There was an article in today's CtPost regarding the OSPlan. As is my custom to comment on media reports in this blog, I reference the online article by hyperlink, but as they often become stale, I cut/paste with my comments.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_11257354
Commissioners spar on open space issue
By KATE RAMUNNI Staff writer
Article Last Updated: 12/17/2008 10:28:04 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet with the Conservation Commission about the proposed draft of the city's Open Space Plan, a decision that came after two commissioners butted heads over one aspect of the plan.
If approved, the draft would be incorporated in the zoning commission's Plan of Conservation and Development. But the one controversial aspect of the plan -- increasing open space subdivision set aside requirements from 10 to 15 percent -- would only be implemented if it were changed in the zoning regulations.
++ The Open Space Plan is a supplement to the 2006 Plan of Conservation & Development and thus seeks to reinforce it's guidance to the Planning & Zoning Commission. In the Plan of Conservation & Development (adopted 2006/Jul/11, Commissioner Sylvester was in office but did not vote on the plan, yes or no, not sure why), page 3-3 states: "As these 4,500 acres of unprotected land are developed, not only will the 34% ratio of actual and perceived open space diminish, but the 14% ratio of dedicated open space to committed land as well. To maintain this ratio as the remaining developable land becomes committed land, Shelton should consider increasing the amount of open space to be set aside in new subdivisions from 10% to 15%." It is also the 1st item of recomended open space strategies on page 3-8. The Open Space Plan is simply reinforcing that direction, and asking that the Planning & Zoning Commission amend the subdivision regulations to implement that adopted principal. ++
The issue led to an angry outburst by Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Harbinson, who hurled accusations at Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester after Sylvester raised the set aside issue.
++ As the public hearing was closed on this application, I had to sit on my hands and watch Commissioner Sylvester say he 1) wanted to approve the document, 2) not wanting to be held accountable to following a plan have a "disclaimer" that they weren't approving every item in the document, 3) couldn't identify what he didn't like specifically because he hadn't read the plan beyond the Executive Summary. You can read their minutes starting on p.6 All this while I was realizing that I spent 2yrs on the committee which prepared the Plan of Conservation & Development, and nobody was paying attention to it's guidance as mentioned above. I was angry, and admit that I should have presented myself during the public portion of the meeting (which now occur at the end) in a more diplomatic way. ++
Last month at a public hearing on the draft, attorney Stephen Bellis, representing the Shelton Builders Association, told the zoning commission that it was his belief that state statute caps such set asides at 10 percent, so to require more would go against state law. The association opposed the increase, Bellis said, and would consider a court challenge should it be fully implemented in the zoning regulations.
++ This was refuted during the public hearing when Atty Bellis spoke. As clear example: Bethel 10%, Bridgewater 15%, Brookfield 15%, Danbury 5% to 20%, New Fairfield 20%, New Milford 15%, Newtown 15%, Redding 10%, Ridgefield 10%, Sherman 15%. Read an email response from the Town of Greenwich which has never been challenged on their regulations of 15% set aside. ++
Because of that, Sylvester said he wanted to have more discussion on that proposed increase. But, Sylvester said, he supported the plan draft and made a motion to approve it with the caveat that the PZC would further discuss the set aside issue.
++ This is an strategy of the City's adopted Plan of Conservation & Development. This Open Space Plan is reinforcing that strategy. The strategy is not IMPLEMENTED until the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews and then possibly changes their subdivision regulations. ++
That enraged Harbinson, who said it made no sense to pass a plan when questions about it still lingered. He also criticized Sylvester for not reading the entire plan before the meeting.
++ As mentioned above. There should be no "questions" about the 15% set-aside strategy already adopted by the PZC. This was confirmed as allowed by Assistant Corporate Counsel Ray Sous on Nov26 ++
But Sylvester said he only received a copy of the report shortly before the meeting. The copy he initially received two weeks ago he gave to another commissioner who hadn't gotten one, he said, and only got the second copy this week. He said he did read the parts that summarized its contents. Not only that, but he is in favor of approving the draft, he said.
++ The OSPlan is available to the public since Aug2008. Formally turned to the PZ staff on Sep17 to allow ample review time, articles appeared in CtPost on Sep19, letter to editor on Sep21, promoted on City website homepage starting Sep22, 8-24 referral made to BOA on Oct29, public hearing held Nov25, and yet on Dec9 - this former Chairman of the P&Z, who is retired, had not read the plan. This shows a deriliction of duty in my opinion. I think it important to bring that to the attention of the public. ++
"I read thoroughly the executive summary and the overview, and I am thoroughly familiar with the plan and totally supportive," he said. "I am only thinking of looking for a notation that the board would move on that issue in the near future."
++ Both can't be done in the same breath. You can't approve a plan on the exhale, while saying you hold "notation" over any item on the inhale. ++
That didn't satisfy Harbinson, who angrily told the commission he would rather the plan be tabled than approved with any caveats.
++ Only two commissioners spoke up to question such an "empty" approval with undefined disclaimers ++
It's not the first time the two have clashed, something Sylvester said he doesn't understand. "Mr. Harbinson obviously has some personal anger with me -- he has a personal or political objection with everything I do," Sylvester said.
++ Perhaps Commissioner Sylvester forgets our NOVEMBER 2008 joint meeting for a CtPost article attempting to draw attention to the recreational component of the canal's FERC license? We met together with the reporter and it resulted in a complementary article where we were photographed together. I do NOT have a personal issue with Leon. I do NOT have political objection with everything he does. That said, I did take issue with Commissioner Sylvester at the same meeting for not fully recusing himself with explanation for a refuse processing application in which his son-in-law is a partner. If you recuse yourself due to a conflict of interest, you MUST state what that conflict is. This is different than simply abstaining from a vote, which anyone can do for any reason and without explanation under the Roberts Rules of Order. Due to his wifes real-estate vocation, Commissioner Sylvester has frequent conflicts for which he does not fully state the reason for such conflict. I believe the public have a right to know why that happens, and the frequency to which it happens.++
"My motion was to pass the plan and just to make a notation that I was thinking the commission should have further discussions about the taking of greater percentages of open space. "I don't have any idea why he got so upset," Sylvester said.
++ That closing comment, is not what the record shows. Commissioner Sylvester NEVER made any motion on the record to pass the Open Space Plan. Only when Chairman Pagoda asked if anyone had any comments did Commissioner Sylvester start into his thoughts. Sad to see such a spin of the truth. ++
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment