The select board and residents of Moretown have gone to great lengths
to invite and provide input into this critical planning process. Why
were we called to task for exercising our rights and making the
planning process more transparent when this is an approach you have
consistently advocated for over the years? The labeling by the editor
of any one group as hijacking the process was inappropriate and
histrionic and does not help build the community and transparency we
all desire.
You also incorrectly stated our position with your statement that we
were asking the select board to decide now to appeal if the
Environmental Court rules in Rivers' favor. Your own reporter, who was
at the meeting, correctly stated that our request was for prudent
budget planning for a possible defense against Rivers appealing a
decision he's not going to like.
We thanked the select board for their past defense of the zoning and
Town Plan and requested that they plan for the possible continuation of
defending our voter-approved regulations. These zoning regulations
exist for determining appropriate development through an exhaustive
review process by the Development Review Board.
Defending these tenets is appropriate. Putting any specific
development, or defense, to a popular vote via a special article sets a
dangerous precedent that would make these voter-approved regulations
moot. Instead, residents should discuss, change and vote on these
regulations, not specific projects.
Fortunately public input into the planning process is alive and well in
Moretown. Hopefully your December 17 editorial has not hijacked this
process by discouraging this continued, very important, participation.
Ben and Denise Sanders
Moretown
{loadnavigation}
