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 Simsbury residents received a postcard in the mail from a mysterious and anonymous “group” calling themselves “Citizens For Common Ground”.  This postcard accused your SHARE Steering Committee of a number of very disturbing things.

 

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 Simsbury beyond Route 44.  The list of those endorsing this proposed SHARE zoning amendment must have been obtained from Simsbury Town Hall by the person or people creating this postcard.  The names were submitted along with the application for the zoning amendment.

 

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 Connecticut without a valid business reason to do so (the postcard got that part right) and no member of the SHARE Steering Committee has ever done such a thing.

 

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 Simsbury as well as it is your right as Simsbury citizens too.  We’ve always encouraged you all to express your opinions, write and call your elected officials, and we have spoken very bluntly at numerous town board and commission meetings about the issues that matter to SHARE – that’s all of us – the SHARE Steering Committee and all of you as SHARE members.  And, as in any debate, we intend to continue to express our opinions, desires, visions, and wishes to our elected officials to ensure that SHARE’s views are heard.  If our views are contrary to those of an elected official, then so be it, that’s the democratic process in action.  That isn’t slander, that’s freedom of speech.

 

Postcard Claim 3

 

The SHARE Steering Committee “threaten[ed] to boycott Simsbury family owned local businesses.  S.H.A.R.E. “muscle” has been visiting these businesses”.

 

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 Simsbury could be the end to some of the small businesses, particularly in the Simsbury town center.  We want our town center and local businesses to survive and thrive and we have been very vocal saying so.  As for the comment about our “muscle”, we have had several SHARE Steering Committee members walking around downtown Simsbury talking with local business owners, handing out copies of material that show how damaging Big Box development is, and getting feedback on the concerns of the business owners.  We have heard a pretty unanimous voice of concern from these business owners for what Big Box development in Simsbury could mean to them.  And, if you saw those of us doing the walking around town, you would hardly call them “muscle”… one male member of the SHARE Steering Committee doing most of the walking and talking probably weighs around 160 pounds!

 

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 Simsbury residents signed their name to support.  To do this we used a perfectly legal technique to file an application for an amendment to change zoning regulations to place a size cap on retail development in Simsbury beyond Route 44.  The law allows such proposed amendments to be filed with the town.  To submit this proposal, SHARE paid a fee to the town along with the necessary documents, and hearings are being scheduled by the Planning and Zoning commissions to review, discuss, and vote on the proposed amendment.  It is true that if this is passed, it would “deny” land owners the right to build retail buildings above the proposed size cap.  But if this happens we hardly call this a “conspiracy” but rather the will of the people and of course, to become regulation, it has to be approved and voted on by our elected officials.  To do all this is perfectly legal and it is our right as citizens of Simsbury to try to make this happen and it is part of the democratic process.

 

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 Simsbury should stay the course and continue to be a special place and not transform itself into a retail and commercial strip like Route 44, the Berlin Turnpike, or Buckland Hills in Manchester.

 

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 @ Simsbury High School

 

Dear Fellow SHARE Members:

 

For the past one year and nine months you, the voice of Simsbury, have been supportive and contributory in the effort to prevent a BIG BOX development project from taking place within the Town of Simsbury.  After several iterations of the proposed RIVER OAKS development our resolve is the same.  We do not oppose development, we oppose that Simsbury is transformed into a BIG BOX environment.

 

  1. Konover develops BIG BOX retail and malls.
  2. Konover has failed to get approval for BIG BOX development in Canton and most recently in Watertown and Groton.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Konover, as a developer, does not plan to build out the office aspect of the project.  This will get farmed out to other developers.
  6. 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 Simsbury High School Auditorium.  Konover will explain the development to those in attendance and to the Simsbury Land Use commissions.  Only elected officials will be allowed to ask questions or add comments.  During this meeting there will be no opportunity for the public to comment or ask questions. We ask you, is this what we as citizens should be subject to?  Is this is how our rights should be respected?

 

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 Simsbury.  BIG BOX DEVELOPMENT is detrimental to our Town.  Let’s take this opportunity to show we care about how our town looks – please attend this meeting and let’s fill up the Simsbury High School Auditorium.

 

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 Simsbury is now and in the future.  See you on Wednesday!

 

 

 

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 Commission Moves Town Plan Forward Voting in Line with Residents' Vision

 

“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 Connecticut Land Use Coalition

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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 Simsbury, it is my legal right to this information and it is your legal responsibility to fully comply with my request in a timely manner."

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

81 Blue Ridge Drive, Simsbury

 

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 Simsbury on December 19th, 2006.  In my request I am asking for information about communications between elected and appointed officials, town staff and their discussions and information exchanges with Konover Development and other entities related to the pending River Oaks development proposal.  I received acknowledgement of my request on December 28th, 2006, and I might add that by State Law I was supposed to have received a response from the town within 4-business days. Why did it take so long for me to receive this letter, which was all of 7 sentences? Providing me, a citizen of Simsbury, with timely acknowledgement of receipt of my FOI request should be a trivial matter if the Town had organized Freedom of Information Act policies and procedures in place.

 

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 Simsbury to comply with.

 

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 Simsbury, it is my legal right to this information and it is your legal responsibility to fully comply with my request in a timely manner.

 

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 CT FOI Commission due to the town’s non-compliance with my request. I’ve given the town more than enough time to comply with my request, and the town doesn’t seem to be taking my legal FOI request seriously.  I find this non-compliance to be insulting to me and all Simsbury’s residents. So now the State is involved with this matter.  I’m sure the FOI Commission will get involved shortly with your failure to fulfill other recent FOI requests.

 

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 Simsbury to have access to the information I requested, I will need to press on.

 

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 Simsbury expect and demand an open and transparent government.  Personally I will tolerate nothing else to ensure all town activities take place on a level playing field.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

March 26, 2007 – Board of Selectmen Public Audience

 

John Lucker                                                                             

88 Blue Ridge Drive

Simsbury

 

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 Connecticut with an ordinance that addresses this “developer pay for studies issue”.  He told us that in our immediate area Granby, Farmington, and Canton all have such ordinances and that Avon is drafting one right now.  Since we often benchmark ourselves against neighboring towns, we should not be debating if we need this ordinance but should be working hard to get one drafted and approved immediately so that the town won’t be on the hook for extraordinary expenses from these imminent development proposals everyone has been talking about.

 

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 Simsbury.

 

In the town of Watertown Connecticut, Konover Development is trying to build a large Big Box retail mall similar to what they call River Oaks.  In Watertown there is a requirement for developers to pay for independent studies for submitted plans under certain conditions.  In Watertown, Konover recently submitted their proposal to Planning and Zoning to change the zone of a large parcel of land to allow for their Big Box development.  But prior to considering such a zone change, the Watertown officials wanted some economic and fiscal impact studies done to validate Konover’s submitted studies and to independently study certain issues and independently gather data.  The officials held a public meeting where consultants were interviewed and RFP responses were evaluated.  Konover officials were present at those meetings.  A consulting firm was selected by the Watertown officials and the consultant began their work.  And then, a very short time later, after the consultant had performed services, Konover Development sent the town of Watertown a letter that I have provided a copy of where they refused to pay for the already specified and already begun work to review and study Konover Development’s Big Box retail proposal.  In this letter Konover states, and I quote, “in the absence of having the zoning necessary to permit us to proceed to the site planning stage, it is an unacceptable risk for us to commit to this level of expense”.  Konover then went on to explain that they felt the $60,000 expense for the study was unacceptable and they offered to pay a mere $7,500 for a peer review of the study they already performed which several Watertown people said was flawed.  Minutes from a recent Watertown Planning & Zoning meeting also articulated the need for an independent study and questioned the developer’s study results.  The resolution of this issue is ongoing.

 

To conclude, I want to suggest that Simsbury strongly considers learning from Watertown’s experience.  I think it is essential to keep in mind several points.  First, that developers will often do whatever is in their best interest and not in the town’s best interest.  Second, that the promises of some developers may not be worth much.  And third that some developers hope a town will make huge decisions based on potentially flawed or misleading information that they provide.  Of course, we all know that once a zone is changed a town’s control is diminished.  So the town should only change a zone when the town is 100% satisfied that the proposed development is responsible, appropriate, and addresses all the requisite concerns like net economic and fiscal impact, traffic, public safety, environmental, etc.  All such critical information should be based on independent professional studies which the town controls and not the developer.  In that manner, only the town can be sure that the right thing is being done.

 

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 Watertown’s experience.  Developers do not always do the right thing and some, unfortunately, simply do not live up to their word.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

 

Is Town Government doing too little?

Simsbury Post – April 2, 2007

 

To the Editor:

 

I am writing to you because I am long overdue in doing so. My husband and I have lived in Simsbury in the same home for 44 years; raised our children here an participated in the various town events including volunteer work, etc. Although we are soon to be leaving Simsbury it shall always be a very special place for me, and I shall continue to participate in the SHARE Organization, which is trying so hard to prevent a terrible thing from happening to our beautiful town.

 

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 Connecticut town called Simsbury. In my opinion I believe the old Puritan form of government should come to an end and we should proceed with a new form of government where the citizens of this town can express and be listened to, have the opportunity to VOTE on important issues such as the River Oaks Project. Can you not see what such a project will do to Simsbury? If allowed to happen, it will forever change our community and once gone it will never return to the way we have known and loved it.

 

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 Hartford area for those who need real help. What a beautiful legacy that would be to leave in gratitude for all that had been given to me.

 

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

Simsbury

 

 

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 Simsbury and how we believe that River Oaks, with its Big Box store, is not the type of development that is best for Simsbury.  So here are the details for our upcoming meetings:

 

        Where:     Reno’s Gathering Place – 20 Tariffville Road, Simsbury

        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 Simsbury Town Hall so that your letters can become public record.  We continuously hear from certain elected officials that they haven’t been hearing any opposing opinions about these issues.  We know this is not true!  If the letters are sent to the Simsbury Town Clerk also, they become public record and the zoning officials will have a tough time saying that they haven’t been hearing from the residents.  We know that they have been hearing from you, but they don’t seem to want to admit it, so with official proof, there is little they can deny.

 

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 Simsbury because we believe that developers are incented to provide studies which may not provide complete and balanced facts and figures on a particular issue.  Clearly a developer will only provide a paid study to the town that is favorable to their proposal.  Why would a developer ever provide the town a study that disclosed latent issues which are important to the town but may be unfavorable to the developer?

 

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 Canton, Farmington,