P&Z public hearing
I want to clarify the purpose of the upcoming P&Z public hearing. The March 12 P&Z meeting is not directly about northend development. Rather, the public hearing is about:
1) proposed changes to the town's Plan of Conservation & Development
and/or
2) a proposed zone text change.
Then (I believe) if these two proposals are adopted (either in full or in part), W/S would draft more concrete plans for the development. I don't want anyone to misunderstand, so I wanted to share my understanding of the meeting.
And in an effort to clarify the exact purpose of the March 12 public hearing, does anyone happen to have the exact wording to be used for the public hearing? Or can anyone expand on what I just said? Is my explanation fair? I think it is.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
UPDATE: as mentioned by someone in the comments, click here for the links...
Proposed changes to the Plan of Conservation & Development and Proposed changes to the zone text
63 comments:
Your are correct in that the upcoming hearing is to address two issues - the Amendment to the Plan of Conservation and Development, and the zone text changes. Both documents can be seen, in detail, on the Planning & Zoning website. All of the talk regarding site plans is premature. One thing to realize is that the zone text changes will effect all areas zoned industrial, not just the interchange zone. Basically, the area of RT 10 North from Creamery is zoned industrial. If enacted as is, stores in excess of 50,000 sq. ft. would be allowed in those areas currently zoned industrial. My guess would be that this will substantially change RT 10 - even south of the IC zone down to Creamery Rd.
The text for the proposed changes to the plan of Conservation & Development and the zone text change now appear as pdf files on the the town's website. www.cheshirect.org
Select depts page, from this list select planning & zoning. The titles of text of the 2 applications appear on the left side blue field. Select and the pdf opens.
Both applications will be opened at the public hearing on 3/12. The proposed changes if adopted, enable a development such as the W/S proposal. If both are adopted it is likely a site plan for the W/S proposal, in some form, would be forthcoming. Those for or against this change in the zone will have their most important impact during this phase beginning 3/12. Make no mistake, this public hearing process will involve more than one public hearing.
The public should address procedural concerns or questions to the planning office 271-6670.
Excellent comments-very contructive and positive-getting to the meat.
Bob Korten
Hopefully at the hearing on 3/12 we will not get another dog and pony show put on by w/s developement. What is needed is an explanation of the text change and how it affects the area now zoned industrial. I down loaded the text change and anyone reading this will have many questions. We need an explanation in laymans terms that the public can understand. I have a feeling we will miss our old retired town attorney Mr. Knott
You're right, Bob, there will be lots of questions. I briefly read through the proposed zone text change and want to know the exact implications of adding "residential". Does that mean residential areas could pop up anywhere from Creamery Road north to the interchange zone? If it does, that could have a huge impact. And I also heard that if "residential" is added, that even if the P & Z denied an application for that area, the State could override their decision. Tim,do you know?
This is great-there are so many in support of this project. There were 100's of signatures collected it is nice to see so much support from the citizens of Cheshire for this change and project.
9:06 So you think it's great that adding residential could mean hundreds of housing units and additional homes built through that whole area?
I ask you how can hundreds sign a piece of paper and not have a clue as the final affect on this great town. All I can say folks is do your homework before you sign your name. Also sign your name. Step up to the plate. Stop being chicken
And once "residential" is added in, the statutes regarding affordable housing would also come in to play. Even those in favor of the mall should seriously consider eliminating the residential portion. They can have their cake and eat it too if the residential part is taken out--more people will come on board.
blue back square on taxes
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-whdgrand0304.artmar04,0,3122866.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
Bob - Many people singed for Senior Property Tax relief with no idea how that would effect the town. So why would you be suprised?
people are signing and they are fully aware of what is going on-the public is on board with this-it is the anti people who are spreading the misinformation about residential and the public sees right through this
You are correct about the senior tax freeze partition. People just signed. I attended several of their meeting and pointed out that unless they get the blessing of the town attorney in the wording that their effort was in vane.As pogo said "we has met the enemy and he us"
The people are not fully aware- they do not have a clue.All I am hoping for is a full explanation of the text change and its affect on the north end at the public hearing on Monday. Anything less would be a disservice to the comunity. Please sign your comments -You remind me of the people that say we will make the snowballs and you throw them.
All will know what is going on in the next few months. When the details come out we will be able to make up our minds. All this talk of millions needed for schools fire etc are too soon.
A Republican BOE member said we would have to spend $200,000,000 on schools. That is a lie and he knew it, he should resign with the other nut on the council.
Schools = 150mm
Fire = 20mm
Sewers = 30mm
Total = 200,000,000
Schools = $150m
Fire = $20m
Sewers = $30m
In touch with reality = priceless
HAHA emma's dad for Town Council!!!!!!!!!
I thought that he said $150,000,000 for the high school and $50,000,000 for a new elementary school.
Hard to believe that elected officals are so willing to lie to prove their points. Once those numbers are published and they are from a BOE or Council member people may believe them and they are false and made up, shame on both of them.
As a new resident of Cheshire (just moved in From AVon) I am kind of suprised to see all the negative stuff about the development near 691. I think somethjing like the Shoppes at Canton will be great if they are located there. One thing that you might want to think about-if you put a big strapping manufacturing plant up there would it not lead to alot of TRUCK traffic? And would it not lead to alot of the workers buying houses in Cheshire who have kids and they would then fill up the school systems even faster than small apartments?? Lets think clearly here and do the thing that most want here in town-some retail and housing. I am supporting this project.
Hard to believe people would sign when they don't know for sure what is going to go in there. It's like putting the cart before the horse. These people should be very careful, listen to the explanations for what these zone text changes mean, and wait until the developer presents a definite plan. You wouldn't sign a contract without reviewing it would you??
As far as comments about possibly needing more schools, fire dept, etc. and the actual affects of adding "residential", I think these people are just trying to make people aware of the possibilities. Nothing wrong with that. Better to be aware and do your "homework" than to be surprised later on.
There is a big difference between preparing for all eventual possibilities and putting forward fuzzy math numbers to put roadblocks up just because you personally don't want this project
Explain to me how you know for sure you'd want this development when you don't know exactly what's going in there?? All I'm saying is that the details are still "fuzzy" and people need to be aware and do their homework before signing on.
Or not so fuzzy-a board of ed member wrote a letter putting up some pretty off the wall numbers about fire and schools and etc.
How can one make a decision when there is misinformation like that out there put out as fact.
How do you know it's misinformation? And did this board member start off by saying, "the fact is..."? I heard the board members comments myself and what I believe they were trying to emphasize was that if the word "residential" is left in, that could potentially mean the State could over ride a P & Z decision and allow affordable housing to be built anywhere in the north end zone.
You must admit this is a critical point that needs to be further explained to the public as it could mean lots of housing. Hopefully it will be explained at the P & Z upcoming meeting.
Until all the facts are explained, you shouldn't be so critical of the information board members or council members are trying to explain. You should be giving them credit for doing the homework.
sz
Where did Schrumm go to school?
"Oh, how remiss of me, we will need a new $150 million high school, a $50million elementary school, a $20 million north end firehouse with full-time staff and all other infrastructure changes."
James M. Sima, Cheshire Herald, February 8, 2007
Whether we allow residential or not any developer can come in and do the affordable housing thing. This project has no bearing on that it could happen now or 20 years from now, this is the kind of misinformation that the nay sayers are spreading and it gets repeated as fact.
those comments by an elected official like Sima are the ones that make you think that the opposition will say ANYTHING to roadblock this.
Sue - They lied to make their points and that is wrong today and every day. It is the way the federal government works and now how the local government is working. You can't just make it up. I developer will need to bring facts to P&Z and they will decide. Not Sima's and Shcrumm's lies. I will work my ass off to be sure those two are not re-eleceted.
Not true, Anon 10:25. If the land if left zoned as "commericial/industrial" the affordable housing statutes do not apply and the state cannot mandate that we allow affordable housing in.
Everyone is saying how nice it would be to have local shopping. I for one am not against the idea. Opening the north end to residential is another matter and would be a serious mistake. I have one question - this developer has done other shopping complexes none with residential. Why is the residential portion being pushed so hard in Cheshire? Why are we proposing a text change that could encourage the building of condo complexes, apartments, etc. At the council meeting the developer stated that he did not need residential for this project to proceed. What's going on here?
When the residential part is taken out what will be the objection? It takes all the wind out of the sails of the CAVE men.
EXACTLY! It seems taking the residential out will be the compromise solution; protect the schools and have the shopping that many seem to want.
Right we should close the town and not allow any more residential. I heard that there may be 150-200 condos going in off West Main. How can we stop that? We need to fight now? Why educate anymore kids?
9:30 am - Thanks for clarifying the "residential" aspect vs "commercial/industrial". Now I just HOPE that's made very clear at the March meeting.
Anon 1:00PM That's my point. We can't stop development in areas that are already zoned residential. The only thing we can control is the land that our forefathers wisedly put aside for commercial/industrial. Let's keep local control of the land that we can. Once we give up control of it, that bell can't be unrung. There are plenty of homes for sale in town, and still plenty of residential land that can be developed. Let's keep the comm/ind zone just that. Besides, mixed use is just asking for problems. Few industries want to be located near residential because inevitably, the residents start to complain about the noise, trucks, etc. and businesses don't want to deal with that and leave or don't come at all. (ie; Dalton)
Stop ganging up on the BOE member who said this would'nt be a good thing for our schools. He's doing what he was elected to do - looking out for our education system. How many times have I heard the complaint of overcrowded classrooms. Well, if we add a bunch of residential complexes on the North End that's exactly what we'll have. We've already added twice to Dodd and a new addition was just completed at the High School. Everyone will be shouting loud and clear when our taxes go through the roof to keep up with the added strain to our schools. The residential portion of this proposal must be shelved.
He never said any of that. He said it would cost $200,000,000. He is a dishonest. He is what is wrong with government. If he said that he was worried about the affects on the school that would have been fine, but to make up numbers and report them as fact is bad governmnet and dishonest. People will not forget.
Maybe he wasn't honest enough. When all is said and done maybe $200M is a conservative figure. Take into account the land that would have to be purchased, the building costs, personnel costs, equipment, etc. Not to mention the cost of $10,000 plus per student per year. Do the math!
School enrollment is going down by 57 and the Supt. proposed a $3 million increase. Residential development could add 100's or who knows how many more to the enrollment. We can barely manage what we have now. The new commercial/industrial won't cover the added expense to the school budget or the town budget if we allow a residential component; more teachers, busses, police officers and quite possibly new schools or additions to schools. Cheshire is somewhat of an oasis compared to surrounding towns. If we become like them (crime, low academic achievement etc.) you can kiss your property values goodbye. And forget about a stable tax structure.
We've waited a long time to get interest in the interchange zone. We should get what we waited and zoned for --commercial/industrial only.
3:29 Now who's stretching the truth with misinformation?? Where'd you get the 1000's of more kids statement? Who said that? Not Schrumm or Sima. If someone is giving their opinion why are you calling it a lie? Exactly who is cheating and what are they stealing?
Give me a break! State your opinion on a project, but keep your opinions of people to yourself!
anonymous 3:29
This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. It's a Cheshire quality-of-life issue and it'll only get worse with residential added to commercial/industrial.
Dave Your OK calm down relax
8:24 If you're going to try to put together a sentence, at least have it read correctly. Don't forget your punctuation. Oh, and with such a short sentence, you'd think the spelling would have been correct.
It's "you're" not "your."
Dave - I graduated from our underfunded Cheshire Schools, but thanks for corrections.
8:22 Sorry, not Dave - guess again. I also graduated from our well-funded Cheshire schools some 30 plus years ago. You must not have been paying attention when you were there.
No wonder so many elected Cheshire Republicans are quickly being called CAVE men – Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
They consistently complain about fire department appropriations, youth sports, development, and public school spending.
These CAVE men will surprise you sometimes. They always vote to spend more for the town pool - how about almost a half a million dollars in the last twelve months just to subsidize the pool. Oh yes, don’t forget the million dollars they wanted for Linear Park.
I am sure that is false Schrumm would NEVER vote to waste money.
First of all I would like to say that I don't think Tim set this site up for certain people to do nothing more than name calling. That said - I feel that the retail portion of this proposal with restrictions should be approved. The last thing we want to have is a second Queen St. or RT 5, so we have to be careful. I also feel that the residential portion would be a disaster. Once the town opens up that area to residential we would have no control over developers building apartments, condos, etc. I feel this project would have more support if the residential was removed.
Tim - Is it true that P&Z would have the right to not allow any develpment in the new special zone? So they could allow mixed use on one section of the zone and say no to residential in the rest of the zone. So I don't fear residential in the rest of the zone since P&Z could reject it outright.
“10:04 I am sure that is false Schrumm would NEVER vote to waste money.”
Fireworkds were ten grand. Or was that an ‘investment’ ? Cheshire has NO fiscal conservatives. Visconti admits she doesn’t care abouttaxes atleast.
Wow no fireworks? You are truly a cave man. You should ask the republicans for a spot on their ticket this fall. You could teach those guy what a real conserative is like. I'll bet you would support zero spending increases? I wonder what affect that would have on services?
I can't understand all this arguing the the Rep's did this and the Dem's did that. When it comes to local politics what difference does it make what party your on, it should be what's best for the town. How many times have I seen the Council Meetings where the Rep's come up with a good idea and Dem's veto it simply because it was proposed by the Rep's. The Rep's do the same and it's silly.
There is the interchange zone which encompasses Rte 10 South to Jordan Caterers. Then there is an industrial zone down to Creamery Road. Any change to the interchange zone to allow residential would weaken our case if a developer wanted to put affordable housing in anywhere else north of Creamery. (The town made an exception for that builder....why not for affordable housing? one could argue) If it is left strictly indus/comm throughout, the burden of proof to allow the affordable housing is on the builder. If we change the zone text and allow residential in one part, the builder could argue precedence. If we change the zoning in both areas, the burden of proof as to why affordable housing should not be allowed will be on the town, along with all the costs associated with defending that position. About 12 years ago, a local builder wanted to build a 300 unit apartment building on East Johnson and requested a zone change to allow mixed use. It was rejected by the P&Z (thankfully), the builder sued and lost in court based on the fact that one of the few reasons a town can legally reject affordable housing is to protect its industrial zone. To even risk giving up control of that precious land is insane. Local control should prevail.
Mixed use with residential is crazy. Think of what would happen if the condos were there first and someone wanted to build a mall right next to them. Condo owners would have gone crazy...NIMBY (not in my backyard). Think of all those residential developments that have gone in Enfield etc, next to picturesque farms. A few years later, the neighbors are complaining about the roosters crowing and the smell of manure. Eventually, the comm/indus/retail gets old and the residential component starts to complain--sending businesses running. Look at all the complaints with the neighborhood and Dalton. Allowing residential in that area would be a huge mistake. Let's not rush into anything and regret it later.
1:43 said "If we change the zone text and allow residential in one part, the builder could argue precedence."
I'm not a lawyer... nor is the town planner. However, I did ask the town planner about the use of "precedence" in land use law. I can't quote him, but he basically said that the courts do not recognize precedent in land use law.
Is he wrong? Again... I'm not a lawyer. So I'm relying on others for such advice.
Btw, as I've mentioned several times lately on this blog... if you want your assertions to hold weight with the readers of this blog... you really need to cite references to substantiate your assertions.
Cite reference? Here's a doozy for you. So you mean what the Town Council (or its equivilent) in New London did to those private homeowners did not set precedent for the rest of the country? Hmmm...it seems the US Supreme Court felt differently. What happened in New London is now the law of the land--all because a local board sided with a builder to increase its tax base. If the text is changed, or an exemption is made, a builder can argue that a precedent has been set (not necessarily the legal term "precedent" as in a legal ruling but the past-practice type) but it can always be argued and then its up to a court to decide, not the locals anymore.
A few years ago Paul Bowman, ex- council person, took the town to court in the hopes of building 200 rental units on the land on which Whole Foods occupies. That's the kind of neigbor Cheshire needs.
Since WS never had any retail centers with residential and they will admit they aren't really that interested in the residential, why don't they drop residential from their text change? Why do they ask for building sizes over 50,000 sf and height of over 65 ft? I doubt that they have any shopping center with stores over 65 feet tall. From the WS request for change, it looks more like the residential and the building size requests may be for someone else. Who else would want to build the residential? What plans are being made to go over 50,000 sf and 65 ft high? Does anyone really believe that the north end of route 10 will not become the Queen St of Cheshire? Once the zoning of the 400 acres of the interchange is broken, the whole Cheshire plan of development can unravel. Do we want the developers to decide what kind of town Cheshire will be? faith and future in the hands of the developers?
The Trsffic Will Be Horrendous
This traffic situation provide a negative lifestyle for the residents of Cheshire?
Right now route 10 through the center of town is like a parking lot for many parts of the day which even are not rush hour. The road has been expanded by the state as much as can be done, so how is anyone going to improve it for the added traffic from this zone change? Remember they are talking of the entire 400 acres not just the 100 acres that the current developer wants to put 500,000 sq ft of shopping and 160 rental units on, it will be at least 4 times as large as the developer wants you to focus on.
Stop this insane zone change.
If this goes through, it will make the pool look one of the best projects.
Its not just route 10 that will be heavily impacted. Many streets that are used as bypasses and are only busy during rush hours are like country roods the rest of the day and weekend will see a great increase in traffice during rush hours will be busy all day, into the night and throughout the weekend.
Who are we doing the for? The Chesire citizens will be the big losers. The only ones that will be benefiting from any of this are the same local developers and realtor that you all know. They don't care about how they screw the Cheshire residents as long as they can make more money. It's time to take this town back from these unscrupulus developers and also kick them out of party leadership roles and out of our town government.
The roads that will be effected the most by MALL traffic are;
Locations West of Marion Rd to RT 70
RT 70 to Marion Road
Bethany Mountain to Brooksdale
Brooksdale to Mountain Rd
Mountain Road to West Main
Areas West of Cheshire to Prospect Rd
Prospect Road to West Main
West Main to Peck
Peck to West Johnson
West Johnson To Dickerman
Dickerman thru housing to MALL
South Cheshire and Handen to Rt 10
Cook Hill Road to Route 10
Wallingford Road to Route 10
Academy Road to Route 10
Route 10 to W/S Mall
Meriden to East Johnson
Cheshire St to East Johnson
East Johnson to W/S Mall
A guess of the busiest streets ranked in the order of the highest guessed traffic is as follows.
1 RT 10 thru the center of town
2 RT 70 to Peck
3 East Johnson
4 Peck
5 West Johnson
6 Mickerman
7 Academy Road
Mountain Road
Brookvale
Cheshire Street
8 Bethany Mountain Road
Prospect Road
Cook Hill
Wallingford Rd
Post a Comment