Despite the difficulties in communicating, there were a few interesting issues revealed.
1. Disconnect of CHD Review from Public Record: CHD was clear that they do not review the information contained in the public record. They rely on information provided by the town and its land use official. They indicated no misgivings about the fact that significant expert data was submitted into the public record by the intervenors that CHD did not consider. They stated that the public health code dictates the process they employ and that it does not provide for them to consider information other than what is specifically required and/or provided by the member town. They did state that they can ask the developer for more information. They also did not find it problematic that they relied solely on information provided by the developer or his paid experts. They acknowledge the inherent conflict of interest in this process and rationalize it, according to Mr. King, by the fact that there is conflict of interest in everything. Mr. King actually accused the intervenors of having a conflict of interest given that they opposed the subdivision. He could not define conflict of interest.
The fact that the system is set up to preclude the voice of the public from CHD's review is inherently unjust. Mr. King had difficulty answering the question about whom it is that CHD serves. After much pressing and dancing around, he seemed to agree that CHD serves the public (as it is represented by 'member' towns). This systemic disconnect is an issue that the state attorney general should investigate.
2. Competing Codes: CHD explained that the East Haddam Planning and Zoning regulations are more restrictive than the public health code and that they do not review the proposal with regard to the more restrictive requirements. For example, East Haddam requires 24" above ground water for septic systems while the state health code requires 18". According to CHD, the East Haddam Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) should have been reviewing with regard to the more stringent East Haddam requirements. CHD also indicated that PZC had the prerogative to impose more restrictive requirements. Yet, repeatedly, town attorney Knapp instructed PZC that they did not have jurisdiction with regard to the approval of suitability of the property for septic systems. This seems, like the public record issue above, to be a shell game of responsibility where one entity points to the other with regard to accountability while in reality, neither is taking responsibility. Mr. Knauf indicated that when there are competing codes or regulations, usually the more stringent is applied. That is not what happened with regard to the Morgan Estates subdivision.
3. Public Health Code versus Best Management Practices: CHD admits that they are aware there may be situations in which the state public code under which they review plans conflict with other state requirements. For example, the state stormwater guidelines require best management practices when a construction site, such as the proposed Morgan Estates Subdivision, exceed 5 acres. Mr. King tried to explain that there is a difference between guidelines and regulations. He could not resolve, however, regulations that require the use of specific guidelines. This of course is a shell game of language where a regulation can require the use of a guideline that is then rationalized away because guidelines are not requirements.
4. Email Communication: Director King was extremely defensive about the use of email. He denied that there is any policy about blocking email service from certain individuals, but also indicated that there is no CHD policy requiring CHD to maintain email capability. Ms. Davidson continues to be without email service.
No comments:
Post a Comment