Regarding the recent newspaper editorial (“Be fair to Plant Home,” Feb. 3), letters and articles, I wish to add the following comments to the discussion on expansion of the Plant Memorial Home in Bath that is occurring in the press rather than in the City of Bath offices.

My interest results from serving on the committee that developed the “City of Bath Comprehensive Plan” in 2010.

During that multi-year effort, the development committee agreed that the Plant Home was a valuable community resource, but that it needed flexibility in administrating its program and that need justified a zoning redesignation from “residential” to “growth.”

Subsequently, the comprehensive plan draft was reviewed by the Planning Board, who approved it with this re-designation provision.

I was not aware that there had been major discussions going on for substantive reorganization of the Plant Home, including multiple building additions. If that had been identified, I would have requested more information and suggested specific criteria be invoked particularly as this redesign as a growth zone applied to only one property.

There are a number of issues that give me concern.

One issue relates to the size of the current building. It is a landmark that has a large impact on visitors from the south and from water traffic on the Kennebec River. Therefore, approving the suggested expansion proposals would increase that visual impact and have an undefined effect on our tourist based economy.

Another issue concerns infrastructure in general, and the current sewer system in particular. These maybe at or near capacity and a major expansion of the Plant Home facility would require a substantial community investment from revenue that has not been specified.

A third concern is the opinions expressed by neighbors that their quality of life will be negatively affected due to loss of vegetational buffers.

In discussions with concerned residents, it appears that the routine Planning Board process is not geared to evaluate the complexity of the issues that were introducing by this comprehensive plan redesignation.

One issue presented by a Plant Home expansion advocate is the financial structure of the facility and its ability to be financially self-sustaining. In my opinion, if this is the applicant’s official justification, it should require an independent financial audit to verify whether or not the Plant Home is in such difficult financial straits as to override other compelling interests and justify the proposed expansion or whether there are other solutions available.

To justify an expansion of the size discussed in the editorial pages requires a community benefit, which at this juncture has not been identified. There is also a question of general fairness and adherence to proper municipal protocols.

Maybe the City Council needs to review the criteria and approval process for this facility, and maybe there needs to be public representatives on the Plant Home’s board of directors to ensure that the community’s needs are being met in addition to those of the original mission.

Ed Benedict is a resident of Bath and a former Maine state legislator.

[email protected]