“This land is your land, this land is my land”

Is the Platner Principle made for you and me?

By Will Collette

For months, we have been exploring the inconsistent, if not downright dysfunctional, way that Charlestown regulates land and property.

I’ve reviewed the 750 articles Progressive Charlestown has published since its launch last February and found the largest single bloc of stories have dealt with Charlestown’s seemingly endless arguments over land and property use.

At present, there is a governing philosophy in Charlestown held by the Planning Commission and by a majority of the Town Council that we’ve summed up in the Marx Brothers’ classic song, “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It.”

This song becomes public policy in what we’ve come to call the “Platner Principle.” As articulated by the head of the town Planning Commission Ruth Platner, this principle is “all land and property uses are prohibited unless they are expressly permitted” in our town ordinances.

Topiary: not listed as a permitted use.
Is it prohibited?

This principle, as a governing philosophy, comes up again and again. In just these past few months, we’ve written about battles fought in town over affordable housing, beach use, conservation development, traffic regulation, the health of our ponds, open space, anything the Narragansetts want to do, small business development, lights, trees, and of course, alternative energy.

The arguments are sometimes couched in moderate language. Other times the debate turns incendiary. The polar extremes in these debates range from people who support unrestricted development (a very small minority) to people who would love to restore Charlestown to the way it was before humans walked this place (again, a very small minority). Everyone else takes their stand at various points between those two poles.

Right now, Charlestown is governed by officials elected to office under the banner of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA).

They generally take the position that Charlestown does not need any new housing, new businesses, newcomers, or new anything. They oppose affordable housing. They support the conversion of lands into non-taxable open space. They oppose anything the Narragansett Indian tribe proposes to do on their lands. They oppose alternative energy, especially wind energy. They are openly hostile to small business.

They like our trees, our beaches and our dark skies – and don’t we all – but are unwilling or unable to find practical ways to preserve these resources while making them available to all.

It’s time for the residents of Charlestown to look at where we are on these key issues.

For one thing, the governing Platner Principle may sound pretty clear, but it’s not.

To test how the Platner Principle works in practice, I posed the question of how the principle applies to the array of solar panels mounted on the home of Town Council President (and CCA Secretary) Tom Gentz. Are they legal or not, I asked.

Under the Platner Principle, these solar panel should be illegal because there is no mention, never mind approval, of solar panels for use on any type of Charlestown property (residential, commercial or industry.).

Tom Gentz lives here - note the solar panels.
Solar panels are not listed as a permitted use.
Are they therefore prohibited?
(Official Charlestown tax database photo)

Town Administrator William DiLibero (a practicing attorney) told me that because there is no mention of ANY form of alternative energy in the town ordinances and list of permissible zoning uses, then technically, all forms of alternative energy are prohibited.

But Town Building Official Joe Warner says that Council President Gentz’s solar panels ARE permissible because they were part of the original home design and are considered an accessory use. Besides, Warner determines what is permissible and what is not. His decision is law, subject of course to appeal to the Zoning Board and judicial review.

Affordable Housing Commission Chair Evelyn Smith (who is one of the most knowledgeable people in town on land use law) differs with DiLibero, Warner AND with the Platner Principle. She offered a much more nuanced and authoritative interpretation in comments to my Tom Gentz/solar panel article (see comments to this article). Unfortunately, Evelyn does not set town land use policy.

So, four town officials and four different opinions about what is permissible and what is prohibited on the roof of a fifth town official – do you see the problem?

Linda Felaco and I alternated in doing a series of articles that highlighted two other aspects of the problem in our town’s land use policies.

Linda’s series discussed ridiculous and unenforceable prohibitions written into our town ordinances. Examples included accessory dwellings, camping on your own land, an ordinance that prohibits throwing snowballs at a tree and many more.

My series focused on common Charlestown land uses that are not expressly permitted by town ordinance or zoning list – and are therefore prohibited under the Platner Principle. Examples include swing sets, bird baths, gardens, a hammock, a tree house, a dog house or a badminton court.

My own personal belief is that we need to reverse the Platner Principle. The Platner Principle is probably incorrect, possibly even unconstitutional, but more than anything else, it is unacceptably intrusive. My suggestion would be its opposite: all is permitted unless it is expressly prohibited.

We need to examine what we regulate in our town ordinances. Do we need an ordinance prohibiting spitting, for example? What aspects of our lives are appropriate areas for the town to regulate?

Do we need a tree ordinance that is so incredibly detailed – and ambiguous at the same time – that it is both impractical and unenforceable? Under the tree ordinance, it would take action by a non-existent Tree Warden and a town Tree Committee that has no members to allow you to remove an invasive species or rotting and diseased tree from your road frontage.

When we regulate, do we need ordinances that reach beyond the original intent or the actual need? The new yard sale restriction is a good example. Or the ordinance that prohibits standing on the Creek Bridge on Charlestown Beach Road?

We need to examine which ordinances are not enforced or are just not enforceable. We have an incredibly detailed ordinance on the control of dogs that is rarely actually enforced. We recently enacted an ordinance on accessory dwelling units that Planning Commissar Ruth Platner said would never be enforced – as she asked the Town Council to enact it!

How much power do Charlestown residents want to give to Ruth Platner and the Town Council and town government to (a) poke into your lives and (b) tell you what you can or can't do with your land and property? I think it’s a fair question even though as a true blue Progressive Democrat, I freely admit that I think government regulation is a good thing. 

Within reason.

So over the coming weeks, Progressive Charlestown will be looking at this subject and we hope you will join in.

If you wish to comment, please either post your comment on line. We ask that you sign your name to what you write and comment thoughtfully – we get tons of anonymous one-line glib comments that we promptly discard because they add nothing of substance to the conversation. You can also e-mail us at progressivecharlestown@gmail.com.

Finally, let's close this installment on the right note....