Some thoughts on a Valley News article

A generally well reported article in the Valley News this AM. It’s a complicated issue, and I think they did a good job of getting the facts straight.

But, one subtle, but very critical point that I think deserves clarification:

VNews wrote:
“The church’s attorneys had argued that Hanover’s zoning ordinance discriminates against religious institutions because it requires them to obtain a special exception in sections of town where similar buildings serving large numbers of people, such as an auditorium, are allowed without the approval.”

I think it’s important for everyone in town to know – even if that religious discrimination does exist in the zoning ordinance as CRC claims, the “section of town” where this church would be built is the SR-2 Zone, and the “section of town” where they claim the discrimination exists is in the RR Zone.  So, even if that discrimination does exist (which is an open question), it doesn’t apply in this case!

The bottom line is that this church has absolutely, positively, not been discriminated against, and any suggestion that they have been is false and quite frankly, offensive. The proposal was initially rejected because it doesn’t comply with the zoning ordinance. The ZBA reversed their decision because they were bullied with the threat of a lawsuit. There is no other explanation.

The Valley News article can be found here:
https://www.vnews.com/Christ-Redeemer-Neighbors-request-new-hearing-25281997

One other thing that jumped out at me as I read the article:

VNews wrote: “They (CRC) also express disappointment in a regulatory process that so far hasn’t produced a compromise acceptable to either side.” and then quotes Chris Audino as “growing weary”

The fact of the matter is that the regulatory process isn’t designed to “produce a compromise”. The ZBA’s mission is to interpret the zoning ordinance, period!

If a compromise is to be found, it needs to come from the parties involved. For over 2 years, the Greensboro Rd neighborhood has given consistent feedback to CRC about what we see as the problems with their proposal. Despite all that they have heard, they have yet to suggest any meaningful changes to their development that might address any of the neighborhood concerns about traffic, flooding, noise, lights, etc. In their most recent filing, they even reject the relatively toothless and minor conditions that the ZBA imposed. From their point of view, it seems that nothing short of a complete and unconditional approval is acceptable, and neighborhood objections are of no concern.

And, don’t be fooled by CRC’s repeated claim that they have made significant changes to their proposal. If you read them carefully, you will see that most of the “changes” they tend to cite are changes they made from their original proposal to the current proposal. Those were not made in response to neighborhood concerns – those were made when it became apparent during the design review process that their original proposal was poorly thought out, and had absolutely zero chance of being approved. They withdrew that application, and then came back several months later with the current request.

Trust me, I’ve paid close attention. They’ve yet to make a significant change to their proposal based on the neighborhood feedback. For that matter, they’ve yet to even make an insignificant change based on neighborhood feedback. The number of changes made based on neighborhood feedback is holding steady at ZERO!