Flooding in the north end
Anybody see the meeting last night? I can't help but feel that the discussion on David Schrumm’s request for the town to try to avoid additional flooding in Cheshire’s north end was the most disappointing Council discussion in the past two years… (even moreso than the majority’s desire to waste tax dollars on the creation of an entirely unnecessary public relations position in Town Hall!).
From my perspective, the genesis of Mr. Schrumm’s concern was that earth-moving efforts in the north end’s aqueduct are about to raise the flood plain in north Cheshire from 129 feet to 137 feet… or at least that’s what I took from his motion. And to me, it’s common sense to ensure you don’t raise flood plains unnecessarily. But that’s not how the Council majority saw it.
They seemed to be largely focused on simply rejecting his motion… and they lost sight of the forest through the trees. Even the independent and clear-thinking Ray Squire tried pointing this out to the majority… to no avail. Unfortunately, the majority seemed more intent on rejecting Mr. Schrumm's resolution than on dealing with the issue at hand... avoiding additional flooding in the north end.
Some of the arguments put forth by the majority in opposition to Mr. Schrumm’s motion:
1) We trust our town officials… huh? You’ve got to be kidding me! This from the people who initiated Shenanigate?
2) There’s no precedent for the Council acting as an intervenor with Planning and Zoning… huh? As I mentioned last night… what exactly did the Town do when it took control of Strathmore Dam?
3) The cost in legal fees is unknown… but how much did the Town spend on legal fees for Strathmore Dam? Did we know the cost before embarking on that endeavor? And since Strathmore is now largely done, do we know the cost-to-date?
4) If the goal is to address concerns beyond the scope of the IWWC & PZC, then we shouldn’t take action… wow… if this doesn’t take the cake… to see the Herald prior to the Election and read all of the kudos from the majority for maintaining our current form of government was to read the latest edition of Cheerleader Magazine. Yet last night these same people were pointing their fingers all over the place (paraphrasing)… “it’s the PZCs responsibility,” “it’s up to Inland Wetlands” and “it has nothing to do with the Council.” It was the same old song and dance… “if it’s good news, thank us! If it’s bad news… blame the form of government.” But what should you expect from a Council that is “afraid of big, bold decisions” and remains in a “state of paralysis” over a recreational facility?
Having said all this, I do want to point out that at least Elizabeth Esty and Diane Visconti acknowledged that Mr. Schrumm’s motion had merit.
Regardless, for me, last night’s discussion on raising the north end flood plain by 8’ was probably the most disappointing discussion of the past two years.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
17 comments:
The trust placed by the democrats on the town's boards and commissions is fine but the the D's have been packing those boards for some time now.And they have never minded intervening on any matter when it was in "their" interest. What about the towns best interests?
The good news is that Elizabeth Esty stated publically she is the chairman of appointments, Ecke stated this could have been accomplished in subcommittee...code for the public would have been spared the open discussion on camara. Cloke and Daggers always works better.
And then there is chairman Hall. For someone just handed the resolotion he sure was prepared as he would be for any important trial. And the public should also note that the chairman makes the subcommittee agendas so for the 3 weeks in question he could have put this in a subcommittee.
In the end the public got a good dose of reality. The D's want the mall damn-it and no one is going to be able to do a thing about it.
I watched much of this discussion last night, but was quite disgusted and, as the hour was getting late, I turned it off around 11:00. It was clear to me that the dems were just intent on going against Mr. Schrumm as they seem to have done for the past 2 plus years. Mr. Schrumm had an excellent point with his motion (that he was more than willing to adjust the wording of) which was that he was interested in protecting the town's and the residents' best interests. Glad that Mr. Squire and Mr. Calabro (sp?) stood up and spoke their minds...too bad the council majority wasn't listening.
What a great loss, losing an intellect like Mr. Schrumm. Who will ask the intelligent questions now?
What???Certainly no one wants a flood (even if it is only every 100 years). So how do we fix it so it never ever floods? Well, Mother nature has to take some role, then we have to check the regulations and laws to see what the requirements are to fix the stream and then we have to work with the owners or take it over and fix it ourselves (at what cost???) Tying up W/S is not the best way to do fix it...Working with W/S might be. Bottom line, the TC cannot tell the P and Z or IWWC what to do.... and the P and Z can't willy nilly impose hardships. Let's not forget we live in a land that balances ownership perogative and responsibility to the community. Diane Visconti
Diane... I don't think anyone on the Council wants flooding... rather...
in retrospect, I think we should've directed the Town Attorney to answer some questions:
1) what is the jurisdiction of PZC & IWWC?
2) would an increase from 129 to 137 concern the Army Corps of Engineers?
3) Might the ACOE require the town to repay the $280,000 in funding if their 129 level is raised to 137 due to the decision of town boards, other than the Council?
4) What's the timeframe in which we're working?
And then get a commitment from the entire Council to hold a special meeting, in a timely manner, to address anything that arises that does require action.
Granted... some of this is vague... but my point is to simply have a real discussion and cover our bases... something that clearly has not happened in the past on issues such as Strathmore Dam.
Some councilmen listened(6). Sad two didn't have the courage to vote they way they felt. I was on Knotter drive the day of the flood and there was more than a foot of water over the road. It looked like the two ponds were connected. If the businesses do ever get flooded we will be in deep trouble as Mr Calbro pointed out. This is a public safety issue and should be resolved.
Thanks to Dave Schrumm a few PZC commissioners focused in on his expressed concerns and the applicant had some answers. It looks like they were watching the tube last night.
For all of the fancy footwork by town council it seems as if the open discussion was at least helpful in generating a wider discussion before PZC on the flooding impact.
Its about time the public officials, elected and appointed stop being offended by questions about the impact of this project and get on board with helping the residents of Cheshire get the best project for the town. That might mean a lifestyle center or it may mean nothing built at all.
There are no wrong questions. The problem appears to be that there is the appearance of political stakeholders getting confused about the legitiment concerns of the resident taxpaying stakeholders.
Wow that group won the last election? Someone must like them.
Schrumm had 14 years to fix this problem and he suggests it at his last meeting? He was part of a council that rejected a study of the problem. Why now? To stop the North End.
1:42 that may or may not be true.
And if that was the concern of the majority, then they should have opposed the motion for that reason... not for the reasons given.
Bottom line to me, if the elevation increases from 129 to 137 and flooding occurs above the 129 mark... and the Council has not taken action... people will thank David Schrumm and will be wondering why others allowed the 8' increase in elevation.
Ecke said that he couldn't support Mr. Schrumm's motion because he didn't know all the implications. How is it that he supported the zone text change and the proposal of a mixed use mall/residential project without knowing all the implications??
Guess he got paralyzed again...or maybe it's brain freeze that he suffers from.
Could someone, anyone, educate me on how the change in zoning of the north end has any impact on the "issues" that are being raised. I.E. the environmental impact, flooding, loss of habitat to turtles.... I understand the residential impact to schools etc.
But, if the area had been developed into a light industrial as originally zoned, the footprint of buildings might have exceeded the proposed retail footprint, after construction of new roads, parking areas etc. Further, what about the potential of chemical contamination and run off from the industrial areas. Such as the viking chemical/oil contamination last year.
"But, if the area had been developed into a light industrial as originally zoned, the footprint of buildings might have exceeded the proposed"
How totally ridiculous. Go to the industrial park. See how nice it is there with spacious lawns, wildlife, ponds, and much smaller parking requirements. Do you call the W/S 37 acres of blacktop and roofing low impact? And, the industrial park's cost to the town is minor. The Dems have replace smart groth with stupid growth.
The mall started off as 500,000 sq Ft, now its 639,000, then they added the hotel, and what happened to the ampitheater that was to serve the Cheshire community, it's gone. This has been nothing more than a snow job and all the approvals were based on misinformation. All the approvals should be rescinded.
"Let's not forget we live in a land that balances ownership perogative and responsibility to the community. Diane Visconti"
I think you and your fellow Dems forgot about any balance and gave the owners, Doug Calcagni, Paul Bowman and W/S everything without concern for the people of Cheshire. You certainly don't understand the purpose of town government. It's to serve all the people, not just the special interests.
It's good that your term will end.
Let me try to understand something here. THe ACOE and state wanted Cheshire to fix the problem so fast inthe spring. A special TC meeting on the site etc. Urgency! urgency! Now the developer wants to change this and all Mr SChrumm wanted was the ACOE to be consulted. That semms like a fair question to me. As far as DV's concern we were on private property to fix a problem which the owners wanted no part of. That was OK then, but not now????
Simply stated all the Town will get is somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 mil in annual tax revenues from this North End development. That amounts to 1.66%; 1.5 mil/90 mil total town budget. All this fuss and nonsense over 1.66% revenue increase. What this tells me is all of those who voted in favor have just determined what they really are in life...and now we know their price. The amount of net tax revenue contributed to the town coffers from this development equals next years salary increase for the teachers. So any new tax revenue is spent the first year and we are no better off after the mall is built.
You're are very generous. Canton is no better off. Have the taxes every gone down in our surrounding towns? How in the world did P&Z allow the town's finance department and the TM to do the fiscal impact study review? They should be a neutral party to all this and they are not business experts.
Post a Comment