and a small entertainment venue. However, Cordish still has to wait until the beginning of January, when the Gaming Commission is expected to announce which of three proposed slot parlors will receive the single state license.
The other two proposed slot parlors include locations in Raynham and Plainville.
A public hearing on the issue will be hosted by the Gaming Commission at Leominster City Hall on Dec. 3 from 4-6 p.m. [Another 'public hearing' at a time inconvenient for most of the public]
http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2013-11-27/Sterling_News/Massachusetts_Gaming_Commission_denies_Sterling_pe.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment