Tuesday's Valley News front section offers an interesting portrait in newsworthiness.
Page 1 reports on the continuing police saga in Norwich with Gerard Chapdelaine regrettably caught speaking out of school. Page 2 holds a much more important story for Norwich residents, entitled, "School Board To Discuss Wilder Units." For those who may have missed it, there is an application before the Hartford Zoning Board of Adjustment and School Board for the construction of an 192-unit subdivision behind the Dothan Brook School on Route 5 in Wilder just south of the Norwich/Hartford border. 500 yards north and this would be huge story as a two hundred unit subdivision in Norwich would constitute a quantum leap in housing stock for this town. Instead, the development will be permitted and constructed without any input from Norwich and, but for this post perhaps, largely beneath our collective radar.
What we will notice, once these units are occupied, is the hundreds of additional car trips daily on Route 5 headed to and from the Exit 13 interchange. That traffic will be a factor for every Norwich resident passing through that interchange for the rest of our lives here. I'm not saying the development itself is good or bad. I'm simply noting how odd it is that a police job action few of us will remember twelve months from now trumps a development which will materially alter the lives of all commuters in our town for years to come.
Nowhere in Tuesday's paper can you find mention of the biggest story for Norwich residents. Our Planning Commission, after years of work, has produced new draft zoning regulations and convened a second public hearing to receive public input scheduled for Thursday evening. These regulations will govern every significant change any Norwich land owners wish to undertake on their property for the foreseeable future. The cumulative effect of these regulations will determine the look and feel of our community, influence land values, and define the costs of development for land owners and their neighbors in concrete and permanent ways.
I don't recall seeing any reporters from with the Valley News or Spectator at the earlier public hearing and don't expect they'll be in attendance Thursday either. I don't expect many of you reading this to put aside the hours necessary to absorb the 142 page draft document or troop down to Tracy Hall Thursday evening to discuss them. I'm simply pointing out that big changes are afoot for Norwich residents -- bigger, I dare say, than our police force and with much longer term consequences. Apparently, these changes don't fit the news cycle and probably don't sell newspapers.
Unwelcome news indeed.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Comments on Draft Zoning - Open Letter to PC
To the Planning Commission:
I think the Planning Commission has done an admirable job under almost absurdly difficult circumstances to pull together these draft zoning regulations. Nevertheless, I urge the Planning Commission to seriously reconsider these draft zoning regulations and the manner by which they are promulgated. As drafted, I am concerned these regulations impose substantial restrictions upon individual land owners in an effort to prevent impacts most commonly created by subdivisions and large-scale development. In my opinion, this approach unnecessarily burdens individual land owners and significantly increasing our permitting and enforcement responsibilities to the eventual aggravation of many with very little to show for it in the end.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review these regulations from the viewpoint of an individual land owner seeking a zoning permit to build an addition or renovate an accessory structure on their land. These types of permits - - these instances of individual land owners confronting our zoning regulations for the purpose of making improvements to their property -- outnumber new home permits nearly four-to-one in recent years. Recognizing the limited individual impact such improvements are likely to pose, it may be worth considering a drastically reduced set of minimum restrictions applicable to non-new construction which aim to protect only the most compelling community interests.
2. Review several case studies based upon recent zoning permits, working through the regulations as the applicant, Zoning Administrator and/or DRB would be required to do. At each step, it is worth asking whether the restriction or added expense is justified by the development impact it seeks to limit. I'm concerned a number of measures in these regulations require a level of documentation, review, and enforcement supervision entirely disproportionate to their regulatory goals.
3. While it may sound obvious, the use of "shall" and "should" in these regulations is the difference between enforceable regulation and unsolicited advice. Wherever the regulations say a regulatory measure "shall" or "must" apply, that is a mandatory rule upon which an application must be denied unless some mitigating waiver authority is provided. Wherever regulations say "should" or "may," the regulatory measure is likely unenforceable as a basis for denying a permit. That being the case, you should ask whether the measure so recommended belongs in these regulations at all. While it may seem fine for the Planning Commission to promulgate unsolicited advice via these regulations, it's a difficult role for the DRB to administrate.
4. Consider creating regulatory tiers: a least restrictive tier for renovations and additions; a more restrictive tier for new home construction and adaptive reuse of existing structures; and the most scrutiny and regulation for subdivisions creating new lots and conditional uses creating more intensive use of surrounding infrastructure. Ideally, applicants and the DRB should be able to clearly identify the appropriate tier for each proposed development and the regulatory burdens imposed by those tiers should be commensurate to the intensification of use.
5. Consistent with the tiering idea proposed above, I'd urge you all to consider restructuring these regulations to simplify the specific regulatory restrictions and facilitate their use by applicants and their neighbors. Joe Cassidy's comments at the last public hearing -- expressing a "where to begin" bewilderment at these regs -- are a clear signal that whatever the regulatory virtues of this draft, it is a daunting body of regulations for land owners and DRB members to navigate. In other words, apart from questions of policy, this draft needs significant reorganization to improve usability for those actually affected by them.
6. I'll simply reiterate my concern expressed at the earlier public hearing that these draft regulations appear to me a significant departure from the "incentives towards better development" approach which our subdivision regulations pioneered. The complexity and low usability of these regulations further heighten the likelihood that land owners will find permitting under this draft a series of unpleasant surprises. I thought the new subdivision regulations made impressive strides towards helping land owners anticipate the issues so permitting could become more predictable and thus a more constructive experience for all. These regulations, I'm afraid, are a significant step back from that goal.
Finally, I again urge you all to consider a radical review of the overall promulgation process. For the past few years, I've gathered the distinct impression that my comments and criticisms of prior drafts and the drafting process have been unwelcome. Perhaps I'm simply deluded regarding the value of my comments, but I tend to believe this is more a factor of your workload, reflected in Stuart Richards' comments at the public hearing urging you all to get on with the town plan. As I've said on a number of occasions to both the PC and the Selectboard, I believe our planning and permitting process is fundamentally broken and must be addressed comprehensively. I do not think this is simply a matter of personalities or factions, but rather rests on structural and conceptual issues which are found throughout the state. I believe the recent changes to Chapter 117 were a legislative effort to reconceptualize the process in response to these difficulties. I'm disheartened that so much honest and well-intentioned volunteer effort continues to be expended on a structure which produces so little in return. The Selectboard in all it's recent iterations has shown no stomach to even discuss this matter. Our Town Manager lacks the familiarity with planning and permitting to be expected to lead a review. It's really up to you all, as a commission, to provide the leadership that can help us all escape this ineffectual grind that exhausting everyone.
As always, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further, cognizant of the fact your meeting agenda is effectively backlogged in perpetuity.
I think the Planning Commission has done an admirable job under almost absurdly difficult circumstances to pull together these draft zoning regulations. Nevertheless, I urge the Planning Commission to seriously reconsider these draft zoning regulations and the manner by which they are promulgated. As drafted, I am concerned these regulations impose substantial restrictions upon individual land owners in an effort to prevent impacts most commonly created by subdivisions and large-scale development. In my opinion, this approach unnecessarily burdens individual land owners and significantly increasing our permitting and enforcement responsibilities to the eventual aggravation of many with very little to show for it in the end.
PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Review these regulations from the viewpoint of an individual land owner seeking a zoning permit to build an addition or renovate an accessory structure on their land. These types of permits - - these instances of individual land owners confronting our zoning regulations for the purpose of making improvements to their property -- outnumber new home permits nearly four-to-one in recent years. Recognizing the limited individual impact such improvements are likely to pose, it may be worth considering a drastically reduced set of minimum restrictions applicable to non-new construction which aim to protect only the most compelling community interests.
2. Review several case studies based upon recent zoning permits, working through the regulations as the applicant, Zoning Administrator and/or DRB would be required to do. At each step, it is worth asking whether the restriction or added expense is justified by the development impact it seeks to limit. I'm concerned a number of measures in these regulations require a level of documentation, review, and enforcement supervision entirely disproportionate to their regulatory goals.
3. While it may sound obvious, the use of "shall" and "should" in these regulations is the difference between enforceable regulation and unsolicited advice. Wherever the regulations say a regulatory measure "shall" or "must" apply, that is a mandatory rule upon which an application must be denied unless some mitigating waiver authority is provided. Wherever regulations say "should" or "may," the regulatory measure is likely unenforceable as a basis for denying a permit. That being the case, you should ask whether the measure so recommended belongs in these regulations at all. While it may seem fine for the Planning Commission to promulgate unsolicited advice via these regulations, it's a difficult role for the DRB to administrate.
4. Consider creating regulatory tiers: a least restrictive tier for renovations and additions; a more restrictive tier for new home construction and adaptive reuse of existing structures; and the most scrutiny and regulation for subdivisions creating new lots and conditional uses creating more intensive use of surrounding infrastructure. Ideally, applicants and the DRB should be able to clearly identify the appropriate tier for each proposed development and the regulatory burdens imposed by those tiers should be commensurate to the intensification of use.
5. Consistent with the tiering idea proposed above, I'd urge you all to consider restructuring these regulations to simplify the specific regulatory restrictions and facilitate their use by applicants and their neighbors. Joe Cassidy's comments at the last public hearing -- expressing a "where to begin" bewilderment at these regs -- are a clear signal that whatever the regulatory virtues of this draft, it is a daunting body of regulations for land owners and DRB members to navigate. In other words, apart from questions of policy, this draft needs significant reorganization to improve usability for those actually affected by them.
6. I'll simply reiterate my concern expressed at the earlier public hearing that these draft regulations appear to me a significant departure from the "incentives towards better development" approach which our subdivision regulations pioneered. The complexity and low usability of these regulations further heighten the likelihood that land owners will find permitting under this draft a series of unpleasant surprises. I thought the new subdivision regulations made impressive strides towards helping land owners anticipate the issues so permitting could become more predictable and thus a more constructive experience for all. These regulations, I'm afraid, are a significant step back from that goal.
Finally, I again urge you all to consider a radical review of the overall promulgation process. For the past few years, I've gathered the distinct impression that my comments and criticisms of prior drafts and the drafting process have been unwelcome. Perhaps I'm simply deluded regarding the value of my comments, but I tend to believe this is more a factor of your workload, reflected in Stuart Richards' comments at the public hearing urging you all to get on with the town plan. As I've said on a number of occasions to both the PC and the Selectboard, I believe our planning and permitting process is fundamentally broken and must be addressed comprehensively. I do not think this is simply a matter of personalities or factions, but rather rests on structural and conceptual issues which are found throughout the state. I believe the recent changes to Chapter 117 were a legislative effort to reconceptualize the process in response to these difficulties. I'm disheartened that so much honest and well-intentioned volunteer effort continues to be expended on a structure which produces so little in return. The Selectboard in all it's recent iterations has shown no stomach to even discuss this matter. Our Town Manager lacks the familiarity with planning and permitting to be expected to lead a review. It's really up to you all, as a commission, to provide the leadership that can help us all escape this ineffectual grind that exhausting everyone.
As always, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss this further, cognizant of the fact your meeting agenda is effectively backlogged in perpetuity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)