Upcoming ND vote
The ND proposal will again be on the PZC agenda... this time at a special meeting scheduled for this Wednesday at 7:30pm. I'm not sure if there'll be a vote though. I believe PZC is not yet pushing up against their deadline... so they could wait until later this month.
In an unusual occurence, Republican Sean Strollo will be Chairing the meeting... though it will be a Democratic majority (D - Patti Flynn Harris, Lou Todisco, Marty Coburn, Andy Maye, John Kardaris; R - Sean Strollo, EJ Kurtz, Woody Dawson, Leslie Marinaro).
As I've said before... it should be rejected as currently proposed. Based on my understanding there are too many problems with it... it's not self-sustainable and it's unnecessary sprawl. These shortcomings are too great and can be overcome... though at a cost to the developer (remember my previous post where I said "stacked" parking costs $30,000 per parking space).
Additionally, the fiscal impact analysis is incomplete. And I don't fault W/S for that. They're upfront about this... they're a business and they want to make money. So they tell the best case scenario. That's what I expect of them. But it's not what I expect of my elected officials.
My representatives should also consider the secondary impacts of this project, particularly in relation to the schools. After all, like everyone else in town, the PZC is concerned about traffic. (MRJ, by Stacy Graham Hunt) And traffic is arguably a secondary impact... so the PZC should be consistent and either be concerned with all (obvious) secondary impacts... or be concerned with none... and they're not about to ignore traffic... which means they should consider the secondary impact on schools... along with the secondary impact on our already-stressed electric grid, etc.
Anyway, I'm hitting the sack now. In the meantime, any closing thoughts on the ND before they vote?
Tim White
18 comments:
Great post, Tim!
DON'T CHANGE CHESHIRE
How many people living in Cheshire would like to live in Southington, Meriden, Wallingford, or Waterbury. They have plenty of shopping and commercial sprawl. What has all the development done for these towns, their schools and living standards. If you don't want to live there, then why in the world would you want to change Cheshire to be like these towns.
Do you think this development and the others that are just waiting in the wings will improve your way of life or increase the value of your property or not adversely affect our schools, our traffic or the environment?
These developers who hide behind their LLC's are selling our school system and they would like to pocket the premium that was created by your hard work and tax dollars. Tell your town officials you like your town the way it is now and to keep it that way.
Any way we can get a referendum on this? Even a non-binding, advisory referendum is better than none.
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
Any money spent by the Town on this property or any other for any reason that exceeds the $365,000 number should go to a referendum vote.
Tim, Can you explain how since the P & Z is now under a republican majority that the previous democratic majority will make the final decision on this?
My understanding is this…
On any particular matter that comes to the PZC… if a PZC member is to vote, then (as a member) s/he is to attend all the meetings at which the matter is discussed.
Since Rich Levy, Paul Ranando and Tim Slocum are no longer on the PZC, they may not vote. And since Tali Maidalis and Mickey McPhee were not members when this particular issue (a site plan??) started being discussed, they may not vote.
Therefore, actual PZC members who are eligible to vote are Woody, EJ, Sean, PFH, Lou and Marty. And I presume this is why the alternates exist… so that you’ll always be able to have a vote that can receive a majority (for or against).
This is different from the Council or BOE in that you vote on anything as soon as you’re elected.
My guess is that this gets to the heart of the issue that PZC and ZBA are “quasi-judicial” boards that are supposed to be impartial.
Keep in mind though… I’m not a lawyer. That’s just what I’m guessing based on my limited knowledge.
Let's say I want to put a pool in my yard. My neighbor doesn't want me to do so. He's afraid it will be an "attractive nuisance" (and probably more importantly, be very unattractive for him). Should he be able to call for a referendum to prevent me from building my pool? I'm not sure we want Big Brother looking over my shoulder telling what I can or cannot do with my private property as long as it is within the EXISTING law, and not one made just to discriminate against me.
If you really believe that we don't want any more development to "keep Cheshire the way it is," then you need to support the funding for the town to buy all that land and to then maintain it.
quod,
the laws are there to serve the community. it's not the other way around. the mall affects the whole town. we (so to speak) collectively laid down the laws to help maintain, preserve, and create the community we now enjoy. there's a juggernaut aimed right for our north-end. we need to act, for the same reason we establish the rules in the first place.
sure, they're also there to protect individuals, but those are laws established collectively in order to make society civil. There's nothing magical about "EXISTING law." Besides, no one needs to work outside of existing laws to put a stop to this community trasher.
A caucus is to a primary, as a public hearing is to a referendum.
Quod...
About the possibility of voting on this change, consider the Presidential nominating contests.
Iowa has a caucus.
New Hampshire has a primary.
In a caucus, people must get to the caucus location at a particular time. In Iowa this year, that time was 6:30pm Iowa time. If they're voice was to be heard, they had to be available during the evening.
In a primary, people must get to the polling place at any point during the day... typically a 12-14hr timeframe.
In a caucus, you have to wait around a while.
In a primary, you're probably in and out within minutes (though not necessarily).
It's been argued that caucuses have an unintended consequence of disenfranchising some voters. For instance, if you work a nightshift (perhaps work in a restaurant)... it will likely be difficult for you to attend and have your voice heard.
On the other hand, the primaries tend to extend beyond the length of an 8-hr shift... thus they allow more voices to be heard.
Now consider that our PZC effectively votes on laws... our zoning laws. And consider what our current rules (probably by Charter) require... a public hearing.
IMO, a public hearing is similar to a caucus in that your voice will be heard... at night. And since a public hearing was required to change the zoning laws... I think it would be better to have a "primary" rather than a "caucus." And The People should be able to vote on the change in the plan of Conservation & Development.
Of course, my point is arguably irrelevant because my understanding is that the "law change" happened last summer. Nonetheless, public hearings have happened in relation to the current PZC vote.
Additionally, as far as the current public hearing goes... I didn't get to speak at the Nov 27 (??) meeting until after 2am. And while I'm confident that the Chair had good intentions in letting the public speak until then... it did have the unintended consequence of "disenfranchising" many voters... probably both for and against.
For me... I don't think we should have "voting" in place of every public hearing (there are way too many), but perhaps it could be limited to actual zone text changes?
And while we do have elected officials to handle these issues... I'm a strong believer in the power of both Referendum and Initiative... because they both leave more power in the real boss' hands... The People.
State law dictates the hearing and deliberative processes undertaken by the PZC. The voting members must have been on the commission when the application was filed. This is one of the reasons the commssion has alternates. In fact this is one of those rare times when three alternates will vote. Make no mistake the alternates are fully qualified elected members of the PZC, and they must attend the meetings so the town's and applicant's interests are protected.
Another reason for this rule is that it protects the public and the applicant from an election process having the effect stalling an application or calling its vote outcome into serious legal question.
The Weds. meeting is a workshop type meeting not a voting meeting. I would urge the public to fill the room as this won't be televised to my knowledge.
There were existing laws and they changed them. Is this working under the law when you can change them anytime?
EDC and the towns ED now want to push the state for a solution to the traffic? Where were they when the ND development project was presented to the P&Z? Did this problem just show up? It hasn't been fixed in over ten years so what is going to be the magic fix now. Keep dreaming.
W/S and Milone have mislead everyone with their over optimistic net taxes to the town. Revenues are very much on the optimistic side and the cost to the town have been minimized.
Their estimate that only 11 more students will come from 160 apt or 146 condo is stupid and the school superintendent didn't even challenge it.
To get the lowest real estimate take the total number of students in town, 5,100 divide the number of housing units, 9,000 to get .56students per household, or 89 students if apts or 81 for condos.
These numbers are even low if you consider the large number of age restricted and the households of empty nesters.
Empty nesters will not seek to live in the W/S development due to many factors, the most important reason is that applicants want to allow children and thereby sell the school system.
How can anyone call this a Win Win?
wunderbar
To the anon poster who questioned school sin wallingford and Southington.....they are on equal par with Cheshire. In fact the school facilities and park facilities are first rate...Cheshire facilities are dumps as our our parks...
You've got to accentuate the positive Eliminate the negative Latch on to the affirmative Don't mess with Mister In-Between
You've got to spread joy up to the maximum Bring gloom down to the minimum Have faith or pandemonium Liable to walk upon the scene
(To illustrate his last remark Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark What did they do Just when everything looked so dark)
Man, they said we better Accentuate the positive Eliminate the negative Latch on to the affirmative Don't mess with Mister In-Between No, do not mess with Mister In-Between Do you hear me, hmm?
(Oh, listen to me children and-a you will hear About the elininatin' of the negative And the accent on the positive) And gather 'round me children if you're willin' And sit tight while I start reviewin' The attitude of doin' right
(You've gotta accentuate the positive Eliminate the negative Latch on to the affirmative Don't mess with Mister In-Between)
You've got to spread joy (up to the maximum) Bring gloom (down) down to the minimum Otherwise (otherwise) pandemonium Liable to walk upon the scene
To illustrate (well illustrate) my last remark (you got the floor) Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark What did they say (what did they say) Say when everything looked so dark
Man, they said we better Accentuate the positive Eliminate the negative Latch on to the affirmative Don't mess with Mister In-Between No! Don't mess with Mister In-Between
Tim White said: "Now consider that our PZC effectively votes on laws... our zoning laws."
Here we disagree. They don't really vote on laws. Their job is to interpret the existing laws. They play more of a role of a Supreme Court than a legislature.
If you oppose the northend development because of traffic and growth issues, the time to get up in arms about this development was when the zoning was changed for the north end from industrial to mixed commercial/residential. The anti-growth folks, if their argument is to be carried to its logical conclusion, should oppose any commercial development there since it would increase traffic and the burden on town services. Where were they when the zoning change was first proposed?
I could see why environmentalists might have supported the zoning change from industrial to mixed commerical residential since the opportunity for being more environmentally friendly seems more likely. But the only real solution to the environmentalists' concerns would seem to be that the town or state purchase the land and create a park.
We made this bed, now we must lie in it. Otherwise we sacrifice a far greater principle, freedom from the tyranny of the majority and the whims of NIMBY neighbors.
(Sorry for engaging in the rhetorical flourishes - I was having fun with hyperbole!)
(Sorry for engaging in the rhetorical flourishes - I was having fun with hyperbole!)
lol. If you're not having fun... why bother doing it?
Here we disagree. They don't really vote on laws. Their job is to interpret the existing laws. They play more of a role of a Supreme Court than a legislature.
my understanding is that this is one of those rare times when PZC is less "quasi-judicial" in nature and more "quasi-legislative."
But fair enough... we agree to disagree.
Post a Comment