Open Space Committee

There is a whole story about the Open Space Committee in town and how it is working, and not working so well, to preserve open space. There have been statements made that the area between the villages, the area referred to on this blog as Landing Hill, is a preferred area for development. Other interests in town point out that preservation in this area is equally important; that having open space near residential neighborhoods is extremely valuable to our emotional, spiritual and community health and represents an underpinning of rural character, the top priority of people in town. Open space in these areas offers visual buffers, a key to evincing a sense of rural character.

When questioned about the emphasis on development in this area, there have been mixed responses. Sometimes the Open Space committee will deny that they try to steer development to this area. Yet when the IWWC voted to approve the Morgan Estates application, commission chairman Randy Dill stated that it was consistent with open space policy in the town (see minutes/tape of IWWC meeting on July 15, 2008 and prior work session meeting tapes/minutes). While steering development may not be an official position, it is being used in town to justify development approvals. In fact, as described below, one of the current 'official' goals of the committee that eminates from its authorizing resolution, is to "Encourage development..." (item f, section 2 of resolution).

The former Morgan property, located in the Landing Hill area, currently under application for development as Morgan Estates, was presented to the Open Space committee even before the development proposal was ever made. The Open Space Committee choose not to act on the opportunity. At the time, it was determined that the property did not fit certain criteria that the committee uses to evaluate opportunities. That criteria, using a weighting system did at the time have the effect of underweighting open space opportunities in the Landing Hill area. Local residents are currently pressuring the committee to improve the criteria. More needs to be done, however, to remove the bias for steering development.

Recently residents have begun to question the committee not only about their criteria, but about their organization and process. There are few rules guiding this committee. They have not produced minutes for their meetings since 2006. There are no term limits for the chairman. Most of the meetings are characterized by extended discussion in 'executive' session, in which members of the public are not allowed to participate.

Asmentioned, the enabling resolution for the committee is part of the problem. There are six goals listed in Section 2 of the resolution. All of them except one describe goals related to preserving open space, the de facto mission of the committee. However, the goal associated with line f. is different.

The goals are listed, according to the resolution, in no particular order of importance. Goal 'f' states: "Encourage development only in areas capable of supporting development without adversely impacting the environment." The troubling thing about this goal is the fact that it is about encouraging development. This goal seems to run counter with the mission of the committee. In fact, the presence of a goal encouraging development has a detrimental effect on the ability of the committee to do its job.

First, goal 'f' is in opposition to preserving open space. If the committee is supposed to both preserve and encourage development, a whole landscape of subjectivity is opened up. Given the current opacity of the committee and its workings, this is not a good thing.

Second, in addition to the added subjectivity, goal 'f' quite simply splits the committee's focus. By creating the separate charge of encouraging development, it increases the chances that the committee will not do a good job at either task. Moreover, the charge of encouraging development is counter to the inherent intent of the resolution, the very basis for creating the committee.

Goal 'f' gives the committee the latitude to decide which parts of town, or which parcels, will be targeted for preservation, and which will be targeted for development. While prioritization of opportunities is indeed one of the committees responsibilities, and a difficult one at that, the confusion and subjectivity introduced by goal 'f' is a recipe for mediocrity. Ironically, many in town would argue that is exactly the kind of results being achieved by the committee.

There is a role for encouraging development in the right places. In fact, highlighted at a recent environmental round table held by the town was the idea that the right kind of Economic development needed to be encouraged in the right places. This is the role of the economic Development Commission (EDC). So instead of having the Open Space Committee trying to do the work of the EDC while producing questionable results in the open space category, it would be prudent for the town to revisit the resolution that authorizes the committee in the first place.

While they are at it, they should perhaps consider beefing up the rules of conduct and process to add some transparency and accountability to the committee's workings.

Although the committee is quite vocal about is successes, many of these examples are parcels pursued and purchased by the state. The actual success record of the committee appears to be something less than what they would tell us.