Thoughts on December 14, 2011 Planning Board

No more Mister nice guys. The cardigan sweaters and friendly local John Michaels are gone, and have been replaced with power suits and a pit bull attorney. I make both observations in a complementary manner. They looked great in blue suits and a pit bull is the best of the best if you want representation in the law.

We now know all about Tolls, Statues, and Memorialization. We are into phase two of driving the Woodmont train down the track, an accelerated track, a fast track, and a short track.

I’m all for getting this thing done. Many in town would like to return to their day jobs and their life before Andres Dway.

So let’s all toot the whistle, ring the bell and get going.

Let’s fix this thing post haste.

First fix the number. Everyone knows that 1300 dwellings is a fudge number and even if approved it couldn’t be built. Let’s be reasonable and save a lot of time and effort and a train wreck, and get a real number on the table. 500 is over the top for 650 acres of ledge, wetlands and hillsides in Londonderry. Let’s begin with 300 and let the high priced dream team show us how and why they should be built in our town.

Next to save time before the third party reviewer parachutes in, how about fixing some details up front. Over and above the fudge number of dwellings, there are little things like a 25yr flood drainage standard (Hundred year flood systems are regularly overwhelmed in southern New Hampshire.) One inch drainage pipes all over 650 acres will save a lot of money no doubt, but they will not save time in getting a master plan approved. These and many other “little “ details have to be dealt with before this train leaves the station.

So let’s get moving. Portsmouth can not be moved to Londonderry. Wanna push that? Sounds like a train wreck in the making.

Best you watch the video of last night’s meeting for a full feel for phase II of Woodmont.

The suits and the “Tolls and Memorials” are best seen in context.

This is the section of the December 14, 2011 planning board that related to the Woodmont Commons Project.

This is my signed report on last nights meeting. (Full disclosure:  the drainage detail was supplied but a PE Civil Engineer who has been looking things over for our group. His full set of observations will be shared when they come in. Hopefully by that time the applicant will have done a resubmission.)

I’m not a journalist, but I play one on TV.

“Jack Falvey Et al:” provides a hometown analysis of Woodmont Commons. Since attending the design charrette offered by the developers of the project Jack has been asking questions, you too have been asking questions, many to Jack himself. He has provided thoughtful analysis from his point of view and shared it back to the questioner and a growing list of Londonderry residents wanting of more information.

As they become available we will provide these questions to our readers and the search engines. We hope to provide a broader view of the project through the eyes of someone that came to town in the 1960′s. Jack raised a family here, volunteered in local government and founded his company “Making the Numbers” after a career at Gillette. As a motivational speaker and a prolific writer with major media outlets his views on the project may take you by surprise!

Share

2 Responses

Write a Comment»
  1. Jack,

    I have to agree that the tone from the applicant and his counsel was definitely off-putting. Clearly they are attempting to take advantage of a new ordinance that may have some procedural problems that we are only going to experience this first time through. Pushing the planning board to approve an application they haven’t looked at nor feel they are completely qualified to review is crazy. If Kettenbach and counsel agreed to entertain a third party review of the application prior to approval then pushing for approval this week was a trick play.

    After looking through the 96 pages of information you sent along I am left wondering which of the material questions about legal counsel conflicts of interest, awareness of the project prior to the PUD vote in 2009, and disclosure of transcripts of all meetings between application/counsel and anybody representing the town, including our own counsel, have been answered by the board or Town Council? Without knowing what really happened there I am honestly left wondering who on “our side” is acting with integrity here.

    I really thought it was funny that the board openly suspects that the information you provide is not coming from other citizens. Unfortunately we can’t ask them just to believe you, we DO NEED everyone who comments or questions to provide their name and address. This way the board is going to know we are watching and aren’t satisfied with how things are going.

    Next time I’m going to wear a suit and be prepared with questions. Maybe I’ll even have some suggestions for how the board can proceed. If they go along with such from Kettenback and his counsel they should equally oblige a concerned taxpayer.

    Jason Phelps
    Hovey Rd

  2. Vote -1 Vote +1Martin Srugis

    I am a little bit susppicious of the whole event. Are you really telling me the planning department did not review this material?? Then why do we have a planning department.
    They were in on developing the PUD ordiance so why wouldn’t they review the first one and comment on it?
    I have no problem with a third party review but this will cost extra money.
    As we go forward what will happen when we get another PUD application? Will be send this to a third party again?
    The planning depart has done good work in the past and so it should stand on that work and review this application.
    How else will we gain the experience?

Leave a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

(required)

Connect with Facebook

(required)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.