Background for March 24 Hearing 8 PM - EH Grange

The following was submitted to Preserve Landing Hill by one of the intervenors. This email exchange summarizes common concerns and reluctance to get involved, and also expresses an important context that can help folks acquire additional energy needed to face the sometimes intimidating public commission hearings.

Hi,
Can you tell me more about the Morgan Estates issue? Has it passed wetlands? What are the regs that it doesn't meet? I know that particular parcel [years ago]. I remember the wetlands, and that it was home to many, many deer (for which Deer Run is named, I presume).

Unfortunately, if it does meet all the regs, then just not wanting it, because it changes quality of life...and I agree it would, doesn't fly legally. The commission cannot reject it on the basis that the neighbors don't want it (they would have had to have bought the land, to keep it the way they want it...there are ownership rights). Because of landowner rights, and the way they conflict with "rural atmosphere" I think we as a town should buy up every piece of land we can...but there is a lot of land. Another thought is that this piece is close to the town center (as was the Daniels Road development) where, we should be building...not out halfway to Devil's Hopyard. Lake residents, who's properties, at the moment, are protected from developers by kind neighbors that buy up all the open space are aware of how precious woods are....I would like to see the woods behind me in a really protected preserve, as I don't know what my neighbors children may do with it in the future.

Fill me in, if you have time, please, on what your arguments are for the commission.
Thanks,
A Concerned Citizen

Dear Friend: Thank you for taking the time to write and ask about the issues. I forget to tell people that they can read much more about this at the blog site of our local group called Preserve Landing Hill at preserve-landinghill.blogspot.com. You can find much more info there.

To answer your questions, let me begin by saying our interests span a range from the general to specific and our recommendations are consistent with all aspects of this range of concerns - from the philosophical down to the level of specific regulations and the process used to implement them. We believe this application should be denied and all efforts put into the creating a preserve on the property. The great news is that the Land Trust and the developer are discussing this alternative. This has come about as a result of our intervention and because of the broader trends in the economy and the world. While we understand the history of law and thinking about landowner rights, we also believe strongly that the resulting systematic suburbanization of town has and continues to put current and future residents in a difficult position for dealing with a very different culture in the not-so-distant future.

So we are offering ideas consistent with this on a philosophical level. We also do not agree that the concept of encouraging development in areas near the villages is good for the town. We need open space near where people live. It has also been shown over and over that residential cul de sacs are not economic development, they are an economic drain on the town.

More specifically though, the proposal does not meet the regulations of the town nor the public health code. We pointed this out during the IWWC process, yet it was approved anyway. We have appealed the IWWC decision as a result.

We pointed out, then, that the process of applying our rather good regs, is flawed. For example, we submitted clear evidence of the developer's expert misrepresenting themselves as a 'Doctor' (Phd), and then submitting a report in which they took a picture with their backs to a pond of water and offered the picture as an 'overview' of the the subject wetland. (see article about Dr. Leeanders on the blog site). Our licensed engineer pointed out during IWWC that the site is a large construction site under the state guidelines and therefore must apply best management practices (BMP). We also pointed out that certain separation distances did not meet the public health code.

After passing IWWC, yet still under appeal, the plan was submitted, though still deficient, to the P&Z. The Chatham Health District has since reiterated our public health concerns. Yet the Town continues to consider this application even though it does not meet the public health code nor other aspects of our regulations.

For example, the applicant has never acknowledged the sites designation as a large construction site and continues to try to meet only the bare minimum practices rather than BMP. The plans did not go through a pre-application review, yet they never submitted two sets of plans, one a conservation approach, the other conventional, as required by the regs. They have not done a passive solar analysis per the regs and this is something that can not be done retroactively. They have offered deep hole test data and peculation tests that are curiously benign, to those of us living here and having an understanding of the ground water and soil types, and the Chatham Health District person can not find field notes for all of these test. They have not done required hydraulic permeability testing for the proposed infiltration devices including rain gardens and a detention pond. They have not provided 25 foot wide buffering consistent with the regulations and with preserving existing land values.

In our experience and in talking with others in town, there is an element of politics that unfortunately also creeps into this process. We can make a difference by showing up at the grange and voicing concern. Even better, because we have the positive alternative of a preserve as a possibility, we can offer our support of this idea, which is consistent both philosophically and technically, generally and specifically, with the town's best long term interest. We don't have to be simply in opposition to the proposal.

I hope you'll consider coming to voice your opinion regardless of where you fall on this range of issues.