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.

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.

Open Letter on Agway Proposal Op-Ed

I read your Letter to the Editor in this morning's Valley News and thought I'd take the opportunity to answer the rhetorical question you pose. I don't know what "they" are afraid of, but I'm afraid of two things.

First, I fear that we are betraying the stated purpose of our land use regulations for a politically expedient one-off project. Second, I fear the finger-pointing and distrust among different townspeople have almost entirely choked off the forum for honest and candid debate.

Our 1996 Town Plan, and the revised subdivision regulations enacted subsequent to that Plan clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly state that our land use regulations should focus intensive development where higher density already exists. Our subdivision regulations adopt the existing zoning designations as threshold criteria to determine where higher density development may occur. The Agway project, as proposed, does not meet these criteria for that property. Everyone I've heard address this issue -- for and against the Agway project -- takes for granted the idea that it's perfectly alright to amend the zoning and subdivision regulations to address a single development project. I disagree.

Every single landowner who has come before the Town's permitting boards in recent years has faced the stark fact their right to develop their land is subject to the terms of our land use regulations. These land use regulations limit the development potential of properties all over town and their impact is real. Those who are denied subdivisions miss out on countless thousands, even millions, of dollars in potential income had they been allowed to develop as they proposed.

Right now, Simpson Development is appealing a decision by our Development Review Board which concluded that our land use regulations restrict the more intensive development they proposed at the edge of the Village Residential District. Shame on Simpson Development for not asking the Planning Commission to amend the subdivision regulations to allow their project? Shame on the DRB for not realizing the Town doesn't really take these regulations that seriously?

Some may say the difference is that Simpson was proposing market rate housing and the Agway project is proposing affordable housing. But our existing land use regulations make provisions for increased density where affordable housing is proposed and the proposed Agway project still doesn't meet our regulations.

So what do we do?

On the one hand, we can proceed as we now appear intent upon doing; namely, amend our regulations on a one-off basis to allow the Agway project as proposed. I won't lay down in front of the bulldozers should that come to pass, but I want everyone who supports that route to recognize the hypocrisy of amending our regulations where politically convenient while telling all the other land owners interested in developing their property that they're stuck with the regulations as written.

Don't comfort yourselves with the assumption that it's only Simpson Development and those seeking to build "huge house after huge house" that seek permits under our existing regulations. We've seen applicants looking to subdivide so their children can live in a modest house or trailer next door. We've seen applicants hoping to fund a house otherwise beyond their means by subdividing and selling off a portion of the land they own. Part of our affordability crisis in town can be traced to the limited development opportunities allowed under our existing regulations.

The other alternative, which I've been advocating, is to continue to take our land use regulations seriously and ask the questions those regulations demand of us. Do our current land use regulations permit the Agway project as proposed? No. Then what options do our land use regulations offer to increase the availability of affordable housing in this Town? In the Rural Residential District, where the Agway property and the vast majority of land in Norwich resides, Planned Residential Developments are available which allow a density boost for dedicated affordable units. But this won't accommodate the numbers and density proposed for the Agway site and we've already heard Housing Vermont and Twin Pines don't see the economies of scale necessary to go forward.

The other alternative is to seek higher density projects within the Village Residential District. One potential site where higher density development could occur would be the combined fire/police and Senior Housing parcels. If there were the political will to build housing consistent with our existing regulations, the opportunity to redevelop the emergency services and senior housing parcels holds great potential. I'd hope such redevelopment would strive to create mixed-income housing while incorporating the existing senior housing capacity simply because I think experience has shown mixed-income housing is more sustainable and seniors belong downtown where services are easily accessible.

I don't think redevelopment of these properties can, or should, reach the number of affordable units proposed by the Agway project. Instead, I think we get a more integrated, more sustainable project consistent with our land use regulations. I may be criticized for this incremental approach, but the number of units proposed for the Agway parcel has been dictated by the economics of the developer, not the characteristics of the land or our regulations. A successful redevelopment on the emergency services/senior housing parcels may help demystify "affordable housing" and allay fears of what such projects mean to existing neighborhoods, paving the way for future projects which can continue to pare down the affordability gap and offer more diverse housing stock we purport to want.

The opportunity to relocate emergency services to the Agway parcel and redevelop downtown along the lines outlined above has been raised a number of times over the past year. The response from the Selectboard has been underwhelming and the reasons offered to suggest why it wouldn't work seem pretty thin. Which brings me to my second fear.

In our current political climate can the Selectboard afford to pause and contemplate the options? Elections are five months away. Why would anyone facing reelection want to risk being branded as one of "them," afraid of affordable housing and standing in the way of democracy? Honest, well-meaning people can disagree about both the means and the ends involved in this debate. But why bother when you face such vocal criticism by those convinced there is only one answer and only one way to get there? In my opinion, there are some very irresponsible public figures in our Town who can't be bothered to entertain alternative points of view and cynically play real issues to settle political scores. That poison seems to me to be spreading and it won't stop until townspeople try harder to resist the easy path which paints everything black and white and deafens us to honest disagreement.

I've raised what I feel to be serious and honest concerns about regulation through amendment and I won't accept being branded as "anti-affordable housing" or "development-a-phobic" for asking honest questions. I didn't think I was a "they" or a "them" but I'm probably just old-fashioned and naive. I thought we were an "us," a community of people tied together by the fact we're responsible for governing ourselves. That means the loud few who keep us in the Valley News and Spectator as well as the reticent many whose ranks appear to increase with each election cycle. We have the freedom to govern ourselves and only ourselves to blame when we allow that freedom to be determined by the loud few through our acquiescence. I am absolutely certain Norwich will build the type of affordable housing it deserves. I'm afraid Norwich will build the type of affordable housing it deserves.