Let the Town
Council do it. Riiiiiight.
By
Will Collette
 |
| The mother of all quarry blasts. Ordinance #362 will prohibit mine blasting in Charlestown |
That's a shame because Ordinance #362 is actually a
pretty good step forward to deal with the problem that quarries and sand &
gravel pits are largely unregulated in town. The town’s landscape is dotted
with dangerous inactive and abandoned sites that are the legacy of years of
allowing such businesses to operate without the requirement that they reclaim
the land.
I
wrote a detailed analysis of Ordinance #362 earlier (click here to read) where I praised significant portions of the draft but also noted
that this draft contained several significant flaws and omissions.
 |
| Copar's OTHER quarry which IS in Charlestown, right off Route 91. |
They acknowledged
that Ordinance #362 will not
change Copar’s conduct at the Bradford site, since it’s over the town line in
Westerly. However, they pleaded with the Planning Commission to pass the best
possible ordinance in the hope that it would become a model they could push Westerly
into adopting.
They
raised the same concerns I did as well as a few more based on their own
experiences. Sue Clayton focused in on the absence of a “bad actor” provision
in the Charlestown draft that would block permits to operators with bad track
records. This provision, called a “permit block” against bad applicants, is a
key provision in the federal coal mining law and has been in use for 35 years.
If it had been in place in Charlestown, it would have prevented Copar from
obtaining a license to run the former Morrone site on Route 91.
The "permit block" is not a difficult concept to understand - George Tremblay's bewilderment notwithstanding. It means that you don't give permits to criminals to commit more crimes. The broader concept of a "bad actor" law extends this principle to contracts. A good bad actor law inhibits government from doing business with known law-breakers. Is that so hard?
The "permit block" is not a difficult concept to understand - George Tremblay's bewilderment notwithstanding. It means that you don't give permits to criminals to commit more crimes. The broader concept of a "bad actor" law extends this principle to contracts. A good bad actor law inhibits government from doing business with known law-breakers. Is that so hard?
Stephanie
Williamson seconded Sue Clayton’s point about the need for a bad actor
provision and also critiqued the draft’s flawed approach to mine reclamation.
The draft calls for mine operators to submit a reclamation plan nine months
before the operator plans to close. Ms. Williamson noted that this is too late,
that a mine operator who plans to close will probably just close and never
submit a plan to restore the land, never mind actually reclaim the land.
The
federal coal mining law requires mine operations to submit their reclamation
plan as part of their permit application plan. I could find no rational reason
or working precedent to support Charlestown’s decision to delay reclamation plans the way
they do in this ordinance. It makes no sense not to have a reclamation plan in hand before issuing a permit.
Neil
Williamson went into more detail about things the ordinance should require
before, during and after mining operations to protect water resources. He said
there should be extensive baseline data on ground and surface water as part of
the application, and an array of monitoring wells surrounding the site as well
as inside, to monitor pollution.
He
also suggested that detail should be added to the requirements for a
restoration plan that prohibits the use of anything other than clean fill or
stored original material. No refrigerators. No out of state trash or garbage.
No road or construction rubble. In other words, prohibit the use of an inactive
site as a de facto landfill.
 |
| Planning Commissar Platner admits the ordinance is full of holes but wants to send it to the Town Council anyway |
Planning
Commissar Ruth Platner said she liked just about all of these suggestions and
felt them worthy for inclusion in the ordinance.
Except not now and not by her Commission.
Instead, Platner insisted that now is the time for the Planning Commission to forward the draft Ordinance #362 on to the Town Council, even knowing it was loaded with flaws and omissions.
Except not now and not by her Commission.
Instead, Platner insisted that now is the time for the Planning Commission to forward the draft Ordinance #362 on to the Town Council, even knowing it was loaded with flaws and omissions.
Her
reasoning: the Council can hold workshops or public hearings to draw more
people and more comments, as if it was impossible for the Planning Commission
to do that. She was concerned that there had not been enough business input on
the draft.
I was pretty amazed to hear this, as it might be the first time ever
that Platner expressed concern about what affected businesses might feel about
an ordinance coming out of her commission. What a fine time for Ruth to have a
“come to Jesus” moment. And on this subject, too.
Town
Council member George Tremblay, who was a member of the Planning Commission until
getting elected to the Town Council on the CCA Party ticket, had a lot of
comments. As Council liaison to Planning, he serves for all practical purposes
as a de facto sixth Planning Commissioner.
.JPG) |
| Planning Commission member Connie Baker (CCA) spouts contradictory Tea Party views |
Tremblay
had a curious take on Ordinance #362 where, on the
one hand, he agreed with the observation that the ordinance is flawed not
strict enough, but on the other hand, he is concerned about the effect the
ordinance will have on existing mining operations in town.
He
circulated a memo he wrote that day to the Commission members detailing his
concerns – I will report on that memo when I get my hands on it.
Commissioner
Connie Baker who is another CCA Party pick also expressed somewhat
schizophrenic views – she thinks Copar is bad and should be hammered, but she
thinks the government over-regulates businesses. Somehow, she seems able to
reconcile these contradicting points of view. But then as a Tea Party follower,
I guess holding contradicting principles is easy.
One
concern I had raised in my analysis of Ordinance #362 was answered
in the discussion. I noted that the ordinance seemed to require two different
types of bonds – one to cover general operations that had to be submitted with
the operator’s application. The other was a bond to ensure that proper
reclamation was done, but that bond would not be due until the operator
submitted a restoration plan nine months before closure.
As
it turns out, the bonds are actually one and the same. The surety that must be
submitted with the application later becomes the guarantee that proper
reclamation is done. So that’s good, if intend that is what the less-than-clear language of the ordinance really means.
Ordinance #362 also requires
existing operators to apply for a temporary permit within three months, another
three months for the town to approve it and then 18 months to operate under the
temporary permit. I had wondered if mines operating during this period would
have to obey the environmental standards set out in the ordinance. The answer
is NO, and that leaves the question open whether it is right for Charlestown to
allow a site to run unregulated for up to two years. I argued in my analysis
that this was too damned long.
Several
Commissioners and Council liaison (and de facto Commissioner) George Tremblay
argued with Platner over whether Ordinance #362 should be sent
to the Council as is, or whether to fix these obvious flaws now.
Platner
was adamant that it was time to pass the buck to the Council, even with the
knowledge that the ordinance was flawed. She called on Interim Town Planner
Jane Weidman for back-up and Weidman was equally adamant that Ordinance #362 was “good to
go.” Her main reason: she was sick of working on it, saying that she had logged
a lot of hours on it since October.
Weidman’s
remarks swung the Commission back in Platner’s favor and she won the motion to
forward Ordinance #362, flaws and
all, to the Town Council along with a cover memo that listed all of the issues
and problems the Planning Commission failed to address.
So
the can has been kicked down the road. The Planning Commission feels the Town
Council should hold a workshop or two to get more input, even before
advertising for a public hearing, which should take at least three months.
Since Ordinance #362 is loaded with
flaws and omissions, the Town Council will almost certainly send the ordinance
back to Planning for a re-write.
The
wildcard is the upcoming expiration of the Town Council’s moratorium on new
mining operations. That moratorium expires in April. Now, it would be easy for
the Council to simply extend the moratorium so there is enough time to pass a clean ordinance. But they could also enact the flawed Ordinance #362 because its
first section turns the temporary moratorium on new mining into a permanent
ban and then promise to fix all the mistakes.
Later. Much later.
I’ve
seen them do this before: adopt a flawed ordinance with instructions to
Planning to work out changes to that ordinance. Those changes may or may not
ever happen. They will certainly take a long time.
And in this case, the ordinance flaws concern the process for existing operations to go about getting a mining permit for the first time. Once that process starts, it will be under the flawed provisions of Ordinance #362 and would probably be unaffected by any changes Planning comes up with several months down the road. If the Council passed the flawed ordinance and I had an existing quarry or sand & gravel pit in Charlestown, I would apply for a permit right away so that I could simply ignore any changes that might be made to the ordinance later.
And in this case, the ordinance flaws concern the process for existing operations to go about getting a mining permit for the first time. Once that process starts, it will be under the flawed provisions of Ordinance #362 and would probably be unaffected by any changes Planning comes up with several months down the road. If the Council passed the flawed ordinance and I had an existing quarry or sand & gravel pit in Charlestown, I would apply for a permit right away so that I could simply ignore any changes that might be made to the ordinance later.
But
maybe that’s what Platner really has in mind – to get an ordinance passed that
is riddled with loopholes. The question I can’t answer is “why?” Why is Platner content to send a flawed ordinance on such an important issue on to the Council instead of taking care of business in the Planning Commission?
In other business….
I
apologize to Progressive Charlestown readers for this tardy report on the
Commission’s January 22 meeting. Part of the problem was the eruption of more
ClerkBase problems that meant the recording of the meeting was not on-line
until after I complained about it. ClerkBase is still twitchy – I had to use
the backdoor “fix” once again to watch the video on my computer. Click
here to see my report on problems with the town’s $20,000 recording system
and suggestions for how to work around those problems.
The
discussion of Ordinance #362 on mining was
actually the last major item of business at the January 22 meeting and didn’t
occur until almost two hours into the session.
Before
that discussion occurred, almost two hours was devoted to nitpicking the
proposal of Arrowhead Dental for a major expansion of its operation on Route
Two.
As almost every Charlestown resident knows, Arrowhead is one of the town’s
largest businesses and employs dozens of staff. Their existing building is
large, but according to Dr. Bruce Gouin, it is still too small for a business
that is still growing.
His
expansion would almost double the size of the building and would allow space to
add as many as ten more procedure rooms, space for specialists to come in to
offer services that Arrowhead patients are currently sent out to get on
referral. Dr. Gouin hopes to make Arrowhead a one-stop comprehensive dental
practice.
But
the pressing need Dr. Gouin wants to address is the cramped and unpleasant
quarters used by Arrowhead’s administrative staff. He wants to not only give
them more space, but also allow them to work in spaces that have windows.
Despite
the accolades heaped on Arrowhead, including Charlestown’s Local Hero award,
“big is bad” in Charlestown. Planning Commissioners expressed barely muted
horror at the idea of such a large structure and proceeded to do what they do
best – they tried to nitpick the proposal to death. I heard so much about
gables, dormers, trim, siding, windows, the number of lights, the kinds of
light bulbs, etc., I wanted to scream.
 |
| Planning Commissioner Gordon Foer (CCA)- frustrated designer? |
Commissioner
Gordon Foer seemed particularly inspired to come up with all manner of
fantastic changes to the design to achieve some architectural magic of making a
large structure seem small. I could almost hear the cash register dinging as
Foer suggested one expensive design modification after another. Not that any
one of those ideas was terrible, but the cumulative weight of all these
friendly, helpful “suggestions” coming from Commission who have the power to
spike this project seemed to me to be almost too much to bear.
Dr.
Gouin will have to get together with his team and go over all this stuff and
try to figure out what they can do to win the Commission’s approval. They will
have to come back and go through the process again. When that happens, I
predict there will be an even longer list of little things the Commissioners
want to see changed.
I
recently
reported on the first time in anyone’s memory that Ruth Platner lost a vote
from her Commissioners. This was on the three-home Sachem Woods II project,
being proposed by well-known local surveyor Donald Jackson who owns the
property. Jackson’s project offered some unique features that would have been
good for the environment but would have required some flexibility on the town’s
part. He noted that if he was required to strictly comply with the zoning
ordinance, he would be forced to come back with a four-lot project and the need
for a town road, rather than three lots and no town road.
Flexibility
is not in Ruth Platner’s vocabulary, unless of course, it applies to one of her
friends. So she tried to talk it to death, but when it came time for an up or
down vote on Jackson’s proposition, she lost 3 to 2.
But
in a surprise move, rather than continue the discussion about Sachem Woods II,
Platner noted that Mr. Jackson notified the town, though not by formal letter,
that he was withdrawing the application for the eco-friendly three-lot proposal
and would be coming back with the four-lot alternative plan.
I’m
assuming there’s an interesting back story to why this went down this way. When
I get it, I’ll report it to you.