King Arthur Qualified

I have nothing against King Arthur or their proposed sewer extension to support further business expansion. Nevertheless, I don't share the breezy lack of concern regarding unforeseen consequences expressed on the listserv these past few days.

From where I sit, this is yet another ad hoc development decision which begs the question: What's our plan?

If you follow the link above, you'll see I'm something of a broken record on this topic. If you attended the most recent public forum on the proposed town plan revisions, you'll know my concerns on this count have only deepened, but rather than beat a dead horse again, here's a positive agenda perhaps the Planning Commission, Selectboard, or (more appropriately?) an ad hoc committee could pursue:

Let's develop a smart growth plan for Route 5 South which balances commercial development, residential and recreational uses, and establishes clear rules for all these uses that are modestly aimed to guide future development in a transparent and responsible manner.

Here are some questions for that effort to grapple with - in no particular order:

1. Wouldn't a community-supported sewer access for a Route 5 South commercial district -- designed to support and facilitate what the community decides are appropriate commercial uses and densities -- be better than a privately funded and conceived sewer extension created to support a single parcel within that commercial district?

2. Shouldn't there be a conscious effort to plan for and design build-out scenarios for this commercial district that might help manage the increase in vehicular traffic that will surely result and avoid the sprawl/congestion that often occur when this type of development is pursued ad hoc by individual land owners?

3. If the town adopts a commercial district development plan, sewer access and the increased density/development value of those parcels zoned commercial in that district will be a windfall to current owners. Shouldn't the town tap this one time windfall to establish a transfer of development rights system that might be used to offset the loss of development capacity our town plan seeks to impose on rural land owners in the name of open space, conservation goals and scenic routes?

4. Wouldn't a deliberate effort to create a sensible commercial district in this specific location be a useful acid test for our existing land use regulations so we can wrestle with existing and potential uses against what those regulations actually permit? For example, would our farmer's market be permitted under our existing regulations if it wasn't already there?

5. Shouldn't the Upper Valley Events Center be rezoned commercial so they can drop the facade of being a grandfathered quasi-commercial/educational use in a zoned residential district and get on with the business of being a business?

6. Above all, isn't the entire point to balance individual land owner development interests with community development interests? That can only be done with a transparent and deliberate conversation about the competing interests involved.

King Arthur Flour -- for reasons they can best explain -- has pursued this development below the radar to the degree they have been allowed to do so. Considering the listserv references to "anti-growth" and "anti-business" townspeople living in the past, they may have felt it wise to do so. I think this is unfortunate.

First, I don't see how "anti-growth" and "anti-business" townspeople living in time warps ever come around without an opportunity to be heard and to hear out "pro-growth" "pro-business" and modern points of view. We're all taxpayers after all and many of us imagine ourselves living here for decades to come. Don't disenfranchise those with whom you disagree -- whatever satisfaction it may confer in the short term, it just doesn't work in the long run.

Second, if an ad hoc King Arthur sewer extension goes through against substantial opposition, it's the next ad hoc development on Route 5 South that will pay the price -- hardly good planning or smart growth.