Monthly archives: December 2007

 

 

Guest Forum Part 2

  • By: Cindy

Hi again everyone for the last time. This is guest editor Steve.  I know it is the last time I will be guest editing Cindys blog because I just heard from her on the phone and she is not too happy to put it mildly.

Anyways while I still have some time before she returns on Wednesday, I am now going to print a column against the Lifestyle Center. The guest columnist today is Carl Sobon, who resides in Fairfield, but is originally from Cheshire.

WHY I AM AGAINST THE LIFESTYLE CENTER

Hello, my name is Carl Sobon and I reside in Fairfield near Penfield Beach. I used to live in Cheshire many years ago in the 50′s and 60′s when Cheshire was a nice small community and everyone knew everyone else. 

My job as a salesman took me around the country and around the world. I really loved living in Cheshire and think about it fondly. However, this Lifestyle Center will not be an asset to the town. I believe it will dry up Cheshire and take away its identity. Cheshire will be like any other town now that has commercial development.

I don’t agree with everything Cindy Kleist says on her website, but I do agree with her that Cheshire will not gain anything economically from a mall. I think this is another nice way of saying mall, Lifestyle Center. It is still a mall. I remember years ago when Milford Post shopping center was open. It was awful in the hot summer and even worse in the cold winter That is why it was closed in over 25 years ago. The owners would have left it open if they thought it would have been more economically feasible. Why spend money when you do not have to?

I will tell you why. Do you all remember last Saturday with the wind? I do. Is that the weather you would want to be shopping in at the Lifestyle Center, of course not.

I for one, would rather be in a nice heated or air conditioned shopping environment instead of risking getting my purchases wet in the rain, or slipping on the ice trying to walk in the winter. 

I came to Cheshire in early November to visit the Vietnam Wall. I could not believe the traffic. It was awful. I know it will be even worse when the Lifestyle Center is built and all those apartments or condos are built and people try to exit onto Rt. 10.

Even before the building is complete, the residents will have to put up with the construction. Trucks going in and out, noise, dust and dirt. Where will all this fill go?

I really believe that the Arch will suffer damage from the earth removal and the vibrations from the construction apparatus. Even if the Arch survives all that, it will be subjected to daily stresses from cars and delivery trucks constantly driving in and out.

With the housing, you may have another problem, vandalism. The arch or the stores could easily be entered with people living right on the same property. Also I believe the stores which will be located near the Interstate 691 off ramp, could easily be robbed and the theives could make a fast getaway into the next town, Southington or even easier right back onto Interstate 691. Has anyone thought of that.

I hope Cheshire will make the right decision. I think Cheshire should develop its real downtown area, near the Watch Factory Shops and West Main Street and the two plazas they have.

Thank you Mr. Sobon and Ms. Wynne for helping me out. I am sure Ms. Cindy will have a lot to say about what some of our guests were talking about, especially about her driving habits.

My thanks to Cindy for letting me have a go on her website. She asked me to remind everyone to attend the extended office hours this Thursday at the Town Manager’s office in the Cheshire Town Hall on 84 South Main Street and also at the Police Chief’s office at 500 Highland Avenue, which I understand incidentally will be the title of her next book that she is working on.

Regards to all,

Steve

 

Guest Forum

  • By: Cindy

Hi everyone, I am Steve and I am filling in for Ms. Kleist for a few days. In her place I have posted an article on mixed use and today I am posting yet another viewpoint on the proposed Lifestyle Center. This column is by Janet Wynne, longtime Cheshire resident.

Why Cheshire Needs the Lifestyle Center

by Janet Wynne

I have been watching the television on Channel 14 and reading the local papers and reading the pros and cons of the Lifestyle Center. I am writing to support the Lifestyle Center. Why? Because I for one would rather spend my money in Cheshire than Southington, Wallingford, Waterbury or whatever other town.

It is not that I do not like those other towns, I do. I believe Cheshire residents should spend in Cheshire and this Lifestyle Center will give us all the perfect opportunity. I don’t believe the rest of the town will suffer. I think the Watch Factory Shops and the Maplecroft Plaza will benefit from all the other people that will want to go down into Cheshire from the Lifestyle Center.

And as far as traffic goes, what are we supposed to do? Not have something because of a little more traffic. The traffic in Cheshire is backed up around rush hour in the morning and evening and when school gets out. The rest of the day the traffic moves fine. So we are not supposed to have anything because of some peoples fetish over a few more cars. Get real.

And as far as safety goes, our police department does an excellent job in protecting its residents. I am tired of Ms. Kleist constantly telling people that if they come to Cheshire they will get a ticket. Maybe Ms. Kleist should learn how to drive the speed limit. I know Ms. Kleist from a long time over 22 years, business relationship and I can tell you, if you get in the car with her, you had better have a last will and testament on hand. This woman drives like a maniac and that is a compliment.

I know for a fact her own husband won’t get in the car with her unless he drives. She makes him sick to his stomach. I know this because she has told me from time to time that her husband drives too slow-like Mr. Magoo, that is what she calls him.

Ms. Kleist doesn’t want to see any cops anywhere in anytown, so she can speed everywhere. Speed limits don’t mean anything to her. She has had hundreds of traffic tickets issued to her.  She is a menace on the road and the state should revoke her license.

I am sure after Ms. Kleist reads this she won’t want to do business with my company anymore, but I am sure I will be able to smooth it over with her. Maybe she will slow down, because I won’t drive with her either, neither will a few other members of her family.

People in Cheshire need to stop acting like Mayberry RFD and get into the 21st Century. We cannot afford to have land just sit fallow and then as Mr. Adinolfi said, take a chance that some fly by night developer will come in and really screw things up.

Thank you,

Janet Wynne

Cheshire

From Steve Lewis: tomorrow I will post an anti-Lifestyle Center article from another Cheshire resident.  All residents may leave a comment, but remember the site is monitored so please try to say something intelligent and not rake Ms. Kleist over the coals too badly while she is away. I hope she does not have internet access.

 

Mixed Use Zoning

  • By: Cindy

Now if you have watched the reruns of the last input meeting of Planning and Zoning on the proposed Lifestyle Center, (you notice I am NOT saying public hearing), you heard the Town Manager speak about the public safety aspect of this proposed project.

What the Town Manager failed to mention was the cost of upkeep of the fire trucks, the high possibility of constructing a new fire station, the added upkeep and maintenance of the police cruisers.  

Now some people have mentioned what will happen to our roads when these people have to go to let’s say, the library, the post office, the doctor’s office, the dentist, etc. Or they just want to shop other places. If I were these people, I would go right into Southington, which I believe stands to gain from this housing. I wouldn’t bother going into Cheshire AT ALL.

First of all, most of the core infrastructure would be several miles away, and one could just go up Rt. 10 north or onto 322 and get everything else they need–and they probably will. I mean, Cheshire will gain in one way, but lose in another

An article from the Record-Journal  claims traffic will increase 3,000 cars. Probably, but most of these cars will be curiosity at first; and number two: this is a tainted figure because, let’s face it, they want people to come to their town  (Meriden Square). 

 But after Meriden Traffic Court sees an increase in ticket traffic these people will go back to Meriden Square, Waterbury Brass Mill or just plain take my advice and go to Southington. I will be honest, if I was to stay in Cheshire, I would probably move into these condos, so I would not have to deal with Rt. 10 in Cheshire anymore.

As I stated before this whole idea does not bother me because I am used to mixed use and high density. And it is true that W/S development is a quality developer. But Cheshire missed the boat. This should have been done 25 years ago and it wasn’t. It was not done because the powers that were in this town then did not want to become like the other towns with high density retail and traffic problems. They did not want the problems they claim are associated with retail: namely for this town unwanted certain people, and crime. If Cheshire had widened Rt. 10 when Southington and Hamden had widened their parts of this road, maybe it would be smoother sailing, but the mindset then was “oh no, we don’t want to attract development and that is what it will do.”

Cheshire is not a wide arms open welcome town it is not!! Just read the old Heralds and you know what I mean. Now all of a sudden we want ALL THESE PEOPLE to come into town and go to this Lifestyle Center. I don’t believe it.

What I believe will happen is this: several years ago, I believe there was a condo or apartment project proposed on East Johnson Avenue. A zone change was needed. It was not granted.

Basically these condos are the same plan only in the Interchange Zone. The people who want this housing on their land in the Interchange Zone knew that if they tried it again, the plan would not go through because their property is zoned industrial, not residential.

So, let’s get a developer, draw up preliminary plans (why not a site plan right from the beginning, get the zone change we want, and just build the housing. Then after four or five years, let’s sell the property to whomever developer and on our way we will be!

Am I right, maybe, maybe not. Only my hairdresser knows for sure!! 

Now, I am going to feature some people who have their own ideas about this project over the next few days while I take some time off (from the website). Here is one of these opinions now:

By Stephen Lewis

IF THERE IS ONE THING that architects, planners and developers agree on at the beginning of the 21st Century, it’s that the ideal form of commercial development mixes housing, office and retail in a lively community setting.

That, they agree, provides enhanced quality of life for the residents, office workers and shoppers. Ironically, however, zoning laws created in the past century to improve quality of life by separating commercial and residential buildings now stand in the way of mixed-use developments — and perpetuate the suburban sprawl that, increasingly, is regarded as a detriment to quality of life.

“Zoning began as a kind of health measure to prevent factories being built next to houses,” notes Jonathan Cohen, who heads Jonathan Cohen & Associates, a Los Angeles-based architectural and planning firm. “Now we are in a kind of vicious cycle. Single-use zoning led to developers wanting to do things on a large scale — a whole lot of housing here, a whole lot of retail there, and pretty soon we were driving everywhere.”

It may take years — or decades — to rewrite the zoning laws that favor more sprawl over concentrated, mixed-use development. But that has not stopped creative developers and planners from going ahead with projects that follow the New Urbanism model — by working around the official zoning rules.

“By and large, most established urban areas or towns are accommodating this type of development because it evolves over time as a natural pattern,” says Kevin Cantley, president and CEO of Cooper Carry Inc., an Atlanta-based full-service design firm. “But you have to go through a process of renegotiating zoning or acceptance of variances.”

Cohen says the cities with the most reasonable approach to development don’t rely on zoning as a primary planning tool. “Instead of restrictive, reactive planning where developers propose a project and an up or a down vote is taken, these cities do more practice planning, with a goal of creating a community,” Cohen says.

One such community is Midtown Atlanta, which came up with a specific long-term process for developing streetscapes and mixed-use projects. Midtown even has a special zoning category for such uses within designated geographic areas.

But even this type of zoning can present “all sorts of other complications,” notes Tad Leithead, a principal in the Atlanta development firm Urban One Associates.

For example, Leithead says, developers armed with mixed-use zoning permits still might face situations where trees are not allowed close to the street or where cars can’t park on the street. Setback mandates can also be a problem.

When Leithead’s company was partnering in the Ridenour mixed-use development in suburban Cobb County, Ga., the project won approval under a special “village community” designation.

“But we still had to get more than 200 variances,” recalls Leithead, who serves on the board of directors for the planning agency for the 10-county Metro Atlanta area. “In traditional zoning, for example, you have 50 feet of setback. But when you’re trying to build a community with inviting retail at street level you want it to be closer than that.”

John McIlwain, a senior fellow with the Urban Land Institute in Washington, D.C., agrees that accommodations currently in use can be “a two-edged sword.” In addition to the time it takes to negotiate the needed waivers and modifications, there is often a price to pay for bending the conventional zoning rules. “For example, you may have zoning provisions that insist on the inclusion of affordable housing,” he notes.

Still, there can be advantages for developers. “With, say, 10% affordable housing you may get a much wider range of market penetration, which can either accelerate sales or help position your rentals with greater flexibility,” says McIlwain.

This type of approach has also led to repositioning of shopping centers. “The highest and best use of the land may now be a mix of office and retail and residential; this is happening both at the business district level and in suburban malls,” McIlwain observes. Since the United States is heavily over-retailed, he adds, this makes sense from a marketing standpoint as well.

In the near term, developers don’t hold out much hope for repeal of the outmoded single-use zoning laws on the books in many communities.

“I see a potential for change; zoning officials are not totally intractable,” says Leithead. “But the people who develop zoning categories have no enforcement power. We need people to run for office who understand the concept we are talking about.”

Dan Woodley, head of Atlanta-based Dan Woodley Communities Inc., is even less sanguine. “It is a huge problem, no doubt about it,” he says. Municipal officials have to get re-elected, so they talk “smart growth” but are skittish about implementing it because of the perceived negativity of high density and the “not in my backyard” syndrome.

“When you get more successful developments with people on the streets talking with each other again in person, maybe we can break that cycle,” Woodley adds.

Cantley agrees. “Hopefully, the trend in the future is for accommodation of mixed use,” he says. “It just takes showing a population that has never seen anything but single-family homes what the alternative can be.”

When the public and their elected officials come around, the American Planning Association is ready. The group, a nonprofit public interest and research organization committed to urban, suburban, regional, and rural planning, has model language for new mixed-use and flexible zoning codes.

“It shows a whole new generation of thinking at that level,” McIlwain says. “Other new model codes are beginning to float around, and the new instruction going out among planning administrators is to look for opportunities to do this.”

In the meantime, Cohen notes, projects are moving ahead despite codes that seem to rule them out. “Most projects are being done as planned developments,” Cohen says. “You just create a plan for an area, and say to the developers, ‘You can come in and build on your site and if you’re in conformance with our plan you will be approved.’ This is much more sophisticated than zoning, and that’s the way a lot of mixed-use development will happen.”