landuselocalpolitics

SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT R.P.O. AREA - "SWRPA" eight - that part of Connecticut that protrudes into Westchester (left).

Responsible Growth
LATEST IN LAND USE PLANNING IN SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT: ASSORTED ARTICLES FROM ELSEWHERE

PLANNING AND ZONING CAN GET HOT...HOW DO WE BEHAVE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS? If "all politics is local" - the same can be said for planning; land use, although it grows from a local base, (see article below), can also be of regional and state concern. A really long look back at Connecticut land use planning here.

WESTON, A RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY, KNEW ABOUT RESPONSIBLE GROWTH PRINCIPLES SINCE ITS FIRST PLAN IN 1969, UPDATING THAT PLAN IN 1987, THEN...

From "About Town"
WESTON TOWN PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, JUNE 30, 2000

From Town of Weston website
WESTON TOWN PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, JULY, 2010

T H E M A P :
LINK HERE to CLEAR for do-it-yourself "Community Resource Inventory" on-line mapping tool

ANOTHER TYPE OF BASE MAP BELOW FOR "WESTON EXISTING LAND USE PROJECT" - note that this map is dated "1996" - some vacant parcels no longer vacant.

Click here for instruction: how to do a "windshield survey" (without leaving your workstation)...

Land Use Map LEGEND.
Ten years before the Aspetuck Land Trust map above, "About Town" did a similar project using Assessor's Maps, hand-coloring each lot in Town (vacant lots were blank). There were three separate sections of Town selected (Lower Weston, Central Weston and "above Godfrey").

A S K E T C H P L A N :

Where to begin?
In a Year 2007 project, the planner's toolkit has changed; using computer technology, it is now possible to create maps for viewing (and/or modifying) on the Internet.

Climate for change:
In the past, we understood the clear differences north of Godfrey - the climate is cooler, permanent open space of Nature Conservancy and water company reduces the overall 2 acre zone density in northern Weston by half!

Weston, in our opinion, in 2007, is best divided for planning purposes, into four parts (shown above); follow links below to more detailed information, maps and photos. NOTE: Some of these ideas made their way into the new Town Plan!

Central Part of Town,
North (above Godfrey Road),
East (Saugatuck River Valley) and
Ring (funnels to the center, and south to Westport or west to Wilton).

How China’s local government rig land-use game
Villagers, farmers see land rights trampled for sake of development
Market/watch
By Caixin Online
Jan. 26, 2011, 9:38 p.m. EST

BEIJING (Caixin Online) — Real-estate developer Century Golden Resources Group bought a 371-hectare swathe of forest, cow fields and crops managed by the Yunnan Province city of Tengchong for less than 52 yuan ($7.90) per square meter.

Within two years of that 2008 purchase, the land’s value had skyrocketed, and vacationing golfers from far-away cities were teeing off at Century Golden’s new club and villa resort.

This is one of several land-conversion projects listed in a summer 2010 Ministry of Land Resources (MLR) report criticizing Tengchong government officials for approving commercial real-estate developments while violating central government regulations.

The report, published by MLR’s Law Enforcement and Supervision Bureau, expanded in January to include charges that a developer named China Overseas Holdings had illegally occupied 49.8 hectares in Chongqing through a rental scheme.

Local governments such as Tengchong’s must obtain permission from provincial-government land departments to convert forests and farms for construction projects on plots under about 40 hectares. But these plot limits are frequently violated, leading to the kind of so-called “land hoarding” typical across China.

Often, from a local perspective, land hoarding benefits a community’s economy. Century Golden in Tengchong and similar commercial real-estate developers nationwide are considered strong pillars for local economies.

A real-estate agent in Chengdu [in Sichuan province] said proposed projects in his area are often introduced to local officials with the argument that they will “attract outside investment.” And by labeling conversion projects “land consolidations,” local governments sign development contracts with clear consciences.

But from the central government’s perspective, local-government support is illicit if the land earmarked for developers was originally obtained through underhanded expropriation or leasing arrangements.

For example, local officials often underreport to provincial agencies the amount of land obtained on behalf of developers. And some falsify other details in the reports sent to those higher-ups who ultimately approve land conversions.

Once the paperwork is complete, though, local-government officials can partition one, large swathe and sell individual tracts piecemeal to a single developer, often privately or through rigged public auctions.

Indeed, local officials go to great lengths to divide large tracts to meet regulatory limits before cautiously selling many small pieces to a developer with whom they have a partnership agreement.

The happy developer, in turn, gets to control hundreds or even thousands of hectares in one fell swoop. The company then sits on the land as its value appreciates, or builds apartments or resorts for healthy profit.

Local governments justify the process as a means of bypassing policy norms for the sake of economic development. And officials who arrange these deals are praised for providing advancing local economies and boosting gross domestic product. Many have been promoted for their efforts.

Even if an official or two are later found guilty of breaking land-conversion rules and punished, development projects often continue moving forward under protection from government agencies at various levels.

Meanwhile, the urbanization processes pushes land values and real-estate prices higher, drawing competing interests — including central- and local-government officials, developers and farmers — into a money game with flexible rules.
‘Community improvement’

In parts of China with weak business environments, a local government seeking to boost the local economy by attracting outside investment has few cards to play. But it can usually flash the land card.

So officials agree to swap village or farmland for development, committing their communities to sprawling industrial zones, utility complexes and urban high-rises. Large plots are seized and offered as a bridge to outside investors.

In the town of Yongning in Chengdu’s Wenjiang District, for example, the government found a way to “rent” land from villages that had unified management of their collective land. The property was then converted for various projects, including factories.

The Yongning government settled with villagers by handing out cash payments and labor allowances. In exchange, villagers agreed to terminate their contractual land rights. These moves, however, violated the central government’s official land-acquisition procedures.

Elsewhere in Wenjiang, government officials walled off 20% of all property. Land has been converted into industrial zones and other projects built supposedly for the public good.

Strong investors can profit when they have local-government backing in land disputes. That was the case for Haier Group (THE:HK:1169) (PINK:HRELF) , a major appliance manufacturer that built its operations on the back of land deals in Chongqing dating to 2005.

That year, the local government agreed to sell 96 hectares to Haier for an industrial park. It also agreed to refund the full purchase price of the land to Haier — more than 54 million yuan. Haier then asked for permission to set aside about 19 hectares for real-estate development and won the government’s tacit support.

Meanwhile, sales have continued at Century Golden’s Tengchong project despite a central-government-issued cease-and-desist order issued in August 2010; it seems government officials have decided to turn a blind eye.

Village and farm families have received up to 100,000 yuan each in exchange for their land rights. They’ve also received verbal job guarantees, although so far those promises have proved empty.

Farmers whose land was seized in Wenjiang reported to higher authorities the apparent misdeeds of local officials, claiming they had falsified conversion documents. But they’re still waiting for a response. Nor have they received the jobs that officials promised.

So despite central-government rules designed to level the playing field in the land-control game, local governments and developers often collaborate to win. And as MLR officials learned in Tengchong, central-government officials who try to intervene are often ignored.

In this game, local governments have found many ways to circumvent restrictions and brush off central-government supervision, while farmers and villagers lacking legal support are forced off the land. See this report at Caixin Online.

From other parts - of Connecticut:

Town eyes tree-cutting regulations for private properties
Greenwich TIME
Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published: 10:43 p.m., Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Fighting what he says has been a losing battle to save trees from being cut down in his neighborhood, Marc Rogers fears Havemeyer Park will become an oxymoron.

"Basically, Havemyer Park, if some ordinance isn't passed, there's going to be nothing there anymore," said Rogers, who lives on Nimitz Place.

Rogers estimates that 65 mature trees have been lost during the past decade, the latest of which include a pair of venerable oaks two doors down from his property, where the existing dwelling is being demolished to make room for a modular home. A third tree in the property's front yard also was cut down.

"Why don't we have an enforcement of keeping the character of our communities?" Rogers said.

One of the last towns of its size to adopt a municipal tree ordinance, the 2-year-old regulations apply to only those trees on public property.

That could be changing if town Conservation Director Denise Savageau and the Greenwich Tree Conservancy get their way, however.

"My understanding is that there are some municipalities in Westchester County who have an ordinance looking at tree removal on private properties," Savageau said. "It is something we've actually been looking at for a while."

Savageau said that the Conservation Commission will be taking the lead in mid-2011 on the development of tree-cutting regulations for private properties.

"We're looking to make sure we have enabling state legislation to do this, (but) there's a feeling that we probably don't have to change state law," Savageau said.

Conservationists are generally ham-strung when it comes to saving trees on private property, according to Savageau, who said that the existing ordinance gives the town oversight of trees that are adjacent to the public right-of-way and those located in wetlands.

Zoning officials can place some restrictions on the removal of trees during the application process for a subdivision, but that is the extent of oversight.

"We don't have a lot of control at the point," Savageau said. Modifications to the town's tree ordinance will require approval from the Representative Town Meeting.

Savageau is scheduled to speak to the Havemeyer Park Homeowners Association, which represents about 320 households north of the Post Road along the Stamford border, at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Sound Beach Firehouse.

"There's no control over it. It's just ridiculous," Rogers said of the tree removal in his neighborhood.

In addition to trees lost to development, Rogers said that a mature sycamore was cut down because its root system interfered with one property owner's septic system. Another oak that had been a fixture of the neighborhood was cut down by the owner because its falling acorns became a nuisance, Rogers said.

"I don't think you'd get a variance for that in other communities," Rogers said.

Pam Cuncanon, a real estate broker with Coldwell Banker and 24-year town resident who bought the property two houses away from Rogers in March, said she had no choice but to remove the trees after consulting arborists.

"It was bringing up the sidewalk and it was encroaching on the foundation," Cuncanon said of the oaks in the property's side yard.

A third tree that was cut down in the property's front yard was diseased, according to Cuncanon, who plans to build a modular home on the existing foundation.

"I share the same common goal as the neighbors wanting to keep the trees," Cuncanon said. "I think most people value trees. It's actually been a nice surprise to me that the neighbors actually care about the community and environment in which they live in."

Savageau acknowledged that the issue of tree-cutting is highly emotional for many residents.

"Trees give us a sense of place," Savageau said. "As we lose more and more trees, it really does create a problem."

In neighborhoods where the houses are tightly clustered such as Havemeyer Park, Savageau said that the removal of trees can dramatically alter the streetscape and the shade.

"This has been an ongoing problem, and I realize Havemeyer is in the middle of it right now," Savageau said.

Savageau plans to assemble a committee of various stakeholders to look at new regulations, which she said will take into consideration elements important to developers.

"It's balancing the public good with private property rights," Savageau said.

P&Z tightens up decorum rules for meetings
Westport NEWS
Anthony Karge
Published: 01:07 a.m., Friday, July 30, 2010

Looking back to spring 2008, Ron Corwin recalled the many people who came out to show their support or opposition of the Westport Weston Family Y's proposed move to Camp Mahackeno. At those Planning and Zoning [P&Z] hearings, some proponents wore T-shirts with writing on them that expressed their support.

Corwin, chairman of the commission, never asked the supporters to conceal the shirts, but recently-approved decorum guidelines forbids such attire and establishes other policies.

"If we had to do it all over again ... and people were to come in wearing those shirts, based on the new policy we would ask them to cover the shirts or not come in the room," Corwin said.

The guidelines arose out of a July 22 work session and passed 6-1. Commission member Catherine Walsh voted no.

In addition to addressing attire people may wear -- or not wear -- and banning signs, the new rules dictate guidelines for politeness and civility during P&Z meetings. Previously, there were no set guidelines for any of these issues.

Walsh was in full support of the guidelines that stamp out aggressive or intimidating behavior, but she believes people should be able to express themselves at a meeting.

"It's just an issue of free speech. My biggest concern is unruly and threatening behavior," she said. "I believe you should have the ability to express your opinions in a civil, non-threatening way and I believe a sign or a color on a T-shirt is non-threatening."

In early 2010, two other incidents occurred that spurred creation of the guidelines. When a

proposal to expand the community gardens, next to Long Lots Elementary, was before P&Z, Corwin said he had to ask one person to take down a sign.

In March, a meeting about a proposal to build affordable housing on town-owned property at 655 Post Road E. was temporarily stopped by Corwin. An opponent of the controversial plan, which was later withdrawn, had a small sign with the word "no" written on it that was being displayed in clear view of the commission.

That pause in the meeting resulted in a discussion about free speech and, now, the new guidelines that aim to create a more neutral setting.

"The policy was adopted to ensure that the commission and the public can focus without distraction or disturbance on what is being said and presented at its hearings," said Laurence Bradley, director of Planning and Zoning.

Corwin said that some people are used to public speaking, while others might not be.

"You really want an atmosphere where they feel very comfortable and that they're not being challenged while they're speaking, and the commission itself is not being distracted," Corwin said.

In a statement, Corwin said, "Our meetings are `limited public forums' where decorum guidelines must protect the rights of individuals and be applied evenhandedly, not favoring one side or the other."

The decorum policy includes the following principles:

"¢ Individuals are welcomed, indeed invited, to address the Commission during the public comment period of any application.

"¢ All speakers are free to speak for, against or about those agenda items.

"¢ Speakers may speak only when recognized and at the podium.

"¢ In general, the public is asked to show respect for the statements of others, the right of all speakers to be heard, not interrupted, argued with or otherwise disrupted or behave in any way that limits the speaker's ability to present his/her views.

"¢ No demonstrations of support or opposition such as applause for or jeering of speakers.

"¢ In order to minimize disruptions or distractions the following behaviors will not be permitted at our meetings: displays of any kind on any surface including but not limited to clothing and signs.

"¢ Speakers from the general public may be asked to observe informal time limits in order to allow time for everyone to speak.

"¢ No profanity or abusive language or personal criticism will be permitted.

Land use issues a factor in many races
By Stephen J. Winters, CT POST editorial
Article created: 11/20/2005 05:16:21 AM

When we talk local elections, we usually discuss tax rates and the quality of the town's school system.
The old political adage is that "people vote their pocketbooks."

No doubt, this month's municipal election returns included both those elements, but in some communities there was also an underlying subtle issue that rarely stands out: land use.

Despite a generally low voter turnout (the statewide average in the 163 communities conducting elections was just under 38 percent), Connecticut's municipal elections spawned a host of surprises.

And when we talk surprises in Connecticut elections — the land of steady incumbents — we're talking upsets.

Several of these upsets came about, I would submit, because of land use issues in the communities.

Take Derby, for example, where Republican Anthony Staffieri decisively beat four-term Democratic Mayor Marc Garofalo.

Although internal party politics was an influencing factor in Garofalo's defeat, few can deny that Derby's downtown redevelopment area for the past four years easily could be mistaken for Iraq's Falluja.

Voters aren't dumb. They can see the lack of progress and ask, "What's going on here?"

The party in power can get away with it perhaps for one election, but when little has changed by the next election, it's goodbye to incumbents.

Even Garofalo conceded that the lack of progress on the downtown redevelopment cost him the election.

"I take responsibility for it," he told a Connecticut Post reporter. "There are no excuses for it."

Similarly, an eyesore called the Saw Mill Redevelopment Area in West Haven was a contributing factor to the demise of incumbent H. Richard Borer as chief executive in that town.

Land use was a high profile issue in the small neighboring town of Orange.

Two years ago Democratic First Selectman Mitchell Goldblatt supported a successful effort for acre-and-a-half zoning, a move that angered owners of farmland, obviously because you can get more houses on one-acre lots than 1.5-acre lots.

This Election Day, Goldblatt's opponent, GOP Selectman James Zeoli, was a farmer and Zeoli ousted Goldblatt by a 143-vote margin out of the 6,423 votes cast.

Perhaps also adding to the victory was the decision to bring a Stew Leonard's to Orange, a move supported by Goldblatt and opposed by Zeoli. It's been a long-playing soap opera that has divided the town and didn't build a lot of goodwill for the incumbent.

In Shelton, Republican Mayor Mark Lauretti won an eighth consecutive two-year term, although his margin of victory was significantly less than in 2003.

One of the reasons for that: Lauretti's decision to become a developer and purchase property along the Housatonic River in Shelton. His purchase ended up plunging him into a time-consuming controversy about the ethics of the deal.

All of this is not to say that land use as an issue can't help incumbents, despite what this year's voters seemed to be saying.

In Easton, incumbent First Selectman William J. Kupinse Jr.'s strong position this campaign against commercial development in this rural town that adjoins the metropolis of Bridgeport strengthened his power.

Kupinse not only succeeded in winning re-election rather handily, the GOP regained the seat on the town's Board of Selectmen that they had lost to Democrats two years ago in a shocker.

Easton voters were quite affirmative that they would like their town to remain in the "rural" category. Bridgeport, Fairfield and Trumbull are close enough for shopping, thank you.

What was truly encouraging in all of these above election scenarios is that the land use issue brought people to the polls.

The turnout in Orange was 62.1 percent (one of the highest in the state); in Derby, 59.7 percent; in Easton, 57.5 percent; in Shelton, 52 percent, and in West Haven, 46.2 percent. Those turnouts were all above the state average.

Sure, local election results hinge on many factors and that includes tax rates and quality of schools. But a growing factor for the future in this Greater Bridgeport region is land use.