You are on page 1of 2

Process Flaws The proposed Ordinance change is not well written due to a flawed process.

It creates Ordinance ambiguity, inconsistency, and conflict that were pointed out during the hearings but weren’t corrected.
1. Intent not defined: The key workshop was Oct 11th. Several members expressed

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

their wants for expanding commercial development. But, no process was used to define a “Board” intent. Earlier reviews of the Comprehensive Plan did not result in defining the intent of the ordinance change. No criteria for expansion was defined: Dec 20, the Code Enforcement Officer, CEO, prepared a draft markup of the land use tables and district map that was used to develop the first proposed version. Members reviewed the CEO marked up map. Some members proposed alternative versions, without providing their rationale. No one consulted or listed Comprehensive Plan goals. The CEO discouraged further expansion beyond his draft boundaries. It was stated that we could add further expansion at a later time. But, with no defined goal, no list of wants and needs, no statement on intent or criteria for expansion was developed. And thus, there was no way to compare each area of the map to see if it met the intent and criteria. The Planning Board capitulated to the CEO markup as there was no way to have meaningful discourse on options, and no one queried the CEO on why areas were or weren’t included. Comprehensive plan not consulted: At the Dec 20th workshop, a proposed change was approved based on the CEO markups with some minor changes to language, but no one consulted the Comprehensive Plan to ensure there were no conflicts. Areas of the Ordinance not hi-lited by the CEO were not reviewed to see if the change made sense. The result had many conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. Town Manger Intervened improperly: Recognizing from resident comments that the proposal would likely be defeated at the polls, the Town Manager prepared his own version of an ordinance change. He should not have done that. He hadn’t participated in their workshops or hearing. What he should have done was present the problems with their proposal, and recommend that they reconsider and revise their proposal. But, he showed no faith in their ability and came up with a version he thought would be approved by voters. Hearing Feedback not considered: The many comments presented by residents at hearings were never considered at subsequent workshops. Wrong Order of Decisions: At the Feb 7th workshop, the Planning Board again had no facilitator or process. The CEO asked which version would be used: the original Planning Board proposal or the Town Manager’s? The CEO stated that the Town Manger’s version was more palatable, and that was decided. Then the board reviewed the land use tables deciding what uses can go where. But, they had not yet reviewed the map to establish the Where. How could they “What goes Where?” when they hadn’t defined “Where” yet? No change control: The workshops all were done by reviewing the CEO hi-lited ordinance mark ups. But, changes between versions and the reasons for the changes

were never identified. So, not only did they never know what criteria the CEO used in the initial markup, they were never told when his subsequent markups differed from earlier versions. Planning board members didn’t realize that the CEO changed things without telling them. 8. No Facilitator: The workshops had no facilitator, so decisions were driven by the CEO provided markups, not with a process.