“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?”
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 ”
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.
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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment