PZC Meeting, Re: Morgan Estates

Last nights planning and zoning commission (PZC) meeting was a production that would rival the local Goodspeed Opera House's best musical. It was a two act play in which the commission evaluated the plausibility of denying the Morgan Estates application based on a motion drafted by town attorney Eric Knapp, with the help, ostensibly, of Land Use official Jim Ventres. Act two involved the review of a corollary motion to approve.

Knapp had been apparently given instructions to draft the two possible motions including reasons supporting both decisions. The commission would then review both motions and decide which one was more reasonable.

Perhaps it is not obvious to the uninitiated, but the unspoken strategy that unfolded is this: each motion draft became the frame inside of which the commission evaluated plausibility. The creator of the draft motion was in full control of which issues would be cited as support of a denial or approval, with other issues left unconsidered, unless a commissioner were to bring up a new idea on their own. They did not.

The PZC decided it was efficient to review the motion to deny first, reasoning that if they supported it then there would be no reason to review a motion to approve. There were four rather mild reasons for denying the application written into the motion by Attorney Knapp. Each of these was, in turn, explained away or found to be unsuited to a denial of the application. In the end, the motion to deny was deemed unsupportable.

Yet, during discussion of the motion to approve, the commission decided it was okay that the application did not meet the requirement that its detention basin be a minimum of three feet above average ground water levels. They also decided to let the applicant slide on a requirement of the subdivision regulations that trees be planted along the proposed road. There is not sufficient room to plant these trees, so the commission decided the trees could be planted elsewhere. In support of its desire to approve a motion to approve.

Probably the most egregious omission though, is with regard to the failure of the application to meet Section 4.08 of the Subdivision Regulations. This section requires that the applicant demonstrate passive solar analysis and techniques. It was never addressed by the application in any manner whatsoever. This fact was pointed out by one of the intervenors during the public hearings. Yet, even though it is a matter of public record of which the commission, the land use office and the town attorney are fully aware, the failure to address Section 4.08 was never discussed at any of the meetings subsequent to the public hearings. Nor, obviously, did this issue get selected as a possible ground for denial. This is curious.

Passive solar analysis needs to be done as part of an integrated design effort that looks at site design, lot layout, building orientation, and solar access issues. There is no way that this analysis can be done after the subdivision is laid out. If the failure to demonstrate passive solar techniques was enforced as it is written in the subdivision regulations, there is no way the developer could comply. The commission would have to deny the application. That, of course, is not happening.

The PZC meeting last night was a bit of entertainment contrived to create the appearance that the issues raised by the Intervenors were being considered by the commission. Yet they left out the most powerful issues, and decided that the four mundane supporting reasons offered by Knapp/Ventres were not sufficient grounds for denial.

This might make a good musical, but it is poor process and in effect violates the land owner rights of the abutting landowners by failing to apply the existing regulations evenly and effectively.