We just want to make sure we have the right document up — the final version — for public comment.”

Kevin Aguiar, Portsmouth Town Council president

PORTSMOUTH — What was supposed to have been a public hearing over four consecutive nights came to a crashing halt after just an hour Monday, when it became clear the draft Comprehensive Community Plan that had been publicly advertised wasn’t the complete document.

As a result, the Town Council voted unanimously to table the hearing to a later date, with several members indicating it will be pushed off to July. The council is expected to schedule dates at its next regular meeting on Monday, May 24.

The council began the public hearing to review all elements of the 248-page document, which guides the town’s future development. Or, as Town Planner Gary Crosby put it, “What do you want the town to look like in 20 years?” 

The 2021 draft is a full update of the 2002 plan and the culmination of the work of residents who have taken part in surveys and data-gathering exercises, the Citizens Interested in the Comprehensive Community Planning Process Committee, the Planning Board, Planning Department and town staff.

The state-mandated plan doesn’t get reviewed by the R.I. Division of Statewide Planning until the council passes a resolution adopting the document, which was expected to happen this week.

The state will now have to wait longer.

About 20 minutes after Monday’s hearing began, it became clear that the comp plan advertised to the public, and which council members were reviewing, was different than the document from which Mr. Crosby was working. 

It started when Council Vice President Linda Ujifusa questioned some of the language in the first element of the plan, which pertained to natural resources. She noted there were numerous references to “impaired” waterways, including some areas of the bay that were closed to shellfishing. Why then, she asked, were there no action items in the plan to address those problems?

“How is there a connect between the things you are listing and the prioritization of them?” Ms. Ujifusa asked.

Council member Keith Hamilton agreed, saying one of the town’s goals is “to clean up our waterways,” so there should be something in the plan to remediate water pollution.

Mr. Crosby, however, said the plan does indeed include policy action items that address protecting the town’s coastal resources, such as stormwater management.

Those action items, however, were not listed on the document the council was looking at, said Mr. Hamilton, who expressed concern that the plan from which the planner was working had not been advertised to the public.

“I don’t have an answer for you,” Mr. Crosby replied. “I don’t know why those were taken out.”

Council President Kevin Aguiar said if there were two different documents, “that may throw a whole monkey wrench into the whole thing … We just want to make sure we have the right document up — the final version — for public comment.”

Mr. Hamilton suggested rescheduling the hearing. “It’s a 248-page document and we’ve given people six weeks to peruse it. Now we have to peruse it again,” he said.

He moved to adjourn the hearing until a future date is set by the council at its next meeting. “I would personally hate to do this in July, because that’s when everybody is on vacation,” Mr. Hamilton said. Nevertheless, several council members said July would probably be the most likely time to reconvene the hearings.

Hearing may be in person

On a suggestion by council member Daniela Abbott, the unanimous vote also includes a provision to hold off on the hearing until it can be conducted in person, as COVID-19 restrictions continue to loosen.

The vote to delay the hearing presumably left at least one resident satisfied. Shortly after the hearing began, but before the discrepancy with the documents was discovered, Larry Fitzmorris of Portsmouth Concerned Citizens urged the council to put the hearing off until mid-July.

“I believe this hearing should be delayed until the people of Portsmouth are able to attend it in person,” Fitzmorris said, noting that the plan’s re-write took several years. 

“I don’t think a couple more months will make a difference,” he said.