Cheshire Smart Growth

2008-01-05T12:22:00.000-05:00

A road that is 25 feet wide and 12.21 miles long has the same surface area of the proposed mall's impervious surfaces.

That's more than enough to drive the 9.5 miles from Cheshire's town hall to the Brass Mill mall in Waterbury.

The W/S proposal will result in 37 acres being either paved over for parking or roofed over. In any case, these are impervious surfaces that result in total immediate water runoff.

Most people have no idea of the size of 37 acres of impervious surface and most people that have made or will make the decision on this application don't know how significant this is either.

If you can imagine a road that has an equivalent surface area, you get the picture. Since many secondary roads are 25 feet wide, how long of a road would it take to equal the surface area of 37 acres?

To calculate it, multiply 37 acres times the square feet in an acre, 44,560, divide that by a 25 foot wide road to to get the length of the road in feet and then divide that by 5,280 ft in a mile to get the length of the road in miles.

MR = 37 * 43,560 / 25/ 5,280
MR = 12.2 miles of road

Does anyone want to calculate how many gallons of water runoff would result from 1 inch of rain?

One cubic foot of water contains 7.48052 gallons
An acre is 43,560 sq ft.
One gallon of water weighs 8.3453 pounds.

2007-12-22T16:59:00.001-05:00

Support keeps growing. Let the P&Z know how you feel, before it's too late. Time is running out.

2007-12-21T08:03:00.001-05:00

Santa can't help us. Please get involved before it's too late

The interest is there, It's time for you to get involved.

2007-12-15T11:58:00.000-05:00

After the full page add in the Cheshire Herald we have gotten over 1300 hits at the website. It appears that there is a lot more concern about this development than W/S realized.
This process will become a juggernaut, difficult to stop without a lot of public outcry.
The zone text change was a major door opening event for unfettered development. The P&Z people are way over their heads and I hope they do their homework and respond to the wishes of the town residents.
This development is going forward. It is going to take a lot of effort on the part of many to stop it.
If enough people speak out, we can make a difference.

2007-12-13T20:38:00.000-05:00

This is from the web site CantonCare.org

This group formed after the town started the development process of a golf course along Route 44 that became the "Life Style" center......for Canton. The Canton Care group has become a watchdog for further growth in town.

This excerpt from their website (it is quite extensive and gives some interesting insights into what citizen groups can do!) details the goings on while the project was going through the approvals back in 2003 and 2004.

The most important lesson from this is how it started out to be a "quaint village of shops" but box stores and a Shaws crept in to make it "viable". In other words, you have to have a lot of other stores around the "high end" stores to attract the critical mass of shoppers to make the place "viable".

Cheshire beware.

“Shoppes” developer asks again; Zoning Commission reverses vote. When developers of The Shoppes at Farmington Valley, under construction at the former Canton Golf Course, asked the Zoning Commission this January for approval to expand the shopping center by 15.6%, they were answered with a firm 6-1 denial. Three weeks later, the developer reapplied, seeking a 15.3% expansion. This time, the commission gave a resounding 6-1 approval.

In Jan. 2004, the Zoning Commission denied the request to expand The Shoppes by 49,435 q. ft. to accommodate Dick’s Sporting Goods. The developer re-applied on Feb. 13, asking to add 48,565 sq. ft. and divide the complex’s easternmost building into two buildings. The decision from the Commission on March 2 was “yes.”

The approval increased the shopping center from the original 350,000 sq. ft., and a subsequently approved 372,000, to 429,000 sq. ft. (an overall 22% increase.) Nearby Simsbury Commons, including Stop & Shop and Walgreen’s, is 290,000 sq. ft.

The developer asked the Zoning Commission to “rush” the hearing, Town Planner Sarajane Pickett informed commissioners at a Feb. 19 meeting. Commission Chairman Chris Winsor told commissioners they "should react to" the applicant’s request, and that the circumstances for the request would be made known during the hearing.

The developers of The Shoppes at Farmington Valley are Timothy Ellsworth of Simsbury and S.R. Weiner & Associates affiliate W/S Development Associates of Massachusetts. The project's land planner is Philip Doyle, Canton resident and member of Canton’s Board of Finance, whose business LADA, P.C. is located in Simsbury.

S.R. Weiner Vice President of Development Bob Frazier told Commissioners on March 2 that the developer is under immediate time and financial deadlines in order to finish the complex according to its desired schedule. He said the firm is committed to completing the project, with or without this approval, and that the widespread belief among town residents that the firm had threatened to leave the project incomplete if not given this approval is not the case.

At the Jan. 29 meeting where the Zoning Commission first rejected this request, commission Chairman Chris Winsor, who voted to approve the application, said “it was regrettable” that a prior Zoning Commission approval authorized a change to the west end of the project, resulting in a loss of the original approval’s village-style design at that end. He said the applicant now says the increase in square footage is needed “to provide vitality” at the east end. “I think that’s probably a correct statement,” he added.

Other commissioners said on Jan. 29 the requested increase was too big and that it would stray from the original intent of a pedestrian-friendly complex:

-- Sandra Trionfini said developers had assured the commission that the project would not get “mammoth.” Now, she said, “All bets are off; anything can happen. At what point do we say, ‘No more’?”

-- Harvey Jassem said the development already has the two anchors that the applicant sought, and that the commission is not obligated to enlarge space for a third.

-- Jay Weintraub asked, “If this project had been proposed to us on day one as it is proposed tonight, would we have approved it? … For me, I don’t think I would have approved it.”

-- Kathy Hooker said the proposal was not in keeping with the town’s master plan policy regarding town character, and that she was uncomfortable adding more space, especially for use by one large tenant.

-- Leesa Lawson said, “I feel we’ve modified the integrity out of this project,” and added that she believes the project will be viable without the addition.

-- Peter Clarke said that based on the number of tenants who have signed leases, tenants “don’t appear to be concerned that it’s not going to work.”

On March 2, however, Commissioners had different opinions about the new application:

-- Chris Winsor said it met the regulation’s requirements, and he complimented the developer for improving the design.

-- Sandra Trionfini said that, while prior changes may have steered the design away from the original intent, this request seemed to be a natural progression

-- Jay Weintraub said the first application seemed to be just a long building with too big a mass, but that dividing the building and lowering the facade made the appearance conform with the rest of the project.

-- Kathy Hooker said that the buildings in the project “are all big boxes” and that the addition “isn’t really going to be noticeable. It’s big already.”

-- Leesa Lawson, the one commissioner to vote no, said the application had “come a long way” in its design but that without a significantly smaller size request it was too much like the recently-denied proposal. “We were adamant in January that this was a significant size. Why would this be different?”

-- Alternate member Tom Chouinard said the expansion would not be very noticeable.

-- Alternate member Mark Podesla said the applicant had made an effort to improve the plan and the size request was acceptable to him.

-- Glenn Barger, who Chairman Winsor chose to sit out the vote, although Mr. Barger has more seniority on the commission than Mr. Podesla, cautioned that 5 or 10 years down the road, keeping buildings of this size occupied could be a concern.

-- Commissioners Harvey Jassem and Peter Clarke were unable to attend the March 2 hearing. Mr. Jassem had asked Chairman Winsor to hold the hearing one day later so that he could attend, but Mr. Winsor insisted that the hearing be held on the 2nd.

Background information:

In 1989, the town declined an offer to purchase the golf course. The course was rezoned in 1998 at Mr. Ellsworth’s request, from Agricultural/Residential to Special Business. Mr. Ellsworth told the Zoning Commission he planned to build an athletic training complex called The Peak Experience. Mr. Ellsworth subsequently stated he was unable to obtain financing. Once rezoned, the 130-acre course remained rezoned. The SB zone allows a wide array of uses. On March 31, 2003, course owners the Lowell family sold the property to the developer for $4.77 million.

C.A.R.E., which formed after the course was rezoned, regrets the town’s failure to buy the parcel and the choice to rezone it. But given this set of circumstances, C.A.R.E. was pleased by the developer’s stated intention to attempt a walkable project, of only one quarter the size that regulations would allow, of multiple uses, and to actively recruit locally-owned tenants. The developer’s multiple alterations, however, have radically altered the project to one that is at odds with the promised development and incompatible with the town of Canton.

The site plan initially approved by Zoning included a west anchor store (Kohl's, now under construction) and an east anchor store. Multiple smaller, individual buildings would have lined both sides of a street connecting the two anchors. As part of the original approval, the applicant stated an intent to create a “pedestrian-friendly” development. No tenant had yet been identified for the east anchor, but the applicant stated that a specialty foods store would be sought for that site. In 2003, the developer received Zoning approval to combine several buildings into one 83,000 sq. ft. building (next to Kohl's). The developer has since announced that Shaw's, the northeast’s second largest grocery chain, will occupy this building.

The originally approved application called for mixed uses, including retail, restaurant, office and an executive training golf course. W/S Development now says it has determined that an executive golf course will not be profitable and is instead weighing other possible recreational uses, such as batting cages or miniature

2007-12-09T21:34:00.001-05:00

It might be interesting to compare the petition with the Calcagni employee directory below
Name Ohttp://www.calcagni.com/find_agent/ourteam_results.aspx?FirstName=&LastName=&Location=Cheshire
Baillie, Chrisffice Telephone
Bauer, Kathy
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 359
Bogin, Betsy
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 333
Calcagni, Steve
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 302
Calcagni, Doug
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 324
Demos, Sarah
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 310
Gomes, John
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 363
Levine, Debra
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 362
Luna Zayas, Joan
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 374
O'Leary, Cheryl
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 353
Pomarico, Karen
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 378
Urbano, Camille
Corporate 203 272-1821 Ext. 368

Name Office Telephone
O`Neill, Ed
Commercial 203 234-9000 Ext. 618
Worth, Thomas
Commercial 203 234-9000 Ext. 615

Baillie, Chris
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 313
Coleman, Cathy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 355
Coughlin, Sharon
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 322
Criscuolo, Paula
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 306
Davis, Barb
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 320
DeAngelis, Stacey
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 367
DeDominicis, Deborah
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 338
Demeter, Ruth
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 334
DuChette, Doreen
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 319
Fiordelisi, Sheila
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 332
Flyntz-Morehouse, Amy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 303
Forstrom, Heather
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 343
Golden, Dana
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 369
Hermann, Carol
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 325
Herzing, Patrick
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 326
Iorio, Laura
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 318
Karska-Piech, Dorothy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 373
Kennedy, Sandy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 336
Kranyak, Joan
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 360
Levada, Ellen
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 364
Leventhal, Fran
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 356
Loehmann, Carol
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 335
Lordi, Rose
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 314
Luddy, Lea
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 321
Lydell, Nancy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 349
Malin, Mary
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 308
Matusik, Heidi
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 340
McParland, Lee
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 305
Nesson, Irma
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 312
O`Neill, Pat
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 309
Pannullo, Jean
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 383
Paulsen, Cheri
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 365
Reilly, Penny
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 317
Rock, Marilyn
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 307
Rollins, Debbie
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 337
Sakonchick, Carolyne
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 323
Shantz, Dan
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 379
Shaw, Karen
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 311
Shay, Margaret
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 350
Smirnoff, Sally
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 316
Smith, Timothy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 330
Stern, Brette
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 320
Strumpf, Doreen
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 376
Vita, Pat
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 346
Wagner, Sandy
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 329
Watts, Lori
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 339
Welch, Beverly
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 341
Williams, Melanie
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 328
Zielski, Lynne
Cheshire 203 272-1821 Ext. 315

This speaks for itself!

2007-12-09T20:52:00.001-05:00

What will you sell your quality of life for?

2007-12-09T13:11:00.000-05:00

The Mall – The Fiscal Impact

What will you sell your quality of life for?

$1 million?

$2 million?

The Mall developer says the town would get $2 million in additional “net” (after municipal expenses) taxes.

The Town Manager says $ 1.6 million net additional taxes (costs for additional sewer capacity have yet to be calculated and deducted from the $1.6 million “windfall”). These tax projections assume that the mall will be built as shown in the preliminary plans, that it will be able to attract “high end” stores and that the hotel and fitness center actually get built……both very speculative propositions given the economy, location and demand for this type of development.

Is this a big deal for the town’s finances?

Current Town Budget for FY 2007-2008 - $90.5 million

Mall taxes after deduction for municipal expenses (including sewer costs) will likely be around $1.3 to $1.4 million net and would represent about 1.5% of total town budget.

By comparison:

A. Town’s Budget Surplus from Fiscal Year- end June ‘05 $1.54 million

Fiscal Year- end June ’06 $2.14 million

Projected Surplus Fiscal Year- end June ’07 $2.0 million+??

Bottom line: this “Windfall from the Mall” doesn’t even equal the typical “leftover” revenue from town operations!!

B. The one year increase for the Board of Education budget this year was $1.97 million.

Bottom line: this $1.4+/- million tax “Windfall from the Mall” is not that significant in the overall town fiscal picture.

Is the tax money worth the many downsides to this project?

No.

Finally, the developer is presenting this project as if it was the “only” potential source of revenue from the north end of town. However, it is not a question of W/S Weiner’s $1.5 million or nothing. Other more environmentally and community friendly development could go here which would generate considerable tax revenue without the many down sides that a Mall will bring.

And remember: Town financial reserves (Fund Balance (our municipal “savings account”), pension programs, debt reserves, etc.) have never been in better shape.

We are not some backwater community desperate for tax revenue that must take whatever “deal” a developer puts before us.

Let’s not sell our community’s future for a few pieces of silver.

Cheshire ….and our quality of life…….. deserves better.

2007-12-03T20:57:00.000-05:00

The following was in today's NH Register.

We spend billions to improve our highways only to have mall operators turn them into parking lots. Is this what our gas taxes are for, to provide driveways to the mall s?

Is this what we can expect in Cheshire on those holiday sales days, when the stores offer special deals starting at midnight thru ...? How do we get this to P&Z? Why should W/S be allowed to have special regulations for few parking spaces.

Funny how the Clinton Crossing Mall manager thought this was a great success.

The W/S impact study, didn't include the impact of spending another 20 minutes sitting in traffic while you burn $3 plus gas on the road to nowhere or the additional insurance cost due to accidents occurring within the Cheshire town limits. I'm pretty sure that our car insurance rates are based on the number of accidents in our town. Of course our loss of time, waste of gas, additional insurance costs and the stifling of our highways does not affect the W/S botttom line.

Enjoy

2007-12-02T17:16:00.000-05:00

KATHLEEN F. MUNROE

P.O. BOX 440

17 TOWN BRIDGE ROAD

COLLINSVILLE, CONNECTICUT 06022

Cheshire Planning & Zoning Commission

Cheshire Town Hall

84 South Main St.

Cheshire, CT 06410

RE: Consideration of Change to Plan of Development

Dear Commissioners:

As a resident of Canton, I have taken a heightened interest in smart growth issues since the construction of The Shoppes of Farmington Valley, a mall that has changed the landscape and character of my town. The potential that a similar development may be considered for the north end of Cheshire draws my particular attention because Cheshire is my hometown. I grew up on Curve Hill Road, attended Chapman and Dodd schools, and graduated from Cheshire High. Although Canton is smaller in population than today’s Cheshire, there are many similarities in the attributes of the two towns that make each a desirable place to live, including a sense of community and a dedication to heritage that resists irresponsible development in the face of unsupportable promises of short-term gain. Given my unique position of familiarity with both Canton and Cheshire, I urge the Commission to be wary of making a change to the town’s Plan of Development, particularly with respect to the potential construction of a so-called “life-style center” that is being proposed by W/S Development (S.R. Weiner), the developer that built the “Shoppes” in Canton.

The expression “everything old is new again” could not be more appropriate when considering today’s eruption of “life style centers,” the euphemism that developers have coined to avoid the negative connotations of a “mall.” Make no mistake about it. These “lifestyle centers” are nothing more than malls. Ours in Canton consists of a small, cramped faux “Main St.” filled with the usual chain stores that deluge our mailboxes with their catalogues: Talbots, Coldwater Creek, Chico’s, Ann Taylor, Sur La Table (a Seattle-based version of Williams-Sonoma), Old Navy and Barnes & Noble. This “Main St.” is the photograph that S.R. Weiner shows at its sales presentations. There is nothing wrong with these stores, but they are ubitiquous, and their merchandise is readily available. Surrounding these specialty stores are big boxes: Kohl’s, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and a huge Shaw’s supermarket. These establishments do not appear in the S. R. Weiner sales pitches. The entire development sits within vast asphalt parking lots and is surrounded by cheap plastic picket fencing that doesn’t mask the dumpsters and rear entrances that face the highway, Route 44.

As in Cheshire, Canton was promised “West Hartford Center.” Everyone loves West Hartford Center, and for good reason. It is a true town center, full of locally-owned specialty shops and restaurants, the Town Hall and professional offices, with single-family homes and apartments within easy walking distance. We also have a town center in Canton, the village of Collinsville, where many in town are dedicated to bringing about the restoration and mixed-use development of the former Collins Axe Factory in order to expand our current attractions of shops, artist studios, antiques dealers, restaurants and residences. Collinsville is where people congregate, not at a shopping center clogged with traffic, much of which is generated by out-of-towners. Like the citizens of Canton, I’m sure that the people of Cheshire don’t need a mall -- on the outer boundary of the town, no less -- for a place to congregate. The only community congregating that goes on at our mall is in the frustrating back-up of traffic, especially during the last six weeks of the year when holiday shopping gridlocks Route 44 and forces the traffic to spread to residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, developers don’t want to tackle the expensive restoration of old vacant (and possibly historic) buildings when they can level the landscape and maximize their profit margins with new construction.

In its push for further development of “lifestyle centers,” S.R. Weiner presents many misconceptions about the Shoppes of Farmington Valley, including the perception that it is well-received in Canton. Notwithstanding the views of our first selectwoman, who for unknown reasons appears in S.R. Weiner’s promotional presentations, my perception is that, while the mall presents a convenient shopping alternative to Westfarms Mall to folks in Torrington, New Hartford, Winsted, etc, it is not a popular development to the taxpayers of Canton. In fact, no one wanted a mall in the first place, when the privately owned golf course that existed on the property was being sold. The family that owned the golf course originally was determined to avoid mall development, and they offered the land to the town in the late 1980’s to run as a municipal golf course. Unfortunately, the Board of Selectmen at the time deemed it too expensive and rejected the offer without even submitting the proposal to a town vote. Subsequently, the owners worked in partnership with a sports center developer to construct a training center, incorporating the golf course within the sports facilities. That proposal required a zone change, which easily passed. However, when financing for that project fell through, the zone change remained in place. Twelve years and many heated town meetings later, including those involving S.R. Weiner’s threatened abandonment of the property (after construction was underway) if the town did not buckle under to its demands for big box stores, we were stuck with the mall. The mall was, in fact, a last resort. The additional reality that it has brought no tax relief only reinforces the resentment of this project.

Another impact from the Shoppes has the sprouting of other retail developments that feed on and add to the traffic issues on Route 44. Across the street from the “Shoppes” is a new strip mall with a nail salon, a mattress store and an Oriental rug store. An additional adjacent parcel, on which Canton voters previously defeated the construction of a Target store, is slated for as-yet undefined commercial development. Down the street, on the Canton-Avon town line, Lowe’s has filed an application to build a huge store and garden center, and across the street from that, in Simsbury, a Best Buy is being built. Canton has already added to police and fire department staffing and equipment to accommodate increased demand by the mall, and there appears to be no end in sight to additional development applications. In essence, the “Shoppes” opened the proverbial barn door.

Canton’s increased development is a daily irritation to those of us who commute to work via Route 44, which is analogous to Cheshire’s Route 10. Granted, I-691 slices through the north end of Cheshire, and it may appear to some that the interstate highway will alleviate the traffic concerns of Cheshire residents. Those who believe this should spend a Saturday at the Buckland Hills malls in Manchester and South Windsor, just off I-84, where development has run amok and the state has undertaken a massive traffic study to figure out – after the fact -- how to manage the congestion. Of course, Cheshire need look no further than Wallingford to see what uncontrolled development does to a town.

It is not my place as a non-resident to recommend what Cheshire should do. However, I urge you to undertake a change to the Plan of Development only after a great deal of scrutiny. Development is not a bad thing, but in Cheshire, as in Canton, there are plenty of places that beg for restoration or renewal without taking the drastic step of forever altering a part of the town’s landscape. Undoubtedly, the principles on which the original Plan of Development was formulated still reflect the values that Cheshire residents espouse.

Sincerely,

Kathleen F. Munroe

cc. The Cheshire Herald

This blog is for the purpose of bringing all sides of the issue to the light of day. Opposing viewpoints will be allowed and encouraged.

Cheshire Smart Growth is all about what is in the best interests of the residents of Cheshire and only what is in the best interests of the residents of Cheshire

Airing only one side of an issue is not the way to separate the myth from the reality.

2007-12-02T17:06:00.000-05:00

please forward the editor addresses to your friends.

I was reminded that we should not sit idly by as time passes away. We should o flood the local newspaper editors with our letters. And, it might be a good idea to send copies to our state representatives, the town council members and commission members.

If you are going to submit a letter to the editor you can send a separate email to each or put all your addresses in the blind copies of your email and that it appears that you are writing to only one them.

If you write to your legislators, you might want to put their emails in the TO ADDRESS and copies to editors in the CC ADDress.

letters@nhregister.com
letters@nhregister.com
sbecker@cheshireherald.com
letters@courant.com
‎‎gmacoy@rep-am.com

2007-12-02T12:24:00.000-05:00

There are articles posted on several sites (including ours) that describe the traffic nightmare in Clinton. The potential for major trafic problems is very high if the north end project is built. If you haven't already, read the articles posted on the web site and comment here.

2007-11-30T08:53:00.000-05:00

A lot has been happening in Cheshire. Opposition to the North End development appears to be growing at a phenomenal rate.
This is the place to air your opinions, pro or con.
Nothing should happen to Cheshire that is not exposed to the light of day.
Exposure and disclosure is what this site will try to accomplish.