"Fulton said there had never been an intention of bypassing the DRB process."
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANNING & BUDGETING COMMITTEE PRELIMINARY DRAFT Meeting Minutes Thursday, July 5, 2012,
In fact, a hearing before the Norwich Development Review Boardwas scheduled for July 19. Then came VTel. For whatever reason, it preferred the permit process of the Vermont Public Service Board under Act 248a. With VTel out of the picture, it is time for the Selectboard and Town Manager to revisit the issue or at least explain why eschewing the Norwich DRB makes sense from a policy or practical standpoint. A member of the public -- not me -- raised this issue at the Selectboard meeting on March 13, but it was ignored. The comment did not make the draft meeting minutes.
The PSB process favors tower builders -- a plus for the Tow n, in this instance. Nonetheless, the process takes 4.5 months. Time is safety. Before that time line can begin, a lot of engineering and lawyering work needs to be done. The downside to the PSB permit is that it may set precedent for any company that wants to build a tower in Norwich that is 60 feet above the tree line.
In contrast, the DRB already had a hearing scheduled. The DRB is no pushover, but the process is less formal and time consuming. The current Selectboard chair, Mr. Flanders, opined at the August 15 Selectboard meeting that the Norwich Zoning Regulations had an "exemption for public good", according to meeting minutes. Given that exemption, why avoid the DRB, when approval should be easy. Approval under Act 250 could occur without a hearing.
It would seem that going through the DRB saves time (and money) in the permitting process. Time is safety. With VTel out of the picture, it is time for the Selectboard and Town Manager to revisit the issue. Or at least provide an explanation for using the State PSB, instead of the Norwich DRB.
No comments:
Post a Comment