The Tiverton Planning Board recently voted unanimously to deny Vital’s preliminary plan for a 256-unit apartment complex on Souza Road despite intense pressure from town planner Spencer and planning board attorney Romano to approve. We owe the board our gratitude and support for their diligent work process.

The planning board is appointed to make land-use decisions on behalf of us, the citizens — not to be undermined by the very professionals hired with our tax dollars to support the board. Meeting after meeting, one could watch both the town planner and the board's attorney appear to work against the board rather than assist it. Their role is not to steer outcomes, restrict the board's questions, or dismiss residents' concerns.

The height of these shenanigans was the 18-page "advisory opinion” written by planner Spencer that was distributed to both the board and the applicant before the planning board had even finished taking testimony from the applicant and the citizens during the required public hearing. The document essentially attempted to ensure the board had no choice other than to approve. Having written the applicant’s case for them, it was no surprise that the applicant then used this "advisory opinion” at the final hearing as proof positive that he was entitled, by law, to approval. It will be the first document he submits to court for the appeal.

The council may not interfere with planning board decisions, but they can ensure that the board has full and competent support. Recent action by council president John Edwards raises that very question. Planning board member Allyn Meyers, who like the others voted no, was scheduled for reappointment this July. He filed his paperwork and been given notice to appear at the July 27 meeting by the town clerk. When his name was not on the published agenda, Mr. Meyers contacted president Edwards. Edwards’ explanation was that he personally removed Mr. Meyers' application from discussion because there is a proposed charter change to reduce the board from nine to seven members. Apparently, Mr. Edwards doesn’t have a very high opinion of our thinking skills. First, there are currently only six members of the planning board, including Mr. Meyers. Second, the “proposed” charter change will have to be voted on in November’s general election, with no guarantee it will pass. Until then, the town charter requires a nine-member planning board.

Where does this leave the planning board? With an unsupportive attorney drafting the legal written decision in support of the board’s denial, the applicant using our own town planner’s opinion as the cornerstone of his case, and a councilor interfering to ensure a member who voted against Vital will not be reappointed. The planning board, and we the citizens, deserve better.

Louise Durfee

Patricia Hilton

Sanford Mantell

Tiverton