I attended part of the PZC meeting on the proposed ND. The comments I heard were disappointing. While PZC Alternate Andy Maye was talking quite broadly about the project, others seemed to be focused on the height of signs and amount of lighting.
Don't get me wrong... signage and lighting are important discussion points about PZC projects. However, those should be addressed only after bigger issues have been addressed... issues that were being raised by Mr. Maye.
In the short time I was there, Maye asked about sewer capacity issues. And he drove home the point that on any particular day, though not every day... the sewers already exceed capacity... (remember... last year, Riverside Drive became a river of raw sewage because the treatment plant exceeded capacity and backed up...) too bad that on this issue, Mr. Maye's voice seems to be ignored... just like the voices of others... it was Sept '05 when I suggested (in the Herald) that the PZC sit down with the WPCA and have a real discussion about the north end. Of course, that discussion hasn't happened... or perhaps it just hasn't gotten anywhere... I mean, where are we now... compared to where we were 2 1/2 years ago?
As Dick Mangino explained during last month's Council meeting... the town did an INI study 15-20 years ago... the study included a videotaping of the pipes... now where is the video? Does anyone know? Who's supposed to know? Who's in charge?
As I've said... I'm not opposed to this project... I'm opposed to it as proposed. This project is not self-sustaining in terms of energy consumption (the primary reason we're in the middle east) and it's unnecessary sprawl.
Later, Mr. Maye made another good point. While he was asking about some of the zoning reg's, he was told something to the effect that his concern did not face "construction problems." To which Mr. Maye replied something along the lines of "but there could be environmental problems."
And what were the other comments about... lighting and signage.
Lighting and signage?
Ok, ok... as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I wasn't there for the full meeting. But the bit that I did see was really disappointing. I mean, when I voted in favor of this project a year ago, I thought the idea had the potential to move beyond CTs poor land use policy of yesteryear. Unfortunately, based on the comments I heard tonight... it looks like we are going to continue to make the same poor decisions that have governed CT land-use policy for years.
I was left with the feeling that some PZC members have little interest in representing the public and are willing to simply approve whatever the developer requests. By that, I don't mean a vote in favor of this project = a lack of representing the public. Quite the contrary... some people in town love the proposed ND. No... I just mean that there should be some critical analysis here... ask some good questions as Mr. Maye was doing.
As for my personal view, I could live with it if the developer's profit margins are reduced by $30,000 per housing unit because the parking was stacked... and I'm not too concerned if the developer needs to float an additional $20,000 for photovoltaics for each residential unit... the PVs will pay for themselves over the next 20 years... and I'm not too concerned if the developer makes less money than they want to make.
As I said at the Nov 27 PZC meeting... the town has already bent over backwards for the developer. Now it's time for the developer to bend over backwards for the town.
Tim White