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)