In Search of Elbow Room

While I hope that the previous two posts have provided you with some sense of how the Town Planner goes about increasing the size of the so-called “cottages” that will be allowed by right within the new Seasonal Resort Community zone, this video excerpt (and verbatim transcript) of his presentation before the Economic Development Committee on 15 July 2010 demonstrates even further how these things grew even larger.

In the previous post, for example, the Planner had drafted Section 12.6.C. as:

C. Seasonal Cottages may be 1 ½ stories tall with the upper story area consisting of usable loft area not exceeding one-half of the floor area of the first story.

But now you must pay attention to the newer version of that so-called “loft”/“half-story” area. While the Town Planner stresses (at the 2:17 mark) “That is [sic] essentially establishes a maximum floor area of thirteen hundred and fifty square feet of living space . . . ,” he later says that (with the suggestion of Attorneys Reid and Brennan) there can be even more floor space which will not be counted under this new bylaw as part of that “one-half of the floor area of the first story.” In other words, this version of the SRC bylaw allows a developer to build a “cottage” with a footprint up to 900 sf and with an allowed “loft”/“half-story” of another 450 sf, PLUS additional floor space that has a ceiling which is less than 7 feet in height. That means any second-floor room with a 7-foot ceiling that slopes down to a four-foot knee wall has significantly more living space than the Planner’s implied “maximum floor area of thirteen hundred and fifty square feet of living space . . .” Though the space beneath that 7-foot ceiling might not be considered “habitable” within the building code, that space would certainly be “usable.” Elbow room. Ha!

So, did the Planner not understand what he was doing? Or was the Planner not being forthright with the implications of his proposal?

That is for you to decide. Take a look for yourself.

“Ah, Provisions specific to seasonal cottages.

“Cottages y’know this has been a big arg-- I uh I shouldn’t say ‘argument’. It’s been a an interesting issue: How big should these cottages be?

“A. You’ve got people being crowded into -- if health regulations were ever strictly applied in this area if someone applies for a rental permit then suddenly they put themselves into it -- ahh, but you’re supposed to have two hundred ahh I think believe two hundred feet for the first person and a hundred and fifty feet for the first person and a hundred square feet for every additional person. Some of these cottages are two hundred and forty square feet. And therefore are only capable of accommodating a single person. Yet, you’ve got three and four people in them. And so, the issue ... there all people are cramped even under normal standards but uh for health, but they’re also just y’know there’s almost no elbow room in some of these cottages ah when ah you just have your normal family there even if you’re a little bit bigger.

“So, the idea was to look at it and say, “When there is the space to be able to do it based upon all the standards we put in here, that it be capable for cottages to get a little more elbow room.” And ultimately looking at the various sizes that are out there, we have cottages ranging from two hundred forty square feet up to eight hundred and eighty square feet, and so we said, “Okay, we’ll define a cottage of having a maximum footprint of nine hundred square feet. And, y’know, that would be the largest size you could have for a cottage. They may be one-and-a-half stories tall, provided that the half story is located under a sloping roof so that we get some design to it ah and that the floor area for that half story is essentially limited to the building code requirements, which is that you can have on that upper that half-story, you can have floor space with a seven foot ceiling equal to one-half of the floor space that is on the floor immediately below. That is essentially establishes a maximum floor area of thirteen hundred and fifty square feet of living space, which for there’s at least with one building down there at Chase’s Ocean Grove that will still be non-conforming. It also has a garage and so that it’s clearly non-conforming throughout. Ah, but it gives you some it gives the ability for some people to get more elbow room. Still you’re very close together.

“Then we wanted to be sure we laid out what did not count towards that floor area unheated storage space could not count. Ah, if you had a bay window eighteen inches deep six feet wide that would not count. The some things that break up the architecture so you could have these without it counting. Ah if you’re not we allow roofed porch up to two hundred forty square feet to be attached to these without counting toward that floor space. And the half, when you’re on that second story and this was suggested by ah both Attorney Reid and Attorney Brennan representing two different property owners already covered in the building code but they wanted they felt it was important to spell out that the area of the second level that is less than seven feet ah is not counted towards it. It’s already not counted towards it under the building code. I think it’s extraneous to put it in here, but ah where they felt y’know spell it out anyway I finally said okay we’ll just put that in.”

Whatever Became of “What’s There?”

While the Town Planner was taking his non-scientific polls/surveys in April, 2010, for his supposed input on the sizes of cottage footprints to be allowed by right in the new SRC zone, he was engaged by the Board of Directors of the Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association in a discussion of cottage footprints and other matters. Below is the Town Planner’s posting on his own blog.

Knowing what you now do know about the questionable methodology of his polls/surveys, pay close attention to the Town Planner’s application of his so-called results. Specifically, note how he proclaims: “Looking at preliminary feedback from the polls I put up for Thursday’s discussion, these seem to be the limits that get the strongest support.  Over 60% support the 900 sf limit.  While about half support the 1,200 sf limit, when you try to look at a percentage that is close to that needed to pass Town Meeting, you find about 2/3rds support at the 1,000 sf  and greater cut-off.  Ultimate the living space discussion will be important on Thursday.”

Such comments are crucial to understanding the truly limited public discussion there was of this important issue.

You will probably need to read and review this section several times in order to keep the discussion clear in your mind. Just know that the Town Planner is trying to make the case for a dramatic increase in the size of so-called “cottages” in the zone that is being created. Remember that the Town Planner had said in November of 2009: “ . . . one of the things that’s going to be real tough to try to wrestle with and uh is going to be trying to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.”

As you shall see once again below, the Town Planner had reported in March of 2010 a breakdown of the footprints that were in existence: “The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf.” Yet, now the Town Planner is proposing something dramatically greater in size than “the largest cottage” (singular).

Why this change in thinking from “a level of conformity based upon what’s there?”

I do not know.

Still, you might find some interest in this self-proclaimed “fantastic profile”  (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/translucent/mbd_20160405/#/8) written in 2016 by the developer of one of the properties within the Seasonal Resort Community zone. If he is to be believed, then perhaps this article provides some insight into the timing of Town Planner’s change of mind.

Meanwhile, this is the Town Planner’s post from June, 2010.

Cottage Colony Discussion – Responses   

I received the information below from the Chase’s Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association.  As a follow-up to the previous post I will try to answer the questions.  As you will see, much of my responses illustrate the state of development and transition we may be going through with this proposal.

On behalf of the Ocean Grove Homeowners Protection Association Board of Directors

Overarching Question

Is it the intent of the Town to delete in its entirety the current zoning provisions and replace with the new zoning proposal (when completed)?

This question is central to the entire discussion and we need to address in the near term.  As originally envisioned, the idea was to keep the underlying zoning (Resort Residential) and create an overlay specifically covering these uses.  After a number of discussions with cottage and landowners, and reviewing the comments from last fall, I am now thinking that a new zoning district might be the best route. Such a zoning district would allow by-right, as long as certain conditions were met, Cottage Colonies, Recreational Vehicle Parks and the uses exempt from Zoning under MGL Chapter 40A Section 3.

DENSITY AND SITE PROVISIONS

Lot Area

The minimum lot area for a Seasonal Cottage or Recreational Vehicle Facility shall consist of a lot or lots, when combined, that comprise a minimum of five (5) acres of land. Adjacent parcels, even when separated by a road, may be considered as combined for the purposes of this zoning provision.

It appears that you are combining two distinct proposals Seasonal Cottages & Recreation Vehicles.  Is it the intention of the Town to allow replacement of all the cottages with Recreation Vehicles and vice versa?  We propose that Cottage Colonies and Recreation vehicles be distinct Zoning districts.

I understand your comment, there are a few reasons for a single zoning district.  First, Camper’s Haven and Grindell’s RV Parks both contain a mix of cottages and recreational vehicles.  As such, a single use RV or Cottage zoning would not be a good fit for either of these properties.  Secondly, we need to be concerned with spot zoning.  Generally creating zoning specifically crafted to one property is frowned upon, even if that particular use has been on the property for many years.  We may still have a problem with how the by-law applies to Grindell’s as it is isolated and only about 7 acres of land.  However, given its use is similar in nature to the larger areas that are targeted I feel comfortable that we can pass the sniff test with the current proposal.  My intent is to provide a proposal that supports the land uses that are present on these properties.  However, you are correct that the zoning could allow for the changes you are identifying.


Lot Coverage

Provisions Specific to Seasonal Cottage Complexes

B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor’s data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let’s mull this over.)

We support a 900 sq ft footprint standard and a 1000 sq ft FA standard.  If a lesser footprint is adopted then some of the existing cottage colonies would remain non-conforming.

Looking at preliminary feedback from the polls I put up for Thursday’s discussion, these seem to be the limits that get the strongest support.  Over 60% support the 900 sf limit.  While about half support the 1,200 sf limit, when you try to look at a percentage that is close to that needed to pass Town Meeting, you find about 2/3rds support at the 1,000 sf  and greater cut-off.  Ultimate the living space discussion will be important on Thursday.

C. Seasonal Cottages may be 1 ½ stories tall with the upper story area consisting of usable loft area not exceeding one-half of the floor area of the first story.

We do not understand the need for the blue text because of item D noted below.

The idea of the one-half the floor space below is geared towards controlling the look of the cottages.  If we said 1,000 sf of living space, someone could do a 500 sf first floor and a similarly sized second floor, leading to a two-story look.  The half the floor area limit lends itself better to the second story being kept  within the limits of a pitched roof, a 500 sf foot print would be limited to only 250 sf in the upper area.

D. Seasonal Cottages may be no taller than 17 feet tall above the higher of existing grade or base flood elevation.

E. Any seasonal cottage that exceeds 600 square feet shall meet the density requirements for a dwelling unit located in the same district. (900 sf?) ( Not sure what this means ? Are we saying that no new cottage may exceed 600 sq ft, or that no existing cottage may be enlarged to exceed 600 sq ft ? If an existing cottage already exceeds 600 sq ft, can the complex still be eligible for a special permit ? )

If you changed cottage to unit, you would include the single family homes you referred to above.  We would suggest 1000 sq ft standard for FA

I will go through by-law and the general housing sizes in the Assessor’s information to see if this clears it all up.  My goal is to make this as comprehensive as possible.  It is also possible that the larger units (there may be a few in Curtis Pines) that challenge the 900 foot limits, could simply remain non-conforming without affecting the remainder of the property.  This would be the ideal situation.

K. All Seasonal Cottage Complexes may be open for normal occupation between starting May 1st and ending October 31st. Seasonal Cottage Complexes may provide for short term use, up to ten days in any thirty day period, during the remainder of the year .

From an economic development point of view, why does the Town seek to remove us from supporting business in the off-season?  We do not believe zoning should determine usage period.  That being said, we do not oppose the language — if there is to be a limit within zoning.

Presently the town General By-law restricts cottage use to no more than 90 days of occupation in any 6 month time period.  This has been on the books since 1937.  It is not the best yardstick to measure a seasonal use.  The goal of the proposal is to increase the availability of the cottages in the off-season, while also ensuring that they do not become winter rental housing which then turns into year-round housing units.  The goal is to maintain this as the seasonal community it is and not turn it into 400 or more new year round homes with all the associated costs.  I did notice that I used April 15th in the RV portion of the zoning, so will be suggesting we use a similar start date for full occupation in this section.  The ten day limit  in any 30 days in the off-season provides access for school vacation periods but helps to maintain the overall seasonal use of the properties.

L. Construction of new seasonal cottages or other buildings or additions to seasonal or housekeeping cottages, buildings or other structures must comply with the requirements of this section.

Again, what is the practical meaning of this section?

Some of the properties have significant amounts of undeveloped land.  By making these conforming uses, we open up the possibility that they could expand and add units.  The section is intended to ensure that such additions comply with this by-law.  In the end, if the wording is not necessary, it can be removed.

This entry was posted in Cottage Colonies, Dennisport, Zoning and tagged Cottage Colonies, Dennisport, Zoning on June 15, 2010.

There’s An Old Saying

During the period in 2010 when the Town Planner was drafting the maximum footprint size for cottages that would be allowed by-right within the proposed Seasonal Resort Community zone, he posted [with my emphasis added in bold] this comment to a reader on his blog:

“I deal with zoning and the long term vision. A vision for an area is tied to the town’s plan and local zoning. I was talking about a vision based, in part, upon zoning that has been in place for 37 years. Only the land owners can decide when they will change the use of the land upon which your cottage sits. The town decides the level of regulatory control the changes will be subjected to. Presently hotels are by-right uses, meaning the least amount of review. Cottages are not allowed under present zoning, meaning to make even the smallest modification to a cottage has the highest level of review. Our discussion was one of, if the area were to transition, what should it look like, and what level of review should be required.”
[https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/cottage-colony-and-rv-park-poll/]

Of importance here is the Town Planner’s reiteration of his desire for some sort of “long term vision,” as well as the need for more control over the use of the land. All the while, the Town Planner is re-drafting his proposed by-right footprints from his initial suggestion of 400 sf (based upon what was in existence at the time) toward the eventual allowed by-right maximum of 900 sf. As a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, he has an ethical “Responsibility to the Public” that should demonstrate:

• “Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
• “Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
• “Timely, clear and accurate information
• “Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”

In other words, if the Town Planner is proposing any increase in the existing footprints, then he has an ethical obligation to demonstrate just what that increase in a land owner’s by-right allowance might produce in the future.

With that in mind, then, let’s review the online survey he conducted on the matter of footprint size. Keep in mind that the participants in this survey (known in the parlance as the “survey universe”) are only those who were aware that a survey was being taken.

In mid-June of 2010 (not long after he posted that above comment about “long term vision”), he offered the following two surveys.
[https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/quick-cottage-survey/]

“The maximum footprint for a cottage in the Seasonal Resort Zoning District should be:

• 900 sf
• 800 sf
• 700 sf
• 600 sf
• 500 sf
• 400 sf ”

As the screenshot here shows, the Town Planner received 65 responses. And those 65 responses are from what “survey universe?”

Based upon his draft posted on 5 April 2010, the Town Planner reported that there were some 485 cottages existing  within the proposed district. Had his 65 responses come solely from a survey universe of those cottage owners, then one might extrapolate that 65 responses out of 485 cottage owners equals only 13.4% of all the cottage owners. Would that be deemed “meaningful participation” in the view of the AICP? I do not know. So, what can be made of the fact that we do not have any sense whatsoever of the universe of this survey? In other words, 65 respondents out of how many? But let’s not spoil the Town Planner’s illusion.

The Town Planner reports that 60% (39 votes) favor a maximum footprint of 900 sf.

From there, the support drops dramatically.

Only 12.31% (8 of his respondents) favor 800 sf; 9.23% (6 respondents) favor 700 sf, and another 9.23% (6 more) support 600 sf. Three respondents (4.62%) favor 500 sf, but another three respondents (which somehow total 5%) would like to hold the maximum footprint at 400 sf.

Now, try to keep this methodology in mind when the Town Planner mentions surveys in his ensuing presentations, for he is one to boast time and time again of the surveys he took in this matter.

The second area of his survey was:

“The maximum living space (ground floor and loft area) for a cottage in the Seasonal Resort Zoning District should be:

• 1,200 sf
• 1,100 sf
• 1,000 sf
• 900 sf
• 800 sf
• 700 sf
• 600 sf
• 500 sf
• 400 sf ”

In this survey, the Town Planner’s survey universe had swelled to 74 respondents.

Of these respondents, some 35 (47.3%) favored 1,200 sf, and that was the fan favorite. The screenshot indicates the living area with the next strongest support came from the 14 respondents (18.92%) who favored 1,100 sf.

Despite the shortcomings of this methodology, a week later the Town Planner created some primitive pie charts which purported to show that his original footprint proposal of 400 sf did not reflect the will of . . . those 65 or 74 persons who responded to his survey.

“As the charts illustrate,” proclaimed the Town Planner, “while there remains some concern about overdeveloping the area, there is also a clear desire to see some improvement in the size of the cottages within the Old Wharf Road area we are currently analyzing.”

Are these surveys and conclusions a presentation of “timely, clear and accurate information?”

Before you come to any conclusion, ask yourself this: “Is the Town Planner satisfied with these results?”

Moreover, what happens when the Town Planner’s surveys do not meet with his favor? Consider his words just two months later, when he hoped to survey his progress on the proposed Seasonal Resort Community zone.
[https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/seasonal-resort-community-poll/]

“I have shut the poll down,” he wrote.  “Unfortunately it appears people found a way to avoid the ‘blocking cookie’ which was intended to keep individual computers from casting more than one vote.  One off-cape IP address voted 106 times in 40 minutes – between 6:20 and 7 Sunday morning.  Overall four IP addresses cast about 80% of the votes, many in rapid fire spurts.

“In setting up the poll I had set it up to use a ‘cookie’ which would block multiple votes from one computer but would allow two people in one household to vote on separate computers.  I did not imagine that I would have needed the next level of security, blocking multiple votes by IP addresses.

“I can accept that some who have been at these meetings may feel that more discussions are needed and some want to push it to town meeting.  And, I can understand that some who have not attended any meetings might feel one way or the other.  It is unfortunate that people did not want to see a real judgment of where we are in the process.

“I watched the poll with great interest.  Over the first several hours the poll was available, the vote – with no IP addresses showing multiple hits – showed a two to one margin in favor of moving it to town meeting.   It was interesting, at this point, that about 1/3 of you felt we needed more discussion.  A judgment that, while we were close, and could start discussions with relevant town boards, there was still a continuing need discuss the finer points of the proposal.

“It is too bad people were afraid ‘their side’ might lose.  As an unscientific poll, the poll only identifies generalities.  It gives an idea of where we are.  What this poll tells me is that this issue is very fractious.  It makes me wonder if it is worth the effort, both the time already committed, and what it will take to see this through.”

So, did the Town Planner bother to monitor his footprint survey when the results rejected his initial 400 sf size in favor of some “clear desire” to allow a maximum footprint of 900 sf? Did he bother to investigate where that support of those 39 “votes” might have come from? (The use of that word “votes” has a kinda, sorta binding connotation, don’t you think?) How excited he must have been that possibly 65 people on this planet took the time to participate in this meaningful way.

From what the Town Planner writes later, this much is clear. There was a faction of cottage owners who supported some sort of zoning other than what was being proposed in the SRC. This same faction favored larger footprints for their own cottages. Would it be unreasonable to believe that the Town Planner accepted the support of these people when it came to the matter of cottage footprints, but then rejected their participation when it meant even further discussion of the proposed zoning? I do not know. I’m just asking the question.

With that in mind, let me recall the words of a somewhat obscure statistician named Carroll D. Wright, who on June 25th of 1889 gave the opening remarks at a Convention of Commissioners of Bureaus of Statistics of Labor.

To those folks, Mr. Wright noted: “The old saying is that ‘figures will not lie,’ but a new saying is ‘liars will figure.’ It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish. We can only do this by being absolutely fair ourselves.”

Over Time, Lies May Desensitize Brain to Dishonesty

 

Scientists speculate that amygdala activity could represent the internal conflict between wanting to see oneself as honest and being tempted to act in self-interest by lying. This would fit with the scientists’ observation that people appeared to lie more readily in tasks where it benefited both themselves and their partner - possibly because it was easier to justify a lie that served the common good.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/24/from-porkies-to-whoppers-over-time-lies-may-desensitise-brain-to-dishonesty

Footprints

Nearly three weeks have elapsed since the 2 October 2016 posting of the Town Planner’s initial draft (5 April 2010) of what would become Section 12: Seasonal Resort Community of the Dennis Zoning Bylaw.

As the Town Planner notes, many of the terms in that draft have been taken from the zoning of the town of Wells, Maine.  http://ecode360.com/7611416

For example, the Wells, Maine, Chapter 145: Land Use, their Article II: Word Usage includes §145-10 Definitions.

There you will find that the definition in Wells of a SEASONAL COTTAGE is:
   

 A one-story building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.

The Wells definition of a HOUSEKEEPING COTTAGE is:

    A one-story building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking rented to transient guests for a period usually not exceeding 28 days. Such a unit shall not be occupied between January 10 and April 1. [Added 4-12-2003]

The Dennis Town Planner’s definition of a SEASONAL COTTAGE is:

A building containing a single unit made up of a room or group of rooms containing facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing and cooking and that is not occupied and to which water service is turned off between November 1 and April 30.  

Since that 2 October 2016 posting, I have been reviewing with care those significant aspects of the Seasonal Resort Community bylaw which change dramatically from the Town Planner’s initial draft into the precise wording adopted by the Special Town Meeting of November, 2010, and which were subsequently approved by the Attorney General. These aspects include the definition of the term “seasonal,” as well as the size of the existing cottages on the properties within the proposed zone.

The next few posts will concentrate first upon the size of those cottages and how the Town Planner attempted to explain that change. Correlating the Town Planner’s written words with his often rambling, sometimes incoherent pubic presentations is a real challenge; however, it is essential to demonstrating how often his words simply do not coincide with his deeds. As the fellows of the AICP would note, this is “ethical quicksand.”

Once we have managed to navigate that size aspect, the concept of “seasonal” will be the next focus, as the Town Planner is now in the process of his second attempt to expand the season.

In both instances, we shall continue to ask: What did the Town Planner know? and When did the Town Planner know it?

In regard to the size of the cottages in this proposed district, the Town Planner’s initial draft indeed is in line with what was then present on the properties to be included in the zone. At this point, he is lending credibility to his statement of 19 November 2009 “to come up with something that gives you a level of conformity based upon what’s there.” To that end, the Town Planner provides these figures:

B. Seasonal Cottages may have a footprint of up to 400 sf exclusive of the area identified in subsection F below. (We need to really think about this one. Using the Assessor's data I find the following breakdown for cottage sizes 187 are under 400 sf, 234 are between 400 sf and 600 sf, and 64 are above 600 sf. The largest cottage is listed as 882 sf. There are also a mix of single family homes located within the boundaries of the cottage colonies. Perhaps, 600 sf would be an appropriate footprint, with 900 sf allowance for the loft. Let's mull this over.)

Based upon this information, the Town Planner reports that there are some 485 cottages on these properties. Of these, 187/485 (38.5%) are under 400 sf; another 234/485 (48%) are between 400 and 600 sf; and 64/485 (13%) are above 600 sf. The Town Planner states that there is one cottage which is 882 sf.

From these numbers, the Town Planner first proposes that the allowed footprint in the unique zone should be 400 sf, but then he suggests 600 sf. The public can only wonder about the breakdown of footprints for that 48% of cottages within the 400 sf - 600 sf category.

And though the Town Planner has stated that the LARGEST cottage in existence is 882 sf, we are yet to understand with any clarity just how that initial proposal of 400 sf became the 900 sf footprint that a property owner would be allowed by right. You will see that he uses the words “discussions” and “meetings,” but these words do not necessarily mean public discussions and meetings.

Though the Town Planner would go on to state on 20 August 2010 that, “I don’t think anyone here is looking to (pause) tear down all the cottages that are there and replace them with story-and-a-half y’know nine hundred-square-foot footprint-type structures, . . .” he should have known that a property owner would be able to do just that under the bylaw which he was proposing.

Of further interest is the Town Planner’s 8 March 2012 representation of those very same cottages to his Economic Development Committee. His slideshow can be viewed here:

https://dennismaplanningdept.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/review-of-proposed-may-2012-petition-to-restrict-the-size-of-cottages-in-cottage-colonies/

You might want to take note of slide #10.

How is it that the largest cottage in existence in 2010 was 882 sf, but the Town Planner would claim in 2012 that there were cottages of 1,290 sf and 1,640 sf?

That’s a damn good question, don’t you think?

Meanwhile, the next posts will review how the Town Planner presents that change from his initial proposal of 400 sf to that of 900 sf. Who and/or what changed his mind?

Responsibility to the Public

From the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP):

“1. Responsibility to the Public

• Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
• Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
• Timely, clear and accurate information
•  Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”

Always Keep Asking

What did the Town Planner know?

And when did the Town Planner know it?

What does the Town Planner now know?

And when will the Town Planner tell us?


From the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP):

“1. Responsibility to the Public

• Special concern for long-range consequences of present actions
• Attention to interrelatedness of decisions
• Timely, clear and accurate information
•  Meaningful participation, including for those lacking influence”