Planning and Zoning is presently giving great attention to a specific topic that does now and will continue to affect many of us in Woodstock. Some PZC members are so focused on this topic that it trumps any and all other work.
As I stated before, Woodstock’s sub-division regs are considered a model in the state of CT. I don’t think any other town in the state include regulations that contain a 50% conservation set aside of buildable land. Some towns have a 50% set aside of land that can include wetland etc. It doesn’t take much imagination to envision what Woodstock will look like in 20 or 40 or 60 years with a 50% conservation set aside of buildable land from that of a 50% set aside of non-buildable land. Which model offers more in the long-term?
Some planning and zoning members (aka – landowners) feel as if this is unfair to them.
I’m not sure I understand the argument fully — I hope that someone at the Cafe will jump in where I’m off track. The speakers in opposition to the 50% cons. set aside of buildable land claim that this devalues their land which causes problems when they apply for loans needed for farming. Thus, it gives them an unfair playing ground economically. My understanding is this — if someone opposed to the sub-division regs was flush enough (with cash) to bring a law suit, the sub-division regulations could be judged as a “taking” of land by the municipality.
From what I’ve observed of PZC, the serious work being done is obsessively centered around amending or rescinding the sub-division regs.