Planning board overturned on Alpaca road

In a unanimous decision last night, Portsmouth's zoning board granted the appeal of Rhode Island Nurseries, sending back to the planning board for reconsideration a proposed development that would include a road bisecting the Glen Ridge alpaca farm. Sitting as the planning board of appeals, the 6-member panel heard nearly three hours of testimony from attorneys representing both sides before rendering their decision.

The planning board, last November, had denied the RI Nurseries application. Since this was an appeal, at issue was the procedural correctness of the planning board's actions, rather than the development proposal itself, and the board decided there were problems that warranted overturning the ruling.

"Whether we like something or not is irrelevant," said chair Jim Nott, in explaining his vote. "We have to go by ordinances." He went on to cite what he called a "disturbing" lack of explanation by the planning board, which only provided rationale for their votes two months after the fact. "If the decision is that important," said Nott, "Why just 'yea' or 'nay'? Why not prepare decisions?" Nott also quoted from two of the board members' written explanations, finding a lack of grounding in evidence in one, and an ambivalence in the other which, he noted, might have been resolved had the board reported out their rationale at the November meeting.

Other board members voiced similar concerns, and voted to remand. The ruling sends the proposal back to the planning board for reconsideration.

This was the first time I've covered one of these appeal hearings, and I was struck once again by the serious professionalism of our volunteer boards. These are our fellow citizens, regular folks with jobs and families, who are putting in long hours to make important decisions affecting the growth and future of Portsmouth. They listened and probed as attorneys for both sides made highly detailed technical arguments, and while supporters of the alpaca farm may be disappointed with the outcome, there should be at least some measure of reassurance that such processes are in place and working. And back to the planning board...

Comments

Zoning is supposed to be changed periodically and reported out as well to the state's Department of Environmental Management. You do not leave zoning in a static state as the economy, environment, population density, demographics, pollution, watershed toxicicity levels, marine life data, road congestion, and sewage treatment capacity are in a continuaing state of change impacting quality of life issues.

Did the deciders follow that protocol? Please help me out to better understand the inability to change and thank You for any answers that may surface.

Cordially,
Wernerlll

Hi, Werner...
Although this was only my first time at a planning board review, my understanding is that this -- like most administrative appeals processes -- has nothing to do with the merits of this case or the zoning regulations. This venue only conducts a review of the adherence to procedure. Change to zoning ordinances would need to happen through other channels. I'm sure you could reach out to anyone on the Board of Review or the town zoning enforcement officer to understand those processes.

Best,
-j

Thanks J,
The statement by Mr. Nott:
"Whether we like something or not is irrelevant," said chair Jim Nott, in explaining his vote. "We have to go by ordinances" reminded me very much of the Washington culture where freedom to say yeah or nay is reserved at the ultimate power level, no attribution intended here.

Hands are tied, the process must go on, and people get all wound up around the axels, until it is spun off over the fence. I have no dog in this race and I wish the parties good luck. But given all the problems and challenges, more development should not be a priority right now (in my humble opinion), instead the focus should be on a major drive towards "greening" both our economy and living spaces. Is Portsmouth on that bandwagon?

Cordially,
Wernerlll