Development Proposals Can Cost You BIG — Be Sure Your Voice Gets Heard

In my previous blog post I discussed how residential property owners have the right to care about how economic development takes place whether the development is near or far from their homes.  Terms like NIMBY are often used by proponents of development to intimidate and silence those who ask questions.

The Town of Simsbury’s elected and appointed officials and Town employees should focus more on creating greater information sharing and collaboration between commercial property owners, developers and residents when new development is being contemplated.

I believe the Town has a duty to improve these lines of communication and better inform residents about the potential impact of development on their properties BEFORE it is widely and publicly discussed and BEFORE the formal legal planning and zoning application process begins.  The current exclusionary process is not working well and it generates far too much acrimony, stress and controversy within our community where everyone works hard to get along.

Far too often development proposals emerge from the shadows of Simsbury Town Hall taking residents and neighbors by surprise. However, these proposals do not always seem to be as much of a surprise to the Town administration, planning and zoning officials and some local business and trade organizations.  I would like to see everyone be “in the know” through a level playing field.

Some ask why a resident should have the right to participate throughout this preliminary economic development planning process.  The answer is simple.  Because the minute the development idea is publicly discussed, if the proposal can have a negative impact on neighboring properties, it has the potential to adversely impact economic activity, property valuations and sales potential for impacted properties.  While this may be a fact of life and a byproduct of any potential development, the Town should be more sensitive to the impact of proposals on neighbors.

In Simsbury, in recent years, we have seen development proposals, like the abandoned very large mall development concept on the south side of Simsbury, significantly impair nearby residents’ abilities to sell their homes without causative price reductions.  Some residents saw their home sale deals collapse or delayed by many extra months due to the specter of the potential development.

Even exploratory and inclusive discussions like the 2011 Route 10 Corridor Study Charrette can have a negative impact on residential properties.  An example of this was when the Charrette contemplated a south end service road parallel to Route 10 routed very close to a condominium complex and several condo units.  How could those homeowners sell their condos without a significant risk based price reduction when the potential for such a disruptive development existed?  Until that service road idea was moved to the document’s appendix (where abandoned ideas were documented), those condo homeowners felt that their properties had a virtual lien placed on their homes until their fate could be more certain.

In that same Route 10 Corridor Study, a draft version of the plan literally had a new town road passing through a property owner’s farmland.  As I understand the sequence of events, the Town and the State consultants never discussed this idea with the owner before it was made public.  Only after the landowner clearly told the Town that there was no way a road was going to pass through his property did the idea disappear from the draft study report.

Similarly, today the potential for the construction of a large gas station and convenience store at 155 Hopmeadow Street is another example of how neighborhoods can be impacted by adjacent development.  Yet the neighbors to that site are not being listened to, nor having their concerns been addressed by the Zoning Commission.  In January, residents from the approximately 30 neighboring homes in the Latimer Farms neighborhood sent a letter to the Town requesting an opportunity to publicly address the Zoning Commission about their concerns for the gas station proposal.  I received an email from one of the concerned residents that their request to speak with the Zoning Commission has not been granted despite the significant amount of time the developer was given to address the commission.  Why does the developer get to present to the Zoning Commission but the neighbors to the property get zero airtime even when the residents have documented serious legal, zoning, environmental and public health issues with the development?  It is the neighbors’ belief that these issues could significantly impact their properties’ economic and enjoyment rights.  One doesn’t have to search Google too aggressively to find references to numerous lawsuits for similar circumstances (Nuisance Suits and others).  Isn’t it better, in this pre-proposal stage, for the developer and the Zoning Commission to hear the neighborhood’s concerns before more money and time is spent on planning and design for a development which could be aggressively opposed?  Because of the Town’s lack of conciliatory management of these types of circumstances, this proposal seems headed down a difficult path.

In the 2005 landmark Supreme Court of the United States case of Kelo v. City of New London, the subject of eminent domain became a hot topic in Connecticut (and nationally) with most people concerned about how they could find themselves powerless to defend their property rights.  Numerous communities and states throughout the country passed laws to prevent forms of eminent domain and protect the rights of property owners.

As it pertains to the type of encumbrances, adverse economic impact and nuisances that a Simsbury homeowner can suffer from economic development proposals, the Town should be much more sensitive to neighboring owner rights.  I see this all as very unfortunate – the impact to the residents in the examples I described above seems like a temporary “taking” where resale rights, valuations and rights of enjoyment can be significantly impacted just by the potential for development.

To conclude, we must realize that if Simsbury is to continue to develop responsibly, the rights and concerns of ALL interested parties must be considered within the context of public discussion as well as with regulations and legal processes.  While the Town strives to be “easier to do business with” for developers, it must not do so at the expense of residents and neighbors.  Everyone should have the right to speak and have their views heard early on before the formal legal process for a development application.  This is the most “User Friendly” way to serve the various constituencies in this process.  Anything but, virtually ensures a process that is hostile, contentious and fraught with legal issues and expensive litigation.

And keep in mind that at any point in time every one of us could find ourselves with something going on in our backyards that we have questions about or may not be too keen on.  I want the right to have a say in that, don’t you?