What We Don’t Know is Just as Important as What We Do Know -- Part Two
As I stated last week, Stonington requires an Archeological Study when applying for a Special Use Permit. We have no such report in the Cherenzia file. It’s missing because the developer never submitted one. Granted, Cherenzia hired Archeological and Historical Services, Inc. That company completed an “Archeological Assessment Survey” and suggested next steps such as setting up test grids and digging shovel pits.
But does this letter qualify as the Archeological Study? Such a study requires a report on “features and artifacts discovered.” Such a study is meant to be presented at a public hearing for discussion.
Cherenzia’s letter also ignores some possible results. It assumes that all artifacts found can be easily removed. What if more permanent features are discovered? How will they be protected? There is no mention of “redesign or reallocation of ... buildings to minimize adverse impact.” The letter makes no mention of “time [or money] required for more extensive investigations.” Does Cherenzia plan to devote two weeks to this exploration? Two months? Results depend heavily on time and money spent.
The absence of an Environmental Assessment leads to a very different story, one that begins in the Town’s Planning Department.
In the summer of 2010, the Planning Department proposed 38 revisions to the Town’s zoning regulations. The revisions came, as an “omnibus text amendment,” to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 1, 2010. (A text amendment is a proposed word change. In some cases, new words are added. In other places, words are taken out. Omnibus means that many changes are considered at the same time.)
The requirement to submit an Environmental Assessment when applying for a Special Use Permit disappeared with the stroke of a pen. It was simply crossed out. The official recommendation: “Eliminate ‘Environmental Assessment’ since its content is defined nowhere in the regulations.”
