Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Lifestyle center IV

Wow... this one was a doozy. I felt like I got raked over the coals.... the big item tonight was the proposed amendment to the Plan of Conservation & Development. The item started off with an unusual twist in David Schrumm asking for public input... despite the public hearing having happened last week. And while the Council unanimously supported the idea, allowing public input, we may have gone too far in that the developer was not present and therefore unable to present its case... there could be legal implications, but I doubt it as the developers proposed changes were ultimately adopted (6-3, Orsini, Ruocco & Schrumm opposed).

There were lots of points made by all Council members.

The three main discussion points though probably were discussed in the form of amendments made by Dave Orsini. They were:

1) removing the language prohibiting retail over 50,000 sq ft
2) removing language prohibiting residential
3) keeping language related to the "Apple Valley" mall proposal.

My feelings (beyond what I wrote last night) are this:

1) retail over 50,000 sq ft is not necessarily bad. It depends on what goes in there. I'm not keen on getting a Walmart, but there may be other ideas that the community would give widespread support. And as I mentioned before... this is another unknown which can still be rejected by P&Z... if the developer even wants to continue down this path. Don't forget, they can pull the plug at anytime. (Failed, 3-6, Orsini, Ruocco, Shrumm supported)

2) Since I began thinking about the residential aspect, I've tried to be upfront about my concerns with adding 100's of new kids to the school system. I really don't want to do that. However, based on the advice of legal counsel, I believe this argument is a red herring. And as I mentioned before... I think studio apartments are one form of residential that could be good. But that's only one idea. There may very well be many more ideas out there that would work well. However, I'm not a developer or a planner. So I really don't know where this could lead. Again though, this is another unknown which can still be rejected by P&Z... if the developer even wants to continue down this path. Don't forget, they can pull the plug at anytime. (Failed, 3-6, Orsini, Ruocco, Shrumm supported)

Btw, if the developers don't have a good idea for housing... something besides a typical "4 bedroom colonial," then I doubt the PZC will allow it.

3) I thought David Orsini had a good idea in keeping the "Apple Valley" mall wording. Basically, my purpose here was simply to keep the wording, thereby limiting retail development to 900,000 sq ft. I figure, the proposed project is smaller than that, so this would simply limit retail development... to the point where, developers would have to ask again before turning the other three quadrants of the interchange into a massive strip mall. (Failed, 4-5, Orsini, Ruocco, Shrumm, White supported)

The last point I made that I forgot to mention in yesterday's post is...

As many of you know, I can go on and on about binding arbitration. And much of that consternation relates to my feeling that the State is telling the Town (and me) what to do. It seems as though the State doesn't trust the Town (and me) to make the right decision. And with a bit of a libertarian bent in me, I really don't like that feeling. So although unintentional I'm sure, it smacks of arrogance, as if the State is saying it is smarter than the town (and me).

In turn, I feel that P&Z should be allowed to go down this path. Else the Council would be treating the PZC in much the same way the State treats the Council.

So I disagree with the idea that Council should have rejected this proposal in an effort to require a P&Z supermajority (6 of 9 PZC votes, instead of 5 of 9). I'm confident that the 9 duly-elected members of the P&Z will use their best judgement and make a good decision.

Another comment that seems to continue being mentioned as a reason to oppose this project is that it will not be a "tax benefit" to the town. I again mentioned that I am completely uncertain whether that will be the case or not, as there are so many variables... particularly sewers and schools.

Again though this is another unknown. And upon completion of an impact study, I understand that the PZC could require the developer to add infrastructure, such as sewers.... keep in mind though that sewers would not necessarily be necessary.

For instance, there was a development off of Rte 322 in Cheshire that recently put in its own "mini sewer" system. I believe that is possible, dependent on the ground... is it sandy or rocky... perhaps clay or soil? I don't know. This is another unknown that will need to be addressed by the PZC. And these may be legitimate snags which ultimately doom the project. I don't know. But I firmly believe that is a decision to be made between P&Z and the developer... a decision that should be based on a greater understanding of the facts... facts which we don't yet know.

And one last time for good measure... this is the beginning of a long process... anywhere along the way, there may be legitimate reasons to halt the project. In my mind, those "reasons" could be "bad" answers to any of the unknowns that I've mentioned...

1) housing & schools (I don't want to see four bedroom colonials with lots of new kids),
2) sewers (will we need to expand our sewer plant?),
3) traffic (Rte 10 is bad enough. No point in adding shopping if the traffic gets so bad, no one is willing to drive there.), etc..

And if you want to be heard, the Planning & Zoning Commission has tentatively scheduled the public hearing on this for Feb 26. And keep in mind, if the hearing goes on for a long time, it will almost certainly be extended to another night... so that everyone's voice is heard... although, I gotta tell ya... I think your voices are being heard right here on this blog... which I think is kinda cool. lol.

And last, but unrelated to the Council deliberations... I'm a bit stunned at how high passions seem to have run on this particular Council vote.

Following the vote, I had several of my (formerly) biggest supporters make clear to me that they would never again support me. While others mentioned my "courage." It's reminiscent of the "zero budget" a few years back.

See I just try to gather the facts, listen to opinions and make a decision. For me, the votes I cast always begin with the facts, but often end with simply how I feel about a particular item. I just try to do what I feel is right. In this case, I felt that with all the unknowns, some of which could be good and some of which could be bad, the best thing I could do would be to get answers... to listen.

Anyway... I have to get to bed, so... I think I'm done with this for now.

Tim White
Town Council, 4th District

P.S. If you are concerned that what happens in the "northwest quadrant" could effect the other three quadrants of the interchange zone, we were told that is not the case. The Town Planner, Bill Voelker, assured us that "Land Use" law does not acknowledge "precedent." In other words, whatever we do with the development has no bearing on any other developments. And that significantly influenced how I voted tonight... it gave me comfort that we're not necessarily opening the floodgates, per se.

(Waterbury Rep-Am, by Lauresha Xhihani)

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

If it measn anything to you Tim, I support the project and I support you. Unfortunately, the other republican members of the Town Council have permanently lost my support over this. I will not be voting for Schrumm, Orsini or Ruocco again. In this case, I think thje Democrats were open minded and had the Towns true long term interest at heart. This town needs this development, residents want it (at least everyoen I speak to) and its time for this town to move forward.

Tim White said...

7:58... thank you. I appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

Yes tim you did the right thing and seemed to really be thinking abut tyhs and getting your head aroiund the issues.
Good work and good luck

Anonymous said...

Good job Tim...all we can ask for is an honest vote...you cant please everyone....and I am not a big fan of this...wont effect any of my future votes...

Anonymous said...

The Demo councilors seemed to be making alot of sense but the r;s are more angry and angry

Anonymous said...

More anger from what I have heard
I was not there but it was a mess
The anger boys are at it again
The red and the red
It seems to be a trend
But boy its the end
for the 3 stooges
at the end of the table

Anonymous said...

The council completely bungled this issue. We can only hope now that the P&Z Commission brings some sense to the discussion (I believe they will). The Town Council should have formulated an opinion, both majority and minority, and passed that opinion forward to the P&Z. That is the purpose of the statute change enacted by the General Assembly last year.

Instead, you rubber-stamped the developers proposal and rendered no opinion. You and the 5 other Democrats demonstrated a total lack of leadership.

And please, enough already with the binding arbitration. What does that have to do with development in the North End.

Tim White said...

Breach... thank you.

9:01... What would you like to have seen happen?

Anonymous said...

anon 6:01
WTF is the matter with you?

Anonymous said...

Tim don't worry you made the right call=these guys are no nothings when it comes to this stuff

adb said...

The folsk who are against this, are basically against any type of development in town. Its the same handful who whow up at all these meetings. I was offended by the individual, was it Bisbort perhaps, who implied that maybe the Canton town councilor who appeared on the video had been bought and paid for.

Fact is, these people have no plan, none whatsoever to mvoe this town forward, to bring in development. There will be no major corporate entity locating here, nor a major manufacturer or the like. It isnt happening in Connecticut let alone Cheshire.

The fact is, if a poll were taken you would find that a majority of residents woudl support this, but more importantly, it will be determined that this will be a positive on the tax revenue side. Its amazing,they build this in Canton for example, but in Cheshire we think we are better and smarter, we wont be fooled by these people like the fools in Canton. Well we wont be fooled because they are not fooling us. This is a good plan and it deserves to be approved , perhaops with some tweaking, but it needs to happen.

I agree with what another post person posted up above, anyone who votes against this for reasons that have no merit beyond, I dont want it in Cheshire, deserves to be out of office. Who gives a hoot about political affiliation. I have been impressed by the independence of Tim White and for that matter Matt Hall and Elizabeth Esty.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line for this whole thing is this-the P and Z has the ball now and no matter what they were going to get it.
The council votes does not signal to everyone from Donald Trump to Butler builoding USA will converge on the north end-poppycock
We have options and we can put what WE want up there-so lets get er done

Anonymous said...

Two questions:

1. Do you have any concerns about allowing mixed use zoning, including residential, in the north end?

2. Did you (or any other councilor) ask to have those concerns transmitted to the P&Z?

You guys completely missed the point!

Anon 9:01

Tim White said...

9:01 / 7:51...

1) I tried to lay out my concerns and opinions in the two posts "Lifestyle Center III & IV"

2) Over the past 8 or 9 days, I've spent several hours speaking with the P&Z town staff... the Town Planner, Bill Voelker. I've repeated my concerns and opinions to him several times.

As well, in the past two meetings I've seen at least three P&Z members (Patti Flynn Harris, Chair, Tim Slocum & Woody Dawson) and one P&Z alternate (Leslie Marinaro).

So my sense is that my thoughts have been, or will be, conveyed to the P&Z.

Anonymous said...

So if I understand you correctly, you don't think it was important for the Town Council body to transmit an official opinion to the P&Z about the biggest project to come down the pike in 25 years, and that they should read your blog. Wow!

Tim White said...

10:02... I conveyed my sentiments to the Town Planner and several PZC members directly (via the public meetings).

My blog referral was for you, not for P&Z members. My blog comments are simply a reiteration of my opinions and concerns that I made during the two council meetings.

As for council majority/minority opinions... I'm confident that PZC members, such as Tim Slocum and Lou Todisco, will be able to sort thru everything and make good decisions when the facts are known.

Anonymous said...

According to a site map I saw last night, the developers want to put 116 condo units in. They are not proposed to be studios over the shops. The residential portion of the site map represents nearly half of the proposed project (yes, it's a project). This would be a disaster to allow residential to stay in the proposal. They can call it what they want but it is a mall, much like what the old CT Post Mall was like 30 years ago--and that had a trailer park next to it. This is a mall with condos next to it. They are proposing a movie theatre complex even though one is 1/2 mile down the road. Nothing really new here. If it walks like a duck.....
Bottom line is that they should start calling it an open air mall and delete the residential. They should also update their site map to show the residentail area in Southington that it boarders. They conveniently used an old aerial shot so it looks more wooded than it really is. What are they trying to hide?
Residential must go!

Anonymous said...

Sorry spelling police, meant "borders" in the above post.

Anonymous said...

Lets all be honest, we don't want residential as part of this project because we want Cheshire closed. $500K plus houses are OK because of who can afford them. We don't condos or apartments because we don't want the people that would live in those units in town. We should not be proud this, it is a RACIST MENTALLY. That is the bottom line anywhere but here.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know there has not been any application to P&Z and there is no site plan. Since when has Southington worried about Cheshire zoning? Ask the Cheshire residents by the new Home Depot. They made a mistake by allowing age restricted project and that should limit our ability to develop property in Cheshire? I could take or leave the residential, but lets make sure that we are rejecting it for the right reasons.

Anonymous said...

Don't we already have residential in the interchange zone? Is there not a project off Birch Dr in the I/C zone? I think so.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry but time marches on and we can still have the nice old town of cheshire but it will have a better place to shop and do dinner and alot of other good stuff

Anonymous said...

anon 9:00 lol...on the spelling police comment.
I agree with you that this is really just an open air mall. I'm not too enthused about having high end stores there because not all of us are rich enough to shop at Talbot's and the like. I'd much rather see an outlet shopping area there. I know many people who travel out to Clinton to shop at their outlet stores.
As far as the residential (I heard and saw the same plan for 166 condo units) - it would be a hugh mistake! No way! No residential!

Anonymous said...

This is not about the north end, but I'd like to know why we still don't have anyone in the old Damon's restaurant (why is there a camper parked over there??. And what's going on with that little "strip mall" across from St. Bridget's? Also next to 7/11 we still have that ugly fenced in weed filled lot. What's with that? And how about the couple of old run down houses up from that area after the pet grooming shop? There are a lot of eye sores popping up in this town, I'd say.

Tim White said...

9:43

I'd also like some of the outlet stores that they have down at clinton crossing. I rarely go because of the distance.

Anonymous said...

The North End currently costs the taxpayers nothing. Any development of any kind will cost the taxpayers an increase in their taxes. The increase of tax revenue from the devlopment will not come close to pay for municipal bonds the Town will have to sell to pay for their fair share of the development. This has been proven over many times.

So for those who are willing to see their taxes increase to pay for a new sewer treatment plant (30 million) a new firehouse (10 million)and a new middel school (50) million keep going to the meetings and pubically supporting this project.Your taxes will increase by $900 in one year and every year thereafter, not counting the annual tax increase. You heard it here first.

Anonymous said...

Anon 323: "We should not be proud this, it is a RACIST MENTALLY."
Wow, where are the grammar police? LOL It has nothing to do with race and everything with putting a burden on our fragile education budget and hence our taxes. Anyone who thinks these will be low-income condos is crazy. These condos will be upscale to complement the upscale mall. $400K plus easily. So now who's "racist mentally" assuming that minorities would not be able to afford them? You, my friend. I made no such assumption or thought in my original post.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:31 is right. The developers will build whatever housing will be most profitable for themselves. If you think they're going to build low-end condos and studio apartments - you are truly naive.

Mark my words, the P & Z will not allow residential in the north end.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:28 You could take or leave the residential part of this? So you're saying that 166 residential units are ok with you?
Let's see what that means most likely - With that many units we would need to hire 30, 40 or 50 more teachers. We may also need another school. This was explained already by a member of the boe.

The superintendent wanted 7.5 teachers with an increase to the salary acct by 50K for each ($375K). As the board members explained adding that many would increase the budget by 1 million over 3 years(salaries & bene). And this was all requested with an enrollment dropping by 57. So if we hire 40 more to teach the kids coming from these 166 units, that's an add'l $2 million in salaries and, you do the math...how much over 3 years for salaries and benefits? More than I'd ever want to see.
And that's ok with you?

Anonymous said...

anon 4:08
Your remarks are really getting lame.
Nothing constructive,just more of the same.
You're really horrible with your rhyme.
You've proven that time after time.
If I had to guess where your comments stem.
I'd say they came from a town council dem!

Anonymous said...

Hey all I have a question, do any of you remeber the Bank and Bank development? I think it was a office building in the N. End. What was David O's role in that project? Wasn't there some issues about that? Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

I think it was called Banker and Banker and yes I remember David O had a shady role in that project.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know who owns the land that this project is slated for?

Anonymous said...

No idea who owns the land, maybe the Dems on the council who pushed this, they must be making some money on it.

Anonymous said...

yes the bg land deal of gthe cdentury it is going to be a big wide open schedal that will schock the town

Anonymous said...

anon 11:32 Better put the bottle down. Don't think your eyes can see the keyboard anymore.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to shop and the beautiful center in the north end. It will add to our tax base and be a wonderful addition to our town. I don't see what the fuss is all about-let's have a vote and if people want it fine-if not fine

Anonymous said...

AN important item is we collect the information on this projct from other projects the developer is doing. Reviewing the issues in Canton is a hint of what is to come. The same developer in Canton got approval and started construction. In the middle of construction the developer came back in asked for another zone change in order to make the project "viable." You see, the orginal request was not sufficient for success. This is the history of the developer and their projects. The developer has yet to buid a project with residential in it, why do we think Cheshire will be successful. Ask the questions, get the answers and make an intelligent, informed decision based on financial facts.

Anonymous said...

We can work this out I know we can! It is a great thing for us!

Anonymous said...

Or wait for GE to move to here.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon 3:01
I've heard that the land is owned by one of the Bowmans--I think the former Dem Town Councilor.

Anonymous said...

Hey 9:13, I am not sure if he ownes the property, but I am sure he is a Rep. not a Dem.

Anonymous said...

Maybe he meant the big, obnoxious Bowman that ran for council and lost. He's a BIG Democrat.

Anonymous said...

But never on council, so yes he's wrong.

Anonymous said...

Good night shirt we can have a great place to shop and live up in the north end. I am an elder citizen and would like to see this happen.

Anonymous said...

Who the hell is Jimmy Simma???

Anonymous said...

Bully rags and pigtails! The people who are writing the letters to the editor against this center need to wait and see what it would become. Butter and crumbs let's see what is in the future.