|
RECENT as of 4-2-2010 |
|
Email to the Simsbury Zoning
Commission from SHARE President
So what were those 18 letters
to the Zoning Commission supporting the PAD?
Sent: Thursday, April 01,
2010 5:48 PM
To: JGallagher@simsbury-ct.gov; SBarnett@simsbury-ct.gov;
BElliott@simsbury-ct.gov; EPabich@simsbury-ct.gov; ASalls@simsbury-ct.gov;
JVaughn@simsbury-ct.gov; MGilkey@simsbury-ct.gov; RPomeroy@simsbury-ct.gov;
DRyan@simsbury-ct.gov
Cc: mglassman@simsbury-ct.gov; hpeck@simsbury-ct.gov;
rdecrescenzo@uks.com
Subject: So what were those 18 letters to the Zoning Commission
supporting the PAD?
Dear Simsbury Zoning
Commissioners:
At the recent March 15, 2010
Zoning Commission Public Hearing regarding the PAD draft language, the
Commission reported publicly that it had received 18 written letters in support
of the PAD draft language.
I wanted to write to you as a
concerned citizen because I felt the mention of these letters without specific
supporting explanation to be at best imprecise and at worse misleading. I went to Town Hall and reviewed these
letters. I wanted to document my
findings:
1)
Letter
specifically to Amy Salls from TJ Donohue – in this letter Mr. Donohue was
specifically targeting Ms. Salls encouraging her to vote for the PAD language
as drafted. It is widely known that
Attorney Donohue represents many landowners and developers and that his
advocacy for such issues as the PAD are for hire. I believe Attorney Donohue may also have
family that owns property in a Town area that would benefit from a PAD.
2)
Letter to the ZC
from Mike Paine – Mr. Paine is a Planning Commissioner. In my opinion, it is improper for a voting
member of a land use commission to individually advocate for an issue like
this. Mr. Paine had his opportunity to
express his support of the PAD as a seated Planning Commissioner and Chairman
Loomis spoke to the ZC that night on behalf of the Planning Commission. I assume people also know that Mr. Paine is a
Director Emeriti of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce?
3)
Letter to the ZC
from Dyno Nobel – Dyno Nobel is a large landowner in Town and is entitled to
express their opinion
4)
Letter to the ZC
from Gerard Toner – Mr. Toner is a resident and is entitled to express his
opinion. I assume it is widely known
that Mr. Toner is the Director of Parks and Recreation for the Town of
Simsbury? Mr. Toner is also listed as a Board Member of the Simsbury Chamber of
Commerce.
5)
Letter to the ZC
from Ferg Jansen - Mr. Jansen is a Planning Commissioner. In my opinion, it is improper for a voting
member of a land use commission to individually advocate for an issue like
this. Mr. Jansen had his opportunity to
express his support of the PAD as a seated Planning Commissioner and Chairman
Loomis spoke to the ZC that night on behalf of the Planning Commission. To me, the irony in Mr. Jansen’s letter is
that he cites “the much heralded 2007 Plan of Conservation & Development” –
the irony being that Mr. Jansen voted “NO” in the approval vote of the
POCD. As I recall he was one of two NO
votes despite the multiple years of effort by the Planning Commission to draft
and create the POCD. I assume people
also know that Mr. Jansen is a Director Emeriti of the Simsbury Chamber of
Commerce?
6)
Letter to Hiram
Peck from a woman who’s name I can’t make out in the document – she is a
citizen and is entitled to express her opinion.
However an important caveat in her letter states “as long as it [the
PAD] does not taint or tarnish the charm and aesthetics of the Town”.
7)
Letter to Hiram
Peck from Charity Folk, Executive Director, of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce
– the Chamber’s advocacy for the PAD is unambiguous as they have been very
vocal supporting the PAD
8)
Letter to the ZC
from Michael Girard of Girard Brother Corporation – Mr. Girard is a landowner
and resident and is entitled to express his opinion. I assume everyone knows that his wife is
Charity Folk, Executive Director of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce? I assume people also know that Mr. Girard is
a Director Emeriti of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce?
9)
Letter to the ZC
from Rick Wagner of Simsbury North LLC – Mr. Wagner is a landowner and resident
and is entitled to express his opinion.
I assume people also know that Mr. Wagner is on the Board of the
Simsbury Chamber of Commerce?
10) Letter to the ZC from Pamela Bowman, President
of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce – I believe Ms. Bowman is not a resident of
Simsbury but is a Simsbury business owner and she is the President of
the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce.
11) Letter to the ZC from Pamela Lacko, President
of Smart Clicks LLC – Ms. Lacko is a resident and Simsbury business owner and
is entitled to express her opinion. I
assume people know that Ms. Lacko is also on the Board of the Simsbury Chamber
of Commerce?
12) Letter to the ZC from Jeff Euting of
Stewardship Capital Ltd - Mr. Euting is a resident and Simsbury business owner
and is entitled to express his opinion.
I assume people know that Mr. Euting is also on the Board of the
Simsbury Chamber of Commerce?
13) Letter
to the ZC from Nick Mason – Mr. Mason is a resident and Simsbury business owner
and is entitled to express his opinion.
However I wonder if Mr. Mason’s position on the Simsbury Board of
Finance is similar to what I say above for Planning Commissioners? Also, I assume people know that Mr. Mason’s
wife Connie is the Immediate Past President of the Simsbury Chamber of
Commerce?
14) Letter to the ZC from George Rafael of the
Connecticut Home Builders Association – this letter is self explanatory
15) Letter
to the ZC from Ramon Padron of Prudential Connecticut Realty – Mr. Padron is a
resident and local real estate agent and is entitled to express his opinion.
16) Letter to the ZC from Betty Fiora – Ms. Fiora
is a resident and landowner who was involved with the development of the
Hoffman Property in recent years and she is entitled to express her opinion.
17) Letter to the ZC from Robert Rossetti of the
Homes Company of Simsbury – Mr. Rosseti is a resident and Simsbury business
owner and is entitled to express his opinion.
I wasn’t able to find an 18th
letter but perhaps I miscounted or I wasn’t distinguishing one of the documents
at Town Hall correctly.
I also find it striking that
the PAD Subcommittee had 9 members and 4 of them did not vote in favor of the
work product of the Subcommittee and the Minority Report that was drafted and
signed by the 4 dissenting members/voters.
This was certainly not a strong endorsement of the Subcommittee’s work
product. In fact, it was a one vote
majority.
I also note that one of the
speakers at the meeting who spoke in favor of the PAD was Chip Houlihan who is
a member of the Planning Commission. The
same comments I made above for Mr. Paine and Mr. Jansen apply here as well. Also, is Mr. Houlihan an active officer of
the Government Affairs Committee of the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce?
In conclusion, I will leave it
to you as the reader of this email to determine how many independent people or
entities actually wrote those 17 letters.
Contrast this with the many opposing views against the current PAD
draft expressed live as speakers at the March 15th meeting -
most of those dissenting speakers are independent citizens to the best of my
knowledge.
Respectfully,
John Lucker
A Sleeping Giant – the PAD Zoning
Regulation
Public Hearing on
Planned Area Development (PAD) Zoning
Regulation
Monday March 15th –
We need all SHARE members to understand this
issue and make a difference.
A Planned Area Development (PAD) Regulation
is VERY CLOSE to being passed…
As written, it is a regulation that allows DEVELOPERS
to decide how THEY want Simsbury to grow, while we as a community risk
standing on the sidelines hoping that our elected Zoning Commissioners, without
having the proper tools to judge, will “know it when they see it” – Good vs.
Bad Development…
As written, it is a regulation that is
devoid of standards and boundaries for decision making…
Please attend the Public Hearing and let
our Zoning Commissioners know that WE, THE RESIDENTS,
want regulations that produce outcomes desirable to us and that adhere to our
adopted Plan of Conservation and Development and are consistent with the recent
Town Survey!
“The
expectations of life depend upon diligence; the mechanic that would perfect his
work must first sharpen his tools.” – Confucius
Fellow residents and SHARE members:
Trouble is brewing again in
- A
Planned Area Development (PAD) is a mixed-use development. Your SHARE Steering Committee
conceptually is in favor of mixed-use developments. If done well and done in the right place
with the right parameters and guidelines, such developments could be quite
compatible with our town. But there
must be rigid guidelines and metrics in PAD regulations to prevent
developments like River Oaks to be built in
- It appears that since the defeat of the River Oaks proposal, a small number of people in our town and developers seem determined to enable large scale development another way. That is through the passage of zoning regulations that are so non-specific and vague and devoid of metrics that virtually any development could be allowed. The PAD zoning regulation proceeding through the approval process is just such a regulation. It is a drop-in zone and also a zone-free-zone.
- In short, the draft PAD zoning regulation does not have specific development guidelines in it. The language is vague and imprecise. It is ironic that the Zoning Commission is crafting such a regulation because when the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) was being drafted several years ago, SHARE and many residents were outspoken to get metrics into the POCD but the Planning Commission and some politicians and business groups insisted not to have metrics in the POCD because they said such precision belongs in the resulting zoning regulations. So here we are, down the road a few years, and now the Zoning Commission is putting forward for a Public Hearing a draft PAD regulation devoid of precision and metrics! If passed this will be great for developers but bad for the Town.
- Several constituencies in town have pushed our elected officials and commissioners to quietly move this zoning regulation through the process. Over the past few months, various SHARE Steering Committee members have been working to expose the problems in the PAD draft regulations.
- We admit that this is a fuzzier issue than the Big Box issue. There is no gigantic mall proposal like River Oaks being discussed - yet. Rather, to the untrained eye, it’s just some tedious zoning regulation. But that zoning language could facilitate the proposal for another gigantic mall by some developer. And next time, we residents may have a lot less say in the matter if the PAD zoning regulation says it’s OK.
We need you, SHARE members, to please read the attached materials to get better informed on what’s going on here. Because this could be very bad for our town.
And please put on your calendar the March 15th
date at
Please please please take the time to read about all this.
And please be prepared to speak your mind about this issue at the public meeting.
Here are descriptions of the attached material for you to read:
- Attached
Speech by our SHARE President at the Board of Selectman meeting –
- Attached
Speech by our SHARE President at the Board of Selectman meeting –
- Attached
Draft Planned Area Development (PAD) Zoning Regulation to be discussed at
- Attached Letter Prepared as a Minority Dissenting Report from the PAD Sub-Committee – “PAD SubCommittee Minority Report July 27 2009.pdf”
Thanks for reading all this.
Reminder:
To make democracy work, we must be a
nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no
right to complain. – Louis L’Amour
Reminder:
Polls are open Tuesday, November 3rd from
PLEASE
NOTE: The
ballot is two sided, so remember to turn the ballot over and vote on both
sides!!! This is VERY important!
With a low
voter turnout expected, every vote will count in this town election and the
results of the election will have a direct impact on your day-to-day life and
how our town continues to develop.
We want to
encourage all SHARE members to vote if they can. Remember, there is still
lots of land to develop in Simsbury in the North and South ends of town –
please don’t forget River Oaks and the Big Box – let’s never let something like
that happen again.
As
SHARE, we are unified in our objective to be sure that
SHARE
believes that the candidates from the Simsbury
Citizens First party are the most qualified and committed to the
responsible expansion principles that matter to SHARE.
We urge
you to vote the bottom line for the Simsbury
Citizens First slate of candidates as they are unified in their
approach to responsible development for our town.
Planning Commission: Sue Bednarcyk and Bill Walsh
Zoning Commission: Kirsten Griebel and Julie Meyer
Zoning Board of Appeals: Jay Bailey
Board of Selectman: John Romano and John Vaughn
Board of Finance: Bill Miller
Board of Education: Laura Swenson
But if you
decide to vote for other people too, please think about their history and
commitment to responsible development in
As always,
please feel free to reply to this email with any comments or feedback.
Sincerely,
Your
Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
The
“Simulated Election Candidate Interview” Edition 102709-46
“A lot of people have this strategy where if they have a hard
question they wait to ask it to the end of the interview because they think the
person is going to walk out. But what they have to realize is, is that if the
person walks out, they have a pretty successful story.” – Chuck
Klosterman
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be sure to vote in the
Please
don’t forget that the Southern and Northern Gateway properties still aren’t
developed. SHARE wants development to happen but we want it done
right. SHARE members must remain vigilant and we should only elect
candidates that we are confident will stand by SHARE’s principles of
responsible expansion and development and No Big Box. The economy will
improve, development will resume, and developers will return with their
ideas. We must be sure that
SHARE
believes that the candidates from the Simsbury Citizens First party are
the most qualified and in tune with the things that matter to SHARE.
In the 2007
municipal election SHARE worked to try and get specific responses from election
candidates for our questions. We had mixed success getting responses.
As a result for this 2009 municipal election cycle we have used the campaign
literature mailed to all of our homes, some other published materials and some
on-the-record public performances of the candidates as fodder for the following
simulated election candidate interview. While long, we hope this News
Flash serves to inform as well as entertain.
SHARE – Good Evening fellow
We’ll start
our question with some Republican candidates.
The first
question will go to Republican First Selectman candidate Darren Cunningham.
Darren, we
have two questions for you.
As First
Selectman you would be the CEO of the equivalent of a fairly sizable company –
the Town of
Faux
Darren Cunningham –
As I said, I served as an Assistant Attorney General for the past 7 years and
have learned a lot about government and its strengths, weaknesses and excesses.
SHARE – Yes, we read that but? Let
me ask you another question then. You face a formidable experienced
opponent with Mary Glassman. Darren, might you perhaps be running solely
to try and get enough votes as a First Selectman candidate so that if you don’t
win, you would get to serve as a Selectman anyway? And this might give
the Republicans a majority on the Board of Selectman? If you don’t win
but get enough votes to serve on the Board of Selectman, would you decline that
role since you really want to be First Selectman?
Faux
Darren Cunningham –
Um…
SHARE – Our next guest is Moira
Werthheimer, incumbent Republican candidate for the Board of Selectman.
Moira, during the last municipal election the Big Box controversy was swirling
through town. We don’t recall hearing you come right out and say that you
opposed Big Box development. We also don’t recall the Republican platform
saying that at all. Given that the Northern and Southern Gateway parcels
in
Faux
Moira Wertheimer –
Hmm…. Let me get back to you
SHARE – OK… we’ll wait for your
response. Next then we’ll move over to speak with Mike Goman, incumbent
candidate for the Board of Education. Mr. Goman, we’re surprised to still
see you active with the Board of Education after all that Big Box and River
Oaks stuff.
Faux
Mike Goman – Is
that a question?
SHARE – No it’s probably not. Let’s
move on. Next we’ll speak with John Loomis, incumbent Planning Commission
candidate currently serving as the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loomis,
we must ask you about the recent HARCO subdivision controversy on Route
10. As you know, HARCO is a subsidiary of The Hartford. We have
several questions for you. First, why did you not allow the public to
comment on the application before you when in memory, it’s the first time the
Planning Commission didn’t allow for public comment for a subdivision
application? We note this particularly since you didn’t allow abutting
neighbors in the condo complex next door to speak at all about their concerns
at the Planning Commission Meeting. You didn’t even allow the Farmington
River Watershed Association to speak to the Planning Commission about the FRWA’s
concerns for runoff into the river depending on how this property gets
developed. Again, why?
Faux
John Loomis – Can
you repeat the question?
SHARE – Never mind. Let’s move
on. Mr. Loomis, with the HARCO application you voted to approve the
application even though it did not conform with open space requirements and
setback frontage along Route 10 as specified in the 2007 Plan of Conservation
& Development which you personally spearheaded the creation of. Why
the sudden reversal in details and philosophies which you personally supported
and voted for?
Faux
John Loomis – I
voted to support the 2007 Plan of Conservation & Development???
SHARE – Next we’re going to digress a bit
and ask Democrat Planning Commissioners Chip Houlihan and Ferg Jansen why they
worked for several years as Planning Commissioners to help draft the 2007 Plan
of Conservation & Development but then when the document was complete they
voted to oppose its approval. We also wanted to know if this had anything
to do with the Big Box controversy that was raging at the time since the Plan
said that River Oaks was entirely inconsistent with the details of the
plan. Mr. Houlihan and Mr. Jansen, what say you on this? Were you
in favor of Big Box development?
Faux
Chip Houlihan and Faux Ferg Jansen
– You do realize that we remain on the Planning Commission and are not up for
election this year?
SHARE – Yes we realize that but we
couldn’t resist the question. We’ll repeat that question at the next
election.
A quick question
now for Mike Paine who is a Republican running for Planning Commission.
Mr. Paine, how will you reconcile your extensive business relationships with
the Town of
Faux
Mike Paine – Hmm…
SHARE – Moving on to the Zoning
Commission candidates we, as SHARE, realize we could spend a lot of time asking
questions, but we’ll be brief.
Our first
question is for incumbent Republican Zoning Commission chairman Dunny
Barney. Mr. Barney, we’ve noticed that you run a tight ship on the Zoning
Commission. During the Big Box controversy there were a number of
meetings where you pounded an imaginary gavel seemingly to not allow people to
speak their mind and let their voices be heard. You interrupted speakers,
talked over them, threatened to shut down meetings and provided people with
quite limited time to express themselves on a very important topic. It
also seemed like the developer, Mike Goman, and his attorney and company
employees had more opportunities to speak and be heard than the public.
Why was that?
Faux
Dunny Barney – As
someone said before, is that a question?
SHARE – Yes it is but we’ll move on
anyway. Next is Scott Barnett, incumbent Republican Zoning Commission
member. Mr. Barnett, this past summer you chaired a special zoning
commission subcommittee charged with drafting a PAD amendment to the Simsbury
Zoning Regulations.
As a result
of those meetings there were several committee members and resident observers
who formally complained about your disrespectful behavior towards some fellow
committee members and your apparent disinterest in their opposing points of
view. To your credit, you did apologize for these incidents. What
have you learned from this experience and how will you avoid this ”do as I say”
attitude in the future if re-elected?
Faux
Scott Barnett – You
ask tough questions.
SHARE – One more question that is important
to the nearly 4000 SHARE members. Mr. Barnett, on several occasions in
your capacity as a zoning commissioner, you seemed to take a “you’ll know it
when you see it” stand when it comes to including specificity and metrics in
zoning regulations. You did this again on the recent PAD subcommittee
which resulted in an unusual minority dissenting report being written and
issued by some committee members. Many in town, and SHARE specifically,
believes that the only way to be fair to land owners and developers is to be
specific and provide metrics and guidelines in zoning regulations that help
developers know what to do in Simsbury. Yet you time and again seem to
not support that. Why is that? How do you propose encouraging
responsible development if insufficient specificity is in our zoning
regulations?
Faux
Scott Barnett – Did
I do that? I’ll get back to you.
SHARE – We’re now going to switch our
questions over to Democrat candidates.
Mike Long,
you’re an incumbent Democrat candidate for Selectman. We couldn’t help
but notice that in one of your mailings you wrote about how you “Saw Simsbury
rated one of the Top 100 Best Places to Live in America” and you “Saw Simsbury
receive an A+ for Public Safety” and you “Saw Simsbury’s schools consistently
rated among the best in Connecticut”. Clearly we are all very proud of
our town; SHARE certainly is which is why we work so hard to try and keep it
the great town it is. However, Mr. Long, why would someone vote for you
for all that you “saw” versus all that you “did”? You also speak about
how you are part of a team on the Board of Selectman but to be elected we
wanted to understand what specific accomplishments you had during your previous
term versus what you “saw”. What do you have to say about this?
Faux
Mike Long – Wow,
that was a long multi-part question
SHARE – Yes sorry. What do you have
to say for answers?
Faux
Mike Long – Can you
repeat the questions?
SHARE – Mr. Long, one more thing before
we conclude with you. In the Simsbury Chamber of Commerce
Faux
Mike Long – Um… let
me think about that
SHARE – We next want to ask Nick Mason, a
Democrat incumbent candidate for the Board of Finance, a quick question.
Mr. Mason, in your recent mailing you said that one of your goals was to “adopt
a ‘mixed use’ zoning regulation”. We’re curious about that. First
of all, by mixed-use do you include Big Box like in River Oaks? What do
you mean by “mixed-use” and why is that an important goal of yours? Also,
as a Board of Finance member, you legally don’t have any involvement in zoning
issues at all so how do you have a goal to establish a particular zoning
regulation? We’re just curious about that.
Faux
Nick Mason – I’ll
get it done
SHARE – How? You would have no
authority.
Our last
question for the day is for Ed Pabich, a Republican candidate for the Zoning
Commission. Mr. Pabich, in your comments for the Simsbury Chamber of
Commerce’s
Faux Ed
Pabich – I’ll have
to look into that
SHARE – OK thank you. Well SHARE
members, we know this has been a long News Flash but we thank you for reading
this all the way through. We hope this has been useful in providing some
additional candidate background for your consideration.
As always
we welcome your thoughts, comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
The
“Get Ready for the Municipal Elections” Edition
“Let us not seek the Republican
answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. […] Let us accept our
own responsibility for the future.” – John F. Kennedy
SHARE believes that the candidates
from the Simsbury Citizens First
party are the most qualified and in tune with the things that matter to SHARE.
Please read on and you decide…
Four years ago
As a result of the
loud voice of nearly 4,000 SHARE members, and after two years of angst, rancor
and intrigue, the River Oaks proposal was defeated. One can only imagine what Simsbury would now
be like if that nearly one million square foot mixed-use mall was approved and
built at the southern entrance to our town – most Simsbury residents agree that
nothing good would have come of it.
From the
frustration of many citizens who wanted their voice heard by our town
government and who were weary of politics as usual, a third party emerged in
our town called Simsbury Citizens First or SCF.
Some members and non-members of SHARE became active with SCF and remain
so to this day. And new SCF members have
joined the party. SCF provides an
alternative point of view to that of the Republican and Democratic parties and
allows people to run for municipal office based on their qualifications and
passion to serve regardless of their political connections to the traditional
parties.
As we know, the
2007 municipal election was a lively time for
So why is the SHARE
Steering Committee sending you this email?
We are sending this because we feel as strongly today as we did in 2007,
that all
But our thinking
goes deeper. SHARE has always had a
laser focus on what candidates and parties say, how they say it, how they treat
residents who express opinions, and a candidate’s prior performance. And very importantly SHARE wants to hear and
see specific words and commitments, not fluffy stuff with vague comments designed
to avoid specifics rather than address questions and concerns from residents.
What we are seeing
from the Republican and Democrat candidates for town office is much more of the
same political rhetoric we have heard before.
We are also hearing and seeing SCF’s own catch phrases in the other
party’s campaign literature. The
Republicans and the Democrats are borrowing the ideas of Simsbury Citizens
First – how ironic.
The Democrat’s mail
literature talks about “sensible economic growth”.
The Republican’s
mail literature refers to a “commitment to spur economic development that
maintains the character of our town” and “responsible economic development”.
Do all these
phrases sound familiar? Sure they
do. They are the things that Simsbury
Citizens First has been advocating for since its inception in 2007.
But SCF goes much
further in its literature. We have
noticed that they actually provide specific objectives and their candidates
clearly articulate how they will bring these ideas to their service if they are
elected. And quite a few of their ideas
are topics of great interest to SHARE and SHARE’s objectives. Some of these objectives include:
- SCF candidates promise to “recruit
appropriate infill” for developed areas like the
- SCF candidates want to expand the town
referendum process “so that our citizens have a stronger voice and greater
impact on significant issues”.
- SCF candidates want to require zoning
applicants to “comply with all our regulations and not use the ZBA as a back
door to changes in zoning” which has repeatedly happened.
- SCF wants to work to overhaul zoning
regulations and adopt new models for mixed-use, smart growth development
[with] specific standards [that] reflect the 2007 Plan of Conservation and
Development”.
- SCF wants to make sure that land use
applications are “complete and accurate so our Commission can render
well-informed decisions”.
- SCF wants to have a mandatory public
audience at all town land use commission meetings and Board of Finance
meetings.
- SCF is pro-development but wants
specific metrics and standards enforced for all development including a
requirement for 20% open space for subdivisions.
- SCF wants a process to allow for town
referendums on topics of interest to the residents like land use and
economic development.
- SCF wants to promote more regional
land use and development cooperation through a more extensive town and
regional Charrette process.
And the full page
Simsbury Citizens First mailing that we just received on Wednesday October 21st
, in our opinion, should win the award for the best piece of
That’s what SHARE likes
to see… specific, detailed ideas, promises, metrics and objectives for how to
govern our town. New ideas. Fresh ideas.
Ideas that matter to SHARE. Ideas
that truly support responsible economic expansion.
And SHARE isn’t
alone in its view that Simsbury Citizens First has great ideas. Here’s what Rick Green from the Hartford
Courant had to say the other day (also attached):
http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2009/10/when-a-republican-and-a.html#
So SHARE thinks
that Simsbury Citizens First provides novel new ideas for how to improve our
town, specific goals and objectives that they have articulated and will work
towards, and a slate of extremely qualified candidates for Planning, Zoning,
Zoning Board of Appeals, Board of Selectman, Board of Finance, and Board of
Education.
For several years
SHARE has been pushing our town government and land use boards to govern
through specific metrics, goals, and standards.
In this election season we don’t see such specifics from the Republicans
or the Democrats but we do see them from Simsbury Citizens First.
We hope our point
of view provides you some insight. As
always we welcome your thoughts and feedback by replying to this email.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE
Steering Committee
67
Early thoughts on the Nov 2009 Municipal
Election
“We always hear about the rights of democracy, but the
major responsibility of it is participation” – Wynton Marsalis
The Executive Summary of this News Flash
If you can make it to only one meeting of the Simsbury
Town Center Charrette, the most important day is this Saturday, September 12th
starting at 8:30 am at the Simsbury Public Library Program Room on the ground
floor of the building (the meeting will go from 8:30-12:30 so if you can’t make
it right at 8:30, please come later). The charrette consultants
repeatedly emphasized at the pre-meetings that they would like all stakeholders
(residents, developers, business owners, land owners) to be there promptly at
Now,
please read on…
The
The
time has come for all interested SHARE members to provide their thoughts,
creativity and opinions to the Simsbury Town Center Charrette process. As
SHARE members and
However,
and also very importantly, much of what will be discussed can also apply to how
the Northern and Southern Gateways of Simsbury are developed in the
future. Let’s not forget the “River Oaks Experience” and assume that it
could never happen again. The zoning regulations that emerge from this
charrette process may be used in the future as the model and template for how
the Northern and Southern Gateway areas are regulated for future
development. So please pay close attention to the town center charrette -
good things that happen with it may be replicated elsewhere - and bad things
may haunt us in days to come when developers reemerge to develop along Route
10. Let’s all be sure that land along Route 10 develops responsibly.
As
we have emailed you over the past year or so, your SHARE Steering Committee has
been keeping a close eye on the various goings on in our town with regards to
development, land use regulation and future planning. We have not always
been pleased with all that has happened to date, including how some members of
the Planning and Zoning Commissions seem willing to allow developers to do as
they choose, without specifics or metrics and without correspondence to the
vision mandated by the Simsbury Plan of Conservation and Development.
We
are concerned that some “pro-development-at-all-costs” people are working hard
behind the scenes to try to make a disproportionate contribution to the
Charrette. We have seen this already with pre-meetings that have taken
place (other than an all inclusive pre-meeting there were 3 other pre-meetings
for business groups, developers, landowners and only 1 for residents and
resident groups). We have also seen this in some of the language from the
Town announcing the Charrette meetings where specific statements like “[it is]
important for [the] business community to attend and provide feedback” have
been made yet there is no mention that it is also important for residents to
attend. Perhaps we are reading more into this than we need to, but we
would have felt better if the language for the invitation was more inclusive of
residents.
So
please participate in the Simsbury Town Center Charrette by attending meetings
and giving your thoughts and opinions. Carpe Diem!
2009
With
the 2009
Sincerely,
Your
Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
************
Click
Here for a PDF of the Charrette Schedule
Saturday,
September 12th -
At
Simsbury Public Library Program Room – ground floor
"Hands
On Design Session" – Please arrive prior to
Monday,
September 14th -
At
Simsbury Public Library Program Room – ground floor
"Drop-In
Open House" – a presentation on the progress of the
Wednesday,
September 16th –
At
Simsbury Public Library Program Room – ground floor
Closing Presentation
with Concepts, Sketches, Visuals, Design, Q&A
Other
Events
Open
Design Studio – September 13-16 from
Community
members are encouraged to stop in daily to discuss and check on status of the
Charrette
Technical
Meetings – September 14-15 from 8:00 am to
One-on-one
or small group meetings as needed
For
further information, go to www.simsbury-ct.gov/charrette
“Failing
to plan is planning to fail” – Alan Lakein
At
long last, now is your time, as a SHARE member, to participate in the Charrette
that will help frame the vision for the
On
August 10th and 11th, consultants from Code Studio, the
firm hired to conduct the Town Center Charrette in September, will be in
As
part of this initial two day kick off, Code Studio has requested to meet with a
variety of interested stakeholders in a few small group sessions. One small group session will include ten (10)
residents from all parts of town and of different affiliations. The SHARE Steering Committee has been asked
to submit names of people who would be willing to participate in this session
with the consultants and so we are putting out a call to our members to ask
anyone interested to please contact us.
The
small group session will be held either on August 10th or 11th
during the day but the exact time and day will not be confirmed until next
week. So, if you are interested in
participating and have the flexibility in your schedule to attend a meeting on
one of those two days, please respond to Kirsten Griebel at kgriebel@sbcglobal.net by this
Saturday, July 25th and she will be in touch with you to confirm
details of the session.
If
you are unable to participate in this particular session, don’t worry there
will be multiple opportunities to express your opinion and have your voice
heard as the charrette process goes forward.
The
actual charrette will be held from
http://www.simsbury-ct.gov/Public_Documents/SimsburyCT_webdocs/agenda/Flyer%20072009.pdf
As
we receive information regarding the charrette we will pass it on through these
SHARE News Flash emails and ask that you forward it to as many people as
possible. We believe the charrette will
be a very positive step forward for the town in terms of having a better
understanding of what residents’ vision is for growth and development for
As
always we want to hear your feedback, so feel free to press reply to this email
and let us know your thoughts.
Here We Go Again...
Could Something Like “Evergreen Walk”
Come to
There is an important Public
Meeting this Thursday, July 16th at
http://www.simsbury-ct.gov/Public_Documents/SimsburyCT_WhatsNew/014B8A71-000F8513
The PAD would allow a
developer to submit a mixed-use development application to be considered by the
town land use boards. The PAD is similar to the PDD (Planned Development
District) that Konover Development submitted in order to try and build River
Oaks...here we go again!
And again there was a question over a potential conflict of interest where one original member of the PAD subcommittee, who actively participated in the early proceedings, is a commercial property owner of a property that could benefit from the passing of a PAD regulation by the subcommittee. Fortunately, that committee member resigned from the committee after the potential conflict of interest issue was brought up by a concerned citizen.
According to Hiram Peck, the Simsbury
Town Planner, this draft PAD regulation should allow "something much
closer that the PAD is aimed at is much more like Evergreen Walk … [Pause]
… much closer to that", as he recently stated at a Planning
Commission meeting on May 26th (listen to the attached video/sound
file to hear the clip of what Mr. Peck said – put your ear close to your
computer’s speakers). This draft PAD zoning regulation was copied from a
regulation used in
For those of you not familiar with Evergreen Walk, from its website, Evergreen Walk is “Located in South Windsor, Connecticut, The Promenade Shops at Evergreen Walk is set to serve as the primary venue in a mixed-use development containing over 1.2 million square feet of retail, office, hotel, health club, and wellness facilities.”
Wow!
Can you imagine what something like that would do to our town?!
The PAD subcommittee has been
discussing the question of adding in specific standards, metrics and guidelines
to the PAD in order to better control and predict the size, scale, density and
desirability of any future development. The subcommittee is split on this
issue with the Subcommittee Chairman Scott Barnett and Chip Houlihan strongly
advocating for fewer standards in the PAD, repeatedly stating that the
developer needs room for 'creativity' and that specific standards will limit
what types of development might be submitted to the town...here we go
again!
From SHARE’s perspective:
No Standards and Metrics = No Rights for the Town and Citizens = Lots of Rights for Developers
We are troubled that the PAD
subcommittee Chairman Scott Barnett scheduled this public meeting during the
middle of July when many residents are unavailable and not necessarily paying
attention to land use issues such as zoning regulations. The public
notice was not distributed until Monday July 13th, just three days prior to the
meeting. The poor timing and the late notice makes us ask if Chairman
Barnett really wants to hear from the public or if he is pushing the PAD draft
through the process with minimal attention to what the general public really
wants incorporated in a new mixed-use zoning regulation. Those paying
attention to the past few months of proceedings of the subcommittee have
mentioned that Chairman Barnett doesn’t seem to be paying much mind to the
opinions of some subcommittee members about their desire to have metrics and
standards in the regulation. What’s really going on here?
While this is a public meeting for
input to the PAD, the final draft PAD will have a formal public hearing at a
later date, probably in early fall. However, the town has already signed
a contract with a national consulting firm to help facilitate a five day
Charrette (Sept 11th to Sept. 16th - stay tuned for more on
this). A Charrette is a town wide planning process which will include all
stakeholders (residents, business owners, land owners, developers, etc) to have
a voice in the process. The Charrette will result in a mixed-use zoning
regulation, similar to the PAD. Isn't the Charrette, which is designed to
encourage public input and will be well publicized and will be held during a
more convenient time for all stakeholders, a better way to get a mixed-use
zoning regulation for
Our zoning regulations have been
critical to the preservation of the unique character of our town over the past
50+ years. Any significant change in the regulations, such as the
addition of this mixed-use PAD regulation, will have a long term impact on our
quality of life and therefore, demands detailed scrutiny, careful analysis,
open discussion and public input before being adopted. Any rush of the
process is inappropriate and irresponsible. Let's get it right. And
goodness knows we don’t want a 1.2 Million Square Foot mall in
We must try to have representation at
the meeting this Thursday evening even though so many people are on summer
vacation. It is important for our elected officials to be reminded who
they represent. Of course, this November is the ultimate time to remind
them – during municipal elections!
Please try to attend the meeting (details at the top of this email).
Farming the Meadowood Triangle:
The
“For
many of us, water simply flows from a faucet, and we think little about it
beyond this point of contact. We have
lost a sense of respect for the wild river, for the complex workings of a
wetland, for the intricate web of life that water supports.” – Daniel Webster
(1782-1852) – remarks to the
In May 2008 the residents of
Subsequently, the Board of Selectmen
decided to issue an RFP for farming approximately
Below is a summary of these most
disturbing events:
Seven farmers submitted RFPs for
consideration by the Town staff and the Board of Selectman (see
attached).
On April 13th
the BOS unanimously approved the selection of the highest bidder, Gresczyk
Farms from New Hartford, a conventional potato and corn farmer at
$201/acre/year for a total fee to the town of $8,040 annually. Typically, conventional potato and corn
farming is hard on the soil and often includes heavy application of toxic
pesticides. This farmer was the ONLY
farmer among the 7 bidders to ask for permission to potentially use RESTRICTED
USE pesticides!!!
The lowest bidder, Tulmeadow Farms
offered $45.00 acre, for a total of $1,800 annually to the town. Tulmeadow
listed no pesticides to be used, rather they listed fertilizer only.
Two applicants were local
The highest bidder, Gresczyk @ $201.00
acre ($8,040/annual revenue to Town) vs. low bidder of Tulmeadow Farm (note: no pesticide applications) at $45.00
acre ($1800/annual revenue to the Town).
Is an extra $6,240 a year in our coffers worth potential harm to the
neighbors’ health and to the environment?
So you may be asking, are these
pesticides that the high bidder, Farmer Gresczyk, said he would use really all
that harmful? The answer is an
astounding YES! Read on.
The
Fortunately, Julie Meyer, a member of
the Simsbury Planning Commission and a member of the Simsbury Citizens First
Party (SCF), became aware of the RFP process (even though the RFP’s were never
provided to the Planning Commission) and started to ask questions about the
submitted applications and the pesticides proposed for use by farmer Gresczyk,
the applicant awarded the lease by the BOS.
After a great deal of research, Ms. Meyer became sufficiently concerned
about the pesticides that would be used and distributed flyers to the neighbors
of the Meadowood Triangle to inform them of the following information:
1. Farmer Gresczyk was seeking approval
for the greatest number of pesticides among all applicants, nine pesticides in
all, and no other farmer proposed use of restrictive pesticides! The pesticides that he proposed to use were
the only ones among any listed by ALL responding farmers that have a high
potential for ground water contamination! Among the pesticides Farmer Gresczyk
listed were:
Lannate: High Acute Toxicity to Humans
– Highest Category of Toxicity DANGER.
The signal word, ‘Danger’ according to Dr. Kimberly Stoner, PhD, who is
employed by the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, as stated in an
e-mail “means that the pesticide has
scored in the highest category of toxicity to humans in one of the five tests
mandated by the EPA.”
Lumax (contains Atrazine and
S-metolachlor) Manufacturer’s Label issues a Ground Water Advisory that advises
users not to apply to sand and loamy sand soils where the water table is close
to the surface. According to Dr Stoner,
Lumax is restricted due to concerns about contamination of ground and surface
waters.
According to Dr. Stoner, “other
pesticides on the list with statements of environmental hazard involving
movement into ground water include: Bravo Ultrex, Sencor and Admire Pro.”
2.
3. Mary Glassman stated on
As
a result of Julie Meyer’s grassroots, concerned citizen efforts to alert the
neighbors and raise alarm about this perilous issue, many people attended the
April 27th BOS meeting to comment on the RFP for farming the
Triangle. The message was clear: The highest priority should be to
minimize the toxicity in that area, especially given that the surrounding
neighborhood has historically been very negatively impacted by intensive
conventional and tobacco farming in the past. The lowest priority should
be the revenue generated by the venture, especially given the very modest rents
that can be expected.
At
that April 27th BOS meeting, after hearing from many concerned
citizens, the BOS voted to, in effect, reverse their decision of April 13th
and to table any action on the RFP for farming the Meadowood Triangle. We assume they will act on it at their next
meeting on May 11th.
The
solution is local, non-toxic farming on the Triangle. Of the applications
received (or perhaps even conceivable), none provide a more local or less toxic
solution than the application submitted by the Hall Farm which was a totally
organic solution. Why wasn't Farmer Hall awarded the contract? Or why wasn’t another local
As
far as his capacity to farm the full
Currently,
the Triangle is fully planted with rye. This can either be harvested in
July or plowed under in August. According to Mr. Hall, nothing needs to
be done on the Triangle until that time frame. If the BOS acts soon, the
Town just might be able to get someone engaged by then. If not, tax
dollars will likely be needed to manage the field at the end of this
season.
Hall's
bid of $60/acre/year was not the highest of the 7 applications. Hall's
was NOT the lowest either. Wades Farm's was $50/acre/year and Tulmeadow's
was $45/acre/year. The highest bidder was Gresczyk at
$201/acre/year. Gresczyk can offer this since the intensive method of
farming employed and the intended crop will generate a high yield and thus
sufficient funds to pay the highest rent. But is the minimal annual
difference worth the risk of continuing to expose the surrounding neighborhood
and underlying ground water to toxins associated with (in this case) intensive
conventional potato farming techniques? Hall will likely plow under the
current crop of rye in late summer to boost the nutrients in the soil for the
next planting season. This is part of organic farming methods - resting
the soil. If awarded the contract, Mr. Hall said he will periodically
rest the soil even though he is paying rent on it, thus his lower bid.
We
don’t want to directly endorse one local
We
urge anybody who wishes to see the
You
can contact the BOS at the following email addresses:
Mary
Glassman (Democrat): mglassman@simsbury-ct.gov
John Hampton (Democrat): JHampton@simsbury-ct.gov
Bob Hensley (Republican): rhensley@simsbury-ct.gov
Mike Long (Democrat): mlong@simsbury-ct.gov
Rich Hogan (Republican): rhogan@simsbury-ct.gov
Moira Wertheimer (Republican): MWertheimer@simsbury-ct.gov
Also,
even though it’s short notice, please try to attend the May 6th Open
Space Meeting (
The process to date has determined that the Triangle
should remain farmland.
There is no need to revisit that decision. An RFP has been generated and
seven applications have been received. Amongst them, there are three low
toxicity options from which to choose (100% Hall, 100% Tulmeadow, or a 40%
Holcomb / 60% Hall combination). For Goodness Sakes, Pick One!
The Open Space Committee on May 6th should vote on a
recommended course of action for the BOS. A push should be made to award
the contract to a local
The BOS on May 11th needs to follow Open Space's
recommendation, especially since the revenue generated by the venture is
minimal. Minimizing the toxicity in that neighborhood should be the
highest priority! Obviously it was not the highest priority when the BOS
met on April 13th.
Lastly, many many thanks to Planning Commissioner Julie
Meyer (Simsbury Citizens First Party) for putting on her concerned citizen hat
and single handedly helping to expose this very alarming situation. If you want to thank her yourself, her email
address is jmeyer@simsbury-ct.gov .
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
P.S. As a final note, isn’t it interesting that Farmer
Gresczyk is a former Republican Deputy Commissioner of the Connecticut
Department of Agriculture? We assume all
the other farmers are just farmers and not politicians– our sources say they
are just farmers.
No Public Hearing!
Planning Commission, by a vote of 4 to 2, waives over 65% of Required Open Space and Approves Hartford Subdivision
“It is change, continuing change, inevitable
change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer
without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it
will be.” – Isaac Asimov
In a very disturbing decision in their
last meeting on Tuesday, March 24th, four of the six elected
Planning Commissioners (Chairman John Loomis (who also serves on the Simsbury
Open Space Committee), Gerry Post, Chip Houlihan, and Ferg Jansen, by their own
words and by their final votes, on the record indicated that they did not need
to hear from the public on this important subdivision application so no public
hearing was granted. Nor did they need
to try to protect the Town, the neighbors of the property or the
In their decision, these four
Commissioners neglected to follow the goals and objectives set forth by the
2007 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) which they themselves drafted
and were elected to follow. And at the
same time, they shut down the public’s ability to speak about this very
important issue.
SHARE highly commends two out spoken
Planning Commissioners, Sue Bednarcyk and Julie Meyer for their strong
arguments in favor of a public hearing and in favor of requiring the applicant
to comply with the Simsbury subdivision regulations which would have provided
the Town, the neighbors and the Farmington River with protection of 20% deeded
conservation easement in lieu of open space.
Commissioners Bednarcyk and Meyer justified their motions based on the
2007 Plan of Conservation and Development and on repeated past practice by the
Planning Commission for the last ten years of applications for subdivisions in
No
Public Hearing: A Blow to Open and Transparent Government and a Vote in a
Vacuum
Commissioners Bednarcyk and Meyer were
obviously very frustrated that their fellow Commissioners would not allow a
public hearing prior to calling for a vote on the application. They believed they needed to hear from the
neighbors at Riverwalk and from the Farmington River Watershed Association
(FRWA) as well as other concerned citizens in order to make the most informed
and responsible decision.
We find it very troubling that
Chairman John Loomis and Commissioners Gerry Post, Chip Houlihan and Ferg
Jansen did not care what the public thought about this issue and inasmuch said
so on the record. What happened to
promises of open and accessible government by our elected officials?
Throughout the discussion,
Commissioner Meyer said she wanted to hear from the neighbors and the FRWA to
get their input on their concerns regarding the placement of open space. At one point Commissioner Houlihan said he
and Commissioner Jansen had walked the site and “you can just about look into
the living rooms of some of the abutters at Riverwalk”. When Commissioner Meyer then replied “Then at
least could you place some open space along their property line?” his reply was
simply “I just can’t do that”. That
reply basically summed up Commissioners Loomis, Post, Jansen and Houlihan’s
justification for their vote on this application.
It is also astounding that Chairman
Loomis and the other three Commissioners did not want to hear from the
Farmington River Watershed Association on this application. Since the Executive Director was not allowed
to speak at the meeting despite being in the audience, the Planning Commission
had no way of knowing for sure what the optimal placement of open space would
be on that site in terms of protecting the environmentally sensitive Farmington
River. We could guess that the FRWA
would have concerns and a point of view on this, but without a public hearing
that critical piece of information was not heard.
Without a public hearing the Planning
Commission’s vote on this application was cast without all relevant and
critical information. Again, we want to
remind you that in reviewing all past subdivisions that have come before the
Planning Commission over the past ten years, each and every time the Planning
Commission has held a public hearing.
The
Decision: A Waiver of Over 65% of the
Open Space on a
We agree that The Hartford has the
right to subdivide and sell their property but we also believe
There were many problems with the
actual procedural part of this application.
Connecticut General Statutes and the Simsbury Subdivision Regulations
require a specific land use process to be followed. Since the initial application was submitted
in January, there have been many problems with the process. We question how the Town Staff and the Town’s
Administration allowed such lapses in proper procedure. The land use process should be consistent and
require strict compliance. That was not
the case with this application. For example:
· The original
submitted application contained maps of the site that were inaccurate and
incomplete. Accurate and complete maps
were not submitted by the applicant until March 24th and only after
Commissioner Meyer had to repeatedly request them. Why didn’t Town Staff require accuracy in the
maps?
· The Planning
Commission never received copies of all information contained in the official
file. Just one example is a memo dated
· The Simsbury
Subdivision Regulations require a three quarters vote, or five of the six votes
to be affirmative, in order to approve a decision to accept a conservation
easement in lieu of open space. This
five out of six vote has been legally required for at least the past ten years
for all
Commissioner Meyer’s motion and
Commissioner Bednarcyk’s second to the motion to approve a conservation
easement in lieu of open space which would place a
Chairman John Loomis and Commissioners
Gerry Post, Chip Houlihan and Ferg Jansen voted in favor of waiving
As you saw in our last News Flash, a
It is unfortunate that Commissioner
Meyer and Bednarcyk’s motion failed. It
would have provided
We consider this entire episode very
unfortunate and a significant failure of the Simsbury Planning Commission to
follow its own rules, regulations, and its long angsted over Plan of
Conservation and Development.
When the time comes, we believe it is
time for some changes to members of the Simsbury Planning Commission. The Planning Commission needs members who can
better focus on detail and balance the needs of landowners, developers, the
Town and
Please Click Here to view the attachment
It’s Time for a Public Hearing on ‘The
The Subdivision can be done.
And still have what matters - Open Space,
Rural Character and Scenic
Next Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday,
March 24th,
“Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish
the rest.” – Mark Twain
The ‘Right to Speak’ Issue at the Planning
Commission
On February
10th, the Planning Commission voted four to two against holding a
public hearing on the Hartford subdivision application (Commissioners Sue
Bednarcyk and Julie Meyer voted in favor of holding a public hearing). SHARE believes it is now time for the
Planning Commission to hear from the public regarding the application for a
subdivision on The Hartford property. At
their last meeting on March 10th, the Planning Commission received a
thirty day extension in order to further discuss the pending application. That means the Commission needs to vote on
this application by April 18th.
With this extension the Planning Commission has time to hear from the
public which SHARE believes is essential because of the long-term consequences
this subdivision could have on
We recognize that by law, the Planning Commission is not required to hold a public hearing on subdivisions, however, historically, in past subdivision applications the Planning Commission has usually held public hearings to hear what residents think of the issues (e.g. Public Hearing for Subdivision on 344 West Mountain Road on December 12, 2006, Public Hearing for Rear Lot Subdivision on Wildwood Road on July 8, 2008).
And to
really illustrate the point, at a
We call upon Chairman John Loomis to request a new vote from the Commission on holding a public hearing and we strongly urge the other Commissioners to join Commissioners Bednarcyk and Meyer to vote in favor of holding a public hearing. SHARE believes that there should rarely be a reason for a public commission to not allow the public to speak and express their views, especially if members of that commission have taken advantage of that right in their private lives!
Summary of March 10th Planning
Commission meeting on subdivision application on The
·
Summary of Application: The property is a total of
SHARE’s
Concerns with this Application:
·
Major open space waiver
required.
·
Second waiver required related to
wetlands.
·
The subdivision application as
submitted was incomplete. At
the past two Planning Commission meetings, Commissioner Julie Meyer repeatedly
asked for maps from the applicant that delineate the wetlands and all contours
on the entire site as required by the
·
The application was not
reviewed by the Conservation/Inland Wetlands Commission. In all past subdivision applications the
Conservation Commission has reviewed the application as required by Connecticut
General Statutes. However, in this
application the Town staff did an administrative review. The administrative review, which was
positive, stated, “This determination was based on the review of wetlands
mapping done on the site…” and therefore was based on the inaccurate maps
originally submitted by the applicant.
We think it is imperative that the Conservation Commission completes a
comprehensive review of this subdivision application, given the extensive
wetlands that are present on the site, the fact that Minister Brook runs
through the site and the fact that the
·
Placement of the open space. The Planning Commission has the legal
discretion to determine the placement of the open space in order to protect the
neighbors, preserve natural and historic areas, and maintain the rural
character of the town, through objectives such as preserving the view of the
ridgeline. The Town Attorney stated that
the Planning Commission has the legal discretion in this regard as long as
their actions are guided by the goals and objectives in the 2007 Plan of
Conservation and Development and/or the
Town Planner,
Hiram Peck, spoke at the beginning of the last meeting, in favor of the
application, saying that since there is no pending development, it would be best
to not require the applicant to be too specific with open space, and instead
wait until a future developer comes in to the Planning Commission with a site
plan. The problem with this advice is
twofold.
First, Mr. Hiram Peck is suggesting that the Town should waive 80% of our open space requirement for a subdivision. SHARE finds that outrageous. At a time when there is a movement statewide in both the Governor’s office and in the CT State Legislature to preserve open space and when our town in particular has, over the past two years, voted to spend literally millions of dollars to preserve open space on the Ethel Walker Woods and on the Meadowood property, why would our Town Planner endorse a waiver of over 80% of the required open space? We can only hope the Planning Commissioners will see the value of enforcing our subdivision regulations and not waive the open space requirement.
We also find this entire dynamic a bit odd considering that Mr. John Loomis, Chairman of the Planning Commission, is also a member of the Simsbury Open Space Committee!
Second, Mr Peck stated that the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to comment on a specific site plan for any future development on the subdivided lot. That is only true if the applicant requests a zone change, but the Planning Commission’s ability to require and determine placement of open space is only in effect at the time of the subdivision approval as stated by the Town Attorney. The Planning Commission will lose their ability to legally require and place open space after this subdivision vote is completed.
Planning
Commissioner, Julie Meyer made a motion to site a majority of the
Additionally, Commissioners Meyer and Bednarcyk suggested that they could include in the motion the ability of a future developer to come in and request a modification of the placement of the open space when they have a specific site plan and that way the Town is protected until we know exactly what a developer wants to build.
Chairman John
Loomis suggested placing some open space as a
We will keep you informed about this
important application. The Planning
Commission will be meeting again next Tuesday, March 24th to
continue their discussion on this application.
We would urge you to attend and hear the discussion first hand. Please try to attend! Your participation is important!
Now more than ever, citizens need to get
involved in how our Town expands and ensure that it is done responsibly! (SHARE –
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
Summary of
Recent Zoning Commission Public Hearing
“The
preparation for good work tomorrow is to do good work today” – Elbert Hubbard
As we emailed
all SHARE members a week or so ago, the Simsbury Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on
We felt that
SHARE’s attorney reviewed the amendment and wrote a letter (see attached) citing serious flaws in the Conceptual Master Plan amendment and stating “Furthermore, there is concern that, as presented, the proposed amendments dilute important, conventional areas of Zoning Commission review and discretion too early in the review process and could lead to unintended land use consequences beyond the immediately articulated goals.”
A SHARE Steering Committee member read the complete letter from the SHARE attorney for the official record during the public hearing and also stated that while SHARE supports the development of a Continuing Care Retirement Community, we do not believe that broad changes to the zoning regulations through the adoption of a conceptual Master Plan for “any large scale project” is in the best interest of the Town. We feel that any such vague and imprecise language can open the town’s doors to numerous adverse situations.
At the beginning of the public hearing, the town’s attorney, Mr. Robert DeCresenzo, stated his opinion regarding the text amendments. He said he had reviewed the amendments and while he found the amendments regarding the language to allow a Continuing Care Retirement Community to be built were appropriate, he disapproved of the language regarding the Conceptual Master Plan and recommended that the Zoning Commission not act on those two amendments that relate to the CMP. In other words Mr. DeCresenzo agreed with the opinion of the SHARE attorney.
Based on these separate but somewhat similar legal opinions, as well as other open questions regarding the proposed amendments, the Zoning Commission will keep the public hearing open until their next meeting on Monday February 9th as they need to figure out how to divide the zoning text amendments in order to be able to adopt the CCRC amendments and deny the CMP amendments.
With all of
these complex land use issues under consideration by our boards and
commissions, it is our sincere hope that going forward the town will allocate
funds for appropriate dedicated legal land use council for the land use
commissions. While we recognize that
Town budgets are tight, the long term ramifications of our zoning regulations
to the future economic development and to the quality of life we all enjoy in
With all the things our town spends money on, we believe that modest expenditures for due diligence reviews of such important legislative amendments is vital to safeguard Simsbury’s future – this is not an area where the town should be trying to scrimp and save money.
If you choose to, you can send emails with your thoughts on this issue to First Selectwoman Mary Glassman at MGlassman@simsbury-ct.gov, Board of Finance Chairman Paul Henault at PHenault@simsbury-ct.gov, and Zoning Commission Chairman Dunny Barney at ABarney@simsbury-ct.gov.
We will continue to follow the process of this proposed text amendment as well as yet another mixed-use zoning regulation (now called a PAD for Planned Area Development) that has recently been proposed by town attorney DeCresenzo.
As always if you have any questions or comments of us, please feel free to reply to this email.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
SHARE
Attorney Letter about Zoning Regulations-January 26, 2009
The “Don’t Sleep at the Switch” Edition
Just
Because We’re Not Getting River Oaks Brochures in the Mail,
Doesn’t
Mean We Won’t End Up with Something Like It,
Unless
We’re Diligent!
Please read on and come to this meeting! This is important… really!
Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Monday, January 26th,
Conceptual Master Plan (CMP) or Completely Mired Proposal (CMP)?
On Monday
January 26th the Zoning Commission will be holding a public hearing on a zoning
text amendment to add language to the town zoning regulations for a “Conceptual
Master Plan” or CMP (see attached).
This language was drafted by Hiram Peck, the Director of Planning and
Development for
This past Tuesday night (January 20th) the Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to send a positive referral to the Zoning Commission regarding the CMP. Commissioners Sue Bednarcyk and Julie Meyer voted against it and Commissioners John Loomis, Chip Houlihan, Gerry Post and Carol Cole voted in favor of it. However, the positive referral also included a number of recommendations to the original amendment and there was a lengthy discussion over the legal aspects of the CMP. We find it very troubling that there was no land use attorney present to provide answers to the Planning Commissioners' many legal questions that came up during the two hour discussion and feel that the vote was taken while significant legal land use questions remain unanswered. Commissioners Bednarcyk and Meyer both voted negatively because they believe their legal questions were not fully answered and that the CMP regulation may remove the discretion of the Planning Commission to deny a final site plan that is not in the best interest of the town.
SHARE continues to be mystified as to why the Town does not provide the land use boards and commissions with competent land use legal expertise, or for that matter any such legal counsel. On numerous occasions in recent planning and zoning meetings we heard statements made with caveats like “but I’m not an attorney” or “but I’m not a land use legal expert”.
Here are some of our concerns regarding the CMP.
Point
One: There is no precedent for a
Conceptual Master Plan in
Point 2: The CMP is intended to allow a developer to get approval for a large scale project without spending a lot of money on professional fees up front for a detailed final site plan in order to get a sense of whether the town wants the proposed development. That is what preliminary applications are for and that is how the town has historically handled large scale projects. Preliminary applications are non-binding for the town from a legal perspective.
The big difference here is that the developer is asking to be given a Special Exception based on the vague CMP. Herein lies the problem.
Once the developer is given the Special Exception to build their project, the PC and ZC legally lose all their discretion to deny the final site plan if it conforms, even in vague ways, with what was approved in the CMP. Once the developer has a Special Exception it is vested and recorded in the land use records. That means that the PC and the ZC, when they vote on the final site plan, cannot require the developer to conform with anything that was not specifically documented in the CMP. So for instance the developer has complete control over all decisions related to the specifics in the final site plan which would include (and this is just a preliminary list, there are many more) the following (since these are not specified in the CMP):
- Selection of building materials. The ZC might want the buildings to be
brick, stone or plywood but if the developer wants to cover the buildings
in vinyl siding they have that right.
- Exterior lighting.
The ZC might want them to abide by a dark skies lighting but if the
developer wants floodlights spaced ten feet apart and on at all hours,
they have the right.
- Sustainable, low impact development. The ZC may want LEEDS certified building,
rain gardens, impervious pavements, sustainable storm water drainage but
if it is not specified in the CMP then it is the developers right to
decide how they want to build.
- There is no reference to the developer complying with
the Plan Of Conservation and Development in the CMP so that is also up to
the developer.
- Landscaping. If the developer wants to clear cut the
land they have that right if it is not in the CMP. The ZC may want the developer to leave
all trees of
- There is no requirement for traffic studies and no
language that talks about protecting the health, safety and welfare of the
surrounding neighborhood or that the proposed development is in any way
beneficial to the town.
- This would apply to the entire town! And would apply to any redevelopment in
town!
Point 3: The Conservation Commission does not have the right to hear and vote on the CMP. Therefore, a developer of a large scale project may get a Special Exception to build their project without vetting by the one commission in town that looks at environmental concerns.
Point 4: There is no provision for a public hearing either at the CMP stage prior to the ZC voting to give a special exception for the development or at the final site plan stage. By Connecticut General Statutes a public hearing is required for site plans for any developments. Additionally, if the purpose of the CMP is for the developer to get a sense if their project would be approved by the town, then general public opinion
about the type, size and scope of the project should be integral to that preliminary decision.
Continuing Care Retirement Community or CCRC
The Zoning
Commission will also be voting on a text amendment that includes the definition
of a CCRC and language to allow a developer to build a CCRC in
It is very
important to distinguish the fact that we are supportive of a CCRC development
in
We believe the Town could write a zoning text amendment that works for both the developers of the CCRC and for the Town but this is clearly not it.
PLEASE come to the
Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Monday, January 26th,
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
Happy New
Year!
For this
edition, we wanted to send you the following Letter to the Editor from the
In the near future, you will receive a VERY IMPORTANT News Flash from us about some work being done by the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission. We believe that some of what is going on could be very dangerous to our town’s economic development process and could set the stage for another experience of unbridled development proposals similar to River Oaks. Stay tuned for more information in a few days – it’s a bit complex so we are writing it up for you.
For those
who can attend, you can get a preview of some of what concerns us at the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on Tuesday January 20th (tomorrow)
at
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
***********
Letter to the Editor –
With Economic Development, “Measure
Twice, Cut Once”
In these
difficult times, with financial pressures mounting in our personal lives and
Going forward it appears as if there are some interesting ideas and proposals being discussed for future town development – in the south, the center and the north. As our Town explores and vets these proposals, let’s be sure we learn from the River Oaks experience and proceed more methodically, more collegially, more openly and more transparently than we did before. Let’s be sure that as our land use commissions discuss things like ‘Conceptual Master Plans’ for potential developments and changes to our zoning regulations, that we assess plans holistically and include all necessary reviews for traffic, environmental, net economic and fiscal impact, and other essential components. Such thorough analyses will help avoid the ‘bait and switch’ that developers too often produce.
Quite
bluntly
However this time, the reason for building something less than what was originally described may not have just been due to the old line that “economic conditions have changed”. The reason may have been because the developer may not have had the ability to build what was described in their glitzy colorful brochures, their website or in their passionate presentations at town meetings.
Recently several town residents and I had discussions with the land owner of the CL&P Southern Gateway property to have a bit of a ‘River Oaks Post-Mortem’ and to learn more about his future plans for the property. He was not involved in the public proposal or the development discussions for River Oaks. In our meetings with him we learned some information that was quite surprising.
As
background, the CL&P Southern Gateway property can be thought of as three
logical sections bundled into one parcel. The existing CL&P building and surrounding
developed land is the center section of the parcel. There is a second logical section in the
field on the southern side (next to the
We were told by the land owner that at the time the River Oaks concept was being talked about by the developer, CL&P had approximately four more years left on their lease on the building and an option for four more five year leases. So in theory, CL&P could have stayed there for 24 years from that point in time. We also learned from the land owner that the developer only had an agreement with him to build on the southern section of the property and did not have an agreement to develop on the northern section. The southern section was of course where the Target was to have been built.
Our town went through a lot with the River Oaks experience. Clearly we risked getting the type of large retail development that the vast majority of town residents do not want – a view that the recent independent scientific town survey soundly affirmed. In many ways, River Oaks tore some of the fabric of our town and there were numerous political and social casualties. We now need to heal and come together once again as a community to ensure that our town expands responsibly and with the vision that most residents share – this is one reason why I think holding a town-wide charrette is so important.
John Lucker
With Economic Development, “Measure Twice, Cut Once”
In these difficult times, with financial pressures
mounting in our personal lives and
Going forward it appears as if there are some interesting ideas and proposals being discussed for future town development – in the south, the center and the north. As our Town explores and vets these proposals, let’s be sure we learn from the River Oaks experience and proceed more methodically, more collegially, more openly and more transparently than we did before. Let’s be sure that as our land use commissions discuss things like ‘Conceptual Master Plans’ for potential developments and changes to our zoning regulations, that we assess plans holistically and include all necessary reviews for traffic, environmental, net economic and fiscal impact, and other essential components. Such thorough analyses will help avoid the ‘bait and switch’ that developers too often produce.
Quite bluntly
However this time, the reason for building something less than what was originally described may not have just been due to the old line that “economic conditions have changed”. The reason may have been because the developer may not have had the ability to build what was described in their glitzy colorful brochures, their website or in their passionate presentations at town meetings.
Recently several town residents and I had discussions with the land owner of the CL&P Southern Gateway property to have a bit of a ‘River Oaks Post-Mortem’ and to learn more about his future plans for the property. He was not involved in the public proposal or the development discussions for River Oaks. In our meetings with him we learned some information that was quite surprising.
As background, the CL&P Southern Gateway property
can be thought of as three logical sections bundled into one parcel. The
existing CL&P building and surrounding developed land is the center section
of the parcel. There is a second logical section in the field on the southern
side (next to the
We were told by the land owner that at the time the River Oaks concept was being talked about by the developer, CL&P had approximately four more years left on their lease on the building and an option for four more five year leases. So in theory, CL&P could have stayed there for 24 years from that point in time. We also learned from the land owner that the developer only had an agreement with him to build on the southern section of the property and did not have an agreement to develop on the northern section. The southern section was of course where the Target was to have been built.
Our town went through a lot with the River Oaks experience. Clearly we risked getting the type of large retail development that the vast majority of town residents do not want – a view that the recent independent scientific town survey soundly affirmed. In many ways, River Oaks tore some of the fabric of our town and there were numerous political and social casualties. We now need to heal and come together once again as a community to ensure that our town expands responsibly and with the vision that most residents share – this is one reason why I think holding a town-wide charrette is so important.
John Lucker
The
“There is a power in public opinion in this country – and I thank God for it: for it is the most honest and best of all powers” – Martin Van Buren
The SHARE
membership is just shy of 4,000
Recently,
the Town of
So what were the findings? We are sending you a copy of the survey results for your review. At a high level we believe the survey results say many of the same things that SHARE has been hearing from you over the past three years. The survey touches on some familiar themes:
- the very high value we all place on
the quality of
- our value of the rural bucolic
nature of
- our desire to carefully control
expansion of the town and maintain the small town feel
- the value of open space
- maintaining Route 10 as a 2 lane
road and control traffic through town
- the importance of maintaining and
expanding a vibrant town center with the core character it has today
- the strong support among town
residents for a town center charrette to do a comprehensive planning study
with community involvement
- the need for responsible expansion
and economic development and more tax revenue that comports with these
messages
- And lastly, No Big Box Development!
While these
survey results affirm much of what we feel and want from our town, there is
still much to do – we continue to believe that a town-wide charrette is the
best vehicle to translate intent and desire into concrete plans and future
action for
We welcome your thoughts and feedback. Just reply to this email and we will read and respond to them.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
To
view the official report on the survey
SHARE
Questions the Validity of Town Telephone Survey.
"There are two sides to every
question"
Protagoras,
Greek philosopher (485 BC - 421 BC)
The Town of
1) A question is asked regarding the
charette, a holistic, pro-active and open town planning process which
provides an opportunity for all stakeholders, including landowners, town
officials, developers, business owners and residents, to have an
equal voice in the future growth and preservation of Simsbury.
SHARE strongly supports this initiative.
We
feel that the survey may serve to de-rail the charette effort
by using responses to the charette question, as well as responses to other
questions, to inaccurately conclude that
2) There is a question regarding the
proposed plan for the Town of
A
consultant hired by the Town has already presented their findings to several
Town of Simsbury boards, and the conclusion is that not only will purchasing
the airport cost the town a significant amount of taxpayer money, but the
financial projections indicate that the Town would continue to lose money by
owning the airport. SHARE wonders why the Town of Simsbury, with all of its
existing financial & management challenges, would believe the Town is
equipped (or sophisticated enough) to get into the airport & air travel
business.
3) There were (2) questions
regarding protecting the view of the "ridgeline", one asking how
much residents would be willing to pay (between $50-$500 in additional
property taxes) in order to maintain the view of the
"ridgeline".
First,
SHARE finds the inclusion of a dollar amount to be misleading and
disingenuous to town residents. Why do we need to "pay more property
taxes" to preserve what we already have? Second, SHARE finds these
questions vague and open to different interpretations as the question does
not specify from where the view of the ridgeline originates and how much
of the view of the "ridgeline" will be obstructed. Is the view of the
"ridgeline" from the Southern Gateway along Rt. 10 as you enter
Simsbury or further along Rte 10 as you pass in front of The Hartford (is The
Hartford planning on building a 3 story parking garage on the abutting corn
field that would obstruct the view but lower our taxes by $50 per
taxpayer?), or the view of the ridgeline as you sit on the lawn of The
Meadows, listening to a summer concert?
4) There were questions regarding
protecting, purchasing and maintaining open space in
Again, the
questions included one asking how much residents would be willing to pay
(between $50-$500 in additional taxes) in order to maintain open
space. The question again is too vague and non-specific to be considered of
scientific research caliber. There has to be some clarification as to
which parcel of open space is being referred to. Is it open space that
the Town's Open Space Commission has identified as being the top priority
because it is part of a wildlife corridor or on a pristine aquifer or is
it the back side of an undevelopable gravel pit? Second,
the Town of
5) There was a question regarding how
good a job residents felt their Town Planning and Zoning boards were
doing.
This
question is flawed because
6) There were
two questions regarding maintaining Route 10 as a 2-lane road, or widening
it to a 4-lane highway.
Again, the
question included asking how much residents would be willing to pay
(between $50-$500 in additional taxes) in order to maintain Rt. 10 as
a 2-lane road. SHARE has always advocated for keeping Rt. 10 as a 2-lane road,
and finds the inclusion of a dollar amount to be bordering on extortion to
town residents.
7) There were questions regarding
what type of economic development you would like to have in town. One such
question was would you favor or oppose small retail business excluding
restaurants.
When
asked for clarification as to what was meant by "small
retail" business none was given. Is the question referring to
something along the line of The Work Shoppe in town center or is it referring
to something like Best Buy? And where would that "small retail"
business be located? While Best Buy was approved for Rte 44 would it be
appropriate for town center? What do you think of when asked to define
"small retail business" and is your answer different than
your neighbor's response?
8) Two similar questions were asked
regarding a) how much more residents were willing to pay in taxes to improve
public education in Town, and b) how much more residents were willing to pay in
taxes to maintain or increase town services.
SHARE
fully understands the tough economic realities that both town residents and The
Town of
SHARE believes that the validity of the results of this survey are highly questionable and we wonder how the results will be used. Due to the vague and non-specific way the questions were written the survey results could be used to make policy decisions that do not truly reflect the views of the majority of town residents with unsubstantiated and inaccurate conclusions such as the following:
- Simsbury
Town Residents feel the proposed Charette, a holistic land use
planning process that would include all stake holders including
residents, developers, government, is not needed.
- Simsbury
Town Residents don't care if Route 10 is widened to a 4-lane highway.
- Simsbury
Town Residents don't care about maintaining open space or the ridgeline.
- Simsbury
Town Residents think the Town of
- Simsbury
Town Residents want more Town & Educational services, yet
(unrealistically) do not want to pay increased taxes.
- Simsbury
Town Residents support development (any & all) because it will lower
their taxes, yet increase Town & Educational services.
SHARE continues to support the
charette, advocate to keep Route
We strongly urge you to think
carefully before answering the questions for this survey, taking into
consideration that Town Leadership will likely use the results of this survey
to influence Town policy regarding these significant issues.
Please feel free to contact us with
any questions, comments, etc. and we would like to hear from you if you
participated in the survey.
Sincerely,
Your devoted SHARE Steering Committee
New
Development Planned for CL&P Site
“He that can
have patience can have what he will” – Benjamin Franklin
This past
week your SHARE Steering Committee received an email from Mr. Mark Greenberg,
the owner of the
In a
subsequent phone call with a member of the SHARE Steering Committee, Mr.
Greenberg stated that he hoped to also develop a medical office building on the
remaining 3 of the southernmost
While the
proposed senior continuing care project is in the very earliest stages of
development and details are not available at this time, we, your SHARE Steering
Committee, are pleased with what we are hearing from a conceptual
perspective. A senior continuing care
facility and medical office building are good examples of the type of land use
that will be most beneficial to the town from a tax revenue and net economic
benefit stand point and from their impact on quality of life for
Additionally, we were told by the landowner that the development will be designed to comply with the 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development for the Southern Gateway in terms of the design and site plan to do things such as preserve the view of the ridgeline.
SHARE appreciates the commitment from Mr. Greenberg to keep an open dialogue with the residents and we look forward to an ongoing collaborative relationship as this project moves forward.
As always we will continue to provide information to you as we learn it through our SHARE News Flashes.
If you have any questions please email us and we will try to answer them as best we can.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
Possible Vote on
“Bill Gates is a
very rich man today… and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions” – Dave Barry
Zoning Commission Meeting
Monday August 11th at
At the Apple Barn, Old
At the last Zoning Commission meeting on July 21st, the
applicant, Keystone Properties, finished their presentation of their zoning text
amendment and their request for a zone change in order to build their proposed
mixed-use development called Dorset Crossing. Public audience followed
their presentation and while some of the speakers spoke in favor of the
application it appeared that most of those in favor of the application were
basing their comments on the proposed conceptual site plan for the Dorset
Crossing project.
This is an important distinction that we want to
emphasize. The SHARE Steering Committee has repeatedly stated that we are
not opposed to the mixed-use
We believe the Zoning Commissioners understand that
distinction and urge them to deny the zoning text amendment as submitted.
Again, this isn’t a vote about
One interesting option was discussed during the applicant's
presentation. Zoning Chairman Barney asked if the applicant had thought
about subdividing the parcel into two separate lots, since the conceptual
site plan for Dorset Crossing showed all the retail and commercial use
buildings the front of the parcel abutting
Hoffman
Application Update from South West Homeowners Association:
It's decision time. The agenda for Monday's Special
Zoning Meeting has included "Discussion and Possible Vote" on the
Please try to
attend the August 11th Zoning
Commission meeting to hear and see what they do regarding both of these
applications.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
SHARE News Flash:
"What did you
do during your summer vacation?"
The latest news on
Monday July
21st
Zoning Commission Public
Hearings Continued for
The dog days of summer have seen the
Zoning Commissioners hard at work! At the last ZC meeting on July 7th
they finally ended the meeting at 10:30 pm after hearing from the
applicants and the public regarding the proposed zone change for the Hoffman
property which consumed about two hours followed by an hour and a half of
an initial presentation by the Keystone Properties on their application for a
zone change and text amendment for Dorset Crossing. They were unable to
hear public comment on the Dorset Crossing application because of the late
hour. We assume the public will get to speak at this next meeting on
Monday July 21st for both applications. Below is a summary of last week's
meeting and what's to come. But first...
Having watched both the Hoffman and
Dorset Crossing applications go through the detailed scrutiny by the Zoning
Commission while they are also dealing with other regular business items, we
want to take a moment and thank these dedicated volunteers for the time and
effort they put in to this very important Commission. They serve
a critically important stewardship role and take their work on the Zoning
Commission very seriously. While we may not always agree with their
decisions we are appreciative of the countless hours they put in to carefully
reviewing all applications that come before them. So if you have a chance please
be sure and personally thank the following Zoning Commissioners for taking a
lot of time out of their lives, especially during these hot summer months, to
work diligently in the best interest of the Town to maintain the unique
character and beauty of Simsbury; Chairman Dunny Barney and
Commissioners, Scott Barnett, Garret Delahanty, Bruce Elliott, Jim Gallagher,
Madeleine Gilkey, Joe Grace, and John Vaughn.
The presentation kicked off with
statements by Bruce Elliott and John Vaughn, the two Simsbury Citizens First
Zoning Commissioners that were asked to recuse from voting on the Dorset
Crossing application by Attorney Fahey on behalf of Keystone Companies.
Keystone Companies had requested their recusal because Keystone said there
was a long standing relationship between these two Commissioners and
SHARE. In a nutshell, Commissioners Elliott and Vaughn stated for the
record that they are not involved with SHARE and that they believe they are
able to hear, review, analyze and decide the merits of the application without
any predetermined bias. That should have been the end of the discussion
because by law it is up to the individual commissioner to determine his/her
ability to hear an application without bias. However, Keystone continued to
press on the issue, then insinuating that not only were these two Commissioners
biased but that the entire Zoning Commission was biased, by asking each Commissioner to state "for
the record" if they had talked to anyone outside of the Zoning Commission
about the Dorset Crossing application. We commend the Zoning
Commissioners for maintaining their professionalism and their composure, under
this challenge which apparently is a first ever, during the long tenure of many
of the Zoning Commissioners, and a request which raised the ire of many of the
public in attendance and for good reason. We can only assume that this
challenge was intended to set the stage for a possible law suit
against the Town in the event the Dorset Crossing application gets denied.
We believe the application for the
zoning text amendment submitted by Keystone companies should be denied!
We want to be clear, we are not opposed to the conceptual site plan we have
seen for the Dorset Crossing project itself, but rather we firmly believe the
developer should wait until our elected officials write a mixed-use zoning
regulation that will both protect the residents as homeowners and the town from
unpredictable and undesirable development and also provide the developers with
a regulation that could be applied to the Northern Gateway to develop Dorset
Crossing. We are opposed to the zoning text amendment they have proposed
because if approved it would:
- Greatly
reduce the predictability of outcome of a proposed development because of
the lack of site specific requirements - one size does not fit all!
The developer’s submitted language, if passed, would create a one size
fits all component for a portion of
- Not
regulate the density of a development with regard to the number of
buildings that could be built on any given site zoned or rezoned B3 with
the maximum size footprint of
- Conversely,
the required maximum footprint of 25,000 sq ft for a retail building could
make other sites around town that are currently B3 or would want to rezone
to B3, nonconforming. For instance, Hoffman's property is zoned B3
and the brand new Best Buy store has a 32,000 sq ft footprint. Would
that mean Hoffman's brand new store would be nonconforming? What if
Andys or Fitzgeralds wanted to rezone to B3 in order to take advantage of
the new mixed-use zoning regulation in order to redevelop to mixed-use
some time in the future? Both retail stores are greater than 25,000
sq ft. so would be unable to do so under the Dorset Crossing B3
zoning text amendment that requires a 25,000 sq ft retail limit.
This is the same argument SHARE heard two years ago from opponents to Bill
Miller's application for a zoning text amendment to have a 20,000 sq ft
cap on new retail stores in Simsbury - that it could make existing stores
nonconforming. Both the Planning Commission and the Zoning
Commission used this argumen to deny his application. We would assume the
same would hold true for this application. As a side note we find it
odd that the Chamber of Commerce quite vociferously spoke out against the
Bill Miller 20,000 sq ft retail cap two years ago and now are embracing
the Dorset Crossing amendment that caps retail to 25,000 sq ft. It
certainly makes us wonder why the complete turn around and what has
changed?
- Not
require a mix of uses at all nor require any set percentages of
uses. So this zoning text amendment does not reflect true smart
growth mixed-use principles. Once again we could end up seeing just
another shopping mall being built on a site rezoned under this zoning text
amendment.
- Does
not require net economic impact and other necessary studies to provide the
land use commissions the necessary information critical to judging the
benefits or negatives of any proposed development to the town.
- Allow
development at the Northern Gateway without studying and planning for the
total traffic capacity of Route 10 and its impact on the
- Jeopardize
the integrity of
- Set a
legal precedent for an applicant to request permission to build a business
(such as a convenience store) in a Residential zone and substantially
diminish the protection that our current use=based zoning regulations
provide to all residents of the town.
- Circumvent
the proposed public planning charrette process that would allow our
elected and appointed officials on the Simsbury land use boards, along
with the resident’s and developer’s input, to work with highly expert
consultants to draft appropriate and responsible mixed-use zoning
regulations that would be site specific and that would most benefit the
Town and not just the developer.
To truly embrace smart growth
principles that include new form-based zoning regulations to allow mixed-use
development in
We strongly urge all of you to attend
the July 21st Zoning Commission Public Hearing on Dorset Crossing.
If approved, this will be make permanent changes to our zoning regulations
allowing significant and unalterable changes to the character of our Town!
Say No to the Dorset Crossing zoning text amendment!
Hoffman Zone Change Application:
The Southwest Homeowners Association has taken the lead on this very important zone change application. As we have done before we are including a message from the SWHA for your information below:
They're Back!
There
is an other new plan with some adjustments from the last meeting, but it still
has parking spaces on the former Markie property.
The driveway has been moved
to behind the Body Shop building, more parking has been removed from the
north-west parking area.
No other suggestions have
been used or requested. It seems that Honda is the only manufacturer that has
an inventory storage parking requirement the others leave it up to the dealer.
Please come to the Zoning
Meeting on Monday, July 21st, the agenda is listed below.
Sign up to speak. Summarize
what you have said before and then speak to additional or new concerns.
South West Homeowners Association
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee
Rescheduled Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Monday, July 7th,
“Everyone is entitled to their own
opinions, but not their own facts” – Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Developer’s Delay of Their Own
Process
The June
16th Zoning Commission's public hearing on Dorset Crossing was postponed until
July 7th at the request of the Zoning Commission because the attorney for the
developer of Dorset Crossing had sent a letter requesting that two Zoning
Commissioners recuse themselves from the hearing and vote on the
application. However the two
Commissioners had not received the letter by email until
Both Commissioners (Bruce Elliott and John Vaughn) are members of the Simsbury Citizens First party and were elected in last November’s election. The attorney for the developer requested their recusal based on the Commissioners' alleged association with SHARE. SHARE wants to publicly state that while Bruce Elliott was at one time on the SHARE Steering Committee, he resigned in June 2007, prior to becoming a candidate for office and John Vaughn was never a member of the SHARE Steering Committee. Neither commissioner is currently involved with SHARE.
Recusal is an elected officials’ personal decision as to whether they can evaluate a project in an independent and unbiased fashion and also to ensure that a vote doesn’t have a personally direct financial benefit or conflict with the commissioner. For the Dorset Crossing developer to request that these two commissioners recuse themselves seems to be an attempt by the developer to do whatever it takes to get his application pushed through the land use process.
At the risk
of giving this issue more airtime than it deserves, for those of you who enjoy
reading legal case law precedent, we refer you to the case of Robert Cioffoletti, et al. v. Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Town of Ridgefield, 209
Conn. 544 and Furtney v. Zoning
Commission,
159 Conn. 585, 594,
A combined concluding summary from these case discussions
in Lexis Nexis states:
“The law
does not require that members of zoning commissions must have no opinion
concerning the proper development of their communities. It would be strange,
indeed, if this were true. The human mind is no blank piece of paper.
Interests, points of view, preferences, are the essence of living. An "open
mind," in the sense of a mind containing no preconceptions whatever, would
be a mind incapable of learning anything, and would be that of an utterly
emotionless human being. Local governments, therefore, would be seriously
handicapped if any conceivable interest, no matter how remote and speculative,
would require the disqualification of a zoning official. Such a policy would
not only discourage, but might even prevent capable men and women from serving
as members of the various zoning authorities.”
‘Nuf said on that, don’t you think?
Public Hearing Next Steps
The SHARE Steering Committee has reviewed the Dorset Crossing zoning text amendment and strongly opposes its approval for several reasons. We want to be clear that we are NOT currently opposing the conceptual site plan that Keystone Properties has presented for the Dorset Crossing project itself, but rather we firmly believe the developer should wait until the elected officials write a mixed-use zoning regulation that will both protect the residents as homeowners and the town from unpredictable and undesirable development and also then provide the developers with a regulation that could be applied to the Northern Gateway to develop Dorset Crossing.
Our
opposition to the Dorset Crossing zoning text amendment is that if approved it
would:
· Jeopardize the
integrity of
· Set a legal precedent for an applicant to request permission to build Business (such as a convenience store) in a Residential zone and substantially diminish the protection that our current separate use-based zoning regulations provide to all of us as residents of the town.
· Circumvent the proposed public planning charrette process that would allow our elected and appointed officials on the Simsbury land use boards, along with the residents, land owners and developers input, to work with highly expert consultants to draft appropriate and responsible mixed-use zoning regulations that would be site specific and that would most benefit the Town and not just the developer.
· Greatly reduce the
predictability of outcome of a proposed development because of the lack of site
specific requirements - one size does not fit all! The developer’s submitted language, if
passed, would create a one size fits all component for a portion of
· Not regulate the density
of a development with regard to the number of buildings that could be built on
any given site zoned or rezoned B3 with the maximum size footprint of
· Not require a mix of uses at all nor require any set percentages of uses. So this zoning text amendment does not reflect true smart growth mixed-use principles. Once again we could end up seeing just another shopping mall with a Big Box being built on a site rezoned under this zoning text amendment.
· Does not require net economic impact and other necessary studies to provide the land use commissions the necessary information critical to judging the benefits or negatives of any proposed development to the town.
· Allow development at the Northern Gateway without studying and planning for the total traffic capacity of Route 10 and its impact on the Town Center as well as diminishing the right of development of other landowners along Route 10 because Route 10 has a limited traffic capacity. In other words, without the charette and the creation of appropriate holistic zoning regulations, this text amendment could create a first come first served model, with the first developer to build getting a greater allotment of traffic for their project and each consecutive project getting less due to diminished road capacity.
To truly embrace smart growth principles that include new form-based zoning regulations to allow mixed-use development in Simsbury, the Town must take the lead in the planning, drafting, vetting and adopting these regulations, specific to sites identified by the Simsbury 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development, and not be swayed by the promises of a developer who wants to force through a mixed-use regulation in order to build a project to benefit his bottom line while potentially opening a Pandora's Box (Big Box?) of unwanted and oversized development in Simsbury.
We
strongly urge all of you to attend the July 7th Zoning Commission Public
Hearing on
If
approved, this will be make permanent changes to our zoning regulations
allowing significant and unalterable changes to the character of our Town!
Say No
to the
Rescheduled Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Monday, July 7th, 7:00 pm
To have Two Public Hearings
Monday June 16th at 7
pm at the
This Monday, June 16th at
7:00 pm at the
(if experience a problem
with this link, please refer to the email cut-n-paste at the end of this email)
The second public
hearing is on the Hoffman proposal for a zone change for property on
We have included an email below from the SWHA for your information.
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE
Steering Committee
********************************************************************************************
From
the
The next zoning meeting is
on June 16th at 7:00pm. This is a continuation of the May 19th meeting,
and the public participation is still open.
Please come for the entire meeting and show your interest in all the agenda
items. It is important to get as many
people to come to the meeting, it will be noticed and can make a difference.
Hoffman has a new version to present. This is another version of their
ever changing plans.
If you spoke last time and wish to speak again make sure it is new
material. A short reminder of the last meeting would be OK, but then go
to the new issue.
Thank you.
South West Homeowners Association
********************************************************************************************
EMAIL Cut-n-Paste Solution:
Please be sure to
either email Dunny Barney, Chairman of the Simsbury Zoning Commission (ABarney@simsbury-ct.gov) and CC Hiram
Peck, Simsbury Town Planner (hpeck@simsbury-ct.gov) or attend
the Zoning Commission meeting on June 16th. If you send an email, we suggest your email
say something like:
------------------------------
Dear Chairman Barney:
We believe that the Dorset Crossing Zoning
Text Amendment is overly vague and is not appropriate for adoption into
Please
vote to deny the current
Thank you for your consideration of my
views.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
-----------------------
Another
‘What Are They Thinking???’ Edition
“The nicest thing about not planning is that
failure comes as a complete surprise rather than being preceded by a period of
worry and depression” – Sir John Harvey-Jones
IMPORTANT Zoning
Commission Public Hearing on
This is a long but very important email. Please read it through!
We wanted to
alert you to a disturbing development which could, in a worst case scenario,
have a dramatic impact on how
Here are the details…
On April 21st, the Keystone Companies LLC and Dorset Crossing LLP submitted a Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendment for their property commonly referred to as the Northern Gateway site in the Simsbury Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD). We have attached a copy of this application for your reference. In this application the developers want to change the zone designations for portions of their property in order to build a mixed-use development. They also submitted text changes to be made to Simsbury’s town-wide zoning regulations which would enable the development of Dorset Crossing as a mixed-use development however these changes to the Simsbury zoning regulations could then be applied anywhere in Simsbury.
It is essential for you to understand that if these zoning text changes are approved by the Zoning Commission, then they will apply to all properties with those zone designations. A further concern is that land owners of properties with other zone designations may apply for a change to this new zone. This is a similar situation to what Konover Development was attempting to do with the creation of a town-wide floating Planned Development District (PDD) zoning text amendment.
As with the Konover PDD, the Dorset Crossing proposed zoning text amendment, if approved would have permanent and critical, town wide ramifications to our current zoning regulations. These include:
· The
amendment, if approved, will provide legislation for future applicants for new
development or for re-development, to request a mix of uses in current single
use zones. Essentially all zones can
become mixed use throughout all of
· If the Zoning Commission approves this amendment as is, it will allow residential (R) in business (B) zones. Therefore, it would set a legal precedent for an applicant to apply for business (B) use in residential (R) zones (e.g. a convenience store in a neighborhood)!
· The applicant is requesting a fundamental change of our current use based zoning regulations (the concept in which all of Simsbury’s zoning regulations are predicated on), by asking for the ability to mix uses in a single use zone which would destroy the integrity of use based zoning throughout Simsbury.
· Approval
of this zoning text amendment would therefore remove the protection that our
current separate use based zoning regulations provide us as homeowners and
property owners throughout the Town of
There are numerous flaws with the Dorset Crossing zoning text amendment. Recently SHARE sent the attached email to John Loomis the Chairman of the Simsbury Planning Commission outlining our concerns and urging the Planning Commission to send a negative referral to the Zoning Commission on this application. Below is a summary of some of the other concerns we have regarding the Dorset Crossing zoning text amendment:
· The application’s omission of specificity in the percent of mixed-use and enforcement language for the ultimate construction of the proposed mixed-use components. As in the Konover PDD, without required percentages of mixes of use, a developer would be able to build either just retail or just residential.
· The
application’s large individual building square footage caps when total
allowable square footage is calculated (the application allows for multiple
buildings of
· The omission of language requiring bonding and phasing and completion for a complete build out, which would allow a developer to walk away from a project that was only partially built
· The omission of required net economic, net fiscal, environmental and traffic studies needed to determine the actual costs and benefits to the town of a proposed project
The above
are just some of SHARE’s main concerns with the Dorset Crossing zoning text
amendment application. Frankly given
these glaring issues, we thought it was obvious that the Planning Commission
would provide a negative referral to the Zoning Commission. However, in the 2.5 years of SHARE’s
activities in
Please understand that the Planning Commission, by law, must evaluate all such applications to the town and provide the Zoning Commission with either a positive or negative referral. SHARE felt that it should be obvious to the Planning Commission that the application as written had numerous significant deficiencies and that the zoning language submitted by the application was clearly too vague and insufficient to serve the town’s interests.
However, shockingly, by a vote of 4-2 the Planning Commission voted to provide a positive referral to the Zoning Commission for the Dorset Crossing application – a positive referral that is truly strange, inconceivable, inconsistent with their past thinking and actions, inherently flawed reasoning, and really, really bad precedent.
Voting in favor of the positive referral to the Zoning Commission were Chairman John Loomis, Gerry Post, Ferg Jansen, and Chip Houlihan. Voting against the positive referral were Sue Bednarczyk and Julie Myer.
So What’s Next?
Your SHARE Steering Committee feels strongly that the job to create zoning regulations should be the job of the Town and its elected officials and not the job of some developer who wants to shoe-horn regulations into place that may help that developer but disadvantage the town and the homeowners. Keep in mind that once zoning regulations are altered for the convenience of one developer, they are permanently in place for everyone.
As an
example of why this is potentially problematic, the
Next Monday June 16th at 7 PM at Simsbury Public Library the Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on this application and possibly vote on it. It is important that SHARE members attend the meeting to express their opinions about it. We believe that special focus for comments should be on the zoning text amendment and the deficiencies we outlined in bullet form above.
Please be sure to either email Dunny Barney, Chairman of the Simsbury Zoning Commission (ABarney@simsbury-ct.gov) and CC Hiram Peck, Simsbury Town Planner (hpeck@simsbury-ct.gov) or attend the Zoning Commission meeting on June 16th. If you send an email, we suggest your email say something like:
(if
experience a problem with this link, please refer to the email cut-n-paste
solution(s) below)
EMAIL Cut-n-Paste Solution:
------------------------------
Dear Chairman Barney:
We believe that the Dorset Crossing Zoning
Text Amendment is overly vague and is not appropriate for adoption into
Please
vote to deny the current
Thank you for your consideration of my
views.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
------------------------------
In either case, you need to let the Town know what you think about these issues and why the Town shouldn’t let developers write town-wide zoning regulations for their own purposes that can impact the entire Town of Simsbury. Please be sure your voice is heard!
Sincerely,
Your Devoted SHARE Steering Committee