Groton Open Space Association

The OPDS position as shown by some of the responses is that, among other things:

–Town officials are not ready at present to explain in detail how KKC’s system of assigning numerical values to resource protection and open space would apply to Groton. In addition, it will be up to commissions to weigh the relative merits of the “quantitative” approach to decision-making favored by KKC and a more “discretionary” system.

–The rewrite may be presented to commissions piecemeal rather than as a package. No further strictly public meetings on the rewrite are scheduled. Commissions will be briefed as the work of KKC and the OPDS proceeds. The normal [late-stage] public hearings that precede adoption of regulation amendments will take place, and proposed rewrite language will be on display — ahead of the hearings — at the town hall annex.

–Developer-hired specialists, rather than independent specialists, will map resources to be protected on development tracts.

–In asking the town to heed the POCD’s call for additional acquisition of permanently protected open space, the Groton Open Space Association is failing to interpret the document “holistically” and is pushing its own “specific interest…independent of the community consensus reflected in the Town’s only official POCD.” See below for GOSA’s response.

The following is a condensed version of some of the questions and replies. The replies are based on emails and a letter from the OPDS dated between Dec.5 and Dec. 15, 2008:

Q: Lane Kendig said the Office of Planning and Development Services was working on examples of how KKC’s open space ratios, resource protection factors and cluster housing densities would apply to land in Groton. When will these be ready and how will they be presented to the public? Are the figures shown in KKC documents final or only conceptual at this point?

A. “While there seems to be some general consensus that the methodology offered is acceptable, work remains to develop not just ratios/factors that support and promote [Plan of Conservation and Development] and [Strategic Economic Development Plan] objectives, but how and where those might be applied. I [Planning Manager Matthew Davis] believe OPDS spent a considerable amount of time and effort explaining in public on numerous occasions what the purpose of the assessment was. I did not think it was necessary to explain this again.”

Q: Does the OPDS plan any further public meetings on the KKC material?

A: As we’ve stated, the assessment, community meetings, stakeholder sessions and other public outreach were all “extra” efforts, in addition to the required public hearings which will occur regarding any proposed final text and/or map amendments. Depending upon budget, KKC may or may not be able to participate in one or more of the formal hearings. It is likely that certain elements may move forward earlier and/or concurrently. The Inland Wetlands Agency may move forward in January with at least discussions of language, with hearings and adoption possibly February/March of 2009. OPDS is working on a draft stormwater document that will be made available to the public when in final form. Staff is also beginning to develop draft text amendments for the subdivision regulations and various parts of the zoning regulation (i.e. simplifying the use table etc.), “with a focus on those that are not contingent upon the concurrent development and adoption of those elements which are at present (by necessity) more conceptual and inter-related by nature.”

Q: OPDS Director Michael J. Murphy and Mr. Kendig appeared adamant that experts who would assess land features (covered by resource protection factors) would be those hired by developers, rather than independent experts. Is this position set in stone?

A. “In terms of ‘experts’ hired to review basic resource plans, I believe that was answered by Mr. Kendig on 10/29.”

Q. 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?

A. “As for the relationship between and respective values of, quantitative or discretionary methods, that will be up to the various boards to decide. There are benefits and drawbacks to both.”

Q. KKC is inaccurate in portraying the town as having abundant and growing amounts of permanently protected open space. Any comment?

A. “…these issues are presented and a public consensus is reflected in the formally adopted Town POCD of 2002. You and any other specific interest are free to have your own opinion, independent of the community consensus reflected in the Town’s only official POCD.”

Editor’s note: When GOSA pointed out that the Town of Groton POCD on Pages 38-40 advocated more public acquisition of open space, the OPDS replied that “when professional Planners look at a POCD, they do so holistically, understanding that the various component parts can only legitimately exist as integrated and mutually supporting ‘aspirations’ within a much broader civic structure… You are not a professional Planner, but a representative of a special interest group that is focused on one very narrow aspect of the overall situation.” GOSA replied that Pages 38-40 were written by a professional planning firm, Planimetrics of Avon, CT, well qualified to understand the broad situation.

In a Dec. 15 letter, Mr. Murphy said that drafts of various proposals by KKC will be presented to the affected commissions “before public review of final language in a hearing process designed to give all parties the opportunity to review, comment, understand and influence them. All proposed regulation language will be available at this office for review, as is the case with all projects and applications.” Mr. Davis previously had written that these documents would be “subject to applicable copying fees.” It was not immediately clear whether the documents would be posted on the town website so that users could make their own copies.