Letters from concerned citizens

Several Simsbury residents have written letters, and spoke at public hearings to voice their concern over the proposed changes to the “Town Plan of Conservation & Economic Development”.

Please feel free to email us expressing your concerns, along with whether or not you would like it published here on our web site.

Mr. John Loomis

500 Firetown Road

Simsbury, CT 06070

December 29, 2006

Dear Mr. Loomis,

I was very disappointed in the outcome of your December 28 meeting, as I assume you were as well. It surprised me that the meeting continued at all after the town attorney stated that in his opinion there was no violation of an FOIA and it was his opinion that the Commission should not rescind or overturn the actions taken on December 19.

I wish that the Commission would allow the public to speak occasionally, because I was bursting to comment when Chip Houlihan repeatedly said that the reason he does not want metrics in the language for the Southern Gateway was because the people of the Planning Commission members are “not experts”. He went on to say that he trusts the other commissions who have more expertise. Emil Dahlquist is an expert. Emil Dahlquist is the head of the Design Review Board. Emil Dahlquist is an architect. Emil Dahlquist has been working with the Planning Commission on this very topic for a long time. Emil Dahlquist was very eloquent and very assertive in the December 19 meeting when he suggested over and over again to the Planning Commission that going with metrics in the Special Areas of the Plan was the way to go. Emil Dahlquist has done extensive research. He has consulted with other colleagues who agree with him—particularly, as I recall on the need for 300 feet for the greenbelt. Unfortunately, Chip Houlihan was not at the December 19 meeting to hear Emil speak. I propose you assign Chip to read and study the minutes of that meeting.

It is a shame that the meeting of December 28 was called at all, particularly on the flimsy pretense that it was concerning a FOIA complaint. It is a shame that the Commission ignored the opinion of our town attorney who made it clear that the actions of December 19 should not be rescinded or overturned. It is a shame that the Plan, once again, will not make its deadline. But the biggest shame of all is that those metrics are now again out of the Plan. I hope you can get them back in—they belong in there—you know it, I know it, and Emil Dahlquist knows it.

Sincerely,

Janet Miller

CC: Susan M. Bednarcyk, Carol A. Cole, Fergusen Jansen, Charles D. Houlihan, Ernest Gardow, Mark S. Drake, Bradford Mead, Gregory Piecuch

As read at the Thursday November 30^th public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding the Draft Plan of Conservation and Development

My name is John Lucker and I live at 88 Blue Ridge Drive in Simsbury

On Monday night I spoke to you about metrics and how I and many like me want metrics to be heavily present in the Plan of Conservation and Development. I want the POCD to contain specific metrics about a variety of critical planning, development, and conservation components. I spoke specifically about the metrics related to the transect sections of the POCD and how important I feel it is to have benchmarks to aim towards – benchmarks like lot coverage, building height, general density, retail density, square footage caps, lighting standards, environment impacts, drainage standards, traffic standards, etc.

While these metrics help provide a grounding for many of the visions and concepts articulated in the plan, not all aspects of the plan can, at this time, be adequately captured in metrics. However, if the Planning Commission does not articulate its clear and concise vision, it leaves all aspects of the implementation to other commissions. And in most cases the implementation of that vision will be left to the Zoning Commission. Personally I have a great deal of difficulty feeling comfortable with the Zoning Commission being the nearly sole determiner of what is best for our town as the implementer of the development aspects of the POCD and how the POCD gets interpreted and implemented. Lately, I do not get the feeling that the Zoning Commission feels as compelled to listen to the people and consider their opinions and wishes as I think an elected and representative government body should.

This brings me to how I think Democracy is supposed to work. You see, I believe strongly that our elected officials are the representatives of the people of Simsbury. Our officials are elected by the majority of voters. The word majority means more not less. The voice of more should have more meaning than the voice of less.

On Monday I showed the Planning Commission a bag containing papers with over 2200 signatures from Simsbury residents endorsing a retail square footage cap on development in Simsbury beyond Route 44. Regardless of the precision of the language for this proposal that is now being debated, the important point I want to mention is that this number of signatures represents a desire and a view by Simsbury citizens to maintain our town with a certain character and a certain scale and form for future retail development. This is in clear and direct contrast to some of the retail plans being discussed for Simsbury beyond Route 44… plans like Konover Development’s River Oaks.

With this in mind, on Monday, we heard from both the EDC and the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce with their feedback on the POCD. We heard a variety of feedback. But one thing bothered me most about their feedback.

As an example, I will discuss the Chamber of Commerce. I hold here in my hand the current business member guide of the chamber. After reviewing this guide, in my opinion, not only does the chamber not seem to represent a majority of businesses located in Simsbury and paying taxes in Simsbury, but I was struck by the number of chamber business members who aren’t professionally affiliated with Simsbury at all other than perhaps that they sell things to Simsbury residents from locations outside of Simsbury. Interestingly Mr. Brian Keigan spoke as a representative of the chamber of commerce on the government affairs committee. He spoke specifically against retail size caps as I recall.

While Mr. Keagan is a Simsbury resident and entitled to voice his views as such, he was not speaking the other nights as a resident but rather as a leader in the Simsbury chamber of commerce. But Mr. Keagan works for MW Financial Group which is located in Farmington. I feel very strongly that an employee of a firm located in Farmington who pays a couple of hundred dollars a year to join the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce should not have the opportunity to stand before you and all of us and tell you what should or shouldn’t be in the Simsbury Plan of Conservation and Development. If that person wants to speak as a Simsbury resident, I’m OK with that. But not as the Chamber of Commerce unless he represents a Simsbury business.

And it doesn’t end there. Mr. Peter Pabich, the president of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce, spoke Wednesday night representing the Chamber of Commerce and according to the chamber directory his business is located in Westfield Massachusetts.

And several more members of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce’s Government Affairs Committee spoke here tonight. Of those, only one has a Simsbury business. The other two have businesses in Avon.

Which gets me to the majority issue once again. Does the Chamber of Commerce, even if all its members agreed with the chamber’s stated point of view on retail metrics in the POCD’s transect section, represent any form of tax payer majority?

The answer is no, it does not.

It represents at most 20% of the tax base of this town and even that number is highly overstated because as I went through this chamber directory, only about half of the members even have their businesses located in Simsbury and therefore pay commercial taxes in Simsbury. I would be far more interested in what our main street type businesses think about these issues… but not as represented by the Main Street Partnership which has been infiltrated by self-serving leaders with professional interests that are likely contradictory to the interests of main street businesses, but rather an actual discussion with Mr. or Mrs. Business Owner out of the glare of politics and scrutiny. You see, I’ve done that. I’ve walked around our town and talked to small business owners. And, as I’ve heard from residents with regards to their distaste for the prospects of large retail development in Simsbury, these small business owners also don’t want to see our town turned into the Berlin Turnpike. They feel their very survival depends on that not happening. They want the center of Simsbury to stay viable, relevant, vibrant, and to grow even more so.

If our town leaders haven’t done so, I encourage each and every one to start doing a whole lot more talking to the residents of our town and the small business owners throughout Simsbury to better understand their concerns. While it’s easy to call a public meeting and expect people to stand up here and speak, it’s important to recognize that not everyone is comfortable, willing or able to make the time to do this. So as representatives, it’s essential to return to the people and ask them their views. This is what our US representatives do throughout the year… they return home and meet with their constituents. And from those meetings they get a feel, either objectively or subjectively, for what the majority has to say. Because it is that majority which not only is whom they are supposed to represent, but it is also that majority that will sustain their political careers. Again… 80% of the taxes in this town come from residents… and in my experience and my view, the vast majority of those people expect our town to not turn into the Berlin Turnpike, Buckland Hills, or a new extension of Route 44.

I hope my statements here can help renew energy in our town government to spend more time listening to the people and then doing what the people want to be done. Sometimes that means telling the minority, thanks for your opinion, but you don’t represent enough voices. I believe the POCD must capture those majority views in language and in metrics.

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

As read at the Monday November 27^th public hearing before the Planning Commission regarding the Draft Plan of Conservation and Development

My name is John Lucker and I live at 88 Blue Ridge Drive in Simsbury

Over the past one and a half years I have attended numerous Planning Commission meetings and have watched the commission consult with experts and solicit various opinions to create and finalize the Plan of Conservation and Development. I have also obtained and read some of the academic materials that were discussed during the meetings. I want to commend the Planning Commission for a job well done as they have created a document that is broad and deep and conveys numerous critical aspects for how Simsbury should develop into the future as well as how our wonderful town should preserve its unique character and life style.

One area of the document that I am particularly pleased with, and supportive of, is the Future By Design section that introduces to Simsbury the concepts of Form Based Design and Form Categories known as Transects. To me, the transect concept is a much clearer and more definitive design and zone structure which embodies the desire for Simsbury to maintain its special personality by providing a smoother transition between different land uses, building types, development density, traffic flow, and the like. Transects help to eliminate the flaws in the previous Use Based Zoning where transitions between one property to the next can be startling and can seem like one has fallen off of a cliff. We see some negative examples of this prior use based zoning throughout Simsbury and throughout the Farmington Valley where less dense usage very suddenly transitions to extremely dense uses like high volume retail.

Another aspect of the POCD’s transect language that I am wildly in favor of is the inclusion of specific metrics and caps for crucial form and design based elements like lot coverage, building height, general density and retail density, square footage caps for retail, etc.

I also strongly endorse the concept of deep roadside greenbelts particularly at those special development sites named in the POCD. We must maintain our green spaces and we must maintain our scenic vistas.

I have heard and read about numerous protestations by members of the Zoning Commission and the Economic Development Commission with regards to having such quantitative limits specified in the POCD. Their objections have focused mostly on retail square footage caps yet their comments about square footage caps seem more general. They should read the POCD document carefully… pages 60 and 61 clearly speak only to retail square footage caps and not caps on other uses like office space. Are these other commissions reading the same document I am? I see no reason why anyone would object to something so obviously beneficial and intuitive as language on numeric limits for retail development in Simsbury.

However, we live in a world of numbers and laws and we as citizens of Simsbury feel more comfortable when we can quantify something that matters to us with specific boundaries, values, and metrics. With such metrics, our town officials who must make the POCD come alive for real life scenarios like the mixed use developments being discussed by developers would have numeric boundaries to measure the proposals and evaluate their conformity with the POCD. Frankly I don’t want downstream commissions like the Zoning Commission and the EDC to manage our town through ‘you know it when you see it’ thinking. My main concern here is that I’m not convinced they will “know it when they see it”. I believe such approaches may open the door for potential improper conduct, influence, favoritism, and imbalance of treatment. To me, numbers, metrics, values, benchmarks, and other discrete and clear ways to describe and evaluate land use are the only way to go.

I would like to make a suggestion to the Planning Commission. I can see how critics may find the brief description of transects in the POCD inadequate for broad understanding and interpretation. So I would like to suggest that the Planning Commission add more descriptive and explanatory prose to the transect section to be sure that the reader clearly understands the commission’s vision and intent for the application of transects.

Another suggestion is to remove the language in the Economic Development section of the POCD in Policy 3, Objective D where it is stated that the Board of Education should provide leadership in finding a solution to improving economic development. Not only is it not the mission of the Board of Education to be involved with Economic Development, but personally I feel that given the professional pursuits of some members of the board of education, involvement in the town economic development activities are a natural conflict of interest. Otherwise such members of the BOE would need to resign or recuse themselves from all such dialog and activities.

Lastly, to provide a more concrete view of the importance of numbers and metrics in the POCD, I want to briefly show the Planning Commission what I have in this bag. In this bag are over 2200 signatures of town residents who expressed the desire to put a square footage size cap on all future retail development in Simsbury. The number one reason people feel this way is TRAFFIC… people hate all of the traffic in our area! The number two reason is that people want to preserve as much as possible the bucolic character of our town.

Over 80% of the people approached to sign this document were in favor of such size caps. By way of extrapolation, if all citizens were to vote on such an issue, the outcome would be very loud and very clear.

And Simsbury would not be alone with such concepts because size caps have been included in the POCD’s and zoning regulations all over America and in Connecticut towns like Bethel, East Hampton, Portland, Clinton, Granby, Guilford, Tolland, and others have included such language.

In short, people like metrics. People want size caps. They control a citizen’s expectations.

Thank you very much for your consideration of my thoughts.

Simsbury Commercial Development Discussion and Potential Residential Actions

August 14, 2005

The residents of our neighborhoods and others throughout the town have been played and misled by Town Officials, Local Politicians and by Developers.

Our efforts now should not just be focused on Blue Ridge Drive, Lincoln Lane and the immediate neighborhood roads and the proposed Zoning changes on the lots across from Blue Ridge and Lincoln. If we take that approach then it may be a waste of time as the local politics and momentum have already gotten this to be almost done under the radar.

We need to have our efforts become organized, make our efforts public and make this a personal issue for the Town and the Developer. This needs to be a Town issue and a discussion on the full package and not just be a Zoning and Planning meeting about a few lots. A referendum on the Five Year Town plan should not be ruled out as an option.

This is about the character and future direction of the Town. This is about a Big box store look being the new Southern entrance or welcome to Simsbury. This is about Hopmeadow Street from the Pettibone Tavern to the Avon Town line becoming Route 44 or the Berlin Turnpike. This is about the lack of full disclosure on all of the financials here and what effect this will have on taxpayers at the expense of the Town’s character. This is about whether Town Officials and Developers are making these decisions or whether it is the taxpayers. This is about who is gaining financially or politically here.

This is about destroying the neighborhoods and traffic patterns throughout the town. This is about the safety in these neighborhoods due to more cars and the speed at which they travel. This is about eliminating the small locally owned businesses throughout the town that have helped Simsbury develop its present character and look.

This is about full disclosure on the real total town costs and the net gain or loss that each taxpayer will pay in taxes. It is political smoke to say that either the first series of lots or the larger development will provide the tax revenue we need when it is not equated to what this means to each tax payer.

How much will this first or all of these developments lower each tax-payers burden? Is this a potential increase in tax revenue that does not translate into any tax relief due to new costs or higher town budgets and staff elsewhere?

What will the towns cost be for developing and maintaining the four lanes of roads and the entire related infrastructure throughout the town?

How many new policemen will be needed to support any of the changes?

Will the existing Volunteer Fire and Ambulance groups be able to support expansion? Will we have to go to full time professional groups in their place and at what costs?

What other areas may have cost increases due to these large scale developments?

What is the cost in changing the town’s character?

How much tax revenue will be lost due to the home-owners property devaluation?

When the first shovel breaks ground we should make it known that the effected neighborhoods will immediately file a class action petition for property reevaluation and take potentially 10% off all of our property taxes. That should be the model and format as the development moves down Hopmeadow Street.

We should broaden our efforts to engage others across the town. We should make this very public and personal by engaging and backing local politicians who are not in favor of this plan. We should use the opportunity to put a focus on those who have engaged in these behind the scenes decisions without any public debate. We should concentrate our efforts and the public view on the elected and non-elected town officials, politicians, Economic Development groups and Developers. Elections are coming and we should back and fund candidates who do not share this Five year plan view.

In today’s world of Sarbanes Oxley, Ethical compliance, Connecticut government/Developer scandals and the New London Eminent Domain case, we should not be afraid to go there with what is happening here. This is all behind the scenes deals with Town Officials (Elected and Others) and Developers without full disclosure. This is about financial and political power gain for a few at the expense of the town. The Five year plan reads like it was written by Konover with Town Officials looking to broaden their powers at the expense of any future public debate.

We should talk to key players in Avon and obtain their thoughts on this as this has a major potential effect on their businesses. In that vein, we may have the opportunity to require a Regional Planning review since this Simsbury zoning change is so closely proximate to Avon.

If need be, we should highlight that the Town Officials and Economic Development groups have missed numerous good opportunities here since the failed Commercial development of an Insurance company property. One Insurance company expanded elsewhere (Avon) and Avon has had the type of Commercial Development on Route 10 and Nod Road that we should have been embracing. Instead it took Simsbury officials 5 years of behind the scenes work to come up with an unacceptable and secret plan.

Finally, most of the people in our local neighborhoods here are intelligent professionals, Executives or Management but we need to accept the fact that we are out of our league here. We should organize appropriately with professionals doing work that is needed and the rest of us acting in other capacities. We should use our organizational and management skills in conjunction with our capital and time (feet on the street) to act as one group. We should look at forming a small leadership group to coordinate and lead the effort and be the communications focus for the entire population but we should have knowledgeable professionals working against the Konover and Town professionals.

Chris and Peggy Rice

August 19, 2005

Subject: Big Box Development on Route 10

We oppose the possible development of a big box store within Simsbury. It is our feeling that it would significantly affect the character and charm that Simsbury has to offer its residents. It will bring more traffic, create additional noise and increase pollution in our town. Allowing the construction of one big box store may perpetuate a policy that would allow the construction of similar establishments in Simsbury. The demographics that today consists of locally owned stores, shops and restaurants that have a dedicated sense of community would most certainly be put a risk.

After becoming engaged in 1989 in addition to planning our wedding, we also started looking for a house to start our new lives together. We felt very lucky and fortunate to have been able to find and afford our first house on Latimer Lane. What attracted us to Simsbury in particular was its reputation of being an excellent place to start and raise a family. It offers an outstanding school system, parks, recreational facilities, and community activities within a beautiful rural setting.

It did not take us long to feel at home after moving here in 1990. We enjoyed walking and riding our bikes through rural surroundings that existed in our neighborhood and on the town’s bike trails. Every year we make an effort to hike the Heublein Tower Trail to view the magnificent Farmington valley. It would be a shame to have one of the most noticeable sights form Talcott Mountain be a big box store with its adjoining parking lots.

Over the past 15 years many changes have happened in our life, we have expanded our family, have lost and found new jobs and moved to a different house on Blue Ridge Drive. Throughout these changes, which at times presented great opportunities, we decided that we really did not want to leave Simsbury due to the many things it has to offer. The construction of a big box store would most definitely take away many of these things.

A. Bitzer & R. Bitzer

Blue Ridge Drive

Simsbury, CT

Jay & Maria Bailey

12 Lincoln Lane

Simsbury, CT 06089

August 5, 2005

Subject: Why A Big Box Development on Route 10 is Detrimental to Simsbury

In July of 1996 we moved into our house at 12 Lincoln Lane. For 1½ years we looked at and evaluated various options throughout Farmington, Avon, and Simsbury before finally settling on this location. Our selection of 12 Lincoln Lane was based on several factors:

1. Quality of life in a small town rural type setting
2. Neighborhood environment and safety for our children
3. High standard of education for our children
4. Residential traffic patterns versus industrial/commercial traffic patterns
5. Access to Hartford and surrounding services

At the time of our deciding on 12 Lincoln Lane as our home we made sacrifices in order to obtain the maximum value of the 5 points listed above. We paid more money for a smaller house as compared to Farmington and Avon. We knew the taxes were higher but felt it was worth it because of the quality of life, neighborhood, and safety for our children. And most of all we knew that the growth in the town of Simsbury was always predicated on these issues for its residents. In 1996 Simsbury was truly a family oriented bedroom community offering a high quality lifestyle, maintaining a historic commitment to its roots, and commanding a premium in taxes to sustain this.

The creation of a “Big Box” retail environment in the town of Simsbury is a slap in the face of every single resident. Not only does it deter from the historic character of the town, it invites all of the negative elements that our town planners have worked hard to shield its residents from in the past. In particular the neighborhoods abutting such a project will be directly impacted by its presence and all of the problems of high density traffic, safety, round the clock activity, and inconvenience of civil projects to the highways to accommodate such a development.

Permitting a “Big Box” retail environment undermines the many small businesses that have contributed to the success of Simsbury for years. The many “mom and pop shops” that have donated funds to causes ranging from PTA fund-raisers, supporting youth sports, promoting open space preservation, and forming the thread of community necessary to maintain a “small town atmosphere”.

We are certain our Town Development Leaders have many other options available that would be of equal or greater financial benefit to our town, that would be embraced by the residents, and that would maintain the essence of Simsbury and not turn it into a Buckland Mall area in the heart of the Farmington Valley. It would be a travesty to endorse such type of development out of shortsighted desperation to raise the grand list.

August 17, 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

Our family has lived in Simsbury since 1987. We lived on Adams Road for 16 years and then moved over to Blue Ridge in 2003. We chose this location because of the beauty of the area and the quiet, peaceful nature of the neighborhood. We liked the convenience of being close to shopping without being located right “on top of it.” That brings us to the reason for this letter.

Who needs a “big box” store in Simsbury? What does it add to our town? What will be the benefits versus the costs? The increased traffic from customers, employees, and delivery trucks, crime, trash, light pollution, etc. are a price we are not willing to pay. A “big box” store will only serve to diminish the special and unique character of our town…character that is disappearing in many of our neighboring communities…character that all residents have taken such price in. Is this what

we want in our town? Especially, at the entrance welcoming all to Simsbury?

Why would Target, Lowes, Home Depot, or any other “big box” store have the desire to locate in Simsbury? They must be under the impression that Route 10 will become another Route 44. Let’s analyze the current locations of these retailers in our state…Berlin Turnpike in New Britain, Buckland Hills Rd. in Manchester/South Windsor, Cottage Grove Rd. in Bloomfield, New Park Ave. in West Hartford, and many other similar examples. Glastonbury has a Home Depot located in a commercial/retail zone adjacent to the highway. How does Simsbury fit that demographic? IT DOES NOT!

Yes, our taxes are very high and yes, the surrounding towns have lower taxes. Will placing a retail complex on Route 10 and widening that road result in a more or less desirable place to live? How will that impact our home values? What will the town lose when our assessments are reduced?

We cherish the pastoral nature of Route 10, even as it continues to decrease year after year. We also share in the belief that our town’s tax base needs to expand to lighten the burden on home owners. We understand, and accept, the possibility that some development may occur on Route 10, but not of the nature currently being considered by the town, as proposed by Konover. Avon has recently added a Residence Inn, Heathtrax, medical offices, and a bank on their portion of Route 10 leading into Simsbury. Those types of businesses produce revenue for the town without draining valuable resources at the same time.

The residents of Simsbury chose this town for many reasons…”big box” retailing was not among them. Do not change the town of Simsbury to ANYTOWN, USA.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

DM & LM

Blue Ridge Dr.

Weatogue, CT 06089

Let's be very cautious about the insane proliferation of Big Box retailing into Simsbury.  There is no question that it's simply out of place and out of character.  With the excess shopping available in Canton, Avon and other not too distant points, there is no need for it and no net benefit to the town.  There is already a lot of overcapacity.  A responsible planning commission should look at the bigger picture and long-term impact.  This decision will have lasting effects on the community.  The Big Box building trend will someday unwind and end badly.  Sure, if one super store goes under another will take its place in today's market.  But when interest rates go up and consumers realize they are overleveraged - watch out! Simsbury could be left with an uneconomical mega store that becomes vacant. Consider how many neighborhood malls built in earlier decades have become all-but-abandoned commercial stripes.  It seems that shortsighted decision-makers with selfish motives are pushing this forward.  The drawbacks, let alone any impact 10 or 20 years out and beyond on the entire community, have not been fully considered.

The fact that residents are only learning about this deal now reeks of unethical behavior on the part of builders and town officials.

The current plans could forever destroy the fabric of Simsbury and the quality of life that we all enjoy.  The following rounds out our concerns:

v A Target, BJ's or Home Depot could never be made attractive enough to fit the character of our quaint New England town.

v Additional tax revenue, if any, will certainly be marginal, as most revenue would be consumed with the additional public services - such as police and fire - required to support such a development.

v We now have one of the lowest crime and auto insurance rates in the state.  How will that change with the traffic, increased rate of accidents and potential vandalism or theft with the influx of people and addition of several hundred-car lots?

v Everybody's property values along Route 10 will be impacted immediately (surely decline), which would absolutely lead to a domino effect and overall weakening through much of Simsbury in due course.

v A four lane Rte. 10 would dramatically increase noise pollution that would be heard deep into Simsbury.

v Existing small businesses will simply be crushed by the buying and selling power of a huge retailer.  The uniqueness of life in town will disappear and be replaced by impersonal behemoths.  So much for the local hardware store where the shopkeeper knows you by name.

v Run-off and pollution into the adjacent river could hurt leisure activities and wildlife.

v Quality of life will change causing people to leave for other suburban destinations.  I cannot reconcile such a huge setback to the community's aesthetics with the high taxes that we pay; a 10% cut (yeah, keep dreaming) wouldn't even begin to help.  The town's core residence base, which consists of the comfortably well off, will begin to deteriorate. Has this tangible economic loss been considered?

Drebot Family

Castlewood Rd.