Open Letter to SB - Affordable Housing at Agway

To the Norwich Selectboard:

I am writing in my individual capacity as a citizen so my comments should not be construed as reflecting the opinion of the Norwich Development Review Board or any of its members.
Elsewhere, I have expressed my concerns regarding the amendment of our zoning and subdivision regulations for the purpose of accommodating a single proposed development. Apart from any broad philosophical or political concerns regarding what is, in all but name, “spot-zoning;” I think there are practical regulatory ramifications which the Selectboard ought to consider carefully before voting.

Article III of the Norwich Subdivision Regulations (“NSR”) sets out planning and design standards which every subdivision and planned residential development must meet to receive permitting approval from the DRB. One aspect of these standards concerns density. The Planning Commission’s current proposal specifically seeks to alter those standards for the purpose of accommodating the Agway project. It’s clear the Planning Commission has considered the density changes carefully and I won’t second-guess their decision here.

My concern is that spot-zoning to accommodate the Agway project has only addressed density issues without considering the full range of planning and design standards any applicant seeking to develop the Agway parcel will face. I have no opinion regarding, or knowledge of, the specific characteristics of the Agway parcel which may implicate Article III restrictions. However, I would direct you specifically to NSR 3.4 (District Settlement Patterns) and the DRB’s review of the recent Simpson Development application within the Village Residential District under this criterion.

The DRB has insisted on any number of occasions that its authority begins and ends with the Town’s zoning and subdivision bylaws. Everyone should appreciate that the 2002 revision of the subdivision bylaws created very specific and often highly restrictive limits to subdivision development. It is the DRB’s duty to apply these regulations literally. The DRB’s authority to depart from the plain language of these restrictions is specifically circumscribed by specific waiver authority language.

Do the prospective developers of the Agway parcel have a preference between Village Residential and Rural Residential settlement patterns? It will make a difference come the permitting stage. Our recent decision in Simpson, another proposed development at the outer edge of the Village Residential District, should highlight for everyone the importance of respecting the language of our regulations and remaining consistent to that language despite public pressure for or against a given development. If the proposed Agway development is not expected to reflect the Village Settlement Pattern, further amendment to these bylaws may be in order.