In hopes of getting a better understanding of what residents will accept as part of the town’s response to the GAN lawsuit, the Town Council will meet with a group of seven concerned citizens Thursday night to discuss the proposal.
The meeting is one of three upcoming meetings related to the Dunstan project this week. On Monday, May 16, the Planning Board will hold its public hearing on the town’s proposal at 7:30 p.m. and on Wednesday, May 18, the Town Council will hold its public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Both hearings will be at Town Hall.
According to Council Chairman Jeffrey Messer, the purpose of Thursday’s meeting is to give residents and councilors the opportunity to discuss the town’s proposal, something that does normally occur during regular Town Council meetings.
Seven residents who have been active in the GAN debate over have been selected to meet with the council during the meeting, although the council also will accept comments from others who attend. A professional facilitator, Jack Kartez, who facilitated last year’s resident-council discussion about dogs on the beach, will facilitate the meeting.
“This is an attempt to have a better communication process than is available in our Town Charter,” said Councilor Sylvia Most.
The move is a good one, said Peter Angis, one of those who will meet with the council. All of the residents have been involved with the process from the beginning and were instrumental in getting the council’s initial recommendation overturned.
While declining to give any specifics about his feeling on the proposal, Angis said he does not like what the town has developed so far.
“I definitely want changes in it,” Angis said.
The town is proposing to change the zoning for the 142-acre property owned by ALC Development’s John and Elliott Chamberlain to an from an RF to an R-2 zone. An R-2 zone allows two units for every developable acre, which in this case equals 240 units.
In addition, the town also included bonuses for creating affordable housing and for transfering development rights that would allow another 48 units to be constructed. If built out using the maximum number of bonuses, the new zone would allow a total of 288 units.
There have been two meetings held on the proposal so far and there were both negative and positive responses to the proposal. Other than that little comment has come forward on the issue, both Messer and Most said.
“I’m uncertain as to what the public’s opinion is on the issue,” Messer said.
The proposal was developed in response to a lawsuit filed by the Chamberlains arguing amongst other points that the town’s zoning ordinances are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. In February a judge ruled in the Chamberlains’ favor and ordered both sides to submit a proposal to the court by May 31.
While no one is sure what will occur if the judge does not accept recommendations, one possibility is that he will void the zoning on the property.
Most said that the proposal is the town’s attempt to stop the judge from forcing the town to do something that it may not want to do. The plan is a compromise that meets the needs of the developer while closely following what is included in the comprehensive plan, she said.
The council will take a final vote on the proposal June 1. Although it is one day past the deadline, town officials do not envision it causing a problem.
Residents would have the option of forcing another referendum vote on any decision the council makes regarding the GAN, and what this would mean in regards to the lawsuit is not known, Messer said.
However, he would like to avoid that possibility and said that is one reason why it is important for the council to get residents’ opinions before finalizing the plan.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
