Will the Council right a wrong?

A guest post by David C. Schrumm on the proposed Richmond Glen / Serenity Ranch development:

Connecticut’s Conservation & Development Policies Plan established a statewide conservation map that encourages certain land use patterns in municipalities. Over-development in sensitive areas is discouraged by denying sewer funds to towns that allow sewer expansion into conservation areas. This does not mean that development cannot take place; it only means that high density development will not be enabled by the construction and maintenance of expensive public waste water systems. Private septic systems could be used and allow for some residential development.

Cheshire conservation areas include large parcels of land east of the town center along Academy, Wiese, Talmadge and S. Meriden Roads.

Cheshire’s Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) denied sewers for a 41 unit condo development on Wiese Rd. citing the state guidelines (among other reasons) since an approval would jeopardize future state aid.

On January 11, 2008 the developers filed a lengthy application with the state’s Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to change the conservation map for their development. Such action would remove the major obstacle to getting sewers thus getting the maximum number of units on a relatively small parcel of land.

State statutes give towns the right to request a public hearing on conservation map changes since they can have significant impacts on future development and budgets. The Town Manager, Planner, Engineer and Council Chairman Matt Hall were notified of this application. Other than a passing mention of the issue during the February 12, 2008 Council meeting, no public action was taken by the town to notify residents or provide evidence to officials in Hartford. It appears that the rest of the Town Council was not fully informed of the potential consequences. There was no public discussion of this issue, local residents most directly affected were kept in the dark and it even appears that Planning and Zoning and the WPCA were not notified of the potential change until it was a fait accompli.

On April 2, 2008 OPM recommended against changing the map and sent this recommendation to the Legislative Committee that makes the final decision. Town officials were reminded again of the impending vote but declined to respond in any way. Other than Councilman Hall, other members of the Council were not given this information. On April 21, the Legislative Committee met in Hartford. In attendance were representatives of the developer. The minutes of the meeting make a point of noting, “The Town of Cheshire was not represented at this meeting.”

Why was Cheshire AWOL? Casual indifference to an important decision at best? Or purposeful cover-up of the public’s right to know at worst?

Why should residents care about this chain of events?

1. A bad precedent has been set. When other developers request map changes how can the town oppose them when they were purposely mute on this one?

2. According to the state DEP, it is rare that a map will be changed if a municipality recommends against it. Cheshire didn’t show up and the map was changed.

3. The conservation areas contain some of our last expanses of rural land, many containing valuable farms. These 41 condos will sit next to a beautiful farm that is a great source of locally grown produce. If this ill-considered map change becomes a precedent, how long will it be before the farm is hemmed in by residential sprawl making farming operations difficult or impossible. Supporting “locally grown produce” means making wise community planning decisions; this development is the antithesis of good planning.

4. The extension of sewers into a new area is short-sighted. It increases the ongoing operating costs of the waste water treatment system. It also hastens the day when an expensive upgrade must be made to the main sewer treatment plant. Recent estimates have ranged up to $30 million for such an upgrade. The same town officials who fret loudly during budget time about keeping town spending under control laid down for a developer whose 41 units will add another cost layer to future budgets. Is anyone at Town Hall connecting the dots?

5. Another perplexing aspect of this project is the fact that WPCA’s eventual approval of sewering this project was in direct opposition to their recently completed long range plan for the sewer system. Whereas the Commission sent their plan to the state DEP indicating that this area should not get sewers, several months later they gave this project sewer approval. Part of this confused decision making can be laid at the feet of the political meddling that has gone on with the WPCA over the last several years, but that is another story altogether.

6. Finally, residents should be very concerned about how this project was allowed to proceed without the public transparency citizens deserve. While most of the decisions in the approval process were conducted according to local regulations by the relevant boards and commissions, the lynchpin decision was treated in a dubious manner which calls into question how local government is being run.

On May 12 the Town Council will vote on whether to give the developer access to Cheshire’s sewer system by way of an easement over town owned land. The Council would do well to say no to this request. They should give the residents of the impacted neighborhoods, and all Cheshire citizens, the protection that they could have spoken for themselves if this process had been as transparent as it should have been.