|
RECENT as of 8-8–2008 |
|
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 7 PM
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 7:00 pm
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 25,000 square feet and with up to three stories. This
means a developer could potentially build a little city in the Northern
Gateway, Southern Gateway or
- 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, 7:00 pm
“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 4:00 pm that day and did not have time to review the request.
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, 271 A.2d 319 (1970) and In re J. P. Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 651-52 (2d Cir. 1943).
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
25,000 square feet and with up to three stories. This means a developer could potentially
build a little city in the Northern Gateway, Southern Gateway or
· 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 Dorset Crossing Zoning Text Amendment
Monday, June 16th, 7:00 pm at
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 25,000 square foot per floor with up to 3 floors = 75,000 square foot buildings), and with no restrictions on how many of these buildings could be built on a single lot, could result in a development of excessive and inappropriate size, scale and density without regard to the surrounding areas
· 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 25,000 square foot times 3
floors cap in the application language would allow buildings of up to 75,000
square feet in particular business zones throughout
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
SHARE News Flash 
It's
official! Konover Development no longer
has the option to build River Oaks on the 60 acre CL&P property! This week the owner of the property has told the
SHARE Steering Committee that as of this past week he no longer has a contract
with Konover Development and that he will now be taking direct responsibility
for whatever gets built on his property and that he will only build something
that both he and the town “can be proud of” (his words). He will not build a Big Box store on his
property! Furthermore, he wants to work
collaboratively with the town and the residents and he said that he supports
the charrette initiative for his property stating that he will be an active
participant in the planning process.
Your
SHARE Steering Committee wants to thank you and the thousands of SHARE members
who have tirelessly supported the ‘No Big Box’ and ‘Responsible Development in
So, What's Next?
SHARE
will continue to be active advocating for responsible development for the
entire town. We plan to continue living
up to our name – SHARE –