Utopia (closed process) and Blue Back Square (open process):  how about closer to home?
HOW ARE ZONING DECISIONS MADE? 



Historic District Rejects Synagogue
By RINKER BUCK And ELIZABETH HAMILTON | Courant Staff Writers
December 21, 2007

LITCHFIELD - — An orthodox Jewish group and the borough of Litchfield moved one step closer to a court battle over religious freedom on Thursday night after the historic district commission denied the organization's application to turn a Victorian home into a synagogue.

For the past six months, Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach of the Chabad-Lubavitch congregation has been meeting with the commission about his plans to restore a house on West Street and build an addition of about 20,000 square feet on the edge of the town's historic district.

But in Thursday night's action — a seven-page decision read out loud by acting commission Chairman Joseph Montebello — the commission said it was denying the existing application and would welcome a new application by Chabad-Lubavitch only if it scaled back its plans to a total of 6,000 square feet.
 
The commission made it clear that it had worked hard to avoid any semblance of prejudice against Chabad-Lubavitch's plan to build the town's first synagogue, and the decision cited two recent federal decisions on religious freedom in zoning decisions.

"Several people worked very hard all day drafting this decision so that we would look completely fair," Montebello said during a recess in the hearing.

But in remarks after the hearing, Eisenbach and his attorney, Dwight Merriam of Hartford, indicated they were not prepared to reduce the scale of their building and might rest court complaints on the principle of religious freedom. They also pointed out the proposed synagogue would be in a neighborhood with three other congregations — Episcopalian, Methodist and Roman Catholic — that have structures substantially larger than the building envisioned by Chabad-Lubavitch.

"We deliberately picked this site two years ago because we wanted to be at the center of religious worship in Litchfield and contribute to the life of the town," Eisenbach said.

"All the Chabad wants is to be treated like other religions, to be on church row and have a structure of equal size to those churches," Merriam said. "But the commission has denied us that right tonight, and there are many remedies under the law with which to proceed."

While the denial of Chabad-Lubavitch's controversial plans to renovate and expand a 135-year-old West Street home could result in legal action against the historic district commission, it was the outcome those who opposed the project were seeking.

About 70 residents, according to one published report, had joined together in recent weeks to fight Chabad-Lubavitch. They hired Danbury attorney Neil Marcus and brought in a historical architect earlier this week to testify against the plans on the grounds that the building wouldn't meld with the rest of the historic district.

The commission appears to have agreed with the opponents. It rejected arguments from Chabad-Lubavitch's lawyers Thursday night that the proposal had special protection under the First Amendment because they are a religious organization.

Instead, the commission followed advice from its own legal counsel, who said commissioners had an obligation under the law to treat the application as they would any other — regardless of its intended use.

The commission objected to the size and scope of the proposed addition — which would result in a building that contains a synagogue, indoor pool and 5,000-square foot home for the rabbi and his family, among other things — as well as plans to install a clock tower from the roof of the original structure.

It denied the application in a motion that gives Chabad-Lubavitch an opportunity to resubmit plans for a much smaller building without a clock tower. Instead, the commission would allow Chabad-Lubavitch to install a finial with a Star of David atop the building.

The decision was expected by Eisenbach, who issued a statement after the vote Thursday.

"Over the last six months we were given a laundry list of changes every time we met with the commission and we made over 40 changes," Eisenbach said. "But now they have denied us and we have many options. Within a week, we will make a decision about what to do."

Chabad-Lubavitch now has three options: scale down its plans and resubmit them to the commission; appeal the decision in Superior Court within 15 days of the published decision under current state land use laws; or appeal the decision under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, otherwise known as RLUIPA.

The act, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 2000, was intended to provide stronger protection for religious freedom in land-use and prison cases.

In the land-use context, the federal law prohibits government agencies from imposing regulations in a way that would impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person or group, unless it can prove that there is a compelling government interest or is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

The project has provoked intense interest — and disagreement — since its inception. At a September pre-hearing, some members of the commission, including the chairwoman, questioned whether the Star of David "complied with the district" and questioned the appropriateness of other aspects of the plan, including the use of Jerusalem stone, the stained glass windows and the clock tower.

Accusations of anti-Semitism were leveled against the chairwoman, who is Jewish, and she eventually recused herself from deliberations. But the controversy didn't end there.

Residents who attended the final public hearing on the plans urged the commission not to be "bullied" by Chabad-Lubavitch or the threat of litigation. Others left the hearing shortly after Eisenbach stood up to speak.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Anti-Defamation League also both weighed in on the controversy, writing separate letters reminding the commission that it must take into consideration Chabad-Lubavitch's rights under the First Amendment and RLUIPA.

"If this case is litigated, it is hard to imagine that the Congregation will have difficulty meeting its burden to show that the commission's application of zoning laws substantially burdens the congregation's exercise of religion," said a Dec. 13 letter from the Anti-Defamation League to the commission.




Developer touts new vision for West Ave.
By ROBERT KOCH, Hour Staff Writer
November 30, 2006

NORWALK — Wide tree-lined sidewalks, outdoor cafes, a theater, medical office, shops and restaurants, condominiums and townhouses, and parking on every block are part of local developer Stanley M. Seligson's latest vision for West Avenue.

On Wednesday night, a day after being named preferred developer for the West Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan, Seligson and his urban design consultant presented their new conceptual plan to the West Norwalk Neighborhood Association during an outreach meeting at Norwalk Community College.

Gone from the plan, following roughly four-dozen public meetings over as many years, are super blocks, super stores and super-sized parking garages.

"It's really about two things: The great front door of West Avenue and this collection of smaller streets ... with 20-foot-wide sidewalks, mature trees from day one, and nice little places for people to gather," said Richard E. Heapes, partner with Street-Works LLC, the White Plains-based design firm hired by Stanley M. Seligson Properties to put forward ways to implement the West Avenue Corridor plan.

For two decades, Seligson has sought to revitalize the area around his offices at 605 West Ave. As recently as 2004, an earlier conceptual plan, which included large parking garages and several large floor-plate retail spaces, met stiff opposition from members of various neighborhood organizations.

On Wednesday night, West Norwalk residents received his revamped plan.

"Having seen the evolution in your plan, I have to commend you. This is clearly a step in the right direction," David S. Davidson said.

West Avenue made into a boulevard, and a new north-south street running parallel to West Avenue and Academy Street, between both, mark the only major changes to existing street layout.

Shops, boutiques and restaurants would line the street level of the new street. Condominiums would rise up to five stories above. Academy and other periphery streets would become home to two- or three-story single-family townhouses. An anchor department store, some lifestyle retailers, such as a Barnes & Noble Booksellers, would occupy West Avenue, albeit not at street level.

Following the presentation, Seligson and Heapes invited comments and suggestions.

"How does this relate to the waterfront? We're putting absolutely no money in the waterfront," said George Dombakly. "Maybe there should be a railroad spur and there could be a ferry off the Norwalk Harbor."

If the Common Council accepts Seligson's conceptual plan, Seligson must work within the framework of the West Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Drafted by the Redevelopment Agency and approved by the council last June, it allows for up to 350 new residential units, 75,000 square feet of office space and 393,174 square feet of new retail space in the core area. Limited development would be permitted on the west side of West Avenue. The Harbor Avenue neighborhood would be preserved.

"The city said that should be a a neighborhood preservation area," Seligson said.

Richard Costello, another resident, asked about those already living or working in the area.

"What will be displaced? What is the economic demographics?" Costello asked.

The council, in naming Seligson the preferred developer Tuesday night, acknowledged that he owns roughly 70 percent of the land within the core redevelopment area.

Seligson, speaking Wednesday night, said he has purchased and is renting about 20 residential units in the plan area, and is seeking to purchase six to eight more units. Overall, 350 units will be created with 10 percent of those units set aside as workforce housing.

"It's my goal to offer replacement housing as best I can, and I think we will be successful," Seligson said. And "our plan is to relocate those businesses that want to be relocated. In a perfect world, I would hope there would be no eminent domain."

Louis and Violet Pernicka, who have lived in Norwalk for a half century, left the presentation pleased that West Avenue will be reshaped but fearful that they might not live to see it.

"I think it would be lovely and beautiful, but we'll not be here to see it," Violet Pernicka said.

Louis Pernicka described the West Avenue neighborhood as dying and in need of a change. His only concern, he said, is that Seligson is "proposing ... an awful lot to put in one area."

Under the council approval Tuesday night, Selgison has until March 16, 2007 to present the city an acceptable development team and conceptual plan. That failing, the city will seek other developers. By that time, the development team also will provide information about traffic, parking and financing, Heapes said.

Wednesday night's presentation, done at the invitation of the West Norwalk Neighborhood Association, marked the third such outreach meeting to neighborhood groups, according to Maribeth Becker, coordinator of the Coalition of Norwalk Neighborhood Associations.

Becker, while not at the presentation, has seen Seligson's new plan at two previous presentations. Although the coalition has taken a stance on the plan, she described it as an improvement.

"You could really see an improvement and a listening to the public," Becker said. The new plan "addresses a lot of the concerns."

Douglas T. Adams, vice president of development for Seligson, indicated that more public input is welcome.

"We're trying to educate (the public) and get back feedback," Adams said. "We want to come up with the best plan that reflects the extent of our community outreach."



BLUE BACK SQUARE:

Blue Back Square Battle Formally Ends
By DANIEL P. JONES, Courant Staff Writer 

April 24, 2007


WEST HARTFORD -- The last remaining count of a lawsuit by Blue Back Square opponents backed by Westfarms mall has been dismissed, formally ending a bitter and ultimately losing battle to block the $158.8 million development.

The final part of the legal battle, an allegation that town actions to borrow $48.8 million for the town's portions of the project were "arbitrary and capricious," was dismissed as moot. The developers are well into construction and plan to open part of the project next month and the entire development in November.

Superior Court Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh dismissed the remaining count last week and town officials were notified late last week, West Hartford deputy corporation counsel Pat Alair said Monday. Seven of eight counts were dismissed in September 2005.

Mayor Scott Slifka said that the opponents didn't win a single round in the fight but the delays caused by the lawsuit meant that full annual parking, property tax, and special services district revenues from the Blue Back Square development have been pushed back by about a year. When completed, the project is expected to add about $2.8 million to the town's annual net revenue.

Town officials estimate West Hartford has spent about $500,000 to defend against the lawsuit.

"With the budget coming upon us we've had a number of residents ask about the Blue Back effect in the hope that it would offset some expected budget increases," Slifka said Monday. "And we've had to explain that the full revenue has not yet been realized because of the delays to the project."

Slifka said many of the residents who have been critical of the town's proposed spending plan for next fiscal year also were opponents of Blue Back Square. The town council tonight is expected to reduce the town manager's proposed budget and vote on the spending plan. But council members have not said how much they plan to cut from the proposed budget.

The plaintiffs - town residents Barbara Scully, Jasyn Sadler and Ellen Burchill Brassil - could have filed a request to withdraw their lawsuit, Alair said.

Instead, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their own suit, he said. But the court concluded that Connecticut's rules governing lawsuits do not allow plaintiffs to file motions to have their own cases dismissed.

So the developer, BBS Development, filed a motion to dismiss the suit and the town joined that move through oral arguments in court.

Scully has moved to Florida. Reached by telephone in Florida, she said she did not want to comment on the dismissal of the last count of the lawsuit.

Scully had alleged in the lawsuit opposing Blue Back Square, filed in early 2005, that, among other things, the development would harm the economic value of her home. According to town records, she bought her condominium at 3 Burr St. in West Hartford for $115,000 in 2002, and sold it for $181,000 earlier this year.

The residents contended the project and traffic would harm their neighborhood setting and quality of life, and decrease their property values, while putting the town under financial stress and driving up their property taxes.

The residents signed "indemnity agreements" with Westfarms' corporate parent, Michigan-based Taubman Co. The agreements, which later came to light in court proceedings, handed total control of the lawsuit to Taubman.

The lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Thomas E. Katon, could not be reached for comment.






And revote story...
Blue Back and Forth:  West Hartford's retail future decided in dramatic vote! Again!
by Adam Bulger -Hartford ADVOCATE
June 30, 2005
 
West Hartford's second Blue Back Square referendum was not even close.  (See Weston referenda story here.)

On June 22 West Hartford voters decided by a two-to-one margin that the town could amend its agreement with the Blue Back Square developers, BBS LLC, and begin construction on the multi-use space downtown. The final vote was 11,861 in favor of the project and 5,007 against it.

It was the second townwide referendum over Blue Back Square. The first, held on October 12, 2004 had a similar outcome.

The groundbreaking for the project is set for August. High-profile commercial tenants like Crate and Barrel and Bow Tie Partners movie theaters have committed to the project. Upscale natural foods supermarket Whole Foods is set to open across the road.  It was like election day on the West Hartford streets, and the pro-development forces outclassed the anti-development forces, at least in terms of the way they ran their campaign.

Sometime around 1:30 on June 22, I started to notice the small blue stickers people were wearing. The stickers read "Support West Hartford."

Obviously, the stickers had something to do with Blue Back Square. But were the sticker wearers opposed to the multi-use development, or in favor of it? It could really go either way.  Then I saw Jackie Wammock and Mindy McCloskey holding "Vote Yes Blue Back Square" signs and wearing the stickers. Mystery solved.  I asked if they had voted that day. They told me they hadn't and couldn't. Neither were West Hartford residents; both were from Atlanta and had professional connections to Blue Back. McCloskey and Wammock are the CFO and vice president, respectively, of Ronus, a commercial real estate development company that is one of the partners in the Blue Back Square project. They weren't residents or volunteers; they were doing their jobs.

"This is what we usually do," McCloskey said. "I mean working for Ronus, not carry[ing] around signs."  They led me to the pro-Blue Back Square nerve center and introduced me to the people behind the campaign to bring Blue Back Square to West Hartford.

The headquarters -- located in a long, narrow room next to a bagel shop on Farmington Avenue in West Hartford Center -- had the hectic, urgent air of the last minutes of a political campaign. Spread across the room were eight folding tables covered with computer pages printed with the names and phone numbers of West Hartford voters.

Several staff members hovered over the sheets with highlighter markers. The information on the pages was color-coded, indicating what seemed to be each area's Blue Back Square voting history, and whether residents had voted that day. Staffers manned telephones and called West Hartford residents who hadn't yet gone to the polls.

"It's all about getting out the vote," Blue Back Square designer Richard Heapes said. "We believe that if we have a substantial turnout, we win. Apathy is the only way we lose."  Initially, Heapes said that all the people present were volunteers, aside from he and his immediate staff.

When I told him that Wammock and McCloskey had both admitted to being professionally affiliated, he said they needed "all hands on deck."

In the front part of the office, a small table offered stickers and literature -- such as photo-copied articles from the Courant and the Advocate.
The Blue Back Square developers sent people to the 20 different voting locations to have a real-time count of the vote.  Ainsly Karl, a young woman in an aqua blue Juicy Couture-style sweatsuit sat among the poll workers at Hall High School on North Main Street. She told me she was hired by the developers to record the names of the voters as they said them out loud to the poll workers. Periodically, other workers from the pro-development team would stop by and pick up the names from Karl.

"I don't know what they do with the information," Karl said.

Speaking later, David Jones of the Blue Back Square advocacy group YES for West Hartford downplayed the significance of the developers' professional get-out-the-vote effort. He said the decisive matter in the overwhelming support for the project was a shift in perception among West Hartford voters.

"The first referendum vote was 60/40, and the second was 70/30," Jones said. "Many people who originally voted 'no' voted 'yes' this time because they were upset with the people who couldn't accept the vote of the first referendum."  Despite the outcome last week, Jones says he is girded for a continued fight from opponents.

"Unfortunately, the opposition seems unwilling to accept the vote of the West Hartford people," he said.  Blue Back Square's opponents didn't have the same high-level operation or street presence as the development camp.

"We didn't have a lot of money," said Joseph Visconti, one the leaders of Save the Center, the major critic of the plan. "We spent about six grand, which is nothing, especially compared to what the developers spent."  As a result, some feel they weren't able to get their message across.

"A lot of people were confused," Visconti said. "They didn't know what the vote was about."

The Save the Center money went into buying an ad in the Courant's Connecticut section the week before the vote, and the creation and distribution of a five-page pamphlet.  The pamphlet is a fake newspaper called "Spotlight," which features various complaints about Blue Back and some accusations flung at town officials.

The flyer includes allegations about the past conduct of West Hartford Town Manager Barry Feldman. Feldman was town manager of Portsmouth, Ohio until 1981. The pamphlet reprints a list of complaints about Feldman that originally appeared in Ohio newspaper the Portsmouth Daily Times , which include failure to comply with the city charter and withholding valuable information. The pamphlet suggests that the town manager has similarly failed in his duties in West Hartford as he did in Ohio.

That section of the pamphlet was, let's say, controversial.

"These allegations about Barry are absolutely despicable," Heapes said.

According to Visconti, a group of about 40 volunteers distributed about 15,000 of the flyers, which cost $4,300 to print. Visconti said the campaign crippled his personal finances (according to court documents, Citibank is suing Visconti for $8,425.18. He claims the debt was incurred in the course of the anti-Blue Back campaign.).

While Save the Center has accepted funding from Taubman Center, the owners of Westfarms Mall and a sworn enemy of Blue Back, Visconti said that Taubman had no involvement with Save the Center's campaign during the June referendum, and he bristled at the suggestion that his group was a proxy for Westfarms Mall.

"Our group became active in 2003," Visconti said. "It wasn't until 2004 that we found out about the mall."

Taubman Centers, based in Michigan, owns Westfarms Mall, as well as a host of shopping centers across the nation. They have routinely used court action in attempts to stall or sabotage emerging competition. The practice has been called "a death by 1,000 appeals."  Recently, Taubman centers brought in attorney Neil T. Proto -- described by the Courant as a consummate "mallbuster" -- to shut down Blue Black Square. Reportedly, Taubman has no plans to drop several lawsuits that are pending to stop Blue Back.

When I spoke with Visconti after the referendum vote he was still on fire about corruption and conflicts of interest in the West Hartford government. He regretted that he couldn't compete with the developers' efforts.

"In the beginning, we were painted as John Denvers who didn't want development. But that's not who we were," he said. Now, the Save the Center group will disband, he said, in the wake of the referendum. He said that while individuals may still act against Blue Back Square, the group was finished.

"We said our piece. We showed that it was a done deal," Visconti said. 



Down And Out In Johnsonville:
A thriving mill village that was transformed into a quaint historic attraction, the 64-acre site in East Haddam is now poised for a new life after nearly a decade of disuse.
DAY
By Eileen McNamara
Published on 12/10/2006
 
East Haddam -- There's something forlorn about the picturesque village of Johnsonville. With its sweeping lawns and collection of old houses and buildings of Victorian and colonial style, the showcase hamlet in the middle of this rural town looks like something right out of a Hollywood movie set — except that, for nearly 10 years, it has been as empty as a set gone dark.

The quaint clapboard-sided meeting house where Billy Joel filmed his “River of Dreams” video is still there, but its door is locked, a “No Trespassing” sign nailed to it.

No weddings have taken place at the nearby white chapel with the blue double doors since the privately owned village was abandoned in the early 1990s by then-owner and multimillionaire Raymond Schmitt.  Schmitt, who made a fortune with a Stamford-based aerospace parts company he founded, bought the property where Johnsonville now stands about 40 years ago. The village occupies about 64 acres on either side of Johnsonville Road, which runs between routes 149 and 151 in the Moodus section of town.

While the village already had a few original mill houses, Schmitt created his own little hamlet by adding buildings of mixed architecture a Victorian carriage house, a colonial-style meeting house and schoolhouse, a general store, chapel, stables and a toy store. He purchased them from around the country and had them brought here.

He opened a restaurant in the village and allowed weddings at the chapel. He bought two side-wheel paddle boats, and local newspapers chronicled the arrival of one of the them when it was floated up the Connecticut River to East Haddam and then trucked over land to the village. He used the boats on the 13-acre Johnsonville Mill Pond, which he'd created.

This time of year, 20 or 30 years ago, the little village off Johnsonville Road would be a veritable showpiece of Christmas splendor, decked out for the holidays.  Tourists and families would drive by at night just to gawk at all the lights strung along the white picket fences and buildings. On weekends people would come to see the decorations, roam through the buildings and inspect the multimillion-dollar antique collections inside.

“People with their families would come from all over to see it,” said Karl Stoffko, the town's historian. “It was really beautiful.”

Today, the village buildings — the post office, restaurant, library — all stand empty and unadorned. While a caretaker mows the lawns and keeps an eye on the place, some of the buildings are beginning to fall into disrepair. The boats on the pond behind the mill office building are long gone. They were sold and dismantled, their pieces unceremoniously carted away. Canada geese are all that ply the water these days.

But, if a Danbury-based hotel operator has his way, all that could change. Though the village would not be restored under his plan, people — hundreds of them — would likely return to Johnsonville.

•••••

Richard Jabara, president and CEO of Meyer Jabara Hotels, bought Johnsonville three years ago and has proposed a $100 million resort residential development at Johnsonville. It would have 133 upscale, single-family houses and townhouses, all built in Victorian style and with an age restriction for owners. Plans, which also include a health club, recreation center, meeting hall and post office, call for keeping and restoring most of the original dozen or so buildings.

Many town leaders have said they like the project by Jabara's development company, MJABC LLC, because of its potential to breathe new life into the vacant burg. It would, they say, preserve a town landmark and bring millions of dollars in tax revenues without straining the school system.  While the proposal hit a major snag more than a year ago after winning wetlands approval, it has received new support in recent weeks.


The delay revolves around a way to provide sewers to the development. The closest sewer plant is more than 3 miles south along the Connecticut River, and town officials say there's not enough land to build on-site septic systems for the size and number of houses proposed.  The developer has sought to meet with the town's Water Pollution Control Authority to discuss possible options. The WPCA, however, has refused, saying a formal proposal must be filed first. Also, Jabara can't file an application with the town's Planning and Zoning Commission until there is a viable septic plan.


About two weeks ago, there seemed to be a break in the logjam when the town's Economic Development Commission, under new leadership, decided to become an advocate for the plan. Following a meeting last week of Jabara's development team, the EDC and selectmen, the “Johnsonville Community” proposal has come to the fore again.

•••••

When cotton was king in America in the 19th century, the villages of East Haddam, like many in the industrialized North, took in the South's crop and produced various products from it. Johnsonville made cotton twine at two mills, the Neptune and Triton, which used the Moodus River to produce power.  Johnsonville was born from those factories as workers moved into small homes built near the cotton mills. The people built a post office and meeting hall.

The decline of the cotton trade and America's textile manufacturing in the early part of the 1900s also saw the decline of many of the villages that dot Connecticut, including Johnsonville.  Schmitt, an avid antiques collector, bought the mostly abandoned village in 1965 as a personal retreat. Over the next two decades he rebuilt it.

Then, about 10 years ago, Schmitt — known not only for his eccentricities but his reluctance for following local zoning rules — got in a heated dispute with local officials when he started to build a new pond on his adjacent Echo Farm property. He refused to seek a permit for the work, and, after the town refused to let him continue, he abruptly closed the village to any public gatherings, including weddings at the chapel and receptions at the Red Restaurant.

In January of 1998 Schmitt died of cancer. That September his heirs decided to auction off Johnsonville and all its contents, as well as Schmitt's other real estate holdings here, including the 240-acre Echo Farm.

Tens of thousands of people came to Johnsonville for the five-day mega-auction. Martha Stewart made bids via telephone, and within the first half-hour, $5 million in real estate was sold. The state bought Echo Farm as open space. By the end of the five days, nearly all of Schmitt's eclectic antiques collection, which had some 20,000 pieces, was gone.

But Johnsonville itself was withdrawn from the auction because bids, which topped at $1.6 million, were considered too low. The village went up for sale, and in 2002 MJABC LLC bought the property for $2 million.

Until the sewer issue is resolved, MJABC, which filed the plan for “Johnsonville Community” in April 2005, appears stalled.

New activity afoot, however, shows promise, said William Sweeney, a land use consultant MJABC has hired.  In mid-November, the Economic Development Commission, realizing the project was in jeopardy, got together with the developer, his consultants and selectmen to discuss how the town can help negotiate an end to the impasse.
Sweeney said the meeting was productive; one option discussed, he said, was the possibility of Jabara buying more land near the site to accommodate on-site sewers.

“It's the first time in a long time that we've seen some pro-active action by the town,” Sweeney said. “It was an encouraging sign.”

Brad Parker, the first selectman, said town leaders support the project.  With an annual budget of about $24 million, he said, the town could use the more than $2 million in tax revenues that Johnsonville Community could bring. Like many communities in eastern Connecticut, East Haddam struggles with balancing the desire to retain its rural character while seeking low-impact developments to broaden its tax base.

The tax revenue that Jabara's Johnsonville would generate, Parker noted, could nearly cover the anticipated annual loan payments the town would have to make for a $34 million middle school now on the drawing boards.

“That doesn't even take into account the personal property taxes the development would pay, or the money the people who will live there will spend locally,” Parker said. “There's going to be a positive domino effect for the whole community.”


Property owners sour on sewers
Neil Vigdor, Greenwich TIME

Published October 22 2005

While Board of Selectmen hopefuls do battle at a League of Women Voters of Greenwich debate Wednesday night at Cos Cob School, the real fireworks could be at Town Hall, as North Mianus homeowners protest their tab for a sewer project in their neighborhood.

Some of the 300 property owners who received special pumps from the town as part of a project to connect their homes to the municipal sewer system will demand tax relief from the Condemnation Commission, the town agency responsible for apportioning sewer project costs.  Recipients of the grinder pumps, which homeowners must pay to have installed and come with warnings about blockages, odors and potential overflows in case of a power loss, say the town has created a hardship for those who need them to connect to the sewer system.

But Condemnation Commission Chairman Robert Tuthill doesn't see it that way.

"We made a decision that there's not going to be something given to people who have pumps," Tuthill said. "We gave a lot of thought to this and the thinking was, generally, it was going to save people money if they had a pump."  A substitute for sewer connections that use gravity, the pumps were mostly chosen for properties below street level, where major sewer mains run. About 425 homes in the neighborhood will not require pumps.

Town officials say they chose the grinder pumps to help control the costs of the $19 million sewer project, which was complicated by thick rock outcroppings. Divided equally, the average cost per home would be about $26,000 for the project, but such factors as the amount of street frontage of a property have generally been used in the past in reckoning the final tab.

While the town has agreed to pay for and maintain the pumps, property owners complained that they were never told by town officials that the eyesore pumps protrude above ground and require special care.  Measuring about 8 feet in height and 30 inches in diameter, the pumps hold about 70 gallons of waste. But, as several homeowners noted, the pumps run on electricity and come with warnings of potential backups during power outages. Each pump also comes with a high-water alarm, which is designed to alert homeowners of a power loss.

"To me, I think we're getting screwed here," said Albert Nowinski, who spent about $6,000 to have one of the pumps installed in his River Road backyard over the summer.  In addition to concerns over its appearance and upkeep, Nowinski complained that the new pump has increased his electric bill and produced foul odors.

"Every once in a while when the wind's right, you get the smell," Nowinski said. "Three years ago, when they had (a) meeting (about the project), they said nothing about above ground or the smell. To me, it's not first-class."  Nowinski is one of several homeowners to sign a neighborhood petition seeking a tax rebate for the pumps. Mianus Valley Association President Sam Romeo plans to present the petition to the Condemnation Commission during its 7 p.m. meeting Wednesday in the Chimblo meeting room at Town Hall despite Tuthill's recent comments.

"If they want to take the arrogant stance on that one, fine," said Romeo, who received a gravity connection for his property. "There's always the court system, and the town has a good track record of losing lawsuits."  Town officials say the pumps, which also are in use in Milbrook, do not have a history of problems and require a similar level of care as a septic system.

"These things are supposed to be easy to operate," First Selectman Jim Lash said.  Tuthill, meanwhile, noted that the commission did not differentiate between homeowners who received grind pumps and those with gravity connections in apportioning the Milbrook project's costs.

"Now pumps are not beautiful and we realize that. (But) in a few years, generally speaking, we believe people can screen these," he said.  Tuthill also said that the town gave each homeowner who needed a grinder pump a $1,000 stipend to help with installation and set aside additional money for more complicated installations.

"It's possible that we can reconsider North Mianus, but I don't think we will," Tuthill said.


Blue Back Lawsuit Dropped;   West Hartford Citizens' Group Withdraws Appeal Over Changes To Old Buildings
By KATIE MELONE, Courant Staff Writer
October 10, 2006

WEST HARTFORD -- A group has ended a legal battle to stop developers of Blue Back Square from tearing down part of the Board of Education building and renovating two other town buildings.

The group - West Hartford Initiative to Save Historic Property - has withdrawn the appeal it had in federal court that sought to revive its lawsuit, which a judge dismissed in August.

It became clear that any such effort would not be complete "in time to save the building," said Ellen Burchill Brassil, one of the group's members.

The group's lawsuit sought to prevent changes to the 1930s board of education building, town hall and library. The appeal would have been heard by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

"WHISP has no intention of appealing again," said Steven R. Johnson, an attorney for Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP in Washington. "We filed a notice of appeal, and now we've voluntarily withdrawn it. It's over."

The suit, which was filed against the town and Blue Back Square LLC, was dismissed in August by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal two days after the suit was dismissed. An injunction the group filed in June to stop the work was also dismissed.

The board of education building, with its white-domed cupola, and the other buildings contributed to the area's historic character, the plaintiffs had claimed.

"I'm stunned and believe it is such a shame that the town was so shortsighted to allow the destruction of an historic building for some stores and a movie theater that could've been elsewhere," Brassil said.

The buildings were eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. But that designation can only be achieved if the developers, who now own the board of education building, agree. They do not.

Mayor Scott Slifka also pointed out that the courts dismissed WHISP's case, siding with the town.

"This is an adaptive reuse," Slifka said of the changes planned for the building as part of the Blue Back Square development. "We're preserving the building for future generations. At the same time we're growing our tax base, we're insuring the viability of our town center, consolidating our government, and that's a very difficult mix."

Developers plan to preserve a portion of the front of the board of education building, and the rear of the building will be demolished to make way for larger structure that will house a Crate & Barrel, a movie theater, restaurants and a Barnes & Noble. Much of the building has already been knocked down.

In a related matter, a judge dismissed a federal lawsuit that Sadler, Scully and Brassil filed in 2005 against the Federal Highway Safety Administration.

The suit, dismissed Sept. 26 by U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz, asked the agency to conduct a review of the developers' plans to widen the Park Road exit ramp off I-84 near West Hartford Center. The suit contended that the agency failed to protect the public by not getting involved in the application.

 

Town Hall Plans Scaled Back
Remodeling Replaces Expansion As Projected Costs Go $10 Million Over Expectations
By TOM PULEO, Courant Staff Writer
December 3, 2005
 
WEST HARTFORD -- Town hall will be remodeled - rather than expanded - to absorb school board offices under the latest Blue Back Square plans.

The town and BBS Development made the design change after determining that a town hall expansion would cost $10 million more than originally anticipated.

The town needs to empty the board of education building fronting South Main Street for conversion for retail use at Blue Back Square, the $159 million shopping, housing and entertainment complex that will nearly double the size of the town center.

"We're keeping the same footprint with the goal of moving the board of education offices to town hall," Town Manager Barry Feldman said Friday.  To make room inside town hall for the school board offices, several existing functions will be moved to other spots.

The probate court will move to the police station building.  Building maintenance operations will go to the public works facility on Brixton Street.  The senior center will move to a new building attached to the Bishops Corner Library - where construction started in September.

BBS Development has agreed to pay $12.6 million to modernize the Noah Webster Library and expand - now remodel - town hall.  BBS Development and the town are fine-tuning Blue Back plans now that tenants have signed leases and construction is underway on the site just east of the town center.

Earlier this week, BBS and the town said they plan to add 50 luxury condominiums to the project - bringing the total to 120 - after watching early sales surpass expectations. About half of the first 60 units put on the market in October have sold at prices ranging from $350,000 to $900,000 - proving that a strong condominium market exists where there had been a question mark.

All proposed changes will have to be approved by the town council. BBS will present its updated plan to the town on Dec. 30, with a public hearing expected in February.

The area along South Main Street that had been slated for the town hall expansion now will be used for green space, trees and some additional parking spaces that Feldman said will be better organized and safer to use.



NOTE: we took out references to individuals in this ZBA matter.
ZBA lawsuit heads to trial       
Weston FORUM
Written by Patricia Gay    
Wednesday, August 06, 2008 

Calling it a classic case of “punish your enemies and favor your friends,” a member of Weston’s Planning and Zoning Commission claims the Zoning Board of Appeals wrongfully denied his wife a variance in a case that started trial proceedings this week.  The case stems from a decision rendered in 2006, in which the ZBA denied a variance to...build a porch on...a property at 249 Lyons Plain Road.

The property is in a two-acre residential zone, but the lot area is 0.69 acres and enjoys pre-existing, non-conforming status because the home on the lot was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations.

The porch she wanted to construct would have encroached onto the lot’s front setback line by eight feet. It would have encroached the side setback line by five feet.  Because of those encroachments,  ZBA was asked for a variance. After a public hearing on Aug. 22, 2006, that request was denied...the applicant is married toa  Planning and Zoning Commissioner. He claims the ZBA’s decision to deny the variance had nothing to do with the application, but had everything to do with the fact that he was a member of P&Z.

P&Z’s action

According to the complaint, events leading up to the suit started in July 2006, when P&Z met in executive session to consider filing a lawsuit against the ZBA in connection with the ZBA’s decision to grant a variance to a homeowner to construct a roof with a height of 37 feet, 7 inches.

The height is greater than the maximum residential roof height of 35 feet as permitted in the zoning regulations.  After the executive session, P&Z voted unanimously to direct the zoning enforcement officer to file suit against the ZBA and to direct the P&Z chairman to seek funding from the Weston Board of Selectmen to file and prosecute such suit.  A month later, in August 2006, the present application was filed with the ZBA requesting a variance to permit the construction of a porch and air conditioning compressor pad within the lot’s front and side setbacks.

The complaint alleges that during the course of the ZBA’s public hearing...an unidentified member of the ZBA stated, “I think the Planning and Zoning [Commission] would come to us, and, by the way, they got pretty unhappy with us when we gave two feet for a roof altitude… I don’t know how ‘public knowledge’ it was, but they went before the Board of Selectmen to ask for the funding to sue us and we, you know, had sheriffs coming up to the Chairman of ZBA's wife and serving papers, so the P&Z does not want us to re-write their regs by variance.”

At the conclusion of the public hearing, the ZBA denied the application. P&Z member inviolved said he believes the application was denied because ZBA did not approve of P&Z’s actions in the roof case.

Abuse of discretion

As proof that the ZBA acted illegally and unreasonably and abused its discretion in denying this variance application, the complaint states that since January 2004, the ZBA has granted setback variances on all applications involving permanent structures, except for this one.  The complaint lists 15 examples where the ZBA approved variances for other property owners. Some of the approvals involved encroachments of as much as 47 feet into the setbacks.

This encroachment was for eight feet in the front setback and five feet on the side. “As such, the record clearly shows a pattern of unreasonable discrimination and retaliation against the applicant,” the complaint states.

“The only viable explanation I can come up with for the ZBA’s denial is that I was a P&Z member and they were mad at P&Z at the time. This appears to be the classic case of punish your enemies and favor your friends, and it needs to be challenged,” P&Z member involved said.

He said the lawsuit was filed as a matter of principle. “The point we are trying to make is you can’t do this stuff. The impact is too severe on people’s homes and money,” he said.