Cell Phone Service and "Right" to Speak
Yesterday the selectboard held a Saturday morning meeting so that second homeowners could vent. They did.
Most of the discussion revolved around the "right" to speak at town meetings. I understand it was passionate at times, but that not much substance was added to the debate. The issue should be resolved at the May town meeting, but if certain people don't get their way they may again decide to use that unneighborly device, the lawsuit. Sigh!
There was also a lot of disussion about cell phone service and our restrictive (that is, prohibitive) 17 page single spaced bylaw on cell towers and equipment. Most of the discussion was about the town hall site. Since the selectboard didn't make it clear, let me do so: THERE IS NO CHANCE IN HELL OF A TOWER BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THAT SITE. It's time (actually it's been time for quite a while) to stop talking about something that isn't going to happen and that just distracts us from meaningful discussion.
Let's see if we can break this down into simple components: (1) Townspeople overwhelmingly support cell phone service in town. (2) You can't have service without cell tower equipment. (3) A tower company has a deal with a property owner in the south half of town (which is where a tower has to be located) to put up a tower NOW. (4) At least one telecom company has indicated it would put an antenna on that tower. (5) Our zoning bylaw doesn't permit that tower for a whole bunch of reasons. (6) At the May town meeting we will vote on a zoning bylaw change that would permit that tower if it got a special permit from the selectboard. (7) Special permits require specific findings including compatibility with the neighborhood. (8) Special permits from the selectboard require that all three selectmen agree.
Am I missing something or is this a no brainer? The only reason not to vote for the zoning bylaw change is if you just don't want a cell tower in town and you don't care that you're keeping other people from living in the 21st century because you don't want to.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Common Driveway Bylaw
Article 26 on the agenda for the town meeting seeks to add a zoning bylaw allowing and regulating common driveways. When we adopt changes to town bylaws, the changes should be compatible with the bylaw being changed. When we don’t do that, we end up with inconsistencies and confusion that people unhappy with the change (and their lawyers) can then exploit for unintended consequences. In order to make the new common driveway bylaw compatible with the zoning bylaw, and to cure some mistakes and ambiguities in the proposed bylaw, I'm suggesting a number of changes. The first, and most obvious, one is to designate where the new bylaw goes; I'm suggesting making it section 4.3.6. The other changes are set forth below (the capital letters refer to the sections of the proposed bylaw). Stop reading now if you'll be bored by this wordsmithing. But just because it's boring doesn't mean it's not important.
A: Strike “abutting”; it’s meaningless. Strike “(s)”; singular is all that’s needed. Change “way” to “street”; that’s the correct defined term in the ZBL. Strike “that serves no more than four (4) dwelling units”; the bylaw is intended to govern ALL common driveways, and then prohibiting ones for more than 4 units in paragraph B. Add “so” before “only”; it’s an omission. Strike “the provisions of”; the permit will speak for itself, whether or not it contains “provisions”.
B: Change “units” to “dwellings”; that’s the term used in the ZBL. Change “dwelling units” to “dwellings”; same reason.
C. Strike “zoning”; this bylaw is right in the ZBL, and the ZBL doesn’t use that word in describing frontage. Strike the second sentence; it’s wrong; the “way” is most likely a public way, and there is no requirement nor procedure for a public way (or any other way, unless in a subdivision) to be acceptable to the Planning Board.
D. Change “requirements for” to “of”; it’s the design that must be adequate, not the design requirements. Delete the comma, or add one after “shall”; there should either be 2 or no commas.
E. Change “approved frontage” to “a street”; same reason as under A above.
F. Change “way” to “portion of the common driveway”; use of the term-of-art “way” is confusing in this context.
G. Add “permit for a” after “for a”; You don’t apply for a driveway, you apply for a permit. Change “driveways” at the end to “driveway”; it’s a mistake.
H. Add “on the lots served by the common driveway” after “buildings”; not all buildings are prohibited. Strike “approval plan”; it’s the permit that governs, not some approved plan. Strike “until”; or add “such time as” after it to maintain parallel structure. Change “have” to “has received”; grammar and a mistake.
Article 26 on the agenda for the town meeting seeks to add a zoning bylaw allowing and regulating common driveways. When we adopt changes to town bylaws, the changes should be compatible with the bylaw being changed. When we don’t do that, we end up with inconsistencies and confusion that people unhappy with the change (and their lawyers) can then exploit for unintended consequences. In order to make the new common driveway bylaw compatible with the zoning bylaw, and to cure some mistakes and ambiguities in the proposed bylaw, I'm suggesting a number of changes. The first, and most obvious, one is to designate where the new bylaw goes; I'm suggesting making it section 4.3.6. The other changes are set forth below (the capital letters refer to the sections of the proposed bylaw). Stop reading now if you'll be bored by this wordsmithing. But just because it's boring doesn't mean it's not important.
A: Strike “abutting”; it’s meaningless. Strike “(s)”; singular is all that’s needed. Change “way” to “street”; that’s the correct defined term in the ZBL. Strike “that serves no more than four (4) dwelling units”; the bylaw is intended to govern ALL common driveways, and then prohibiting ones for more than 4 units in paragraph B. Add “so” before “only”; it’s an omission. Strike “the provisions of”; the permit will speak for itself, whether or not it contains “provisions”.
B: Change “units” to “dwellings”; that’s the term used in the ZBL. Change “dwelling units” to “dwellings”; same reason.
C. Strike “zoning”; this bylaw is right in the ZBL, and the ZBL doesn’t use that word in describing frontage. Strike the second sentence; it’s wrong; the “way” is most likely a public way, and there is no requirement nor procedure for a public way (or any other way, unless in a subdivision) to be acceptable to the Planning Board.
D. Change “requirements for” to “of”; it’s the design that must be adequate, not the design requirements. Delete the comma, or add one after “shall”; there should either be 2 or no commas.
E. Change “approved frontage” to “a street”; same reason as under A above.
F. Change “way” to “portion of the common driveway”; use of the term-of-art “way” is confusing in this context.
G. Add “permit for a” after “for a”; You don’t apply for a driveway, you apply for a permit. Change “driveways” at the end to “driveway”; it’s a mistake.
H. Add “on the lots served by the common driveway” after “buildings”; not all buildings are prohibited. Strike “approval plan”; it’s the permit that governs, not some approved plan. Strike “until”; or add “such time as” after it to maintain parallel structure. Change “have” to “has received”; grammar and a mistake.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Planning Board Hearings; and NIMBYism
The Planning Board last night held hearings on two citizens' petitions that are on the agenda for the town meeting: a new bylaw covering common driveways; and revised bylaws covering cell phone service.
The driveway bylaw was mostly supported by those in attendance. They included several local real estate people and Mike Parsons (the surveyor) . Bill Turner, Tom Race and Jim Noe all seemed to be supporters as well, at least if the bylaw met their standards. I suspect the PB will come out in support, perhaps with some alterations.
The cell phone service bylaw also had lots of support, as well as some opposition. There was lots of discussion on the proposal's shifting of jurisdiction from the PB to the selectboard. Those in favor of that shift spoke about the PB's having spent many years on the problem without producing a workable framework for getting cell phone service in town. Whether you believe the PB has been intentionally dragging its feet or not, the simple fact is that our bylaw structure hasn't resulted in a single tower or telecom company coming into Egremont, and there is little evidence that that will change if the PB retains jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see what the PB recommends. In the meantime, a serious proposal for a tower is being made, but it won't fly unless the bylaw is changed. If you want more history on this issue, look at some of the past postings on this blog.
After the hearing, a small discussion took place in which a town official intimated that even I wouldn't be an advocate of this bylaw change if the tower was proposed to be located on property adjacent to mine. That's the classic argument for giving credence to NIMBYism. I said, quite honestly, that if what my neighbor was doing didn't adversely affect my health or safety, I had no right to object. Of course, that attitude isn't widely shared in Massachusetts or New England (even though it still is in my native midwest). How far we have come from the attitudes of our forebears! Selfishness (whether individual or collective) seems to be the order of the day.
The Planning Board last night held hearings on two citizens' petitions that are on the agenda for the town meeting: a new bylaw covering common driveways; and revised bylaws covering cell phone service.
The driveway bylaw was mostly supported by those in attendance. They included several local real estate people and Mike Parsons (the surveyor) . Bill Turner, Tom Race and Jim Noe all seemed to be supporters as well, at least if the bylaw met their standards. I suspect the PB will come out in support, perhaps with some alterations.
The cell phone service bylaw also had lots of support, as well as some opposition. There was lots of discussion on the proposal's shifting of jurisdiction from the PB to the selectboard. Those in favor of that shift spoke about the PB's having spent many years on the problem without producing a workable framework for getting cell phone service in town. Whether you believe the PB has been intentionally dragging its feet or not, the simple fact is that our bylaw structure hasn't resulted in a single tower or telecom company coming into Egremont, and there is little evidence that that will change if the PB retains jurisdiction.
It will be interesting to see what the PB recommends. In the meantime, a serious proposal for a tower is being made, but it won't fly unless the bylaw is changed. If you want more history on this issue, look at some of the past postings on this blog.
After the hearing, a small discussion took place in which a town official intimated that even I wouldn't be an advocate of this bylaw change if the tower was proposed to be located on property adjacent to mine. That's the classic argument for giving credence to NIMBYism. I said, quite honestly, that if what my neighbor was doing didn't adversely affect my health or safety, I had no right to object. Of course, that attitude isn't widely shared in Massachusetts or New England (even though it still is in my native midwest). How far we have come from the attitudes of our forebears! Selfishness (whether individual or collective) seems to be the order of the day.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Quorum Requirement for Town Meeting
One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 100. It was on the warrant last year but didn't get voted on for technical reasons.
We've all seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.
On a number of occasions in recent years, we've had to rally voters to come to special town meetings because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.
The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. (I'm not saying we did or didn't need a new fire truck, only that the decision wasn't democratic.) And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly disagree with.
The opposition to this change will come from the town hall denizens. They'll say it's too hard to get people to come to town meeting. It seems to me the solution to that is to streamline town meeting, not to have decisions made by too small a group. (And remember the old adage: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Some recent town meetings have made decisions so bad that we'd have been better off if the meeting hadn't happened.)
So come to the town meeting and vote yes on this change!
Comments welcome, especially from the town hall denizens.
One item on the agenda for the upcoming town meeting is a proposal to change the quorum requirement from 60 to 100. It was on the warrant last year but didn't get voted on for technical reasons.
We've all seen too many instances of meetings being "stacked" by a small group of people - often people who otherwise don't attend town meetings regularly - who have a particular interest in some matter and who pass (or defeat) that matter even though a more representative group of voters would have voted the other way. Would you want the US Senate to have a quorum requirement of 7 (out of 100) so that 4 senators could pass legislation even if the other 96 senators would have voted the other way? That's essentially the situation in Egremont.
On a number of occasions in recent years, we've had to rally voters to come to special town meetings because otherwise a small group of dedicated people would have pushed through some action that would have helped them but hurt the rest of us. That just isn't democratic and it just isn't right. And it should be changed.
The problem is even worse when it comes to special town meetings. They're often far more unrepresentative than annual town meetings, because the voters who are affected by the issue under consideration come out in droves but the voters who aren't directly affected by it tend to stay home. That has happened twice in recent memory at special meetings deciding whether to buy another fire truck. (I'm not saying we did or didn't need a new fire truck, only that the decision wasn't democratic.) And the problem is made worse by the tendency of our current selectmen to call special town meetings to decide important issues, a practice that I strongly disagree with.
The opposition to this change will come from the town hall denizens. They'll say it's too hard to get people to come to town meeting. It seems to me the solution to that is to streamline town meeting, not to have decisions made by too small a group. (And remember the old adage: "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." Some recent town meetings have made decisions so bad that we'd have been better off if the meeting hadn't happened.)
So come to the town meeting and vote yes on this change!
Comments welcome, especially from the town hall denizens.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Town Meeting: Nicholson Road, Driveways and Cell Towers
The agenda for the May town meeting is pretty full. There are hearings scheduled BEFORE the meeting as follows: (1) On Apr1l 14 at 7:00 the selectboard will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to abandon part of Nicholson Road. That road runs from the top of Molasses Hill, past the Catamount parking lot and into the driveway of the Swiss Hutte. If the abandonment occurred, the portion from the east edge of the Hakim property to the state line would go. (2) The planning board will hold a hearing at 7:00 on April 22 on the citizens' petition to add a bylaw governing common driveways. (3) And at 7:30 on April 22, the planning board will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to change the zoning bylaw regarding cell towers to, in essence, eliminate many pages of verbiage by replacing them with a short provision (thus making cell towers subject to the same special permit procedures and requirements as other uses) and making the selectboard, not the planning board, the permit issuing authority (like is the case now with internet service and wired telecommunications services).
If any of these matters are of interest to you, you ought to attend the hearing on it, as well as the town meeting. As I understand it, the Nicholson Road matter was put forward by Mr. Hakim. Neighbors (including Catamount) may not be happy with this proposal. The common driveway matter was put forward by people interested in the development off Oxbow Road on the Hillsdale side and off Millard Road in Egremont. It will likely be controversial. The cell tower zoning change was put forward by me and others who have been pushing for cell phone service in town for some time. It's particularly timely because a cell tower company is actively pursuing the possibility of a tower on a site not permitted under our existing bylaw. So we'll have to change the bylaw if we want that tower.
More on all these matters later.
The agenda for the May town meeting is pretty full. There are hearings scheduled BEFORE the meeting as follows: (1) On Apr1l 14 at 7:00 the selectboard will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to abandon part of Nicholson Road. That road runs from the top of Molasses Hill, past the Catamount parking lot and into the driveway of the Swiss Hutte. If the abandonment occurred, the portion from the east edge of the Hakim property to the state line would go. (2) The planning board will hold a hearing at 7:00 on April 22 on the citizens' petition to add a bylaw governing common driveways. (3) And at 7:30 on April 22, the planning board will hold a hearing on the citizens' petition to change the zoning bylaw regarding cell towers to, in essence, eliminate many pages of verbiage by replacing them with a short provision (thus making cell towers subject to the same special permit procedures and requirements as other uses) and making the selectboard, not the planning board, the permit issuing authority (like is the case now with internet service and wired telecommunications services).
If any of these matters are of interest to you, you ought to attend the hearing on it, as well as the town meeting. As I understand it, the Nicholson Road matter was put forward by Mr. Hakim. Neighbors (including Catamount) may not be happy with this proposal. The common driveway matter was put forward by people interested in the development off Oxbow Road on the Hillsdale side and off Millard Road in Egremont. It will likely be controversial. The cell tower zoning change was put forward by me and others who have been pushing for cell phone service in town for some time. It's particularly timely because a cell tower company is actively pursuing the possibility of a tower on a site not permitted under our existing bylaw. So we'll have to change the bylaw if we want that tower.
More on all these matters later.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Ducking Responsibility
When I go to the polls to vote, I like to know the positions of the candidates on issues important to me. And when I go to town meeting, I like to know the positions of the selectmen on the matters on the warrant. Sounds reasonable, right?
But our selectmen too often don't want to take positions. They frequently put items on the warrant not because they support them but because they want the voters to decide. In many cases that's appropriate, but aren't we at least entitled to know their positions on those items? We elect them to become familiar with and study the issues, and we need to know the results of that process because we may choose to go along with their recommendations. And when they explain their positions and the reasons for them, we can evaluate their performance to see if we want to re-elect them.
Alas, the selectmen seem to want to keep their positions to themselves. They refuse even to set forth their vote on the items they themselves put on the warrant! So if you want to know how a selectman feels about an issue, I guess you have to ask at the meeting when the issue arises. And don't be surprised if you get a wishy-washy answer or no answer.
When I go to the polls to vote, I like to know the positions of the candidates on issues important to me. And when I go to town meeting, I like to know the positions of the selectmen on the matters on the warrant. Sounds reasonable, right?
But our selectmen too often don't want to take positions. They frequently put items on the warrant not because they support them but because they want the voters to decide. In many cases that's appropriate, but aren't we at least entitled to know their positions on those items? We elect them to become familiar with and study the issues, and we need to know the results of that process because we may choose to go along with their recommendations. And when they explain their positions and the reasons for them, we can evaluate their performance to see if we want to re-elect them.
Alas, the selectmen seem to want to keep their positions to themselves. They refuse even to set forth their vote on the items they themselves put on the warrant! So if you want to know how a selectman feels about an issue, I guess you have to ask at the meeting when the issue arises. And don't be surprised if you get a wishy-washy answer or no answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
