As a Zoning Board alternate, I am frustrated with my inability to prevent last night's passage of the "Buildable Lot" (BL) ordinance. Alternates don't get a vote (regardless of the Republican American's math).
After four public hearings, the Zoning Board held a special meeting this past Monday, 9/15/2008, and voted, unanimously, to pass an ordinance that is clearly against the wishes of the vocal majority.
Is the legislation any good? I don't know... Having only recently been elected to the board, I can honestly say I'm green with respect to what makes for effective zoning law. However, as a long time voter, I can fully understand the potential impact of the board's decision to push this through. I don't believe "push" is too strong a word.
My argument against this measure has always stemmed not from consideration of the long term effects of the ordinance, but from my perceived breach of public contract. We who are elected to hold a position on this board have two obligations to the electorate:
- Where possible, enact rule in a manner consistent with public opinion.
- Protect the public when the complexity of an issue demands greater scrutiny than what the public can generally apply. That is, be advocates.
If we serve in any other capacity, we are violating our obligations - perhaps it's not an explicit, codified agreement - but I believe it's not unreasonable to assume that those who vote for us would prefer we work for them. Kinda how it works in a republic.
In light of the aforementioned obligations, I examine how we may have served our town by passage of this ordinance.
1. Have we enacted rule in a manner consistent with public opinion? I believe we have not. Across all public hearings, there has been one voice of support for the measure. ALL other interested parties (and there were many) spoke out against the measure - including our own Planning Commission. Zoning and Planning complement each other. When Planning speaks out with strong opposition, we should give pause - they are our teammates. One could argue that the many residents who elected to abstain from the various town meetings were actually in support of the measure. But we'll never know - they didn't care enough to make the long, arduous trip down to Town Hall. Others who did care enough spoke - en masse. And they all said, "Nay". So - obligation 1 - not applicable.
2. Is the concept of the "buildable lot" so complicated that the ordinary citizen would have difficulty comprehending the measure? Does one need years of experience interpreting zoning regulations to really understand the importance and need for this measure? Let's say "yes". Just for grins. If that's the case, then in the light of obligation #1, it would not be unreasonable to make our case before the interested stakeholders. As representatives of the people - people who are concerned we are failing to properly represent them, we have to sell our position - and the public has to buy it. If we profess to know more than our electors - and in a republic, that's not necessarily untrue - then we should explain our position with enough facts, figures, and color-glossy 5x7 photos so that the overwhelmingly disapproving electorate understands why we've elected to chart a course contrary to their, let's say "naive", wishes. We didn't do this. I don't believe we even tried.
We have the case where we have failed to meet either obligation. What are we doing? Is it possible that the Zoning board spent so much time buried in the particulars of this measure, that we have lost sight of our roles? Perhaps the thought of discarding so many hours of diligent work seemed unpalatable in the extreme. The Zoning Board is an all-volunteer organization - nobody runs for the office just to have another night out. We run because we seek to give back - I don't believe there's any malice on the Board.
Regardless of the hard work, this ordinance is unnecessary. It may never be needed. It was not born out of public demand. It may very well be a pre-emptive strike based on some building projections to which I am not privy. But I doubt it. I think we have legislated just to legislate.
This board (prior to my term) was fined for failing to honor an FOIA request - Zoning failed to file meeting minutes. As a zoning "insider", I know that the meeting really wasn't all that big a deal - it was very informal. However, what could have calmed the tempest in the teapot as a quick summary - "We met. We talked about building lots.", was instead blown out into something that cost the town thousands of dollars.
"It wasn't a meeting!" "It WAS a meeting!" "No it wasn't!" "Yes, it WAS!" Who CARES? What did this argument cost the town?
So... the FOIA request was about the "buildable lot" issue? Yes. I'll wager there will be all new lawsuits filed against the town relating to the shiny, new "buildable lot" ordinance. Perhaps those lawsuits won't hold up in court, but somebody will have to cut a check to the town attorney to refute any wrongdoing and blow holes in the plantiff's case. Who pays for that? The good citizens of the Town of Harwinton - the very same people who said, "Don't do this." For the second time in less than a year, the Zoning Board will probably cost the town money - needlessly. In each case, the Zoning Board could have elected to do the right thing and spare the town the expense. First, by drafting meeting minutes - a whole two sentences worth (I think the town dropped ~$10,000.00 on this issue - I could be wrong on the number... but that'd be about $5000.00 per sentence.) Second, by listening to the voices of the people in town who care enough to make themselves heard.
I have no personal stake in the matter - I own a couple of acres and change - I couldn't subdivide if I wanted to. I am an alternate on the Board. I had no say in the vote. I missed the vote - it wasn't on the normal Zoning schedule so it conflicted with a prior obligation. But I also knew having spoken at the previous meeting AGAINST this measure, that I would not stand a chance at being seated. I'm sorry I wasn't at least present for the vote - I am part of the board. On the other hand, having been powerless to prevent this breach of public faith, it's probably just as well.
Finally - and once again - it's not about the measure. In time, perhaps the ordinance will prove to be beneficial to our town. That would be a blessing. It IS about our roles as public servants. We have failed to listen to our citizens, and we have failed to convincingly convey the benefits of this regulation.
Which means we either didn't try, or plain and simple, the collective wisdom of our citizens prevails - it just isn't a good idea.