Last month, a petition was circulated to change the zoning along a short section of land abutting Route 13 just north of the historic district to “limited commercial”.  This petition was signed by one hundred fifteen residents, with only two of those people approached declining to sign. . . a 98% hit rate!

How many Town warrants have ever received that level of enthusiastic support?

It should also be noted that all of those signatures were collected in less than a single day.  As such, it’s reasonable to assume that a longer, town-wide effort could have garnered perhaps two or three times that number of signatures.

Unfortunately, due to a technical flaw in the wording, town counsel ruled the petition amendment “illegal”.  For the record, the alleged problem was that the depth of the proposed zone was not defined, an oversight which the Selectmen could have helped cure.  Other attorneys contacted by the petitioners have indicated that the article was, in fact, legal and that Town’s unilateral decision to remove the article from the warrant might be actionable.  At best, I believe that the Town acted with gross irresponsibly in not working with the petitioners to assist them in correcting the wording so that the residents of Mont Vernon could vote on this issue which had so much obvious support.

At least one selectman has gone on record as opposing any changes in Town’s zoning, especially with regard to commercial zoning, a view he is entitled to hold.  But, his personal feelings should not become the basis for public policy.  If the huge number of signatures on the petition which provided the impetus for this meeting is any indication of broader public sentiment on this issue, then this selectman is out-of-touch with the citizens of Mont Vernon as well as being out-of-line in not working in good faith with the town’s people, whom he purports to represent, by denying them their right to determine their own destiny at the ballot box.

The Selectmen, the Town Counsel and the Planning Board members should remember that in a democracy, each serves only at the whim and convenience of the electorate . . . to carry out the people’s wishes . . . and that they derive their power from the people and not the other way around.  Our town officials have no purpose other than to achieve those ends!

Admittedly, a small, limited commercial zone will not drastically cut property taxes.  But, the significant taxes paid by real estate owners in such a zone will go into the Town’s general fund while requiring negligible Town support services in return . . . thus the net affect on the tax rate would be helpful.

As to the arguments that this type of rezoning would encourage the creation of another Route 101-A, that’s pure poppycock!  The demographics of the area proposed for rezoning simply do not justify, now or in the foreseeable future, any such fears.

Meanwhile, there is more than simply a philosophical issue at stake. 

Our Post Office officials have indicated that they either need a new facility built in the near future, or they will, in all likelihood, close the Mont Vernon Post Office permanently.

In order to address this crisis, our selectmen sponsored a zoning change to permit a post office in any part of town.  Unfortunately, that type of quick-fix solution has not, and will not solve the problem.

First, it has been suggested that this solution creates nothing more than spot zoning which is both prohibited and sets precedents the Town may wish to avoid.  Costly litigation could arise from a decision to place a postal facility at some random location around Mont Vernon, even if the courts were to rule in the Town’s favor on the issue of spot zoning.

Second, it is doubtful that the postal officials are interested in relocating to other than a few locations, probably on a main road and near the center of Town.

Finally, after several conversations with both postal officials and several contractors who specialize in the construction of postal facilities, and after a careful review of the detailed specifications for the postal facility which is being proposed, it appears that a stand alone post office, regardless of its location, may not be an economically viable enterprise. 

However, were it part of a small, limited commercial complex, the net overall return to a developer could justify the significant costs and risks inherent in construction a new post office.

In conclusion, I’d like to recommend that the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen plan to recess our March Town Meeting rather than adjourn it.  They might then have the time to resubmit a properly worded zoning change (for the section of Route 13 on the original petition and perhaps some other alternative areas) to the voters in April or May.  If the people of Mont Vernon then vote to rezone an area, the opportunity for broadening the property tax base, reducing the property taxes, and retaining our in-town post office are vastly improved.