|
RECENT as of 4–30–2007 |
|
What People are Saying about: The silly postcard 
We’ve received an overwhelming amount of email and phone calls regarding
the silly yellow post card. It appears that this effort by the Citizen’s for Common Ground has backfired, and to
prove it we’d like to share with them what people in town are saying about
their cowardly actions. <<Click here>> to read the
comments
SHARE News Flash – The “Rebut the Silly Postcard” Edition
All we can say is Oh Brother… like
we all don’t have anything better to do than take the time to read some silly
postcard that shows up in our mail box as well as write a News Flash to rebut
the false statements of the postcard.
For those who don’t know what we’re
talking about, we will fill you in, and for those who got a postcard in the
mail, we will explain to you why we find this postcard both comical and
disturbing.
So What Is This All About?
This week some
Apparently these postcards were
mailed to some number of people who signed their names to endorse SHARE’s
zoning amendment to cap the size of retail development in
Our Reply to the Postcard
First of all, there’s a good TV show
on tonight that we had hoped to watch but instead we must write this email to
you to rebut this postcard. Here are our
thoughts on the items mentioned:
Postcard Claim 1
The SHARE Steering Committee has
“run illegal credit checks on local officials”
The Truth 1
We have never run credit checks on
anyone. In fact, no credit company like
Experian, Equifax, or Transunion will let a third party run a credit check on
any individual without validation of a business reason to do so and without
having an account relationship with the credit bureau to do so. In addition, any time a credit check is done
on an individual, that person’s credit report stores a notation of the fact
that a credit check was done, when it was done, and who ran the report on the
individual. We challenge any town
official to obtain a copy of their credit report and show proof that a member
of the SHARE Steering Committee has run a credit report on them. We’ll be waiting a long time because it never
happened. It’s illegal to do run credit
reports on people in
Postcard Claim 2
The SHARE Steering Committee “feed[s]
lies to land use commissioners in order to slander fellow board members who do
not support S.H.A.R.E.’s agenda”.
The Truth 2
We don’t feed lies to anyone. In fact, as you have all seen in our numerous
News Flashes, we support our statements with facts, articles, research studies,
web links, etc. We don’t slander anyone
but rather communicate and interpret what we observe going on in our town. Sure, we sometimes provide our opinions to
commissioners. Sure we express our
dismay when commissioners suddenly flip their positions on key issues without
explanation. Sure we hold elected
officials accountable to represent the citizens when it seems as if they are
only representing developers. Sure we
sometimes interpret the actions of the commissions and communicate them to
other commissioners or board members or the SHARE membership. But, you know, that’s our right as citizens
of
Postcard Claim 3
The SHARE Steering Committee
“threaten[ed] to boycott
The Truth 3
The thought that we have threatened
to boycott local businesses is amazing.
In numerous SHARE News Flash emails we have expressed our grave concern
for the impact of Big Box development on our local businesses and we have
provided numerous research studies from around the U.S. that show the
incredibly detrimental impact of Big Box development on local small town
businesses. We have certainly never
threatened to boycott local business but rather have tried to educate everyone
that Big Box development in
Postcard Claim 4
The SHARE Steering Committee
“conspire[d] with the Planning Commission to create a Plan of Development
designed solely to deny land use applications before they are filed and
considered fairly”.
The Truth 4
We certainly didn’t “conspire” with
the Planning Commission (PC) to deny land use applications before they are
filed. SHARE Steering Committee members
have on several occasions provided materials and spoken at Planning and Zoning
Commission meetings to address concerns about a variety of POCD and other
matters and most of those speeches and presentations were publicized on
SCTV. We have actively provided written
and verbal information to the PC for the POCD about the things that matter to
SHARE (like metrics in the POCD).
Recently the PC voted to include certain metrics in the POCD and such
metrics were widely preferred by town residents who also spoke at numerous
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.
In addition, as you know, we also
submitted language for a proposed zoning amendment which about 3000
Some Other Comments
The postcard accuses the SHARE
Steering Committee of breaking the law.
Our response to this accusation is that if a law is broken it should be
reported to the appropriate authorities and should be dealt with properly. We have not broken the law and we are
confident of that especially since we have many lawyers advising us.
We consider this postcard episode to
be an unfortunate example of the bizarre series of events that continue to
occur with regards to the Big Box and River Oaks issues.
For a very long time our town has
done everything possible to develop carefully, methodically, and respectfully
to ensure that the charm, character, and way of life that most of us love and
cherish is preserved. We think
While there is a small number of
residents who think Big Box development would be a positive thing for Simsbury,
SHARE’s mere existence and size (at last count we have over 3000 members)
indicates a strong opposition to Big Box development in town. Both sides are entitled to their opinion and
both sides should continue to express their opinions to our elected and
appointed officials. Our officials then
have an obligation to listen to everyone’s views and opinions and sort out what
is best for our town.
Your SHARE Steering Committee has
always been open and honest with you and we have gone out of our way to find
and share information we find meaningful to all concerned. We believe in fact that we have provided you with
a great deal of information which some elected officials would never have
otherwise provided to you. All of our
information has been obtained by researching public documents and Internet
resources and we have used the Freedom of Information Law to obtain documents
that are not readily available.
And we have always operated within
the law - and we will continue to do so.
To do otherwise, would be reprehensible.
As always, we welcome your comments
and feedback.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
|
|
|
A Meeting You Need to
Attend:
Wednesday April 25, 7pm @
Dear Fellow SHARE Members:
For the past one year and nine
months you, the voice of
- Konover develops BIG
BOX retail and malls.
- Konover has failed to get
approval for BIG BOX
development in
- The current design of River Oaks is touted as
Traditional Neighborhood Design.
There is no such thing as Traditional Neighborhood design with a
130,000 square foot retail anchor.
- Konover, as a developer, does not plan to build out the
residential aspect of the project.
This will supposedly get farmed out to other developers.
- Konover, as a developer, does not plan to build out the
office aspect of the project. This
will get farmed out to other developers.
- Konover will only develop the retail structures and the
area infrastructure.
On Wednesday April 25 at 7:00pm there will be a pre-application meeting
in the
Regardless of our ability to ask
questions, our presence at meetings speaks volumes. We
ask all of you to attend this meeting on Wednesday April 25. It will not be an anti-development effort,
just an ANTI-BIG BOX show of
support.
Some supporters of Konover have
claimed that SHARE is
anti-development. This could not be
further from the truth. As you know, we
are ANTI-BIG BOX. Good development is beneficial to
We get few occasions to show our
town officials how strongly we feel about this issue. You’ve written hundreds of letters, attended
several meetings previously, and made many phone calls. As Konover’s BIG BOX becomes more talked about and gets presented to the town,
you will need to increase your personal effort to get involved and express your
disapproval. The time to show our town
officials our strong opposition to Big Box development in
On another note, there is an informal presentation
scheduled for this Tues., April 24th at 5:30 pm at the Town Hall Main Meeting
room to the Design Review Board by Keystone Co. for a proposed mixed-use
development called Dorset Crossing to be built in the Northern Gateway on Rte
10 on the land by the skating center. At this time we have very little
information about this project, although it is our understanding that it
encompasses about 65 acres of land and will include about 165,000 sq ft of
retail and office buildings with an additional mix of condominiums, apartments
and single family houses with dedicated land to open space, including possibly
a town green. While much attention has been focused on River Oaks the SHARE
Steering Committee will try to keep everyone up to date regarding this proposed
development as well. We encourage anyone interested to attend the Design Review
meeting this Tues to learn first hand about this proposed development and let
us know your impressions.
Regards,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering
Committee
SHARE News
Flash -
Planning
“In
order to foster a truly community-based plan, residents’ concerns and ideas
need to be shared with local officials. Often residents have an intimate
understanding and awareness of the issues in their communities.”(p. 3) “A
strong planning process gives ordinary citizens an avenue through which they
can influence the development of their community. Why is community input so
important? A home is probably the largest investment any of us will ever make,
and decisions made at the municipal level profoundly affect that parcel’s value
and the overall quality of life in a community. Aside from the periodic trip to
the ballot box, there is no other way for the average citizen to voice his or
her opinion on development matters on a comprehensive basis.” (p. 30) Building Livable Communities: A Community Design Handbook
for Connecticut Towns prepared by the Regional Plan Association and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planning
Commissioners have heard the resounding voices of the residents and have taken
a bold step towards limiting the possibility of a Big-Box store from being
built on Route 10. Their proactive planning approach will help ensure that
Route 10 remains a two lane road and that the precious characteristics and
lifestyle of our town, that we all cherish, are kept intact for years to
come.
On Tuesday March 27,
2007, the Planning Commission (PC) voted in favor of a draft revision with
specific language and performance objectives for the "Form
Districts", Special Areas section of the Plan of Conservation and
Development (POCD). The form districts include the Planning Commission's vision
for mixed-use development for the Northern Gateway (100 acres by the skating
center on Rte 10) and the Southern Gateway (60+ acres on the CL&P parcel on
Rte 10) where Konover Development has been promoting the River Oaks
development. The specific language in the POCD includes such desirable performance
objectives as a greenbelt along Rte 10 running the length of the CL&P
parcel the width of a soccer field (150 to 300 ft), suggested ranges of
percentages of building types in order to achieve a true mixed-use of
residential, retail and office, and guidelines for building width and
depth in relation to building height in order to maintain a village type
development with human scaled design and avoid large out-of-scale buildings.
The attached document contains the approved draft.
The vote for the
"Form Districts" went as follows: Commissioners Bednarcyk, Gardow,
Loomis and Mead (alternate) voted in favor of language that includes such
desirable features and Commissioners Houlihan and Jansen voted in opposition.
Commissioner Mead was sitting in as an alternate for Commissioner Piecuch who
was absent. While the vote carried 4 to 2, it is important to know that the
other two alternates, Commissioners Drake and Cole were also in favor of the
draft and that shows a clear majority of Planning Commissioners in favor
of a plan with specific language to guide mixed-use development in both
Gateways.
Your SHARE Steering
Committee is pleased that the stalemate is broken; a stalemate which began in
late December, when Commissioners Piecuch, Houlihan and Jansen called a special
meeting to rescind an earlier PC vote that had passed a completed draft of
the POCD. The POCD, already three years overdue, can now move
forward. It would be a great disservice to the town and the
residents if any of the opposing commissioners (Piecuch, Houlihan or
Jansen) attempted to derail the momentum of the POCD at this time by returning
to the prior tactics. We applaud Chairman Loomis and the other commissioners
for holding firm in their beliefs and putting the best interest of the town
and the residents first.
With this action the
Planning Commission's vision for the Southern Gateway is now complete. In the
Single Use Districts, Special Areas section of the POCD it states that the
preferred strategy for development of the CL&P property is I1 (Light
Industrial) or Office. SHARE strongly agrees with this as potential development
that falls in the Office category, and its many desirable subcategories, will
be most beneficial to the town in terms of net tax revenue with the least impact
on traffic and other quality of life issues for the residents.
The next step is for the
PC to vote on the remaining Special Areas sections of the POCD in order
to complete the final draft format at one of their next meetings and
send it off to the Capital Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) and the
Simsbury Board of Selectman (BOS) for their review. The BOS has many
options as to how to proceed with the draft POCD. They can review and discuss
it, make recommendations to the PC regarding the draft, and/or opt to vote on
either sections of it, all of it or not take a vote at all. The BOS also have
the option to hold a public hearing on the draft. Whatever actions the BOS
take, are advisory only and the PC has the final decision as to voting the POCD
in as written or with changes. Once CRCOG has received the draft, they will
review it and make their recommendations to the PC. The PC will hold a final
public hearing, scheduled a minimum of 65 days or later from the time that
CRCOG receives the draft. We will continue to follow this and keep you posted
about any upcoming meetings. It is essential that the SHARE membership
keep a close eye on these developments and continue to urge our elected and
appointed officials to represent the interests of the residents.
Sincerely,
Your
Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
Group Pushes For Records
SHARE Wants Konover Documents
By LORETTA WALDMAN
Courant Staff Writer
March 28 2007
SIMSBURY -- A homeowners' group says that town officials are stalling on a
Freedom of Information request for town communications with a developer
planning a mixed-use project off Route 10.
Simsbury Homeowners Advocating for Responsible Development, known as SHARE,
wants access to e-mails and correspondence between town officials and Konover Development
Corp., which is planning a mixed-use development called River Oaks.
SHARE members say they believe that the town and Konover have been conspiring
to win approval for the $200 million River Oaks project that Konover hopes to
build on more than 60 acres off Route 10.
Charles Ward, the SHARE member who submitted the request Dec. 18, confronted
selectmen Monday night. Speaking during the public portion of the board's
regular meeting, Ward said that both his initial request and several follow-ups
have all gone unanswered.
"So I'm asking you again this evening, where are the documents which I
have requested under the Freedom of Information Act over 31/2 months ago?"
Ward said. "As a responsible citizen and taxpayer in
Town officials said Tuesday that they are doing everything possible to fulfill
the request. First Selectman Tom Vincent said he expected all members of the
various boards and commissions overseeing development to have been notified by
the end of the day. They have been asked to submit the requested material by
April 6, he said.
Vincent blamed the delay on the fact that town Planning Director Hiram Peck and
Brandon Robertson, director of administrative services, had referred the matter
to town attorney Robert DeCrescenzo. At Monday's meeting, Peck cited the sheer
volume of material requested, much of which required redactions, as a
contributing factor.
"We certainly do want to respond," Vincent said Tuesday, "and
we'll work on opening communication and getting to this as quickly as
possible."
The request is the second by Ward. The first, submitted in August 2006, had a
slightly different focus, and produced 401 documents, many of which were
largely useless, he said. They included draft copies of the town's plan of
conservation, already on the town website, and other documents so heavily
redacted that they did not make sense.
Ward was one of two SHARE members to address the selectmen Monday. The group
has been outspoken in its opposition to the River Oaks proposal, for which
Konover has yet to file a formal application but is known to include a Target
store and Whole Foods Market.
Ward filed a complaint in late January with the state Freedom of Information
Commission over his latest request. Neither that, nor Ward's comments Monday,
played a role in the scheduling of an April 10 seminar for town staff and
volunteer board and commission members on the state's Freedom of Information
law, Vincent said.
Contact Loretta Waldman at lwaldman@courant.com.
Copyright 2007, Hartford
Courant
March 26,
2007 – Board of Selectmen Public Audience
Charles Ward
Good evening
The documents which I have provided you
this evening are copies of a Freedom of Information request I filed with the
Town of
As is clearly documented in front of you
this evening, my FOI request is clear and focused, and should be easy for the
Town of
As is also clearly documented for you, I
made several subsequent requests for an update as to when the materials I’ve
requested would be made available to me and all of those requests have gone
unanswered.
So I’m asking you again this evening,
“Where are the documents which I have requested under the Freedom of
Information Act over three and a half months ago?”
As a responsible citizen and tax payer in
So why hasn’t this been completed? Why has
there not been a formal request to the boards and commissions that I requested
information from? Why?
I do know that there’s a lot of
information in my request that many people in town do not want to ever be made
public. And why do I believe that? Because I’ve seen some of this information
already, and I know there’s more. And
the longer this takes, the more wrong this whole issue appears to the
citizens. We all deserve a transparent
and open government.
I’d also like to mention that Mr. Hiram
Peck, our Town Planner, has on several occasions publicly instructed members of
the EDC and the Planning Commission that it was OK and appropriate for public
officials to delete their email after they have read them. It is important for
this governing body to understand that this is not appropriate document
retention policy as a large number of those emails are by definition public
record documents and are legally supposed to be retained in either electronic
or printed form. Violation of this
practice is a violation of state document retention statute. And to one selectman
in particular that works in the legal profession, shame on you for thinking
otherwise and for criticizing citizens who bring this to your attention as you
did in a recent email to a citizen.
To refresh your memory, let me quote three
specific areas of the Connecticut General Statutes for you:
A public agency (or municipality) is bound by
CGS 1-19(a) "to maintain its records as public records available for
public inspection..."
CGS 1-18a(d) defines "public records and
files to mean "any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of
the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by an agency
CGS 1-21k provides that any person who
willfully, knowingly, and intentionally destroys or otherwise disposes of a public
record shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
So where am I now with my FOI request? On
January 27, 2007 I decided that enough is enough and I filed a
complaint with the State of
Depending on the outcome of their
investigation, the State may levy financial penalties for non-compliance of FOI
laws to the town. I assure you that this
is not something that I relish but what I do steadfastly believe is that the
town must comply with FOI laws and the town is not doing the right thing with
my request..
I see that Tom Henick, the Public
Education Officer of the State of Connecticut Freedom of Information
Commission, will be conducting a presentation about the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act on Tuesday April 10th, 2007 at 7PM at The
Simsbury High School Amphitheater. I encourage all of you to attend and educate
yourselves. This is encouraging, but in my opinion this is too little, too
late.
So, to conclude… I’d like to offer you a
chance to make this right… Please fully comply with my request by the end of
this week. Otherwise, because it is my
right as a resident of
Since Governor Rell has taken office, she
has on several occasions talked about her commitment to making sure that The
State of Connecticut complies with the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining
to open government.
The Simsbury Board of Selectman should
follow the lead of Governor Rell and do the same. The citizens of
Thank you.
March 26,
2007 – Board of Selectmen Public Audience
John Lucker
Recently the Board of Selectman debated an ordinance
to require developers to pay for studies for issues in development proposals
that the land use commissions consider too complex or resource intensive for
the town to adequately address with town resources.
At the recent Board of Selectman meeting the town
attorney opined that the ordinance as written by the town was potentially
legally flawed and should not be passed without modification. He asked the town to go back and redraft the
language of the ordinance. It amazes me
that the town could bring an ordinance to public hearing and a board vote
without first ensuring that it was written in a legally appropriate fashion.
Also, at these recent meetings Hiram Peck said that
there are about 30 towns in
At a recent EDC meeting I heard commission members say
some interesting things. I heard Mr.
Dave Balboni say that he was “violently opposed” to this ordinance. I heard EDC Chairman Lou George say that he
was against the ordinance approach but was in favor of an informed
process. I heard other EDC members
express confidence that the developers would only provide professional and
accurate studies. And I heard Mr. Chuck
Minor speak in favor of the ordinance as the lone voice of reason. I then witnessed the EDC vote 6-1 against the
ordinance. However prior to the vote and
during the discussion I heard the most remarkable comment of all. I heard Mr. Dave Ryan of this Board of
Selectman say that such an ordinance, and I quote, “smacks of self
incrimination”.
At the recent Board of Selectman meeting where this
ordinance was presented and debated, Mr. Ryan questioned why such an ordinance
was necessary and he seemed to be expressing some kind of faith that developers
would always do the right thing. I heard
that to require a developer to pay for a study requested by the town was an
unfair burden placed on them by the town.
There were again comments made about how professional consultants would
always do the right thing regardless of who was paying them. And we heard Hiram Peck say that the
developers that he called, who are likely to submit plans to the town in the
near future, have verbally agreed to pay for such studies if they are needed by
the town.
I am here tonight to tell you and show you why this
ordinance must be passed in
In the town of
To conclude, I want to suggest that
So, I respectfully implore you, our Board of Selectman
to pass an ordinance to require all developers to pay for whatever reasonable
studies are required by the town to ensure that the town’s best interests are
served. There should not be constraints
or caps on what the town requires and the town should not have to pay for such
studies - the developers should. Please
pass an ordinance like the one that has been debated and do it
immediately. Learn from
Thank you for your time.
Is Town Government doing too little?
To the Editor:
I am writing to you because I am
long overdue in doing so. My husband and I have lived in
It is difficult for me to accept
that our town government is doing so little; practically nothing to prevent the
permanent ruination of a beautiful
I personally have never met Mr.
Konover; nor do I wish to. He is a man who has so much to be grateful for
having survived life during WW 2 in a concentration camp, but was lucky enough
to have survived and moved to this country where he has done so well
financially, but has no qualms about making even more dollars destroying
whatever is in his path and apparently never looking back at the damage he is
causing. I just wonder if circumstances were different and I was in his
position whether I would use my own talents and money to better the
So many of the citizens of Simsbury are working so hard to try to save our very special town and I thank each one of them and hope this River Oaks Project or any other like it will never come to destroy Simsbury.
If elections were held in the near future, I would not be voting for any of those who did not respect and support the people who voted them into office.
Jean E. Blumenfeld
SHARE News Flash – Bits & Pieces Edition 1
This News Flash is going to be a bit different than prior
editions. There are a number of
announcements and issues we want to tell you about so this is going to be a
communication of miscellaneous topics.
Public SHARE
Meetings To Be Held
The SHARE Steering Committee has received requests to hold
periodic public meetings to get to know one another better, exchange ideas, and
ask/answer questions. Primarily these
meeting will be an excellent opportunity for all of us to meet in person, to
hear one another’s points of view and discuss the issues surrounding
responsible development in
Where:
When: March 29 and April 12 and
May 10
Time: 7: 30 PM
Just so we can get an approximate head count for the
meetings, please reply to this email if you plan to attend.
Do I Get To Vote On
River Oaks?
We get a lot of questions about this issue. Unfortunately, the answer is NO.
Whether or not the CL&P parcel gets rezoned from Light
Industrial to Mixed Use (also known as a PDD or a Planned Development District)
is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Simsbury Zoning Commission.
How the language reads for a newly created PDD zone to
accommodate River Oaks (since River Oaks will require such a zone) is entirely
under the jurisdiction of the Simsbury Zoning Commission with some limited
input, but no veto rights, from other town boards and commissions and citizens.
Whether or not River Oaks gets approved to be built is a
more complex issue and series of events, but the primary decision maker is
again, you guessed it, the Simsbury Zoning Commission.
So this is why the Simsbury Zoning Commission needs to hear
from you now and later, loudly, and often. Write letters to zoning commissioners and
when you do, and this is very important, always send a copy of each and every
letter you send to the Simsbury Town Clerk at
The March 12th
Board of Selectman Meeting
If you haven’t been watching recent Simsbury Board of
Selectman (BOS) meetings on SCTV, you should, because they are far more
informative than many shows on network TV.
In the recent March 12, 2007 BOS meeting, two important issues were
discussed in a public hearing and voted on by the BOS.
Senior Tax Relief - One issue was property tax relief
for senior citizen residents of our town.
The BOS had a public hearing on resident’s views on a reduced package of
tax relief submitted to the BOS by the Board of Finance (BOF). Most of the residents who spoke on this issue
were upset with the reduced tax relief plan created by the BOF and they were
urging the BOS to reject the proposal and ask the BOF to reconsider the proposal
that was originally forwarded to them by a fourteen member bipartisan senior
property tax relief study group. In the
end of the meeting, despite the vast majority of the views of the citizens who
spoke, the BOS accepted the reduced plan from the BOF by a 4-2 vote with
selectman John Romano (R) and John Hampton (D) voting to reject the plan in order to send it back to the BOF to have them adopt the
original, more substantial senior tax relief plan.
Developers
To Pay For Studies - The second issue was for a new ordinance proposed by the
Board of Selectman, to require the applicant, upon request from the town’s land
use commissions and staff, to pay for necessary independent studies or
consultants when an applicant submits a proposal to the town that has issues
which are too comprehensive, complex, or arcane for the town to study
themselves. Examples of such studies and
consultants would include review of engineering, traffic, environmental and
economic issues. SHARE believes this
concept is essential for responsible development in
During the public hearing the town attorney
expressed concern that the ordinance, as written, might be legally
unenforceable. We find it disconcerting
that an ordinance proposed by the Board of Selectman, a board with several
attorneys as selectman, did not meet the legal standards of the town attorney
prior to being discussed at a public hearing.
In the end, the BOS tabled the issue in order to have it redrafted in
order to meet appropriate legal standards.
We expect this issue to be returned to the BOS shortly with revised
language. An interesting fact described
to the BOS by the town
planner is that there are about 30 towns in CT with such ordinances including
towns like