|
RECENT as of 4–22–2007 |
|
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
Food For Thought – SHARE wants to say one thing
about the reduced tax relief package for seniors. We understand the concerns of
The March 13th
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission (PC) once again
addressed the Northern and Southern Gateway Special Areas section of the town
Plan of Conservation and Development. Discussion focused on yet another
revision that included what SHARE believes to be critical language that would
include the use of specific standards to describe the expected outcome for a
mixed-use development on either end of Route 10. During the course of the three hour meeting,
there was no change in the commissioners’ opinions of this debate.
Firmly planted on the side of the majority of
Simsbury residents who believe the Plan should contain specific language to
ensure the appropriate development of the two gateways are Commissioners
Bednarcyk (R), Drake (R), Gardow (R), Loomis (R), and Mead (R). The three commissioners opposed to listening
to, and respecting the will of the residents, are Commissioners Houlihan (D),
Jansen (D) and Piecuch (R). Commissioner Cole (D) was absent. Although this clearly shows a majority
approval for specific language in the Plan, Commissioners Drake and Mead are
alternates and therefore do not have an opportunity to vote on the issue except
in the absence of a regular commissioner.
It is unfortunate that the Plan, already three
years overdue, continues to be held up by a minority of commissioners on the PC
– a minority that does not seem to be listening to the voices of
What Would Be The
Impact on Police Activity at River Oaks?
SHARE believes this is an important issue and is clearly one
that we all are concerned with.
Obviously, until a development is built we won’t know the true direct
impact on crime and other police activity.
However we can extrapolate statistics from similar developments. Recently SHARE obtained a report of
The
By now we’re sure you have reviewed Konover’s glossy River
Oaks brochure that was sent to everyone’s home.
In a future email we will write about this brochure in more detail. However, for now, we would like to ask you to
email us your comments. The brochure has
7 quotes from people who favor River Oaks.
We would like to publish in a future email quotes from SHARE members
with their thoughts about River Oaks and what they see in this brochure. If you don’t want your name published with
your quote then please tell us or if you do, please tell us that too (if you
don’t specify we will not publish your name).
Conclusion
We’ve taken up enough of your time for now and your eyes are
probably weary. In future emails we will
cover more topics. We hope this type of
email with a variety of items is of interest to you.
If you are interested in reading about how other
‘SHARE-like’ groups in other towns are dealing with issues similar to those in
http://www.ccwatertown.com
(Konover is trying to develop Big-Box there too)
http://www.ctsmartgrowth.com/frontPage.do
http://www.staffordfirst.org/ (Konover
tried to develop a Big-Box store there too)
As always, we ask that you write letters to our public
officials expressing your opinion. Don’t
forget to send copies of all your letters to the Simsbury Town Clerk so they
become part of the public record. Also,
please feel free to email SHARE with any questions or comments. You can reply to this email if you want or
send an email to newsflash@sharesimsbury.com.
Please support SHARE by telling your friends and neighbors
to join SHARE. They can join through the
www.sharesimsbury.com website. Ask everyone you know to support SHARE and
register on our website.
We look forward to seeing you at our upcoming public
meetings. We’ll be back to you soon with
another email.
Your
Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
Town planners and developers: How close is too close?
By Tiffany Aron - Record-Journal (
That's the question being posed by a group of homeowners from
Like
If built, the approximately 500,000 square feet of retail and
500,000 square feet of residential or light office space would make the $180
million River Oaks the seventh largest development in the state, according to
the Hartford Business Journal.
A group of
The former chairman of
Commissioner Patricia Askham's husband, Peter, is a CPA at the
accounting firm Kostin, Ruffkiss
& Co. LLC, which has done work for Konover. In his biography on the firm's
Web site, Peter Askham lists his 26 years of experience working with
construction companies first.
Commissioner Louis Donofrio is an attorney at Reid and Riege, a law firm that has also done work for Konover.
Donofrio is also a member of the Connecticut Partnership for Balanced Growth
Inc., established in 2002. The president of that organization's board of
directors is Konover President and CEO Michael Goman.
Since these affiliations were uncovered, Bradley has resigned
from
Voelker's memberships
What any of this has to do with
He is a member of the American Planning Association and the
American Institute of Certified Planners, but Voelker is also a 10-year member
of the International Council of Shopping Centers and last year was named
co-chairman of the shopping center council's Eastern Division Alliance.
In addition, Voelker is a member of the Connecticut Developers Council
and sits on the advisory board of the Connecticut Partnership for Balanced
Growth, with Goman as the board president. Out of the 12 people on that
organization's board of directors and advisory board, many of whom are
attorneys and executives from private companies, Voelker appears to be the only
public official.
In 2002, he was awarded the Connecticut Dream Award from the
Homebuilder's Association of Connecticut, given to public servants for
professional contributions to the home building industry.
David Cadden, a management professor
at the
S. R. Weiner and Associates Inc., the developer trying to build
a retail and residential "lifestyle center" in Cheshire, is also a
member of the shopping center council, as is Goman, who is the council's
Government Relations Committee chairman.
The Cheshire Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to meet
Monday at Town Hall to consider an amendment to its Plan of Conservation and
Development that would allow for the largely retail-based "lifestyle
center.
"A benefit to the
town"
In his letter, Voelker writes that the shopping center's
Alliance Program was established to "explore ways to encourage public
officials to become familiar with the intricacies of the shopping center
industry and to initiate dialogue and develop working relationships between
developers, retailers, brokers, lenders and local government officials."
Voelker further writes that his membership on the council has been "very
beneficial to my professional development" and has given him "a body
of knowledge and expertise that could not be obtained anywhere else."
He concludes by stating that the PZC in
A representative from the council's
Voelker sent his letter of explanation to Milone
after Milone asked him to explain more about the
shopping center council and the role of the organization's public-sector
members. Milone forwarded Voelker's
explanation to members of
Democratic Town Councilor Diane Visconti
said that raising the question of balance was fine, so long as it was done
"out in the open" and in a manner that protects people's reputations.
She had confidence that Milone had "completely
vetted" Voelker when he hired him.
Milone, in fact, states in a letter that
Voelker listed his participation in the shopping center council and other
professional organizations when he applied for the planning position in
Is the playing field
level?
John Lucker, a member of SHARE, disagrees.
"Is the town (
What Lucker said SHARE is trying to do in
Cadden, the management professor from
Quinnipiac, said that it may be a common practice to have town officials on
such development-friendly boards and commissions if the town in question is
pro-development. Also a 15-year resident of
taron@record-journal.com (203) 317-2214
Copyright, © All Rights Reserved.
People, Prosperity, and Place – Forum
Thursday April 5th, 2007
7-8:30pm, Eno Memorial Hall
The
Citizens Network of the Capital Region, in collaboration with a variety of
regional organizations is promoting a series of forums to educate people about
a new initiative called
People, Prosperity, and Place.
The goals
of this initiative is to promote public awareness and understanding of the
importance of having the communities of the region collaborate in addressing
issues of importance to the region.
People, Place and Prosperity will be coming to
The only
way we are going to deal with sprawl is if our communities begin to cooperate
regionally, therefore, I urge everyone to attend one of the below forums. To RSVP or to find out more information,
please go to http://www.peopleprosperityplace.org
SHARE NewsFlash: Summary of the 2/13 Planning Commission Meeting
This past
Tues., 2/13 the Planning Commission met to discuss the Special Areas, Southern
Gateway section of the Plan of Conservation and Development. SHARE had
submitted a proposal for the Southern Gateway Desirable Performance Objectives
for the mixed use development option for the CL&P property. The SHARE
recommendations included the use of ratios to set parameters for building and
street size and the requirement of a greenbelt the width of a regulation soccer
field extending the length of the entire CL&P parcel. SHARE believes that
specific language is necessary in a form based Plan in order to achieve a
successful outcome for a mixed use development.
Design
Review Board Chairman Dahlquist, who, over the past few years, has worked
extensively with the Planning Commission, sharing his knowledge and expertise
of form based approach as it applies to the drafting of the Plan, also
submitted a proposal. Mr. Dahlquist proposed designating both the Southern and
the Northern Gateways as "village districts" and establishing
"character" guidelines for each Gateway. This includes the use of
mixed use percentages, ratios and a defined greenbelt or central green in the
Gateways. The SHARE Steering Committee believes this proposal would provide the
residents, the landowners, the developers and the town with a proactive Plan
that promotes smart growth and responsible development for
However,
in listening to the commissioners speak at last Tuesdays meeting there has been
fundamentally no change in the commissioners' positions since the last meeting
regarding the inclusion of specific standards or metrics in the Plan. While
there was no vote on the Special Areas section Tues. night, the commissioners
each spoke articulating their thoughts on the issue and here is how we
interpreted their remarks. Chairman Loomis, Commissioner Bednarcyk,
Commissioner Gardow, Commissioner Mead (alternate), Commissioner Drake (alternate)
and Commissioner Cole (alternate) all embraced specific language for the Plan.
Commissioner Piecuch, Commissioner Houlihan and Commissioner Jansen were
adamant in their opposition to specific language in the Plan although their
rationale differs. Commissioners
Houlihan and Jansen oppose placing any limits on developers while Commissioner
Piecuch now insists on two points: (1)
Planning Commissioners are not competent to articulate specific standards for
future development, and (2) it is more important to adopt a POCD consistent
with the wishes of the Zoning Commission than to adopt a plan consistent with
the widely acknowledged wishes of the residents. This results
in the continuation of a stalemate, a three - three split on how to best define
the desirable performance objectives for a mixed-use development on the
CL&P property.
Because
the Planning Commission continues to be deadlocked on the Special Areas section
of the Plan, the completion of the new Plan is now delayed further, probably
for at least another three months. Therefore, Konover's pending application for
River Oaks, will most likely be reviewed under the
guidelines of the now outdated town Plan, which does not contain an alternative
mixed use option for the CL&P parcel. It is our understanding that if
Konover submits a proposal before the new Plan is voted in, they will need to
request a zone change and will submit a zoning amendment for a mixed use zone
for the CL&P parcel. Konover will still need to go before the Design Review
Board, the Planning Commission and for the final approval, the Zoning
Commission.
The
discussion and vote on the Special Areas section of the Plan will be continued
at a later meeting probably in early March. We will let you know when and where
the meeting will be once we have that information. In the meantime we will
continue to keep you up to date about important meetings and events as we hear
about them. Thank you for your continued interest and support.
Your
devoted SHARE Steering Committee
CT Smart Growth – Konover co-opts New Urbanism
http://www.ctsmartgrowth.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=80CDAED10746A1F6374D93138EDB92FC?diaryId=21
by: commonweal
Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:46:04 AM EST
Imagine my
surprise when I picked up my copy of the Tri-Town Post today and read that
Konover has embraced New Urbanism.
According to their PR people, the River Oaks design is part of a development
trend called New Urbanism. "The
mixed use design concept is a traditional neighborhood," stated senior Konover VP Stan Glantz. "It is
a return to the 1890s when people walked to the store. It is very much a return to the days of the
early stages of the automobile."
Being a
historian, I don't recall 100,000 sq. ft. Target box stores in the 1890s. Also, does Target know that only people
within walking distance will be going to their store? If that is the case, why is
Konover and the DOT looking to widen Route 10 to accomodate
the increase in
Let me be
very clear about this. Konover's sudden
embracement of New Urbanism is strictly a PR move to get their River Oaks
project approved. Check out the principles
of New Urbanism and tell me if any of them encourage the development of big box
stores, large asphalt parking lots, or the widening of roads to accomodate the influx of increased traffic. Furthermore, how does a 100,000 sq. ft.
Target meet the goal of "Human scale architecture & beautiful
surroundings that nourish the human spirit"?
River Oaks
will not be a traditional mixed use neighborhood. It is a large, big box commercial development
dressed up with a sprinkling of condos and apartments. The developers of the Shoppes in
I hope
Stay tuned
for more and make sure to bring your boots -- I am sure the PR rhetoric is
going to get very deep.
Nightmare on
This SHARE News Flash is a must read!!!
As Joni Mitchell once wrote in the famous song Big Yellow Taxi:
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put in a parking lot
Your SHARE Steering Committee urgently wanted to
bring to your attention the latest information, we have obtained, because we
feel that this is one of the most startling and disturbing documents we have
obtained to date.
The information contained in this News
Flash, the documents in the attached PDF file and the details in the full
document on the SHARE website reveals that Konover Development may not have
been forthcoming with our town so far with regards to the massive plans they
have for River Oaks. In fact, based on
the attached document, Konover plans to build out River Oaks to include nearly
1 million square feet of various types of structures. This would make River Oaks one of the largest
developments in
The attached document can also be
downloaded at:
http://www.sharesimsbury.com/Docs/DOT/DOT_FOI_Newsflash.pdf
The Full document can also be
downloaded at:
http://www.sharesimsbury.com/Docs/DOT/DOT_FOI_News_Flash-Full_File.pdf
The attached PDF file is a portion of a document we obtained
from a Freedom of Information Act request from the Connecticut Department of
Transportation (DOT). We had suspected
that Konover Development had discussed alterations to Route 10 with the DOT for
some time and our instincts held true.
Please take a few minutes to look through this document to see what
Konover Development has in mind for the Southeastern Gateway to
Here are a few preliminary comments we would like to
make based on our review of these documents:
- Konover
has said for 1.5 years that they had planned about 200,000+ square feet of
retail plus some offices and residential buildings. In general their plans
for the amount of square footage being contemplated was fuzzy. It was hard to interpret their plans
based on the watercolor pictures in the River Oaks brochure that was sent
to all residents and the vague language in the text. However, as you can see from the chart
on the fourth page of the attachment, these plans call for about 444,000
square feet of retail, 268,000 square feet of offices, 30,000 feet of
motel, 26,000 square feet of high turnover restaurant, and about 250,000
square feet of various forms of residential units comprised of 329
individual dwellings (we used an average unit size for all residential
units of 750 square feet so all the residential numbers in the table are
multiplied by 0.75 for our calculations).
- We
can’t even begin to imagine the gridlock that this proposed traffic
configuration will create for our town.
Can you imagine the current traffic load on Route 10 plus the
additional load due to an additional 1,000,000 square feet of
buildings? The traffic volumes
listed on the fourth page of the attachment appear to be significantly
lower than the estimates we have obtained from another traffic
consultant. One point that supports
the assertion that these numbers may be flawed is the difference in the
numbers on Konover’s chart between the non-Christmas Season and Christmas
Season traffic for the Big Box – a difference of only a few hundred cars a
day during
- Our research shows
that the Konover traffic volumes indicated on page four of the document
are markedly lower than other traffic volume studies we have seen. There are numerous references for
Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA) and the most used reference is the Institute
for Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. One academic website we found with some
interesting information is located at:
http://www.lic.wisc.edu/shapingdane/facilitation/all_resources/impacts/analysis_traffic.htm
which lists several tables of traffic volumes. From this reference, just the 316,000 square
foot Shopping Center listed on the table on page 4 of the Konover document is
expected to generate an average number of daily trips in a range from 12 to 270
daily trips per 1000 square feet. Even if
we use the minimum number in this range, this results in 12 * 316 = 3792 trips
per day. This number is 1730 trips per
day higher than the Christmas peak number of 2062 in the Konover study. This number is approximately equal to
Konover’s estimate of the total number of car trips for the entire development
on a peak Christmas Saturday. In short,
we have significant questions regarding Konover’s traffic volume numbers.
- We
believe that it is essential for the town to require Konover to reimburse
the Town of
- Konover’s
prior claims that the traffic impact of River Oaks will be minimal are
absurd. Remember, the entire reason
these types of developments are built is to generate traffic. Why would a retailer want to locate
their super-store in a development with minimal traffic? We believe Konover’s claims about
manageable traffic volumes cannot possibly be valid.
- The
maps and drawings of the alterations to Route 10 are horrific. Can you imagine what it would be like to
enter or leave our town on Route 10 with a development of this size, with
traffic volumes of this magnitude, and with Route 10 configured in this
fashion? We have heard from most of
you that you want Route 10 to stay a two lane road but we assume that also
means a two lane road without numerous traffic circles, without five curb
cuts and without other traffic slowing obstacles. Since there are very few traffic circles
in
- Notice
that much of the parking for the development is practically right on Route
10. There is no wide greenbelt
separating the roadway from the parking lot. Given this diagram we don’t see how there
could be the types of roadside greenery, stone walls, trees, and walkways
envisioned in Konover’s watercolors.
This is why SHARE has been strongly advocating that a wide
greenbelt be specified in the Plan of Conservation and Development for any
development on the property. As you
drive down Route 10 as envisioned here, all you will see are acres and
acres of parking lots – the worse kind of sprawl imaginable!
- The
information revealed in this document absolutely reinforces the necessity
of having specific numbers and metrics in the town’s new Plan of
Conservation and Development, Special Areas, Southern Gateway. Please remember to support SHARE’s
proposal for specificity in the Plan by attending the
upcoming Planning Commission meeting on February 13th at 7:30
PM (location to be announced soon). You should also send your own letters voicing concern
and support for specific size metrics in the Plan of Conservation and
Development. Your letters must be received at
town hall no later than February 7th. Send your letters to Hiram Peck,
Rarely do we find ourselves speechless. As your volunteer advocates for responsible
expansion in
As we’ve said before, the most effective way to get our elected and appointed town
officials to stop and listen is for you to call, write, and speak to them. So we encourage you to do just that. You can find the phone numbers, addresses,
and email addresses of all elected and appointed officials at the www.sharesimsbury.com website (click
on the Contact Town Officials box on the left of the main page).
Contact any and all of our elected officials and tell them what you
think of this.
Finally, please, please, please continue to speak out.
Your voice is all you have here. You will
not get to vote on this issue. Please realize that – again, you will not get
to vote on this issue – it is not the way the legal process works for this type
of development. Whether or not River
Oaks is built to forever change the quality of life in
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
P.S. - We need funds to help pay for SHARE’s activities and
research. Please send your donations to
SHARE,
P.P.S. - The attached document is a 6 page abbreviated
version of the full DOT document that SHARE obtained. For those who want to read the full
document with all the traffic factors and statistics, it is available at:
http://www.sharesimsbury.com/Docs/DOT/DOT_FOI_News_Flash-Full_File.pdf
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>>