|
RECENT as of 1-30-2007 |
|
Details of the Hoffman re-development plan
Dear SHARE members,
Recently several SHARE Steering
Committee members viewed a presentation on the proposed re-development of the
Hoffman Auto property located on the corner of
Throughout the meeting,
we noticed that the developer took great care to address concerns of
neighboring residents. We feel that the developer has taken a sincere approach
in proposing a re-development plan that will benefit the Town of
- The development will include:
- New Honda and
- A new Nissan showroom and service center,
combined with a new Auto Body Shop
- A new Munson's store
- A new Best Buy store
As of now, the Design
Review Board voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Zoning Commission
of the site plan application and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
a zone change to the Zoning Commission with a few conditions agreed to by the
developer, such as continuing to completely restrict any commercial access to
or from
Now to go into a little
more detail:
- The existing
- A Nissan dealership and new Hoffman Auto body shop will
be added at the northwest corner of the property as a 2-story structure
built into the hillside. With a
12-foot downward slope from Rt. 44 to the rear edge of the Hoffman site,
this will significantly reduce the visual impact of this two story
building, as its visual height from Route 44 will essentially mirror that
of the single story buildings closer to the front of the property.
- The Best Buy will be a 30,000 sq. foot building, with an
attached 3,000 sq. ft. Munson's. Following meetings with the Design Review
Board, Best Buy agreed to modify its large yellow sign so that it will not
be the same pronounced sign seen on most Best Buy stores.
- They will not add any curb cuts to
- The distance of the redesigned
- All "activity" at the site is focused inward
or towards Route 44 with the intent of minimizing disturbance to
neighbors.
- Additionally, the developer is working with a lighting
design expert to bring to the site custom designed lighting, known as
“full cut off”, to reduce "light pollution". A positive benefit of site redevelopment
for local residences and the overall appearance of the site, this is also
consistent with the "dark skies" initiative that the Town of
- From an environmental perspective, some of the additional
land they're looking to acquire will be used for a new water
detention basin (located toward the back of the property), which they
stated will exceed the new DEP water quality requirements.
- In addition some attention was given to
separating pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic by adjusting traffic flow and road
design in order to allow safe pedestrian traffic between the auto
showrooms, Best Buy, Munson's and the neighboring McDonalds.
- With respect to concern for neighbors, the exterior
walls facing W. Mountain road will be painted a mute beige color, as
opposed to a bright white, and the Honda dealership will forgo the
"blue wave”.
- For the
- The developer has already performed a traffic analysis
of the redeveloped property and found that there would not be a
significant impact on current Route 44 traffic. Some of facts supporting
their claim are:
- Auto dealerships by nature are not large
traffic generators. People come in & out at different times, with the
only peak hours being drop-off & pick-up, which already exists at the
site
- Munson’s does a good business but is not a big
traffic generator.
- Best Buy, while considered a Big Box, does not
generate the type of traffic as a Wal-Mart, Target, or supermarket
because Best Buy is more of a durable goods store. How often will one return to Best Buy
to purchase another TV? Wal-mart, Target, supermarkets, and other such stores
offering non-durables generate far greater traffic. The heaviest traffic for a Best Buy
would be during the holiday shopping season, and on Sundays (when new
sales start), while the car dealerships are closed that day.
- The developer has performed an extensive
economic impact analysis that indicates that there will be an increase to
Simsbury's tax revenue of approximately $350K per year, with one time fees
paid to the town of $225k, all of which we believe will far exceed any
additional drain on town resources.
From what we have been
presented with, this appears to be a great example of “responsible expansion”
for the Town of
- The developer has reached out to neighbors and is striving
to enhance their current circumstances.
- This redevelopment improves a commercial site by
reducing light pollution, enhancing buffers to the neighbors, instituting
higher environmental standards, and integrating safe pedestrian
walkways.
- The site IS ON Rt. 44, the appropriate
infrastructure for this type of development in our region, with the
ability to handle traffic generated by such national retail stores.
- The types of businesses are all low generators of
traffic in relation to many of the other uses traditionally seen on 4 lane
roadways such as Route 44, and the peak traffic hours for the business are
at different times of the day & week.
- There appears to be a positive tax gain from both
one-time payments to the town, as well as recurring tax revenue.
- This development coincides with SHARE’s zoning petition
signed by 2200
Now for the most
important and crucial issue this proposal faces before obtaining final
approval from the Zoning Commission:
The developer (Hoffman)
is seeking a complex zone change in order for their re-development proposal to
work. Currently the existing Hoffman property is partially zoned commercial and
partially zoned residential. Additionally, their current “lot coverage” (or the
amount of land that is covered with an impervious surface) is 70%, which has
been accepted as pre-existing non-conforming coverage. The Town of
We will bring you
additional information as it becomes available.
The developer will go
before the Zoning Commission on Monday February 5th to present their
plan, and request a zone change. In the meantime we encourage you to write our
Town Zoning Commissioners to express how you feel about this proposal.
Thank you for your
continued support.
Sincerely,
Your devoted SHARE Steering Committee
News Flash - SHARE Submits Revised Language to the Planning Commission:
In order to keep all SHARE
members as informed as possible, we wanted to update you on some recent events.
Following the December 28,
2006 Planning Commission meeting that we informed you of in our last SHARE News
Flash, we met with Greg Piecuch, Planning Commissioner, to listen to his concerns about the former POCD
language and to discuss with him our issues and what we felt the POCD needed to
accomplish in articulating a vision for the Southern Gateway. Mr. Piecuch was interested in SHARE's input
after the December 28, 2006 meeting.
After these constructive dialogues, SHARE sent a document of suggested
POCD revisions to John Loomis, the Chairman of the Simsbury Planning
Commission. A copy of the document is posted just below this
message or you can <<click
here>> for a printable
version of the document.
We expect that these
suggestions will be discussed in the January 9th Planning Commission meeting.
Please note that the
attached file only lists the language for those sections impacted by the recent
Planning Commission discussions. The
changes that SHARE is suggesting are in red font in the document.
Sincerely,
Your SHARE Steering
Committee
How We Want To Grow -
Special Areas
December 29, 2006
Page 94
SOUTHERN GATEWAY DESIRABLE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
(continued)
Design Context (continued)
- Create a compact, physical settlement/workplace village center surrounded by a protected greenbelt used for recreational and environmental purposes as well as for the protection of the pre-existing adjacent residential neighborhood
- Establish a deep, wide continuous
roadside greenbelt along
- be a central design element that creates a park or green space with a variable depth from the street equivalent to the width of a regulation soccer field where residents will have the opportunities for significant and varied active recreation;
- maintain a substantive transition area between the mixed-use development and residences to the west; and
- project the sense to
those driving along
- Restrict the roadside greenbelt with a conservation easement
- Define the
Land Use
- To encourage a mixed-use development, recommend that the Zoning Commission consider granting a density bonus to a development proposal meeting these criteria (perhaps by increasing the maximum coverage limit from 40% to 50%).
- Recommend to the Zoning Commission
that the mix of uses contain a minimum amount of public, core commercial
and residential uses (perhaps including the following guidelines for
concentrated uses) as a percent of the
- Civic: 10%
- Mixed-use: 12-30%
- Office: 10-20%
- Non-Office Commercial: 0-10%
- Residential: 40-50%
How We Want To Grow - Special Areas
December 29, 2006
Page 95
SOUTHERN GATEWAY DESIRABLE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES (continued)
Land Use (continued)
- Use areas:
- Conservancy Areas - Protected open space, including, e.g., greens, commons, and private noncommons on parcels used for agriculture, public recreation, and gardens.
- Residential Area - Variety of housing options with a broad range of housing types such as apartments, townhouses, duplexes, and small lot single family
- Mixed-Use Area - The primary intention is to provide uses that meet the retail and service needs of a traditional community center and its vicinity and may contain other compatible uses such as civic and institutional uses of community-wide importance and second-floor office and/or residential uses. The following are intended to establish guidance for overall form and scale:
- Locate commercial activities within a consolidated core area for walkability and convenience with the following objectives:
- Create a strong sense of streetscape between building setbacks and streets (including internal travel ways that function like streets).
- Emphasize an internal network of two-lane streets that are as narrow as possible.
- Move building frontages toward the street and generally next to the sidewalk in order to reinforce the human scale and walkability of the mixed-use core.
- Create attractive
streetscapes with combinations of wide sidewalks and street trees;
- For buildings that oppose
each other across the street, encourage a 2:1 ratio where the separation
between the front facades is twice the building height.
- Provide
for a complementary mix of building sizes between one-and-a-half and two
and- a-half stories above grade for variety, visual interest, and human
scale proportions:
- Avoid the monolithic and repetitive types of structures
- For
guidance purposes in representing human scale, maintain a ratio of
maximum building dimension of width or depth to height, such that the
maximum dimension of either the width or the depth varies from 1.5 times
to 4.5 times the building height.
- For
human scale reference, the main building footprint of Simsbury Town Shops
is about 26,000 square feet, the adjacent Starbucks is 2,000 square feet,
and the Prudential Realty building is 2,400 square feet.
- For guidance purposes in representing human scale, building height should be about 25 feet for a one-and-a-half story building and about 35 feet for a two-and-a-half story building.
Sunday December 31,
2006
Three Planning Commissioners derail the printing and distribution of the recently approved Plan of Conservation and Development...
The following is a
summary of the full story which is contained below.
Summary:
On December 28th three Planning Commissioners (Greg Piecuch, Chip Houlihan, and Ferg Jansen) used a seldom exercised Planning Commission procedural rule to call a special meeting to rescind the release of the previously approved Plan of Conservation and Development just one day before it was scheduled to be printed and distributed to state and local government officials as well as to Simsbury citizens. These commissioners specifically targeted the Southern Gateway (CL&P) property where Konover Development wants to build their project called River Oaks. These three commissioners called for the elimination of any reference to retail size limits and standards in the Plan. The Planning Commission reluctantly accepted the motion to rescind the plan and return to refining the Plan’s language, thereby delaying a plan that is already nearly three years late in delivery.
SHARE is very disappointed in the Planning Commission’s decision and specifically the actions of these three commissioners (Messrs. Piecuch, Houlihan, Jansen) who are supporting Big Box development directly and indirectly. During this meeting, two commissioners suggested that size limitations should be put to public referendum (Commissioners Mead and Bednarcyk) while Chairman Loomis and Commission Alternates Mead and Drake argued strongly to maintain metrics in the Plan. Commissioner Gardow relented to the dissenting trio.
As we have consistently stated, SHARE supports the direction of including metrics in the Plan and would like to see a town wide vote of some form as we believe it is the best way to finalize an already late plan and ensure that the citizens of Simsbury have a say concerning Big Box development and how metrics should be articulated in the Plan of Conservation and Development. However, the Planning Commission and the Town does not seem interested in soliciting information from a public referendum or a town wide comprehensive information gathering process.
So
please voice your opinion to our town officials, the newspapers, and some state
officials detailed below. It is the only way we can defeat the
forces promoting Big Box development in
For the full story, please get some water and antacid and take the time to read the details below.
*********************
Dear SHARE Members:
Please read this all the way through - you have some work to do! There were some unfavorable events that happened at the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on December 28th. All of us as citizens need to do something about this.
*********************
But first we’ll set some background with an attempt at humor and with apologies to Clement Clarke Moore:
Twas the middle of vacation week when all through the town
Not a resident was stirring as the Planning Commission began to frown
Families were gathered enjoying the toys on their floors
In our wonderful town free of Big Box stores
The Draft Plan of Conservation and Development was all done and approved
With completion stamped on it and all ready to move
The State and the Board of Selectman and the Public were ready to read it
To be sure that it said what the residents wanted in it
When out in the town there arose such a clatter
The Planning Commission sprang from its holiday to see what was the matter
To Town Hall they flew like a flash
Turned on the lights, gathered together and began to clash
For while we were resting, three Planning Commissioners were scheming
To remove all metrics, size limits, and greenbelts was what they were dreaming
When what to our wondering eyes and ears should appear
But Messrs Greg Piecuch, Chip Houlihan, and Ferg Jansen disgruntled – oh dear!
With this unlikely trio having unity and a lot of audacity
We knew in a minute it must be politics and non-representative tenacity
More rapid than in previous meetings their strategy expressed
And in the end, previous decisions were rescinded and the metrics amiss
******************
OK… we’ll stop the attempt at humor but after Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting we thought that we and you might appreciate a little. Because what we witnessed Thursday night was anything but humorous. What we observed was the last thing we expect to see in a representative government in action. So here’s what happened. We’ll try to be brief and precise but please bear with us because the story is a bit long and complex.
- On December 19th there was a Planning Commission meeting where five of the voting members (Loomis, Piecuch, Bednarcyk, Gardow, Jansen) and two alternates were present (Drake, Cole). For the meeting, Chairman Loomis appointed Mark Drake (alternate) as a voting member because Chip Houlihan, a voting member, was absent from the meeting. At that meeting the Draft Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) was being finalized prior to having it distributed for final comment to the public and various State and Town commissions and agencies. Significant changes were made to the document. Most of the very specific metrics and size limitations had been removed at a Dec 12th PC meeting much to SHARE’s chagrin. Once again, politics and the voices of special interest groups like the Chamber of Commerce (who two of the Planning Commission voting members are very active with (Jansen and Houlihan)) and commissions like the Economic Development Commission and the Zoning Commission had gotten their way at the expense of the overwhelming desire of the residents of Simsbury who made their point of view known. The 2210 signatures that SHARE had obtained during a five week period expressing a desire for such metrics and size limitations seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. But did they?
- But first, one brief digression from the main story because this one is of special note. The Dec 19th meeting was originally to be held in a small room in Town Hall. Early that day it became clear to Chairman Loomis that the room was going to be too small to accommodate the meeting so the room was changed to the large meeting room in the Library. Chairman Loomis had signs and notices prominently placed all over Town Hall and the meeting began in the Library 15 minutes later than scheduled to allow people to make their way to the Library. Over 40 people attended the meeting after seeing the signs in Town Hall. Keep this all in mind for explanation later in this email.
- Late in the Dec 19th meeting (which went on until after midnight) the Planning Commission began to discuss some changes to the section of the POCD that dealt with the Southern Gateway (CL&P property) where Konover Development wants to build River Oaks. There was a very heated discussion about adding in specific language that would provide guidelines for suggested sizes of buildings and a greenbelt along Route 10. The opposing opinions to this revision were led by Greg Piecuch who argued vigorously against the Plan including any specific numbers. Commissioners Loomis, Bednarcyk, Gardow, Drake and Cole as well as the Chairman of the Design Review Board, Emil Dahlquist, all agreed that the specific numbers should be included in the Plan in order to accurately articulate a vision for the future development of the Southern Gateway. SHARE thought the additions were favorable as they returned some metrics, albeit less rigid ones, to the POCD as it pertained to the CL&P property. In a complete reversal of his past statements and endorsements of including specific numbers in the Southern Gateway sections throughout PC meetings over the last year, Mr. Piecuch suddenly changed his mind and now is vehemently opposed to including any such metrics in the POCD. We leave it up to you to figure out how and why he has completely reversed his position as we are completely perplexed about this. SHARE believes that metrics do a good job of providing parameters to a vision as numbers help to put boundaries on abstract terms and concepts. We believe, and have heard from thousands of you, that we all like numbers in such documents. Absent numbers, limits and constraints are left to the ‘eye of the beholder’.
- After this heated debate there was a vote of 4 to 2 to return to the POCD some expression of suggested sizes for buildings (2000-25,000) square feet per floor (2 floor maximum), variable greenbelt sizes of 200-300 feet to prevent development too close to the road, encourage a 50-70 foot separation between buildings to discourage dense strip mall type development and encourage village style development. The document also provided visionary guidance on the height of buildings and the desire to have different building heights and styles to prevent homogeneity and enhance visual appeal. In the end, your SHARE Steering Committee thought this was all good stuff and was worded in a way that were clearly recommendations and advisory but clearly painted a picture of what the town would like to see rather than some huge monolithic ugly Big Box. The 4 to 2 vote went as follows: Voting in favor of adding the metrics language to the Southern Gateway (CL&P parcel) section of the Plan were Loomis, Bednarcyk, Gardow, and Drake (alternate voting in the absence of Houlihan). Voting to oppose adding the metrics language were Piecuch and Jansen.
- Despite the heated debate, the vote stood and everyone went home tired after midnight.
- But apparently some members of the PC and other involved parties had other ideas and the phone calls must have begun almost immediately. Within a day or two a Freedom of Information complaint letter was sent to the PC by a resident (and town political ‘insider’). Alleged in the complaint was that the meeting was illegal and all business conducted at the meeting should be nullified because the PC moved rooms without 24 hours notice. In addition, Messrs. Houlihan, Jansen, and Piecuch used a seldom used rule in the PC’s rules to call a Special Meeting of the PC to discuss the FOI complaint and to discuss rescinding the results of the December 19th meeting. These three commissioners wanted to have the meeting immediately so it was held on Thursday December 28th – in the middle of vacation week when many citizens are not available or paying attention to such issues.
- At the outset of the Dec 28th meeting the town attorney conveyed his analysis of the FOI complaint. He reminded the PC that the complaint was not an actual complaint because no official complaint had been filed with the State’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Commission. He said that he consulted the Connecticut General Statutes and consulted with the FOI Commission and it was his opinion that the complaint would not result in voiding the meeting results because prior FOI Commission rulings favored moving meetings to larger rooms to accommodate the size of an audience as long as a room change had adequate signage. The town attorney felt that the PC was in a favorable place with regards to the FOI complaint and that if there was a hearing with the FOI Commission, the complaint would not prevail.
- Throughout this explanation from the Town Attorney, Chip Houlihan asked numerous questions about the FOI laws and rules and seemed to be the most interested PC member on the issues being discussed.
- The meeting then continued, absent the FOI issue, with an extremely lengthy discussion about rescinding the results from the previous meeting. At issue was the desire of Messrs. Houlihan, Jansen, and Piecuch to go back to the ‘drawing board’ with the POCD to remove all metrics from the Special Areas section of the Plan and specifically from the section on the Southern Gateway (CL&P) parcel. Numerous points of view were articulated. Several members of the PC spoke eloquently (Loomis, Bednarcyk, Mead) that they had heard from numerous residents and the consensus is that people want metrics and specific numbers in the plan to put boundaries on the size of development. But these proponents of numbers were speaking to an unwavering group of three (Houlihan, Jansen, and Piecuch). These three PC commissioners, for reasons which your SHARE Steering Committee cannot comprehend, seem determined to not have any such metrics in the POCD. And please remember that the argument at this meeting was about metrics only in the part of the POCD for the Southern Gateway (CL&P) parcel. Why are these three commissioners so adamant to not limit the size and scale of development with numbers in the POCD for just this parcel?
- Because
the PC meeting was so spontaneous and held during vacation week, SCTV was
not able to video tape the meeting.
Your SHARE Steering Committee brought our own video equipment to
film the meeting. We will try to
get this tape submitted to SCTV for broadcast. There were some extraordinary statements
made at the meeting that everyone should watch if possible. A favorite of one SHARE member in
attendance was Chip Houlihan’s comment about how
what
- To make a ‘short story long’, unfortunately after much debate the three dissenting PC members (Houlihan, Jansen, Piecuch) prevailed because the PC was concerned that they were in a deadlock situation. Commissioner Gardow made a hasty decision to vote on this issue with the dissenting three because he was concerned that if they voted to continue with the POCD as it was currently drafted then changes might need to be made after the draft was distributed to the public. Commissioners Loomis and Bednarcyk did not support this position because they believe that the plan needs to go to the public for review and comment first as it is ‘the people’s document’ and they wanted people to have the opportunity to read it before the PC continued to tweak it. They believed the tweaks could be made later while the public reviewed the document and then presented to the public later. Commissioners Loomis and Bednarcyk argued strongly to keep the metrics in the document because they believe such boundaries and limits are important for the town to publicly express. Incidentally, all of the other issues voted on at the Dec 19th meeting were not disputed and remained intact in the POCD. Your SHARE Steering Committee finds it odd that Messrs. Houlihan, Jansen, and Piecuch have such unified and strong opinions against metrics in the POCD and why no other issues discussed and modified in the POCD were of interest to them for further discussion.
- So the Planning Commission now goes back to the drawing board to hash out their differences. The POCD was close to being done but now its completion date is unclear. Also unclear is the status of having metrics in the POCD.
To conclude we are giving you all some very important ‘homework’:
- Please, please, please get noisy. Let your thoughts and desires be known to the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission and the Board of Selectman. Write letters and emails both directly to our elected officials as well as to the Hartford Courant and the Simsbury Post. Use names of the commissioners you are disappointed in within your letters to the newspapers. Politicians don’t like public criticism but we believe that some of them deserve it. The email addresses and mailing addresses of all commissioners are on the www.ShareSimsbury.com website in the Contact Town Officials section.
- Let all the planning commissioners know your points of view. But in particular let Planning Commissioners Houlihan, Piecuch, Jansen and Gardow hear your points of view. Let them know how important you think it is to have metrics in the POCD. Let them know that you expect them to represent you and do what you, as the citizens who elected them, want them to do. When you send emails or letters, carbon copy the other commissioners so everyone sees what you have to say.
- Write letters to CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments) about this issue. CRCOG, a
- Attend meetings. We need more people to regularly attend all town meetings. We believe strongly that one of the reasons why some of our town officials are successful in doing things that are contrary to the wishes of the citizens is that they don’t feel accountable enough. And a big reason for this is that there isn’t enough diverse attendance at various town meetings – the commissions see the same citizens in attendance all the time. We need more people to attend and if lots of people attend and speak to them about their views, the commissions will better hear the people and feel the pressure to represent the people they were elected by. Go to www.TownofSimsbury.com to see the meeting schedules (http://simsburyct.virtualtownhall.net/Public_Documents/SimsburyCT_MeetingCal/?FormID=158 ).
Please get involved more with SHARE. Reply to
this email and let us know if you are able to volunteer to help with this
struggle. We need more people to get
directly involved because we are an all volunteer organization. At the very least, as the effort grows, we
need your monetary contributions. We
hate to ask, but SHARE has bills to pay and legal expenses for the advice we
continue to need. Please send us a check
for whatever you can afford to SHARE,
We are planning to have some form of ‘No Big Box’
lawn signs made up. Please reply to this
email if you would be willing to put such a sign on your lawn. We believe it would be an effective tool to
communicate how many of us are opposed to Big Box development in
Lastly, again, please speak out. Please let your town officials know your point of view. Please write letters to the newspapers.
As always, thanks for your help and support. And Happy New Year! We hope the new year brings a more open town government that is willing to listen and act on the resident’s overwhelming desire to not have Big Box retail built and then spread up and down Route 10.
Sincerely,
Your Loyal SHARE Steering Committee
Letter
to the Editor (published in the Simsbury News 1/3/2007):
December 29, 2006
There were so many
problems with the December 28 Simsbury Special Planning Commission meeting that
I don't know where to begin. It was called
by three commission members: Greg Piecuch, Ferg Jansen, and Chip Houlihan. These boys were not happy with an action
taken at the previous meeting which would prohibit the development of Big Box
stores on Route 10. Going against the town attorney's advice, Greg
Piecuch moved to rescind the action. During the lengthy debate over the
motion, Commission members repeatedly treated Sue Bednarcyk,
the only female member, in a dismissive fashion when she tried to state her
opposition. The fact that the meeting was called quickly, during
Christmas week, and not adequately publicized, was discussed and
dismissed. The suggestion that, if brought to referendum, the citizens of
Simsbury would overwhelmingly vote to leave in the Plan numerical guidelines
for building size for development of the CL&P property was also
ignored. The boys beat their opinion to the ground until finally, Ernie Gardow, not looking forward to another 6 hour meeting,
broke down and capitulated, essentially removing those immportant
numerical guidelines. This drama is all on tape, and I urge all
Janet Miller
A Letter
to Planning Commission Chairman John Loomis
Mr. John Loomis
Monday, December 18, 2006
Dear Mr. Loomis:
I am writing in regard to the newest
revisions to the draft POCD that were distributed at last week’s PC meeting on
12/12 and which I picked up at Town Hall this past Friday. I am specifically
referring to the changes made to the Future By Design section of the plan that
include the removal of the square footage restrictions for retail development
in the transect sections (pg 60 & 61) the removal of the use areas
restricting retail to 20,000 sq ft/floor (pg 102), as well as the removal of
the language that suggests a 300 foot greenbelt along Hopmeadow Street for the
Southern Gateway desirable performance objectives (pg. 101).
Having attended one of the public
hearings for the draft POCD and having watched the other two on SCTV, it was
obvious that the majority of the residents who spoke regarding the above issues
were overwhelmingly in favor of the original language. It was also true that
the people who spoke opposing them were either with the EDC, the Zoning
Commission or the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce, representing a select minority.
Additionally, the inclusion of the over 2200 signatures collected by SHARE in
support of retail square footage caps, reinforces the premise that the majority
of town residents want to keep the language specific in the POCD in order to
ensure that the other town boards and elected officials, potential developers,
landowners and residents all have a clear vision and definitive expectations of
how we want to see our town developed over the next ten years.
I am extremely disappointed and
frustrated that the Planning Commission, under your chairmanship and under Greg
Piecuch’s, stewardship of the Future by Design
chapter, has apparently given in to political pressure rather than stand firm
in your convictions and do what is best for the majority, the residents of
Sincerely,
Kirsten Griebel
cc:
Sue Bednarcyk, Carol Cole, Mark Drake, Ernest Gardow, Charles Houlihan, Ferg Jansen, Brad
Mead, Greg Piecuch
URGENT – Planning Commission draft
POCD revision news
Monday, December 18, 2006
SHARE NEWSFLASH: URGENT -
ALTHOUGH OVER 2200 SIMSBURY CITIZENS SIGNED A PETITION SEEKING SQUARE FOOTAGE
LIMITATIONS ON SINGLE-USE RETAILERS, ABSENT A DIRECT CURB CUT TO ROUTE 44, THE
SIMSBURY PLANNING COMMISSION’S PROPOSED PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
(WHICH ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THESE LIMITATIONS) HAS REMOVED
THESE SPECIFIC NUMERIC PROTECTIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY. APPARENTLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECIDED
THAT THE VOICES OF THE VERY FEW SHOULD OVERRIDE THE VOICES OF THE MAJORITY.
This past Tuesday, December 12th, at
the Planning Commission's (PC) meeting, the PC board had discussions regarding
the feedback they had received from the public hearings on the town Plan of
Conservation and Development. They handed out copies of suggested revisions to
the POCD many of which affect Route 10 parcels including parcels at the North
End of town (Northern Gateway) and also the CL&P parcel (or as it is
referred to in the Plan, the Southern Gateway). Despite hearing from a very
large number of residents during the public hearings that the Plan should
remain as written with retail size limits intact, the newest revisions remove
those important details from the Plan.
During these meetings, the PC was also made aware of the over 2200
signatures obtained from town residents calling for a size limit on new retail
development in Simsbury beyond Route 44.
Also removed from the Plan are a variety of other metrics including
those governing greenbelts that set development back from roadways to prevent
construction from being too close to roads and obstructing scenic vistas. We have attached the pertinent pages for your
information and review.
The Planning Commission will be meeting this Tuesday,
December 19th at 7 pm at Simsbury Town Hall to continue their discussions about these revisions.
While there is no opportunity for public comment at their next meeting, we
would urge you to try to attend the meeting in order to listen to their
discussions and to show, by your presence, your support for the original plan
and the vision that it had defined for our town for the next ten years. We continue to believe that having specific
metrics in the Plan helps to better articulate boundaries between what is
responsible development versus what is development for development’s sake.
Thank you for your ongoing support.
Your SHARE Steering Committee
Links to the POCD revision Documents: Part-1 and Part-2
Public Hearing Broadcast on SCTV
throughout December
What The recent Public Hearings
before the Planning Commission regarding the draft 2007 Plan of Conservation
and Development will be broadcast throughout the month of December on SCTV
(Cable Channel 21), Each Wednesday at 12 noon and 7PM. All three meetings will
be broadcast back-to-back.
- The Meeting held on Monday November 27th at
- The Meeting held on Wednesday November 29th at
- The Meeting held on Thursday November 30th at
What: The
Public Hearings before the Planning Commission regarding the draft 2007 Plan of
Conservation and Development broadcast on SCTV
When: Each
Wednesday in December at 12 noon and 7pm
Where: SCTV
Cable Channel 21
December 4 2006
What a sense of town spirit I witnessed recently when the
At issue is the potential development of big-box stores on Route 10 at the
southern entrance to
I attended, along with hundreds of other
Mr. Dunny Barney, chairman of the zoning commission, seems to not believe that
there are many residents who feel the same way I do, not to mention that SHARE
has over 2,300 members so far.
I urge you all to become vocal and show the
Meghan Lucker,
Draft 2007 Plan of Conservation and
Development (POCD) – Now available
After years of work, the draft of
the 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development has been completed by our Town
Planning Commission. It is available on the Town of
We’re continuing to collect petition
signatures
We are continuing to collect signatures for our new petition prohibiting
the Town Zoning Commission to amend the current zoning regulations to include
language which would allow Konvover to build their big
box development on either the CL&P land or the land near the skating
center. If you have already signed the petition, we thank you for your support.
Please make sure that all members of your family who are registered voters have
also signed the petition.
Even if you have signed our first petition (prior to
August 1, 2006), or signed up for our mailing list we still need your signature
for this petition, as all signatures will be presented to our Elected
Officials.
To sign the petition, please <<click
here>>
Thank you for your support.
Follow up – Re: The Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Dear
Here is a long email… please stick with us and read it through.
We’d like to follow
up on last Monday night’s public hearing regarding the Zoning Commission’s
amendments to the Town Zoning Regulations. <<Click here to read more>>
Zoning Proposal Stirs Heated Debate
By Diane Struzzi, Hartford Courant - October 17 2006
The public hearing at Eno Memorial Hall drew more than 100 and became
contentious at times, as residents tried to speak over the three-minute limit
set by the zoning commission. They voiced their opposition to big-box retailers
and said they feared losing the bucolic character of
River Oaks: Big Change Or Big Box?
Rick Green, Hartford
Courant - September 26 2006
If somebody mentions "new urbanism" or "smart growth"
again, I'm going to spit up my double cap decaf latte.
What about developers who just do the right thing - who think about traffic and
congestion and the values of a community at the same time they think about
lining their pockets?
<<Click here to read more>>
Proposed Zoning Revision Prompts
Big-Box Fears
Diane Struzzi, Hartford Courant - September 20 2006
SIMSBURY -- A proposed change to the town's zoning regulations that supports
mixed-use development has spurred concern among a homeowners' organization
opposed to big-box retail developments. <<Click here to read more>>
Reality Of
Big Boxes
In “A Kinder,
Gentler Big Box?”
[July 23, Place Section], columnist Tom Condon asks, “Can a big box be part of
an appealing mixed-use development?” There are two answers: a theoretical
“maybe”, but a realistic “no.” <<Click here to read more>>
Highway to the Danger Zone
The battle over River Oaks, a
big-box development in
Nathan
Conz, The
Monday night, there was an elephant in the room at a special
meeting of the Simsbury Zoning Commission.
That elephant was the pending creation of River Oaks, a
mixed-use, big-box development planned by Konover Development Corporation on
land off
A large, vocal citizens group,
Simsbury Homeowners Advocating Responsible Expansion (SHARE), opposes the
development and, on Monday, they joined Zoning Commission members, a handful of
other town officials and one devilishly handsome reporter to fill a conference
room. <<Click here to read more>>
The Myth Of Big Bucks And Big Box
Developments
Tom Sevigny,
Hartford Courant - July 23 2006
I recently had the pleasure
of attending a SHARE (Simsbury Homeowners Advocating Responsible Expansion)
sponsored forum on River Oaks, the proposed big box development - or should I
say lifestyle center - on Route 10. <<Click here to read more>>