"Alice Worth" wrote in yesterday's listserv:
Watt: Perhaps you can cite the standard or concept in the zoning and subdivision regulations upon which the DRB denied the Simpson Development Corporation’s plan. This would be helpful to understanding the different interpretations (judge, Simpson, Development Review Board, Gateway comm.)
Alice, the DRB's 14-page written decision on the SDC proposal should be available from Phil Dechert, our Zoning Administrator. The primary factors are the Norwich Subdivision Regulations Section 3.3(I) "Scenic Resources" and 3.4 "District Settlement Pattern." The written decision is self-explanatory, but Phil can also provide copies of the relevant regulations as well.
"Alice Worth" wrote:
For a town to work collaboratively with a developer to act in the best interests of the town in upholding the town’s values is absolutely not illusory. It happens all the time. And this doesn’t mean to break the rules, show favoritism etc. It means working together to interpret the desires of the town vis a vis the town plans, charters etc. to “do the right thing”.
There is no questions towns can and do work collaboratively with developers in many municipalities. Philosophically, I agree that towns and developers collaborating along the lines you suggest would be a constructive and economical approach. In practice, however, there are some very basic problems with this approach.
First off, under Vermont law, development review boards apply regulations to applications. Under our regulations, the Norwich DRB has very limited discretion to weigh various criteria, let alone negotiate trade-offs with developers such as SDC. I think SDC was very frustrated with our DRB for just this reason. They wanted to negotiate waivers on certain criteria in exchange for certain benefits to the town.
Interesting idea, but our zoning and subdivision regulations don't confer anything like that authority to our DRB. This is a basic fact of law. In light of this, the earlier comment that the DRB should have done otherwise simply doesn't comport with reality.
Secondly, the idea of a "town" collaborating with a developer begs the question of who it is that represents the town in such negotiations. Would it be the Selectboard? The Town Manager? The Planning Commission? Should our regulations be redrafted to give that authority to the DRB?
I saw an recent email from someone on this list suggesting that the majority of Norwich residents want the Simpson property conserved and undeveloped. I received an email last week from our Zoning Administrator suggesting the majority of Norwich residents wouldn't really mind the SDC townhouses. Who decides? Who speaks for the town? What if they negotiate something a large portion of the town utterly reject?
None of this has arisen in a vacuum. One of the reasons the DRB has so little discretionary authority under our subdivision regulations is because a number of the people active in drafting those regulations felt that discretionary authority had been abused in the past. We've seen the Planning Commission striven to the point of paralysis by factional struggle these past six years. Is there really any representative in town who could act as a constructive negotiating partner with a
developer who wouldn't have to brave the slings and arrows of a tense and fragmented town?
My frustration with the earlier email -- perhaps intemperately expressed -- is rooted in the tendency to retrospectively determine that this mess could somehow have been averted. I disagree. Given the players and regulations in place, I can't see how it could have turned out any other way. If we want to avert a repeat performance, all of us have to work harder to learn from these mistakes and help fashion the town we want.
As importantly, we need to try harder to listen to divergent points of view to be sure we're hearing the potential flaws in our own opinions and the legitimate needs of others who may see things quite differently.
Recent changes to state law regarding the role of advisory committees in both planning and permitting offer what I believe might be practical and concrete alternatives to our current practice which could move us towards a more collaborative relationship to developers and divergent development interests. I've pointed out these changes and asked for a town committee to review them in letters to the Selectboard and Planning Commission, Norwich Happenings and Valley News over the past 18 months.
I've never received a single response from any of those letters. That is not an accusation of some conspiracy of silence, but rather a stark portrait of how little time and interest there is in town right now to ask the big questions about what's not working and what we might do better.
The supposition that this Simpson matter would have reached a positive result if the DRB hadn't screwed this up is one of those simple answers that ignore the tough questions. Until we start addressing those tough questions, and stop pointing fingers, it's all just idle chatter; guaranteeing the same results in the future and discouraging good people from putting themselves forward to try to make a difference.
Monday, December 4, 2006
Sunday, December 3, 2006
Warren Thayer and the Simpson development
Regarding Warren's statement (from yesterday's listserv posting):
"Just a minor point that was a big one to me for awhile, regarding the Simpson development, and trails through it - and why the Conservation Commission "didn't do anything" about it."
I certainly wasn't suggesting the Conservation Commission "didn't do anything" about the Simpson proposal nor that it should have done anything specific. I was simply pointing out that the permitting process suffers from the lack of formal procedures which would preview major projects for relevant town commissions such as Conservation and Corridor Enhancement. Without formal procedures of this kind the idea of collaborative development which coordinates a subdivision project with corridor enhancement and property conservation is a pipe dream.
Warren was an active participant in the early DRB hearings, but his individual participation is quite different than the Conservation Commission acting as an advisory committee with a formal role in development review. To that end,while a number of people have raised the idea that SDC will conserve part of the parcel in question and create a trail easement across that parcel, that has not yet been done, to my knowledge. It's important for those who want to see a trail easement in place to attend the remaining DRB hearings in this matter to make sure that becomes a condition of the final approval.
"Just a minor point that was a big one to me for awhile, regarding the Simpson development, and trails through it - and why the Conservation Commission "didn't do anything" about it."
I certainly wasn't suggesting the Conservation Commission "didn't do anything" about the Simpson proposal nor that it should have done anything specific. I was simply pointing out that the permitting process suffers from the lack of formal procedures which would preview major projects for relevant town commissions such as Conservation and Corridor Enhancement. Without formal procedures of this kind the idea of collaborative development which coordinates a subdivision project with corridor enhancement and property conservation is a pipe dream.
Warren was an active participant in the early DRB hearings, but his individual participation is quite different than the Conservation Commission acting as an advisory committee with a formal role in development review. To that end,while a number of people have raised the idea that SDC will conserve part of the parcel in question and create a trail easement across that parcel, that has not yet been done, to my knowledge. It's important for those who want to see a trail easement in place to attend the remaining DRB hearings in this matter to make sure that becomes a condition of the final approval.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
Land Swap Ideas
As a follow-up to the land swap post on teh listserv from earlier today, Alison May succinctly summarizes some of the practical obstacles developing the fire/police property would face:
"Unfortunately, even if fire/police could move to Agway (probable total cost would be c.$2.5 million vs c$2 million to stay where they are), the land on which they are now situated, and which the town owns, is only 1.33 acres. Septic capacity in that area is dicey at best - there are pretty wet portions of the land. Whether they qualify as true wetlands I don't know. There have been real problems with septic in the swale that goes over to Carpenter Street. So I rather doubt, even though it would be wonderful, if more than a couple of units could be built."
Alison is probably right about the limited development potential of the fire/police 1.33 acres alone. As discussed on a broad email list in October 2005 when this idea was first really bandied about, the potential to co-develop these 1.33 acres with the Norwich Senior Housing and possibly adjoining parcel currently for sale could create a significant combined parcel capable of much higher density development. All of these questions would need to be resolved through in-depth investigation, but should not themselves dissuade us, as a town, from considering relocating emergency services to the Agway parcel.
"Unfortunately, even if fire/police could move to Agway (probable total cost would be c.$2.5 million vs c$2 million to stay where they are), the land on which they are now situated, and which the town owns, is only 1.33 acres. Septic capacity in that area is dicey at best - there are pretty wet portions of the land. Whether they qualify as true wetlands I don't know. There have been real problems with septic in the swale that goes over to Carpenter Street. So I rather doubt, even though it would be wonderful, if more than a couple of units could be built."
Alison is probably right about the limited development potential of the fire/police 1.33 acres alone. As discussed on a broad email list in October 2005 when this idea was first really bandied about, the potential to co-develop these 1.33 acres with the Norwich Senior Housing and possibly adjoining parcel currently for sale could create a significant combined parcel capable of much higher density development. All of these questions would need to be resolved through in-depth investigation, but should not themselves dissuade us, as a town, from considering relocating emergency services to the Agway parcel.
Friday, December 1, 2006
The Beat Goes On . . .
It appears that Housing Vermont has pulled out of the contract to buy the Agway parcel and develop it for affordable housing due to contingency problems. This means the property is back on the market and the idea of a significant affordable housing development on that property is now effectively dead.
I was actually an opponent of the Agway project. For one, I think large residential developments of any kind belong nearer where there are services to support them. Otherwise, we're simply extending development sprawl and another isolated subdivision -- in this instance one with a defined income range. Similarly, I objected to the special amendment to our zoning regulations specifically permitting the Agway development as our existing zoning would not permit such a large evelopment in that area.
Instead, I argued for a land swap which would have seen the town's emergency services relocated to a new structure on the quasi-industrial Agway parcel and the vacated fire and police locations redeveloped -- together with Norwich Senior Housing -- into a more dense cluster of mixed-income and senior housing which would allow residents an easy walk to school and services in the village center -- placing dense development where our town plan and regulations say it belongs. The land swap idea never gained any traction.
The collapse of the Agway affordable housing effort and the recent discussions regarding new emergency services facilities would seem to provide an ideal opportunity to reopen this discussion and prompt people to begin researching our options. As a first step, I encourage you to contact the Selectboard, Planning Commission and Affordable Housing Committee asking them to investigate the idea of relocating the town's emergency facilities to the Agway parcel while there's still time to acquire that parcel.
I was actually an opponent of the Agway project. For one, I think large residential developments of any kind belong nearer where there are services to support them. Otherwise, we're simply extending development sprawl and another isolated subdivision -- in this instance one with a defined income range. Similarly, I objected to the special amendment to our zoning regulations specifically permitting the Agway development as our existing zoning would not permit such a large evelopment in that area.
Instead, I argued for a land swap which would have seen the town's emergency services relocated to a new structure on the quasi-industrial Agway parcel and the vacated fire and police locations redeveloped -- together with Norwich Senior Housing -- into a more dense cluster of mixed-income and senior housing which would allow residents an easy walk to school and services in the village center -- placing dense development where our town plan and regulations say it belongs. The land swap idea never gained any traction.
The collapse of the Agway affordable housing effort and the recent discussions regarding new emergency services facilities would seem to provide an ideal opportunity to reopen this discussion and prompt people to begin researching our options. As a first step, I encourage you to contact the Selectboard, Planning Commission and Affordable Housing Committee asking them to investigate the idea of relocating the town's emergency facilities to the Agway parcel while there's still time to acquire that parcel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)