ND public hearing
Well, I thought it was interesting. I didn't hear every speaker... I arrived late, left early and spoke with several people out in the hall... but tried to take in a bit of it. And since it was on TV, I figured most of you could catch it live on the Henry Channel, anyway.
There were a few things though that I want to mention here...
1) very legitimate environmental concerns seemed to be mentioned a bit... something that didn't seem to be of much interest here on the blog.
2) W/S Developers confirmed that they are undecided about what they would do with their proposed residential units... that is, they may be sold, rather than rented. I suspect that within the group of people opposed to the residential component, some would no longer oppose it, if the units were sold. This would probably garner additional support for W/S, while not losing any support.
3) Probably missed by TV viewers... a quiet sigh of shock & surprise fell over the room when lawyers/consultants for Westfields (Meriden Square) announced who they were and why they were there.
4) Surprisingly, at least one resident brought up concerns about "affordable housing."
5) Marty Cobern said that "manufacturing" is not permitted in the interchange zone. Although he said "light manufacturing" is permitted there... don't ask me the difference. And for any of you who don't follow the PZC closely, I find that very few people will ever question Marty on "the rules." Forget about politics, most people seem to agree that he knows the rules incredibly well. So if he says something, it's almost certainly true and accurate.
6) Lastly, a question that hadn't crossed my mind before, but am thinking it now.... with regard to concerns of those who feel this proposal would "open the floodgates," we all know that retail has been permitted in the interchange zone for 20+ years, yet no retail has happened. So I'm wondering... why don't we take the Plan of Conservation and Development and just delete the wording about "Apply Valley Mall" and insert new wording about "The Shoppes at Cheshire?" Presumably, if the Apple Valley Mall was approved, yet nothing happened... then nothing will necessarily happen even with this change.
(WRA, by Lauresha Xhihani)
Just some random thoughts. Did I get anything wrong? Anyone else have any comments on the public hearing?
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
p.s. I think all the P&Z members (Patti Flynn Harris, Tim Slocum, Paul Ranando, Rich Levy, Woody Dawson, Marty Cobern, Lou Todisco, EJ Kurtz and Sean Strollo and the alternates) deserve a thanks for endeavoring on this adventure. I'm sure no decisions on this proposal will be easy for any of them, but I appreciate their service.
22 comments:
As a truly neutral observer on this blogsite and on the NED proposal, here are two observations--
* Tim Slocum's previous comments(in "Shrumm -vs- Miller" thread) are most thoughtful and poignant to this whole situation in town. Better to get involved and publicly debate your issues, than to snipe at people personally.
* Tim White always asks the right questions on issues, like NED. He adds greatly to the public discourse, and avoids the fray of petty politics.
Both Tim White and Tim Slocum are gentlemen. Cheshire is lucky to have such dedicated and talented volunteer public servants. Same goes for all the P&Z members who are conscientiously performing their sworn duty.
Tim, why were you "surprised" that affordable housing was mentioned? It is a very real possibility--if not in that parcel, then in the other 3 quadrants. As Marty pointed out, if residential is allowed in one quadrant, the burden of proof to exclude it from the other quadrants falls onto the town. If left indus/comm, the burden of proof as to why it should be allowed falls onto the builder. It is a genuine concern. This project may only generate 50 students, (which under the current superintendent--who BTW is now DR Florio--could mean 10 add'l teachers) but we will lose control of what comes in the other quadrants as the state looks favorably on affordable housing and allows higher density in order for the builder to make it profitable to do. Even if affordable housing ended up not being built, historically in this town, builders have used it as their trump card to get what they want passed. And the way the public overwhelmingly passes the open space referenda every time it is on the ballot, it seemed obvious to me that people are willing to use their tax dollars to say what they feel they can't say publicly, that they do not want more residential development. That needed to be pointed out.
Tim - I think that a debate over this is a good idea and will help the town make the best possible decision. What I don't like is Westfield getting involved. I think people from Cheshire should make this decision and not a corporation from Australia.
Jane, the surprise wasn't about your concern... I've had several people mention it to me.
The surprise was about it actually getting mentioned.
West Cheshire... thanks.
Ohhhh...thanks, I think....
50 add students will not mean 10 new teachers-that is another example of how the argument can spin out of control
The saddest moment of the night goes to Matt (I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV) Jalawic who tried to sell us on the idea that he represented "client" (read CAVE men and women) and tried to play the game of gotcha. He was slapped down hard by the W/S representatives and P and Z members.
Most of the meeting was upbeat-from what I have heard the room was 9 to 1 in favor so the no sayers could not make the case that there is a groundswell for no in the the North end.
Tim
The Waterbury R-A article that tries to suggest the the numbers in that room were mostly against the NED really has it wrong. The numbers were more like 8-1 for if you counted noses.
Dear Tim:
Did you hear that in 25 years of developing malls, and over 30 huge mall projects, not one had a residential component to it. This is the first time WS-Wiener ever did residential and they don't even have a plan for it. The man from the applicant company stated so directly to the public. I would have presumed that you would have picked up on this and would question the real feasability of the residential component as they have admitted that they have no experience nor plan in connection with putting in housing.
Anon 11:29. There was a touch of sarcasm in my comment about needing 10 new teachers. You're right though...it's probably more like 15 new ones. My point being you can never tell, since enrollment is dropping by 57 and he requested 7.5 more teaching positions...who knows what he will do with any increase in students at all? I apologize if anyone took it literally.
As far as the meeting last night, I was there. I'd say it was about 50-50. Anyone feel like watching the tape and counting it up so no one is accused of spinning things? The categories should be:
Totally for it as presented
Totally against it as presented
Oppose certain parts of it:
A: Opposed to residential
B: Opposed to >50K sq ft
2:25 "I would have presumed that you would have picked up on this and would question the real feasability of the residential component as they have admitted that they have no experience nor plan in connection with putting in housing."
This has been mentioned several times in previous posts. The idea of this post was to highlight new parts of the discussion that I felt had not been mentioned/answered anywhere on the blog.
See "questions on ND," question #15.
I would say it was 50-50 too. Except I had the feeling that everyone opposed was there, but not everyone that was for it.
After Matt Jalawic compared little league ballfields and the WS Development in the North end to Yankee stadium and Mall of America, he lost all credibility. If I recall. he ran for Town Council as a Republican last time around.
Like I said, I have been a meber of the Republican Party for 22 years. In November, Tim White will be the only republican I vote for on the Council.....
I won't even vote for tim
5:53 generally speaking, why do you say that? Do you intend to vote the democratic ticket? Or do you have some differences of opinion with me in particular?
Just curious.
The discussion about affordable housing was interesting. So was all thefemale real estate agents that thought a shopping center will provide better shopping and eating establishments. And to think that this retail outlet will be different from all others in surrounding towns is a wrong thought. It will take about a week for "The Element", you all know the group of whom we are speaking about to take up residence in the new retail shopping center.
To think that the mall will reduce our taxes is wrong, do the numbers.
I think if we have smaller upscale retail/restaurants ala Southbury Green idle teenagers will find little to attract them.
Given the tsumani of added housing applications once CCLU start suing I think we ditch any residential in the N End altogether
Tim - It's 5:53 I don't live in your district.
We should just give the owners of this property a tax break, since we won't let them develop it. Why should they pay taxes on it. If we say no they should not pay taxes on the property.
OK by my count...I watched the meeting on TV and this is what I counted (although I may be off by 1-2 as I did get a phone call during it)
For it as presented 17
Against it as presented 15
3 people brought up issues to be looked into and it didn't seem they cared one way or the other as long as their issues were addressed. These were environmental, historical, and flooding.
Out of the 15 that spoke against the project, I didn't keep exact track but the majority of those seemed to be opposed to the residential portion of the plan. A few opposed to the big box concept and few opposed to the entire thing.
Justin Adinolfi collects 425 signatures and claims this is a a sure sign of solid and overwhelming support of the North End project. The 425 is 25 less than all of the Seniors on the current tax relief plan and about 3000 less than the total signatures on the senior tax relief petition. So by this logic what does it all mean? If the opposition folks to the North end develoment collect 850 signatures does this trump the 425?
Jane is absolutely right, if you allow housing in one quadrant then you can expect it in the other 3. Where she estimates 50, which could easily be much too conservative, then the 4 quadrants could have 200 or more.
And, I think that W/S tried to downplay the number of students by asking that the residential be restricted to 2 bedrooms. That's not a restriction at all, in that you can build units with a lot of different kinds of rooms that can easily be used as bedrooms. I don't think we want the town to have bedroom police who check on how each room is used. Better restrictions would be age limited, which they don't want to do for some unknown reason or limit the sq footage. Limiting the square footage might deter families with children from this quadrant, but not in the other quadrants. Developers in the other quadrants could challenge the limitation in that they should not be limited by what another developer requested.
In summary, Cheshire can expect a lot more children than the low-ball estimates of developers.
Cheshire's school system is highly rated and parents of neighboring towns are willing to pay a premium to get their children into our schools. So the builder gets the premium and we get the educational costs.
Post a Comment