Latest Updates
(Updated July 5,
2008)
See C.A.R.E.’s position on
the Lowe’s Home Centers zoning application here.
Excellent overview of how to plan
for preserving
See what
… and compare with a fully-built out Canton tomorrow
“Dependence on the
property tax to fund local public services, particularly K-12 public education,
forces local governments into a destructive competition for grand list growth
that has resulted in bad land use decisions and costly sprawl.” – From “
In this Update:
--
Zoning Commission approves Lowe’s
--
Collinsville Farmer’s Market begins 3rd season June 15
--
Residents approve purchase of 140-acre Cannon property
--
Collinsville Pedestrian Safety Committee issues report
--
Zoning Commission
--
C.A.R.E. receives Public Service Award from American Institute of Architects
--
Zoning Commission adopts design review regulations
--
Zoning Commission rejects hilltop proposal
--
Wetlands Agency allows violating sewer, water-hookups to remain
--
C.A.R.E. receives Citizen Planner Award from CT Chapter of American Planning
Association
--
--
Ax factory still on market
--
“Shoppes” developer asks twice, gets approval, for third anchor
The Zoning
Commission in June okayed the construction of a Lowe’s
C.A.R.E. opposed the application for one overriding reason:
that the steep parcel cannot accommodate this development, and to approve a
development that requires such extreme manipulation of topography would
establish a precedent that
C.A.R.E.’s presentation to the Zoning Commission can be
seen here.
To accommodate the
building’s footprint on this steeply-sloped site, Lowe’s will remove much of
the hillside and fill lower areas, moving a total of approximately 250,000
cubic yards of earth. The building and its 436 parking spaces would be
surrounded by retaining walls as high as 54 feet, topped with 6-feet fencing.
During the
store’s busiest hour on Saturdays, Lowe’s estimates that 580 vehicles will
enter/exit the site. Lowe’s will ask the state Department of Transportation for
the okay to install a traffic light at the entrance (which would be located at
the current
Said
C.A.R.E. President Tom Sevigny, “C.A.R.E. is very disappointed by this
decision. Simply
put, the proposed site cannot handle this size of development.
Furthermore, at a time when traffic problems are an increasing issue for
“This application points
out that the Canton Golf Course was NOT the last available parcel in town with
the potential to be developed with big box retail. By leveling topography,
combining lots, and redeveloping existing buildings, there is the potential for
a tremendous amount of square footage to be built along 44.
“It is our choice and
challenge to develop in a way that will respect our landscape, promote our
economic health, and preserve our character and identity.”
Number of single family residences projected through
appraisal: 20-25 (figure of 20 used for analysis)
Number of children per household: 1.87
Fair Market Value of Single Family Home: $600,000
($420,000 assessment)
Property Taxes per household (29.92 mil rate): $12,567
Board of Selectman/Board of Finance Costs per household:
$3,152
Board of Education per household pupil cost (11,119 x 1.87):
$20,793
Total projected Town cost per household: $23,945
Total projected property tax revenue per household:
$12,567
Total projected loss per household: $11,378
Total town investment of open space acquisition: $509,000
Projected pay back period: 2.24 years
The Collinsville Farmer’s Market, organized and
sponsored by C.A.R.E., opens its 3rd season on June 15 and will continue every
Sunday through fall from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the
Even more vendors will participate than last
summer, which was “hugely successful
for participating farmers, and many
Carol Gauger of Maple
View Farm is among the vendors at the market.
Her husband Mark is president of the Northwest Farmers Cooperative. Carol says, “I am a passionate advocate for
knowing about the food you eat. One of
the benefits of eating fresh, local produce is knowing where it came from and
how it was grown. I have been pleased to see the way the
The Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety Committee, appointed in October 2006 by the Board
of Selectman in response to
The 677 surveys respondents
ranked their chief concerns (in order of importance) as: cars speeding; cars
not stopping at crosswalks; drivers not seeing pedestrians and cyclists; other
issues; pedestrians not using crosswalks; bicyclists not obeying rules of the
road, and too many crosswalks.
The committee’s many
recommendations include more in-street crosswalk signs, increased enforcement
of speeding and pedestrian laws, tree planting as a traffic-calming measure,
and better lighting to minimize light pollution and maximize visibility at
crosswalks.
Portions of
The Canton Zoning Commission in November
2007 approved Konover Development Corp’s request to modify its development plan for the property
located at the corner of
Konover's request is not for an increase in the total amount of
square footage, but rather for an increase in building coverage
("footprint",) i.e. to allow the larger building to contain 49,000
sq. ft. of space on the first floor instead of the currently-approved 33,500
sq. ft.
Konover's modified plan
would:
-- increase the site's total
coverage by buildings from a maximum of 36,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 56,000
sq. ft;
-- allow the size of the
development's larger building to be a maximum of 62,000 sq. ft., including a
first floor as large as 49,000 sq. ft.. (The maximum size of the development's
smaller building would remain at 7,000 sq. ft.);
-- reduce the amount of
"green" space in the development by about 8,400 sq. ft.;
-- increase from three to five the
number of loading docks, some of them oriented toward neighboring residences;
and
-- alter the way in which stormwater runoff from the development is handled, by
eliminating the currently-approved underground detention system in favor of a
detention basin at the rear of the parcel. This alternate approach would
require the removal of existing trees that would otherwise provide a buffer
between Konover's property and the abutting church
and residential neighborhood. As part of the Zoning Commission’s approval, Konover is required to build a berm
between the back of its site and the neighboring church, and to leave intact
the trees between the Konover site and neighboring
At the recommendation of Town
Planner Neil Pade, the Zoning Commission on Oct. 17 referred Konover's proposal to the Design Review Team. In a report
to the commission, Mr. Pade stated that the changes proposed to this
development would "have an impact on the final design and layout of the
site and buildings including visual and aesthetic impacts."
C.A.R.E. supported the previous
(2005) Konover application. C.A.R.E. initially
objected to this new application, believing its larger footprint would result
in a more intensive, less appealing development. Based on the expert opinions
of members of the Design Review Team, who unanimously found Konover's
newest proposal to be preferable to the plan for which Konover
already had approval, C.A.R.E. revised its position and - with some cautions -
supported the proposal before the Zoning Commission.
This approval is only the first
step for Konover; the developer must now submit a
detailed site plan for the commission's approval. Commissioners on Nov. 14
indicated that as part of that application, they will make serious attempts to
guarantee that the developer preserve as many mature trees on the site as
possible.
The majority of zoning
commissioners agreed that the new plan would result in a more pleasing,
lower-profile building. Some expressed
reservations, however. Commissioner Mark Podesla
pointed out that since the application still would allow a maximum building of
62,000 sq. ft., there is still leeway for the developer to add up to 13,000 sq.
ft. in a second story. "This proposal does not limit the building to one
story, though. And that bothers me," he said. Commissioner Kathy Hooker
said, "We may in fact get a better-designed building out of this. I am
troubled by the [larger] footprint, though." Commissioner Leesa Lawson cast the only opposing vote, maintaining that
the commission's objective all along at this site was to keep footprint to a
minimum.
C.A.R.E.'s statement to the Zoning Commission follows:
"First, as a reminder,
C.A.R.E. supported the development plan for which Konover
currently has approval at this site. However, we have some reservations about
the current application.
"C.A.R.E.'s
initial reaction to this proposal was not favorable - we are concerned that a
larger building footprint and reduced amount of green space could create a more
intensive and less appealing commercial development on this prominent corner.
However, we defer to the Design Review Team's expertise. If the DRT favors the
proposed building design over the one currently approved, we trust their
judgment.
"We do ask, though, that the
Commission and Konover find a way to mitigate the
larger footprint's impact on green space, perhaps by "greening" a
corresponding number of parking spaces. We also support the requests of
neighbors that Konover take every possible measure to
protect their quiet and privacy.
"Finally, we are wary that
this request is a sign of things to come, the first of perhaps additional
requests for more plan amendments that will eventually result in a project that
barely resembles Konover's original application.
"
Background:
-- 2001: Zoning Commission denies Konover's
request to rezone more than nine acres of residential land to business, in
order to create a 17-acre commercial parcel for 140,000 sq. ft. of retail,
including a Target store.
-- 2002: Zoning Commission creates a new zone, the Albany
Turnpike Gateway District (ATGD), that binds a zone change to a specific
development plan.
-- 2003: Zoning Commission approves Konover's request to rezone 11.5 acres of land (primarily
commercial and a small amount residential) to the new ATGD. The approval allows
a maximum of 90,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in three to five buildings, the
largest being a maximum of 75,000 sq. ft.
-- 2005: Konover no longer
has an option to buy four acres of land in this area, so reapplies for a new
ATGD zone for the remaining 7.5 acres. The Zoning Commission approves this
application, along with a site plan for two commercial buildings: a two-story
building of up to 62,000 sq.ft. in size, and another between 2,500 sq. ft. and 7,000 sq. ft. The
combined size of the two buildings could be as much as 64,500 sq. ft.
The ATGD regulation requires
that a master plan be submitted simultaneously with the zone change
application, specifying the locations, square footages, footprints, uses and
architectural elements of proposed buildings.
A more detailed site plan must then be approved within two years. If the
approved plan is not built, the land reverts back to its original zone.
Architects’
association honors C.A.R.E.: C.A.R.E. is honored
to be the recipient of the 2006 American Institute of Architects, Connecticut
Chapter, Public Service Award. AIA Connecticut's Public Service Award is
presented biennially to an individual or organization that best
exhibits dedication to enhancing the built environment and educating the
public. C.A.R.E.'s mission, its efforts to
encourage
AIA Connecticut is the
professional association for
Design Review standards adopted
into zoning regulations: the Zoning Commission in Sept. 2006 approved the adoption of a design
review regulation for non-residential development.
In a thank-you
letter to all those involved in creating the regulation (Selectmen, zoning
commissioners, and the Design Review Study Committee), C.A.R.E. President Tom
Sevigny wrote, “This
regulation is a win-win-win; it will make the approval process smoother and
less expensive for developers, smoother and more successful for commissioners,
and will result in new commercial development that will enhance Canton’s
character for the many future generations that these buildings will remain part
of our town.”
Members of the Design
Review Study Committee are: Committee Chairman and land planner Gary Hath,
developer and real estate agent Henry Bahre,
businessman and commercial property owner Joel Fried, land planner Gary Hath,
home builder Frank Mairano, architect Kent McCoy,
financial planner Kristin Oswald, and recently-retired Zoning Commission
chairman and architect Chris Winsor.
At a March 2006 town
meeting,
Members of the Design Review Team will include one
member of the Zoning Commission, to be chosen by the commission, and four
members to be chosen by the Board of Selectmen. Those must include one licensed
architect, one person who is either a certified planner or licensed landscape
architect, and two members who are educated, trained or experienced in a
design-related field.
The Design Review Team
ordinance can be read on the home page of the town website, under the
announcement of the town meeting: www.townofcantonct.org
It
is clear that a large number of
In this way,
This type of regulation is not new or unusual.
We assume that we aren’t the only ones who are curious about which other
Since
Several towns that do include Avon,
A chief distinction between the types of regulations that different towns have adopted is whether the regulation applies only to new subdivisions, or to all lots, even existing ones, within a particular zone.
The town of
C.A.R.E. believes it should not be our community’s
goal to micro-regulate homeowners’ activities of likely negligible impact. However, C.A.R.E. does believe that
protection of
And,
finally, we thank commissioners for the time, care and concern you invest in
planning for
The builder of a house on High
Street’s “Spring Lot” (named for its natural
springs and historic springhouses) violated three conditions of his permit, the
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency (IWWA) has determined.
In April 2006 the IWWA ruled
that builder Daniel Houlihan must remove a deck from
the house at 30 High St., cut off the deck supports at ground level, and leave
the in-ground supporting tubes in place (to avoid further wetlands disturbance
that removing the tubes would cause.)
And in May 2006, the
IWWA found that Mr. Houlihan installed a driveway
that is about twice the size of that approved, and ordered the removal of
excess asphalt. The Agency also determined that Mr. Houlihan
installed water and sewer pipes to
However, in June 2006,
the IWWA voted to allow the sewer and water hook-ups to
High Street residents,
C.A.R.E. and Friends of Sweetheart Mountain wrote jointly to the Board of
Selectmen, criticizing the decision to allow the unapproved hook-ups and asking
Selectmen to improve the management of development projects.
The Collinsville
Historic District Commission has also found Mr. Houlihan
removed springhouses on the site without the commission’s authorization, and
ordered him to rebuild them.
Mr. Houlihan’s application
was controversial from the start because of the site’s wetlands, and neighbors
lost a court appeal when a judge ruled that the IWWA’s
permit approval – which contained 21 conditions – would sufficiently address
environmental concerns.
The approved plan
proposed one house and a detached accessory garage. Subsequent to receiving
IWWA approval, Mr. Houlihan sought and obtained from
the town planner authorization to split the lot in two (a “free cut” allowed by
state statutes in certain instances.) This split, however, created a circumstance
that regulations do not allow: an accessory building without a main dwelling.
Mr. Houlihan then took out a building permit from the
land use office to convert the garage into a house, and with Water Pollution
Control Authority (WPCA) approval, installed water and sewer pipes.
Mr. Houlihan’s
lawyer, David Markowitz, told IWWA members that the deck was built because of
an unintentional error made on a set of building plans, and that the sewer and
water hook-up occurred because “the builder’s intention changed after the
fact.” Mr. Markowitz pointed out that Mr. Houlihan
obtained WPCA approval. “This was not done in the cloak of darkness. I can’t
tell you why he did it without coming to the Agency.”
Some IWWA members said
they believed the violations were intentional. “It really is offensive,” said
member David Shepard. “Here’s a real flagrant
violation; this is really terrible,” said member Ed Evonsion.
Member Larry Shine, who made the motion to order the deck removed, said he did
so “with respect to the credibility of this Agency.”
The Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA) has awarded Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion its 2005 Citizen Planner Award for C.A.R.E.'s "dedication to grass-roots planning, public education and activism."
CCAPA is the
CCAPA presents awards
annually, with the Citizen Planner Award going to a "citizen or group of
citizens working in a non-compensated capacity who has/have made a significant
contribution to planning."
C.A.R.E. Secretary Donna
Burkhardt and President Jane Latus accepted the award on Nov. 10 in
In an email to members,
Ms. Latus wrote, “While any recognition is gratifying, to have our work
acknowledged by a professional association is especially meaningful. This award
belongs to all of you: the C.A.R.E. members and supporters who have taken part
in this organization's work and accomplishments over the past five years. So,
congratulations to you, and thank you for staying engaged in your community.”
Approval of a housing development on
In executive sessions over the past year, the Planning
Commission and developer The Meehan Group negotiated a new subdivision proposal
for the mountain. Commissioners unanimously denied in Dec. 2003 The Meehan Group’s
application for a 61-home subdivision on this mountain in the
The
new negotiated plan, for 36 homes with individual septic systems and wells on
an extension of
After
learning from C.A.R.E. about the negotiations, residents packed a May 17 Board
of Selectmen meeting, spilling into the hall, to ask Selectmen to take the lead
in purchasing the mountain. Among residents messages to Selectmen were:
·
David Leff, asked
by Selectman Mark Quattro what should have been done: “I’d stand by the very
sound decision the commission made.”
·
Tom Kutz: “Take the leadership to find a way to buy the land.
Ask for a commitment from Mr. Meehan to allow time, and we’ll take out our
checkbooks.”
In
a joint statement, Friends of Sweetheart Mountain, C.A.R.E. and the Farmington
River Watershed Association urged Selectmen to hold a referendum, predicting
residents will “put their money where their mountain is.”
Below
are excerpts from C.A.R.E. Vice President Susan Carr’s statement to the
Planning Commission on May 4.
“The
members of C.A.R.E., along with many other
“The
design appears to protect the east face of
“We
do understand that the executive sessions that took place to achieve this
current proposed settlement were legal, but it should be understandable why
many
“Looking
ahead, the confidence of Canton’s residents in the decisions you make NOW AND
IN THE FUTURE hinges on several absolutely critical things:
“1) The Commission needs to be 100% CERTAIN that the
developer’s representations to you about the plan are 100% binding on the
developer in every way legally possible.
The representations being made include:
·
The short
and long-term environmental impact of the subdivision during construction and
after completion;
·
The
near-term public access to open space and its eventual transfer to the Canton
Land Trust that’s been promised;
·
The tree removal
restrictions that the developer has taken great pains to spell out in detail;
“2)
The Town needs to be 100% committed to enforcing the commitments being made. ….
the developer has made extensive representations about tree removal
restrictions that will need to be enforced over the very long-term, and it will
be incumbent upon the Town to be vigilant.
…
“3)
Perhaps most importantly … there must be TRANSPARENCY in this and all future
deliberations on matters that have proven to be so extremely important to all
of
“If
… as Town zoning regulations currently
stand, such a development would not be possible outside of protracted,
negotiated settlements like this one … we emphasize once again that it is in
the Town’s interest – AND TO THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS, AS WELL – that the Town
re-write its subdivision and zoning regulations to reflect in a PRO-ACTIVE way
the kind of development IT WANTS and IS SEEKING, and WHERE it wants it.”
Background:
In addition, the Farmington River Watershed
Association’s BioDiversity Project report gives the
mountain the highest possible rating for its biodiversity, one of only two such
sites in
Mr.
Meehan first sought approval for 85 single-family, 3,000 sq. ft. houses on
half-acre lots. After being denied approval to extend septic service to the
entire area, he scaled back to 64, then 61 houses. Meanwhile, in Nov. 2003 the Zoning Commission
rezoned the mountain for two-acres lots (not affecting this application, but
future ones), and the Wetlands Agency rejected Mr. Meehan’s permit application.
Planning
Commissioners detailed their reasons for denial in an 11-page motion. They noted
that due to Wetlands Agency denial, the subdivision was impossible as proposed.
Additionally, they cited potential public safety hazards from sharply curved,
steep roads, and lack of faith in the stability and maintenance of retaining
walls that would have supported some roads. They also stated that parts of the
plan were incomplete or conflicting with plans shown to Wetlands.
C.A.R.E.
recognizes that land owners have the right to the reasonable use of their
property and that most subdivision applications, though occasionally unwelcome
by some residents for reasons ranging from loss of undeveloped land to the
cost of providing additional town services, nevertheless do meet the
requirements of the local zoning and subdivision regulations and, therefore,
must be approved.
However,
C.A.R.E. opposed this subdivision because it would have required
extensive manipulation of the topography of the mountain, in violation of
the town’s regulations; the amount and pattern of traffic generated by
this subdivision would have created potential safety problems on neighborhood
streets; and the proposed location of open space within the subdivision is
inconsistent with town policies that aim to create interconnected open space
systems.
Collins Ax Factory still on market:
In 2002: Developer
James “Rusty” Tilney – after years of negotiations
with town boards and a successful legal challenge against the prior owner’s
last-minute decision to back out of the sale, purchased the historic factory
for $750,000 and received approval to rezone and restore it.
2003: Mr. Tilney put the factory complex up for sale, listing it with
commercial realtor CB Richard Ellis for $6.25 million. Mr. Tilney,
an
2007: the
factory’s 20-plus buildings are still for sale, at an asking price of $8
million. Mr. Tilney has reportedly turned down
several purchase offers. Mr. Tilney’s realtor, Julius Fialkiewicz
of Realty Works, said Mr. Tilney turned down offers
that would have been harmful to the property and town, and that three parties
are currently interested in the property.
The Collins factory, famous for
its sharp-edged tools such as snowplows and axes, closed in the 1960s and has
changed little since then. Its 28 buildings sit on 19 acres along the
His original plan of mixed
business, retail, restaurants and residences, would have been called “At
Collinsville.” The plan called for significant changes to the interiors of the
existing buildings, but only restoration of the exteriors.
Mr. Tilney’s proposal was
widely welcomed by residents, who saw it as a way to increase
“Shoppes” developer asks again; Zoning
Commission reverses vote. When
developers of The Shoppes at
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
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
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
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 golf.