We, the undersigned citizens, have filed a petition with Superior Court in Manchester against the Town of Peterborough asking for a legal determination whether two protest petitions filed at the last minute against Zoning Amendment 15 are valid. Here’s why we’ve done that.
At the May 14 Town Meeting, the voters of Peterborough approved Zoning Amendment 15, which repealed Traditional Neighborhood Overlay Zone II and amended Traditional Neighborhood Overlay Zone I by increasing minimum setbacks and by decreasing density from 16 units per acre to about 7 units per acre.
We maintained, and a majority of the voters agreed, that despite the “Traditional Neighborhood” label on the two overlay zones, they allowed density greater than Peterborough’s traditional neighborhoods and many of the state’s major cities.
After the vote, the Peterborough Select Board concluded that two protest petitions, which required Zoning Amendment 15 to pass by a two-thirds vote, and not by the standard simple majority, were valid. As a result, Amendment 15 failed.
We asked the Select Board for a rehearing and we raised eight legal questions about the protest petitions based on the state statute governing protest petitions. Knowing that town counsel had been engaged on this issue, we expected a reasoned legal response from the Town. Instead, we received a memo prepared by Town House staff that ignored five of the legal questions, and offered flawed reasoning on the other three.
For example, on the threshold question of whether Zoning Amendment 15 affects more than one-third of the land area of the town (which means protest petitions are not permissible), the Town House staff made an assumption that the area affected by the amendment is limited to all land within 1,000 feet of water and sewer – an assumption that is both arbitrary and has no basis in the wording of the zoning ordinance. In another calculation, the town failed to properly figure the perimeter of the area lying around that part of the Town affected by Zoning Amendment 15.
We know this is complicated. The Select Board agrees. At their July 2 meeting, although they refused our request for a rehearing, the chair of the Select Board noted, “We take no sides in this matter.” Select Board members stated that this “is a very complex issue” with “very little precedent.” “. . . I feel under-qualified to decide one way or the other, and I would feel that the courts would probably be the right place . . .” and it is “far too complex for us to make a call on it . . . it needs to be legally decided.”
Reluctantly we agree with the Select Board, and so we have taken our case to Superior Court.
In a printed statement in the Ledger-Transcript of July 9, the Select Board asked everyone in town to participate in a “comprehensive and inclusive process” in which the town will discuss zoning and housing policy. The Select Board also asks that no one take any new action to change or repeal Peterborough’s existing zoning while the process is underway. The Select Board anticipates that the deliberations will take 18 months.
We fully support the Select Board’s proposal for a reasoned discussion of Peterborough’s zoning, and look forward to participating. However, this question remains: What zoning will be in place during the 18-month discussion process?
We believe that the will of the majority vote on May 14 should be upheld. We believe that the protest petitions that invalidated that vote by requiring a two-thirds majority were based on flawed legal grounds. That is why we are asking the Superior Court to declare the protest petitions invalid and to uphold the majority vote cast in favor of Amendment 15 on May 14.
Peterborough Citizens for Sensible Zoning
Lorraine Bishop
Robert Bolt
David Bonacci
Jo Anne Carr
Andrew Dunbar
Stephanie Hurley
Loretta Laurenitis
Sharon Monahan
Libby Reinhardt
Bill Reinhardt
Alan Stone
Colleen Stone
Jim Van Valkenburgh
Peggy Van Valkenburgh
Francie Von Mertens
Marilyn Weir