MRJ on PZC vote
The MRJs Stacy Graham-Hunt reports here on last night's PZC meeting.
And the MRJ is also sounding off on their blog:
I can see why any Cheshire resident might like the idea of improving the tax roles. I cannot understand why anyone there would vote in favor of suburban sprawl over 110 acres which might well remain unused. The way the process of approval is structured, there really is no opportunity for any official body to say, though, “this is not something the town needs.”
Tim White
22 comments:
What is not to be forgotten is that there was a process and it was followed.
The citizens had their say and it was well discussed.
We had Cheshire citizens who were elected by the people make the decision not some outside agency or panel like binding arbitration
"there was a process and it was followed."
There was a process,
a bad process.
There never was a vote on the 21 items that Cobern said they had to vote on and there never was a public discussion of the 21 items. If Cobern's Findings had not been leaked, we would never have known what a true farce this was. Cobern's findings were written even before the commission was supposed to deliberate. Who were the other authors that helped Cobern write this unbelievably biased findings report? If it was to be for discussion, why didn't it include all the negative aspects of this development.
Why wasn't each item discussed in public and each item voted on?
Sure the public spoke, but only the developer's view and those of their hired guns were considered.
These 7 people served the interests of the developers and not the interests of the residents of Cheshire.
The Meriden Record Journal got it right this time when they said,"
I cannot understand why anyone there would vote in favor of suburban sprawl over 110 acres..".
Well I thougt it was a very fair and open process
ISO 9000 was a accreditation for industry that allowed one to document their process and prove that in fact the process was followed. The ISO 9000 did not make your quality better, it just proved you had documented your process. A properly documented bad process will always put out a bad product or decision.
We have a process,one that requires an overhaul.
"Well I thougt it was a very fair and open process"
I'm sure you are going to do very well, that's the only reason you would think this was fair.
It sold Cheshire down the toilet.
Anon 9:30 Do you honestly think that this will not be decided in the court system. In that system the citizens will not make the decision. We were very ignorant of the process which is very one-sided for the developer and leaves the town open for anything. Right now Cheshire has no zoning laws. The Plan and Conservation plan was changed with very little thought to its IMPACT to the future of Cheshire.
Cheshire has zoning laws and good ones at that. The town doesn't lose many battles in court over zoning matters.
A court decision will hinge on the 21 findings the commission used to substantiate its recent vote. The reason there are findings at all is for this purpose...a decision meets our regulations. The PZC has made a vote I don't approve because I don't like the project but I suspect a court won't find any fault with their findings as a matter of law. While the decision will likely be tested in court it will probably stand.
Remember this...a zone text change was approved before this application was approved. The approved application was found to meet the zone text in part or as amended during the latest decision process.
TS
You mean had. We lost our protection. The developer wrote the changes and yes we approved them without much thought. I don't care about the project because the project can be much different then what was proposed. What I care about is that it changes the whole IC zone and more. You never mention that residential was added and many people didn't want it(not even the developer). Where is the need? I disagree with your prediction.
"A court decision will hinge on the 21 findings the commission used to substantiate its recent vote."
We have to investigate who took part in writing "THE FINDINGS" that were written before any P&Z meeting was held to discuss and deliberate each of the 21 items.
The public never heard a discussion or any deliberation on each of the 21 items. Cobern said there was going to be a vote on each of the items and that also never took place.
This was a very sneaky underhanded decision process, but this is the only way it could have passed.
Thanks to whoever it was who leaked the draft copy to a blogger.
Is this how they got the vote for the change to the Town Plan of Conservation and development and the zone text change to the interchange zone?
Keep the leaks coming it's the only way for us to find out what is really happening. Help provide evidence.
The draft findings weren't leaked. They were stacked alongside the stack of meeting agendas on a table in council chambers for the press and the public to pick up and read during the Jan. 16 meeting. All of this in the light of day (night).
You may not like the vote, a few of the commissioners did give some pretty shallow explanations for their yes vote but they voted on a motion that includes the findings.
Where is the lack of transparency?
There are minutes, video tapes, recordings, etc. to doncument what was said and who said it.
If you don't like their vote...vote the bums out in 2009. Strollo and Kurtz terms will up. Who knows, maybe they have an eye on town council. If you want to stop something...don't let that happen.
"The draft findings weren't leaked. They were stacked alongside the stack of meeting agendas on a table in council chambers for the press and the public to pick up and read during the Jan. 16 meeting. All of this in the light of day (night)."
What meeting are you talking about? Cobern's findings were not distributed to the public or the press. Stop trying to rewrite history.
Throughout these meetings the only thing that was ever distributed was the agenda.
Stop the deception.
Sometime I wished they would telivise the back of the room. It's interesting.
"telivise the back of the room. It's interesting."
They couldn't televise the back of the room on Jan 22 and Jan 28, because they didn't want the meeting televised and why didn't they have the town lawyer there?
Sure you can go to the town hall and read the minutes, but the minutes do not include everything that is said.
They said that Strollo as part of his reason for voting for it, he said that when you go to the Northend, you can even buy a hamberg, you have to go to Southington. Good reason for the chairman to vote for the mall.
In this weeks CH Mr. Curley from W/S said that the site plan could possibly contain "Slight modifications". The last time they asked to increase height limits to 45Ft for a "clock tower" and we got apartments and a hotel. What's next?
10:11 AM
Its not a deception...like it or not the "draft" findings were on the table at the entrance to council chambers. Where else would anyone get a copy. The press reported this too. It was the basis of the Heralds story a week before the decisons was voted on.
It is a lie. There was no stack of draft findings on the table at the entrance.
And, what the Cheshire herald reported was what Marty Cobern said.
The only reason the draft came into the public's hand is because someone gave a copy to a blogger.
They still have to discuss each of the 21 items and vote on each of them. That's what the public was told.
I would like to know why the only P&Z member to mention residential was Lisa M. From what I understood residential could not go forward unless an expressed need was shown. Is the reason residential wasn't mentioned because no one could find a reason for it? Most residents are opposed to residential so this should have been given top billing, instead it was just pushed under the rug.
If this copy was in the back of the room and the press got a copy why don't they print it? We had Channel 3 news at few previous meetings but not this final one. How odd.
An exerpt from Leslie Marinaro's January 28 P&Z Statement of Denial
----------- Exerpt -------------
I am going
to end with an excerpt from a letter which was read into the public record from a man whom I have the
utmost and deepest respect for due to his personal integrity, his proven record of public service to the
Town of Cheshire and his lifelong residency and support to the People of Cheshire and the community as
a whole. Frank Papandrea wrote “If this development passes, it will be the end of Cheshire as we see it
today”. As documented in the partial transcript submitted from the Board of Selectman meeting from
Feb 5th, 2004, regarding the Shoppes at Farmington Valley, it briefly states that the Commission “had the
best intentions planned and proposed for this site and the town” and that the “features that made this
project appealing no longer exist and it continues to become further and further removed from the plan
that was first approved”.
To view the entire statement
CLICK HERE
Mr. Coberns comments in the MRJ blog regarding the process might be factual but was it the right decision? We elect people to represent us but this commission had an agenda from day one. Mr Cobern if one attended some of the P&Z meetings it was clear which way you were going to vote from the very first. None of the 20 points were ever discussed publicly. Citizens concerns were never addressed (especially the controversial residential omponent). As far as the process it needs a major overhaul.
The process is just like what you would expect in Cuba. The findings and approvals all written before commissioners are supposed to discuss the 21 items.
Who wrote the findings? Martin Cobern is the supposed author, but there were definitely others who helped fill the findings/approval document with only positive points, even if they are false. We deserve to know all the authors.
Since the findings and approval were written up before any diliberation meetings, there was no need to discuss much of anything and certainly not the 21 items, deliberate on them or vote on them, it was a done deal.
Is this the way all the commissions function?
Before they discuss a subject, does the town council write an approval with only positive statements. Then after they go through the motions, do they pull out their previously written approval. I don't think the council works that way, but why should the P&Z work that way?
Cheshire deserves a government that functions for it's residents and not just for the select special development interests
Then after they go through the motions, do they pull out their previously written approval. I don't think the council works that way
Well... last April I was told that the it had been decided that the fund balance was not to drop below 8%.
Nine months later... the Council officially made the fund balance policy 8%.
Post a Comment