The signs can stay!

On Monday, Aug 5, the Selectboard considered the topic of the “Save our Residential Neighborhood” signs that have popped up all up and down Greensboro Rd, and all the way out into Etna and in other spots around town. For background on the topic, you can read previous posts here and here.

The Selectboard seemed mostly sympathetic to our plight, and the confusing standards that were being applied to the signs. Comparisons were made to other signs that appear around town, both in the town right of way and on private property, such as “Solarize Hanover”, “Black Lives Matter”, “Love Trumps Hate”, and others. Rob Houseman indicated that any signs on private property are most likely zoning violations, but apparently we have a “complaint based” enforcement system, so if no one complains, no action is ever initiated by the town. Seems odd that town officials would drive, bike, walk right past obvious violations every day and then try to bring the hammer down on us, but so it is.

Town Manager Julia Griffin stated that because Greensboro Rd and Etna Rd are state roads, not town roads, it really is up to the state to determine what can be in the right of way. She went on to say that she had spoken to someone at the state level who told her that they would not entertain any requests for signs in the state right of way, but that they would allow the town to make the decision for them. Based on that information, the Selectboard voted unanimously to allow the signs to remain in the right of way until Sept 30th as we requested.

Julia’s statement that the state is willing to cede authority to the town in matters relating to the state roads is curious. It seems as if the town called the state, and the state essentially said, “We don’t care, do whatever you want.” It begs the question of why the town then doesn’t do the same on issues such as biker/pedestrian safety, speed limits, road conditions, drainage issues, and a whole host of other topics. But maybe that’s a topic for another day . . .

And more about the signs . . .

The question of whether or not the signs should be allowed has been placed on the agenda for the Selectboard meeting for Monday, August 5. The meeting starts at 7:30 at Town Hall. I have no idea what will happen, but it should be interesting. If nothing else, it is an opportunity to demonstrate to the town leaders the depth of the opposition to the CRC proposal, so hopefully many neighbors and project opponents will attend.

Here is the email that I sent to the Selectboard requesting to be on the agenda:

Dear Selectboard Members – 
Per Catheryn Hembree’s email to me dated May 15, and several subsequent follow up emails, we are requesting permission from the Selectboard to place signs in the right of way.  The signs read “Protect our Residential Neighborhood” and are intended to encourage people to become more informed about the development proposals and the current situation on Greensboro Rd.
These signs have actually been around town for about two months now. We did not request permission when Catheryn originally wrote to me about the issue because we believed that we were complying with her request –  removing all the signs from the town rights of way, and displaying them on private property only.
We still believe that they are actually all currently on private property, and despite several requests from us, no one on the town staff has identified any specific signs that they believe are in a town right of way. But, we have received confusing and sometimes contradictory information about exactly where the signs can and can’t be.  To hopefully clarify the situation, we have decided to take the step of requesting this permission from the Selectboard as Catheryn suggested originally.   We would like permission to display the signs until September 30, 2019.
To help bring you up to speed on how we got to this point, we have attached copies of all the email communications back and forth on the issue between Catheryn Hembree, Rob Houseman, Julia Griffin, and us.  The emails are presented in chronological order so as you read through you will hopefully get a complete picture.
Thank  you for your consideration of this request.  We would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues further and would appreciate being placed on an upcoming agenda.

For background on the issue, you can read my previous post on the issue here: https://greensbororoad.org/2019/07/29/so-about-those-signs/

So, about those signs . . .

The “Save Our Residential Neighborhood” signs that have popped up all around Greensboro Rd and out in Etna have caused quite a stir at Town Hall. I have received several emails recently from Town officials with conflicting information – the signs are allowed on private property . . . no they aren’t allowed on private property . . . you don’t need a zoning permit, you need permission from the Selectboard to display them in the Town Right of Way . . . wait, Greensboro Rd is a state road, there is no town right of way . . . you need a zoning permit to display them . . . the town will leave any enforcement to the state . . . the town will fine the property owner $285 per day per sign . . .

So, to try to cut through all the confusion and fog, Lara and I have requested permission from the Selectboard to display the signs – even though we don’t think we need permission, and even though we don’t actually own the signs or control the placement of them, but, that is what the town officials have told us to do,so that is what we are going to do. My personal opinion is that the signs are protected free speech, allowed by state law on private property in the same way that candidates signs are allowed. But, what the heck do I know?

We have asked to be on the next Selectboard agenda. The next meeting is Monday, August 5th, and we are told that we should know by Aug 1 if we are actually on the agenda. It would be great to have a big showing of support from the neighborhood. Even if we aren’t on the agenda, I plan to go to the meeting and raise the issue during the open agenda/public comments section of the meeting. Please save the date, and we will provide more details as we know them.

In case anyone wants to read the whole story, the link below contains the 100% unabridged version of all the emails back and forth from me to various town officals on the subject, presented in chronological order. I didn’t cherry pick, edit, take things out of context – this is every email start to finish, in order.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9jcaNqWKh9OX0Vib1ZTaVJtR3QxNnVmYzZRUldoeE5xZXpn/view?usp=sharing

Strength in Numbers

The Zoning Board will meet on Monday, May 20 at 7:00 PM (Town Hall, 2nd floor) to deliberate the motions to reconsider their approval of the church’s application. The Ackers (on behalf of the abutters and neighbors) have filed to overturn the decision completely. The church has filed to overturn the toothless conditions imposed by the ZBA in their approval. The church calls the conditions “oppressive” and they are asking for unrestricted use of the property – as many people as they can fit, any time of day, any day of the week.

The Board meeting is open to the public but it is a deliberative session only, and we don’t expect that there will be any opportunity for public comment . Despite that, we still think it is important to show up, and show support. During one of the previous meetings, one of the ZBA members said that “the neighbors seem to think the area is what you can see from the end of the Acker’s driveway”. We need to make sure the board understands that the negative impacts of this extend way past the immediate abutters. The Board may say “NO” anyway, but it will be a lot harder for them to say no to a room full of their friends, neighbors, and colleagues.

The overwhelming support for this cause is coming from all over town:

  • 18 residents from all around town wrote letters to the Zoning Board in support of the Acker’s motion
  • 50 yard signs are out and about- I’ve seen them all the way from Hanover HS to Etna Village
  • 55 separate individuals have made donations – either to the GoFundMe, or the PayPal account, or by mailing checks directly to our attorney (you can add to that total by using the “Donate Now” feature at the top of this page)
  • 609 unique visitors have read 1258 pages of this blog since May 1

Whatever decision the Board makes on Monday, there will still be many more chapters to write. Please attend the meeting if you can, and please help spread the word to others around town. Our strength is in our numbers.

Neighbors speak out!

An excellent letter to the editor in today’s Valley News from Julia Viazmenski. Perfectly sums up what’s so wrong about this proposal. The key point:

” Approval of such a project would set a dangerous precedent for future development on roads like this one throughout the town. “

https://www.vnews.com/Forum-May-18-25570963

And here are some prior letters that are so good that I just have to share them again here. These provide a nice snapshot of what this is all about.

https://www.vnews.com/Forum-April-5-24603254

https://www.vnews.com/Forum-May-1-25203698

https://www.vnews.com/Forum-March-27-24385054

ZBA to meet May 20th

Just got word that the ZBA will meet on May 20th, 7:00 PM in Town Hall, to discuss the motions filed for a reconsideration of their prior decision. There are actually two motions for reconsideration – one filed by the Ackers on behalf of the abutters and neighbors, and one filed by CRC.

If anyone is interested, the motion we filed is here:

Acker motion to ZBA for rehearingDownload
06-letters-of-support-for-acker-rehearing-1Download

I don’t think that the board will take any testimony or public comment on the 20th, but the public can and should attend. Overwhelming public opposition will definitely make it harder for the ZBA to turn us down.

And, don’t forget Town Meeting is Tuesday (5/14). The “business” portion of the meeting starts at 7:00 at the High School. There’s nothing specific on the agenda relative to this proposal, but there is a opportunity for open comments and “other business” at the end of the meeting. If anyone is moved to speak about this situation, it seems like one more good opportunity to let the rest of the town know a bit about what is going on.

So what’s the deal with all these signs?

Perhaps you’ve seen the signs sprouting up on Greensboro Rd, and popping up in other places and wondered what they were all about?

The sign fairies have been busy in Hanover this weekend!

We are hoping to spark conversation, and create awareness among Hanover residents about the proposal for Greensboro Rd., and what it will mean to the town if it is approved. The impacts of this development will be felt all over town, not just by the immediate abutters and neighbors, and we want to make sure that folks are aware of what is going on.

The Zoning Board has twice determined that the development will have a negative impact on the character of the area. The ZBA decisions can be read here: https://wordpress.com/block-editor/page/greensbororoad.org/18

But the impacts are far greater than just the noise, and the lights, and the traffic, etc that the neighbors will have to endure. If this decision stands, it will be virtually impossible for the Zoning Board to ever turn down another request. The applicant can just point to the precedent that was set in this case – a totally objectionable proposal being approved with toothless conditions – and demand that they get the same treatment.

And the domino effect on the entire corridor from Rt 120 to Etna Village will be impossible to contain. Once the character of the area is defined to include developments with massive lighted parking lots that attract 300+ people and 100+ cars to the neighborhood on a regular basis, then the next commercial applicant will have no trouble proving that its proposal fits the area also. Remember, CRC put together 4 contiguous lots to make this plan – don’t be fooled into thinking there isn’t any other land available for the next developer!

So, if you’re as concerned about the future of our town as I am, please spread the word. Support of all types is greatly appreciated – talk to friends and co-workers; show up and speak at public meetings; write letters to the Valley News or blog posts on DailyUV; and, of course, contribute to our legal fund. You can donate via GoFundMe by clicking on the “Donate Now” at the top of this page.

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!

CRC Files appeal with Zoning Board

As we might have expected, CRC has filed their own motion with the Zoning Board, asking for a rehearing of the recent decision. Despite the reversal of their initial denial, CRC is claiming that the “oppressive conditions (attached by the ZBA) make this approval tantamount to a denial”

Yes, they really do call them “oppressive” – they actually use the word 5 different times in their filing.  Their primary claim seems to be that they are somehow the victims of religious discrimination, and the only redress for that is that they should be allowed to do whatever they darn well please. If you are interested, the full text of the church’s motion is here:

CRC Second motion for rehearingDownload

I’m not sure how the rest of you feel, but I am personally offended by the suggestion that this has anything do with religious bigotry.   And, to claim that the whole town zoning process is somehow bigoted is just ludicrous.  I also find it ironic to say the least that we are being threatened with a religious discrimination lawsuit by a group that has been allowed to meet in our PUBLIC high school auditorium for the last 17 years!

We will be filing our appeal shortly, and then it will be up to the Zoning Board (and probably eventually the courts) to sort it all out.  Stay tuned. In the meantime, feel free to contemplate the monstrosity below . . .

 

Hanover neighborhoods are threatened!

A massive church development is proposed for 28-32 Greensboro Rd.  If allowed, this will undoubtedly change the character of the neighborhood, and the entire town of Hanover forever!   The Zoning Board originally ruled against this proposal, but recently caved to a threatened lawsuit  and reversed their decision. 

 The immediate effect of this development will be to change the character of Greensboro Rd, greatly increase the risk of flood damage in our area, and threaten the environmentally sensitive Mink Brook watershed.  The long term ripple effect will be that our Zoning Ordinance will be rendered toothless and useless, and no area in town will be exempt from massive developments of this type.  Eventually, the entire Greensboro Rd corridor from Rt 120 to the Great Hollow Rd will be swallowed up by commercial developments.

A group of neighbors and interested folks from around town have banded together to fight this disastrous proposal.  We’ve launched this site as an easy way to collect and disseminate information about the plans.

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton

  • crc before and after

The Red area represents the current size of buildings and driveways on the site. The Blue area represents what is proposed – 21,000 + SF building and 113 space lighted parking lot – almost one acre of pavement!