Groton Open Space Association

GOSA Submits Questions On Land-Use Report

GROTON — GOSA submitted the questions below to the Office of Planning and Development Services on Nov. 3 with a request for answers, if any, by Nov. 6.

GOSA followed up with a telephoned voice mail. This, too, drew no response. [But see article on Dec. 29, 2008]

The questions arose from a meeting Oct. 29 at which Kendig Keast Collaborative presented an assessment of Groton’s land-use regulations. The meeting is subject of a related website story (directly above).

These are the questions:

–KKC indicated that the Resource Protection Factors shown in its assessment report aren’t the ones that will be used in Groton. For example, KKC said the forestry protection figure applied only in the Midwest. The steep slope figures shown aren’t necessarily operative here. Can one correctly conclude that none of the figures in KKC’s examples on Open Space, Resource Protection and Cluster Housing is anything but a placeholder for the real figures? When will we have some concrete figures that are applicable locally?

–Does the OPDS plan any further public meetings on this (i.e. minus KKC)? If so, when?

–Mr. Murphy [OPDS director] and Mr. Kendig [of KKC] appeared adamant that the experts who would assess land features would be those hired by developers, with checks possible by the OPDS. Is this position set in stone or is there room for independent experts hired at the expense of the developers?

–Do you foresee a diminished role for commissions as more quantitative decision-making takes over? At what point does predictability of results exclude human judgment?

–KKC appears inaccurate in portraying the town as having abundant and growing amounts of permanently protected open space. Does the OPDS care to comment?

–Recommendation #25 contains this sentence: “Adopt provisions to allow the administrative review and approval of minor activities within upland review areas.” The questions: who declares an activity to be minor? Does “administrative review and approval” mean that the OPDS would be allowed to approve anything minor–independent of the Inland Wetlands Agency? This would seem to be a controversial recommendation in light of the Wal-Mart/reservoir case if it means what it could be interpreted to mean.