Thank you to the 40 Friends of River Park who attended the Lebanon Planning Board hearing last night.  I regret the public was not invited to comment last night since that is the fundamental purpose of a public hearing as mandated by state law and the Lebanon zoning ordinance. I can only hope this was an oversight, albeit inexplicable, which unfortunately denied you the opportunity to voice your views and beliefs in a critical public setting.

The next Planning Board hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM in City Hall.  The City Manager and planning staff have told Lyme that the Planning Board will have the final staff recommendations regarding approval conditions so that a final vote on our site plan and subdivision applications can occur.  After 15 months, the future of River Park will be decided next week.

The pace of the permitting process continues to surprise us.  It has now been over 14 months since we formally submitted the Site Plan and Subdivision applications, and there is no end in sight.  Based on the current zoning ordinance and state regulations, the Planning Board should have acted on our Site Plan application by May 19, 2011 and the Subdivision application by July 23, 2011.  Instead, hearings have been continued to August 22, 2011 and September 28, 2011 with no commitment for final action to occur.

On Monday July 11, 2011 the Lebanon Planning Board issued a memorandum outlining the remaining items necessary for the River Park Site Plan and Final Subdivision Review. This was based upon what had been recorded in previous meeting minutes. This past Tuesday, July 19, 2011, we submitted a letter to the City of Lebanon in response to their memo. We have a different view of the remaining tasks to be accomplished, and have provided a checklist incorporating our understanding of the process.

In keeping with our policy of transparency throughout the River Park Planning Process, here are the two documents that were submitted to the City of Lebanon yesterday, 6/20/2011, in advance of the 6/27/2011 Planning Board Hearing.

City Hall still doesn’t get it.  This past week, the Lebanon City Council voted not to accept River Park Drive as a public street.  In a memo to the City Council, the City Manager made the incredible statement that “There is no public benefit to making this a public street.” The two dozen neighborhood residents in attendance to support River Park were as dumbfounded as Lyme Properties.  We thought public access to the Connecticut River, an expanded tax base, job opportunities, an Advanced Transit intermodal facility, and a mixed-use development that keeps cars out of the Crafts Avenue neighborhood was a significant benefit. 

The second meeting with the City Manager and City Staff was largely unproductive. Subsequent to the meeting, the City Manager posted his recommendation to the City Council that they not accept River Park Drive as a public street. If the City Council accepts the Manager's position as presented, this effectively kills River Park.

I am hopeful about next Monday's meeting with the City Manager and his staff, but as I've said before, "the proof is in the pudding." We will update the Friends of River Park on Monday afternoon with the outcome of this meeting, but please mark your calendars to attend the City Council meeting this Wednesday, May 18th at 7:00PM at City Hall. Unless the City significantly modifies the four conditions recommended by the staff before allowing us to connect to the water and sewer system, our only appeal is to the Lebanon City Council.

You are invited to a public informational meeting about River Park this Thursday, May 12, 2011. The purpose of the meeting is to update the neighbors on the status of the permitting process for River Park.

I hope you had a chance to read the article in the Sunday, April 24th edition of the Valley News:  “Big Project: Reviewing River Park”.  If not, please take a moment to read it online as it offers an interesting commentary on where we stand in the approval process, and how we have “become lodged in the city’s regulatory machinery.”