This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
10/11/2021 12:00 AMDespite expressing strong concerns related to the proposal, members of the Essex Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) continued a public hearing on a text amendment for a floating zone in Essex.
Consulting Planner John Guszkowski presented the proposal at the Oct. 5 PZC regular meeting.
The Route 9 Gateway Special Development District or R9SDD, would allow for suspension of current zoning in a designated area near Route 9, when permitted by the commission through a two-step map amendment and special exception application.
It is the first of five potential development nodes, or specific areas in town designated for development, that had been envisioned by the former Planning Commission through the goals of the town’s 2015-’25 Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD), he said.
“If you were to sort of accumulate all of the geography that might fall into all five nodes, it’s probably less than 10 percent of the town,” said Guszkowski. “And the purpose of that is to focus development and therefore take pressure off of the residential open space and more rural suburban areas of town.”
Several members of the commission voiced opposition to the proposal, citing the potential for increased development that would hurt existing businesses.
“I think we’re giving away control to developers, development. I’m concerned about just cracking the door a little bit, which may increase development that I don’t think we need,” said alternate member Thomas Carroll.
Member Mark Reeves discussed his prior zoning experience in a neighboring town and how strict zoning regulations were not in place to stop development there.
“If you change this center here and make this a destination center, you’re going to do damage downtown, end of story,” said Reeves. “So, I look at this and I want it to be as tough as possible, so if it [current zoning] is tough on people and it takes ‘em longer to get through the process, then I’m a happy camper.”
David Rosengren, an alternate member, pointed to the interests of the community versus large, big box corporate interests that have teams of lawyers potentially using the regulations to their advantage.
“Good lawyers, or bad lawyers depending on how you want to characterize them, can make a lot out of the term ‘retail.’ They can make a lot out of the term ‘light manufacturing’ and the next thing you know, you have a downtown that is virtually unrecognizable as we know it today,” said Rosengren.
Jeffrey Lovelace, an alternate, discussed how the people that have recently moved to Essex “are here because they like what this town is like today.”
Other exchanges at the meeting pointed to the growing pains of a newly combined commission, with members of the former standalone Zoning Commission pointing to the year in which the 2015–’25 POCD was adopted by the Planning Commission, in 2015, and alleging that it could be outdated.
Member Robert Day said that he would look on the proposal favorably, “assuming that we don’t get a bunch of pushback from folks in town,” but that adding it to the current regulations, which are already “incredibly difficult to navigate” would add just yet another layer of complexity.
“I just would love to see at some point rewrite everything as we started to do when it was just zoning and make everything a little easier to navigate,” said Day.
Vice Chair Jane Siris, a member of the former Planning Commission who expressed support for the concept of development nodes, offered a compromise when the conversation turned to rewriting the proposal.
“It’s a big rewrite and I think a lot of the points that the opposition have made are good ones,” said Siris. “So, I’m just wondering if…the point about rewriting the zoning for these specific areas might make more sense than going in with the idea of a node.
“I know this is a radical change, but maybe we could accomplish the same thing without making it sound like there’s going to be a bomb, if you know what I’m saying. Maybe we could accomplish the same thing, but in a different manner,” she continued.
Reeves was quick to respond, saying, “I’m just not sure there is a rewrite that is going to satisfy my concerns about this whole overlay concept.”
The vote to continue the public hearing on the proposal, with Guszkowski directed to make changes based on the concerns raised at the meeting by members of the commission, was 4 to 2, with Reeves and Lovelace dissenting.